Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSWAB minutes 041003 Minutes — Regular Meeting g Solid Waste Advisory Board F 2 1200a April 10, 2003 Approved May S, 2003 Attendance : Al Vickers , Jan Sassaman, Bill Rehm, James Arndt, Jacquie Gist, Remus Smith and B J Tipton Staff : Gayle Wilson, Blair Pollock, Rebecca Holdway, Phil Prete, Wanda McCain, Paul Spire and Jeff Hughes 1 . Landfill Tour Conducted 6930 to 7 : OOpm 2 . Adoption of Minutes from March 13, 2003 Vickers moves to adopt minutes . Rehm_ 2nd Passes unanimously . 3 . Update on SWAB Alternative Finance Recommendations to Towns Wilson states that staff has meet with the Towns of Carrboro and Chapel Hill to introduce them to the SWAB recommendation and express the need for additional financing for the solid waste program . We are scheduled to meet with Hillsborough on Monday . Regarding the status of the recommendation, the Commissioners have not met to discuss it again in any formal way since February . The Commissioners really don' t want to impose another fee and would prefer another way to get through next year . Sassaman states that there is information on the County website regarding the recommendation and presentation . Rehm states that there were a couple of things that the Carrboro Board of Alderman raised . There was the issue of equity and the fact that we would be collecting fees and continuing to have a tip fee . They wanted to see a gradual reduction in the tipping fee . Sassaman asks of Wilson if a lower tip fee will be proposed ? Wilson replies yes . It has not gone to the Commissioners yet . Sassaman asks if the issue of equity was covered in the Frequently Asked Questions ? Pollock states that regarding pay as you throw (PAYT) , it is addressed head - on . Were there other equity issues ? . Rehm states that PAYT did come up in the joint presentation to several Carrboro Advisory Boards but there is no provisions in the proposal for. [fee] adjustments based on income - it represents a large burden for some . The other issue was that properties with different values are being assessed identically . Vickers notes that there will be a several hundred thousand dollar reduction in tipping fees . 1 Minutes — Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board April 10, 2003 Approved May 8, 2003 Rehm notes that won ' t happen during the two year interim and further properties are assessed identically . Wilson states that the reason for that ' s because it ' s not an ad valorem tax . This will come up again from others . The issue that goes with that is if they dori t pay for it -who will ? Prete states that the Carrboro Board is holding a public hearing on April 22, 2003 on this issue . I am planning to give them a recommendation to endorse the SWAB recommendation . Rehm states that the Environmental Affairs Board has endorsed it with a rider, a more active engagement from the County and trying to get Triangle J to site a regional landfill . Pollock states that sitting on the Solid Waste Planners committee, we have a piece of work with a consulting engineering firm that is going to solicit letters to counties with in a 100 miles radius regarding consideration of being the host for a regional landfill . 4 . Interim Fee Recommendation - Additional Questions Pollock states that some things have come up while looking at research of what other counties are doing with exemptions from the fees . • Vacancy policy Prince William County has an exemption for vacancies because they adjust every 6 months . The other counties that we have looked at do not have a policy for this . Orange County only assess fees once a year, therefore if someone proved vacancy they would be free of solid waste fees for the whole year . Rehm states that the other possibility could be a rebate . Sassaman states that multi-family should be thought of differently than single family . Vickers states that the fine-tuning of the structure of the fee should be left up to the Commissioners and Solid Waste staff . Sassaman states that we could expedite the system if we came up with a simple recommendation . Vickers states that it should be a general recommendation stating that some mechanism are allowed for dealing with vacancies and the retirement homes . I dori t think the SWAB should design it . We should deal with the policy not the procedure . 2 Minutes — Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board April 10, 2003 Approved May 8, 2003 Rehm agrees that there should be some guidance about the strategy . Smith states that this group should give some policy to the BOCC . We could do it easier and quicker than a larger group . The policy could be assessed according to the water bill . If the water is turned off that could prove vacancy . This board should make a recommendation of how this should be handled . Pollock states that there is one community that used a standard of an 80 % occupancy rate . . . for multi-family . It sounds like there are two questions to consider : Do we want to make a different policy for single family and multi-family ? and Do we make any recommendation at all ? Sassaman states that an option would be to make the basis on whether they are habitable structures . Could there be some exemptions for some uninhabited for two years ?) For the multi-family not only should there be a fractional per unit of that residential unit such as charging them $20 per unit instead of $30 per unit also like assuming a portion of the units are vacant . Wilson states that with the initial interim fee they would all get the same fee - not a reduced fee . Once it ' s permanent they would pay a lower rate . Prete asks would it make sense to do as in Dorchester County and assume a vacancy rate because you would be charging each one a higher per unit but fewer units would be assessed . Pollock states that it' s unsure how they made the adjustment . Vickers states that it was discussed before that multi-family would be charged based on the assumption of how much they were going to produce . They would have an appeal process if the they thought the waste was significantly different . There should be a fee for every unit that has a certificate of occupancy (CO) . If the owner can verify that a unit is unoccupied then he could be issued a credit . Arndt asks if it should be tied into the property tax collection ? For a habitable unit whether someone is living there or not the county assesses property taxes on it . Gist states that apartments are taxed as business . Pollock states that it is not a problem with the tax office because they have that all automated . Rehm states that in the third year when the other business properties that are non- residential are included, the fee is already based on the anticipated volume of 3 Minutes — Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board April 10, 2003 Approved May 8, 2003 material . They will be able to petition for an adjustment . We can' t say that people running a business, which is renting residential space, don' t have that opportunity . Sassaman states that it depends on whether we look at things in terms of units . Rehm states we intend to state everything in terms of single family units . Vickers, Prince William County states that apartments are 75 % of a single family unit in waste volume . But we haven ' t been clear if we are going to allow apartment complexes to be subject to the same rules as businesses in terms of their ability to appeal the amount of waste they are being billed for . If we treat them as residences, then they would be charged a flat rate as a fraction of a single family residence, but they function as a business . Sassaman states an apartment is not non-residential . Rehm, but that raises the question of whether ANY rental unit should be allowed an appeal, regardless of size . Sassaman says that a tax or any other fee that is sent with the tax bill is the responsibility of the owner not the resident . Wilson states that if there were some type of residential appeal process you would want it to be fairly simple and restrictive . There are only so many businesses and sooner or later they ' ll get it right, but if you allow it to residences, you ' ll have too many appeals to handle . Arndt says this levels the playing field as the apartment rental market is local and they can each absorb or pass along the costs . Vickers moves that a single family be considered as a single family unit and not be able to appeal the rate and it should be charged based on habitability . Smith asks how habitability will be determined ? Gist states that if the County is taxing it as a residence it should be billed as a residence . Vickers rewords motion to read : that all individual residential units that are on the tax rolls will be billed uniform fee . Gist 2nd the motion . Passes unanimously . 4 Minutes — Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board April 10, 2003 Approved May 8, 2003 Gist states that multi-family should be charged regarding the number of bedrooms . Wilson states that on the tax roll it does not list the number of bedrooms . Gist states that because we are charging the same for a small one-bedroom house as a new house in Cates Farm, therefore it should be the same for rental . It should be based on the rental unit . Pollock asks if there would be an exemption policy for vacancy ? Rehm states that there is the issue of charging them the same amount regardless of how well they generate less waste . A multi-family unit would not get the same option as a commercial property might get . Arndt states that it' s not creating economic incentives for waste reduction . Pollock states that the discussion started out on vacancy rates not ratio generation . Tonight do we just want to talk about vacancy rates ? Vickers states that regarding vacancy rates for apartments turnover creates more waste than no turnover . Arndt states that multi-family should be treated the same as single family because a vacancy rate has already been factored in . Smith moves that multi-family units should be treated the same as single family in regards to vacancy . So that there are no exemptions for vacancies . Vickers 2nd Passes, 1 --Abstain • Public Housing Exemptions ) Pollock asks if there should be any exemption for tax - exempt housing, i . e . public housing, church- owned housing, etc . Gist states that any housing that is subsidized by government or non-profit entity should be exempt . Vickers states that a fee should be charged . The original subsidy should be the entity that subsidizes the cost not the solid waste department . Gist states that doing that would cause some entities hardship and inability to continue service . 5 Minutes — Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board April 10, 2003 Approved May 8, 2003 Sassaman states that that allows for the issue that some tax exempts are more exempt than others are . It causes qualitative judgement for who is tax exempt and who is not . Gist states that if the County recognize them as tax exempt on the tax roll they should be exempt from the fee . Vickers states that they are not exempt from Orange Water and Sewer Authority . Sassasman states that a suggestion would be to let the Towns and jurisdictions that are closer to these entities make the recommendation to look at some form of relief at the Town level for extreme circumstances . ` Gist states that regardless of what we suggest the Commissioners are going to make the final decision . In some of the cases our role would be to pose the question . Vickers states that if you are going to do a fee you need to do all entities and not exempt tax-exempts, but deal with tax-exempts on a need basis . Smith states that it would only be $2 . 50 a month per entity . Could they not afford that? Vickers states that maybe we could make a recommendation to the Commissioners that they consider exemption for public housing in the short term at their discretion if there is a justifiable need . Gist moves that the SWAB recommend that Commissioners closely examine the issue of exempting non-profit and public housing complexes . Pollock states that the staff gets the sense what you all are trying to hammer out . In the interim we could come up with some language that makes a list that has publicly. owned housing and housing that owned by tax- exempt non-profit organizations whose purpose is to provide need-based housing, but that may not work from a legal standpoint . We will investigate it further Vickers notes you could end up exempting all tax exempt entities from the fee . Rehm states that we are cycling the same argument over and over . We should come with the recommendation that the BOCC consider the issue with neutral language to describe that . Smith states that everyone should be charged . If they generate waste they should pay for it . 6 Minutes — Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board April 10, 2003 Approved May S , 2003 Wilson states that the concern is what is the policy for the permanent fully implemented system . How they are treated for the first year is not that important because it is not a lot of money for the public housing . We can resolve it for the first year with the Commissioners to come up with some solution . Or it can be an jissue that we can defer to the second phase of implementation and give public housing a pass for the first year . Arndt asks if the County already has wording that addresses this . Gist moves that the we recommend that the County Commissioners thoroughly examine with their attorney the issue of providing exemptions to multi-family housing which is owned by non-profit or government organizations . Vickers 2nd Passes 1 -opposed • Fraternities/Sororities Wilson states that we know that they will get charged . It would be an administrative detail of how that is figured . • Carol Wood Pollock states that they became a tax-exempt entity last year . There are over 300 units on that property . Their umbrella states that they are tax exempt non-profit . Last year they voluntarily taxed themselves . They didn' t have to do that . Hughes states that this type of issue was dealt with in Chatham County regarding Carolina Meadows . They pay $45 / unit. Gist moves that Carol Woods not be exempt . Smith 2nd Passes unanimously . • Elderly/Low Income Property Tax Exemption Pollock states this is not on the agenda but it came up today while I was meeting with the tax office . We may want to follow the county ' s lead on this issue . Gist asks if those would be the same that receive the homestead exemption ? Pollock replies yes . Gist moves that anyone that receives the homestead exemption from the County should receive this exemption also . Arndt 2nd Passes 1 - Abstain 7 Minutes — Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board April 10, 2003 Approved May 8, 2003 5 . Alternative Finance Education Update Rehm states that there was material sent out on this no need for discussion . 6 . FY2003/04 Budget Update Wilson states that the budget submitted this year assumes a $30 fee which should generate an estimated $ 1 ,407, 600 . Even with that there has to be an additional fund balance appropriation of approximately $123 , 000 to balance the budget . If the Commissioners do not implement a fee this year we are looking at a $ 1 . 6 million reduction in services . Or they could subsidize it from the general fund . We debt finance about $1 . 5 million of equipment this year . The ice storm will generate over ($1 / 2 million ) of profit . There are no new programs for next year . There is money in for data gathering for getting the availability fee setup for next year . The only other thing put in the budget is funds to design the new administrative office . What' s not in there is the Southern Village recycling center which is being delayed another year . Another key issue is that we would love to get some of the reimbursement from the Green Tract this year . There is no indication of whether the money would be forthcoming . We are calculating a budget of $5,437,235 for FY03 -04 . Gist asks why there is no indication of increase of employee compensation for next year . Wilson replies that the department is part of the county' s pay and compensation system . The county has not decided what pay increase will be awarded . Once the manager submits the budget to the Commissioners he will plug in numbers for that . 7. Future SWAB activities/priorities/tasks - Deferred to next meeting 8 . Programs/Services Update Deferred to next meeting 9 . Other Business Deferred to next meeting Gist moves to adjourn Arndt 2nd Adjourned 8 : 25 pm Next meeting May 8, 2003 Southern Human Services Room D 8