Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSWAB minutes 061401 Minutes �' I� - Solid Waste Advisory Board June 14, 2001 Approved August 9 , 2001 Attendance : Roger Barr, Jacquie Gist, Brian Ketchem, Jan Sassaman, Remus Smith, an Albert Vickers Staff : Gayle Wilson, Blair Pollock, Mike Meagher, Wanda McCain 1 . Adoption of Minutes from April 19, 2001 . Moved by Remus Smith, 2nd by Jan Sassaman — Adopted . 2 . Procedural Issues . Barr hands out suggested procedures and practices for the SWAB to follow and ask for comments . Procedures : Formal actions of the SWAB will be taken using procedures that follow Robert 's rules, except insofar as the SWAB adopts other procedures, which it may do from time to time . The SWAB Chair may participate in discussion, may initiate motions, and will z7ote as part of the group . The Chair will have no additional tie - breaking vote . A motion passes if a majority of those present vote in favor of the motion . A quorum must be present . The Chair zt ; ill be elected for a one -year term at the September meeting, unless there is a z)acancy or unless the SWAB decides to hold the election at some other meeting . Practices : If someone votes zvho is present at a meeting but zvho is not a member of the SWAB, then that person 's vote is not counted . The recording secretary will ignore that vote when minutes are drafted . (For example, with a show of hands it could be that someone present zvho is not a SWAB member will raise a hand . ) If a motion is initiated and the recording secretary is unclear zvho moved or seconded the motion or if it appears that the person zvho moved a motion is not a SWAB member, then the secretary is asked to draft the minutes using the Chair 's name . (Correction may of course be made as the minutes are reviezved by the SWAB) Vickers moves to adopt procedures and practices . Sassaman 2na . Pollock clarifies affiliation of voters . Barr states the votes are not by jurisdiction . ity Water Service — Adoption of final recommendation to 3 . Rogers Road Commun BOCC regarding additional financing . Gist suggests a few changes in the cover letter . " Objectives " change to " Objective " and " have " changed to has Smith states that the words " primary structure " should be defined . 1 Minutes Solid Waste Advisory Board June 14, 2001 Gist suggests " dwelling unit" . Vickers further suggests " dwelling unit with occupancy " . Smith asks what else is out there besides dwellings . Wilson clarifies the new wording . Smith states the date should be the day the BOCC adopts the resolution . Gist agrees . Barr clarifies the new date . Sassaman states that he is comfortable with the county paying all the fees but is uncomfortable taking the sewer fees out of the Solid Waste budget . Vickers asks if the laterals should be part of the construction . Ketchum states that it would be more complicated if the laterals were not ready to be installed at the same time the mains are completed . Sassaman states to have the County pay for the laterals and the meter insures that people will use the public water supply . The main sticking point is to rethink of some better source of money other than having the SW enterprise pay for the whole thing . Gist states she understands the position but the reality is the money that' s in the coffers of Orange County, landfill, Chapel Hill and Carrboro is the same money . It all comes from the same place, the taxpayer ' s pockets . In looking how to structure this the big question was which was the most efficient and legal pot to take the taxpayers money out of . It doesn' t make much difference , as far as saving the taxpayers money whether you take if from the Orange County general fund or the landfill fund . The attorneys felt that this was the most appropriate pot for this . Vickers states that his concerns are of fair treatment for the taxpayers that have already paid for their laterals for their homes . Gist states that these are the only people who have a landfill next to them and their property has been devalued because of the landfill . This is a very unique situation . 2 Minutes Solid Waste Advisory Board June 14 , 2001 Sassaman states that the point is the problem is not with funding because there is a greater good that comes out of it . While it may not matter to the taxpayer what pile the money comes out of, if it comes out of the landfill coffers and is not replenished that effects the landfill operations , which we have a responsibility to oversee . We should be very careful of how we recommend that budget is spent for something other than solid waste operations . Gist states if the water [contamination] at any point in the future becomes a problem it could result in lawsuits ; therefore the [County ] attorneys felt it should come out of the landfill budget because it is a preventive legal action . Barr states that he understands the issues that have been raised , which are serious points but at the same time favors the resolution as it' s written . The co - interest at this point is completing the project in a successful way . We ' ve worked on this a long time and it' s satisfactory if not a perfect conclusion . Vickers states that the resolution is fine as it is , but would like to express concerns as an engineer . Looking at the [ geologic study] material there is no jeopardy to the Rogers Road water supply . Smith asks if the date of the laterals would be changed to the date the BOCC adopts the resolution . Also states that others will have until 12 / 31 / 01 to respond . If a person does not borrow money from the county, what is the last date that someone can request (when do I have to say I want it) . Vickers replies that it is meant to be the same date as adoption . Ketchem states that the laterals will be run, but if one is going to pay for the interior plumbing that can be done at any time . Barr states there is an issue about dates but it' s not one that can be specified because it will depend on how the project is coordinated . Sassaman states the way it reads it can be decided 20 years from now to have water and will get funding by the solid waste department . Smith states that there should be a close out date . Vickers suggests one year after the adoption of the ordinance . Barr suggests it reads " must give notification by December 31 , 2002 " . 3 Minutes Solid Waste Advisory Board June 14 , 2001 Vickers asks when the water lines will be in . Wilson gives an update of the project . Pre - bid conference for the contractor was 6 / 12 / 01 . The deadline for bids to be in is 6 / 19 / 01 . It' s likely before construction is complete you ' re looking at October or November time frame for the mains . OWASA has sent information stating the analysis form for the property parcels , which is the spreadsheet Jan Sassaman prepared, looked . correct . The cost estimated for the mains has been revised to $ 658 , 000 . Barr states that this relates to the deadline request date of December 2002 for the lateral . Is this still a reasonable date ? Gist states that the county can do the ' tweaking" . Resolution passes unanimously . Wilson states that the changes will be made for Roger Barr ' s signature and then given to the chair of the BOCC . Gist asks that after the county approves this , that copies be sent to the list of neighborhood representatives . 4 . Fiscal 2001/02 Solid waste Department Budget . Wilson distributes the current managers recommended budget that was forwarded to the commissioners . Staff recommended a $ 2 increase for mixed solid waste and the manager increased that by $1 for a $3 increase . [ $45 per ton for MSW] From the " add " list the manager agreed to the construction and demolition education position as well as the electronics and dry cell program . Everything else is basically the same as the previous handout . Gist questions the personnel plan in the budget . Wilson states that we are the same as the rest . of the county government . Barr states that this is very good information to have . Asked if there is any action the SWAB would take on the budget . Wilson explains that you can make comments to add, modify, or to eliminate programs . You can make recommendation on the tip fees . As far as what is required, in reviewing the interlocal agreement, you are not obligated to make a statement even on fees . 4 Minutes Solid Waste Advisory Board June 14 , 2001 Barr states that there is a lot of work and detail that has gone into this that we haven' t studied . Vickers asked if the tipping fee is per truck or yard . Wilson replies per ton . Gist asks if there is anything in the budget for the Carrboro Plaza recycling site . Wilson explains that there were monies previously set aside for the site . The owners of the Plaza required modification to the design, which increased the cost . In addition, the principal of the [construction] company to which the money was encumbered died and the company dissolved and so we will have to go out for bid . We are preparing new cost estimates now . There is not a particular line item for Carrboro Plaza . I [Wilson] have discussed with the manager that once the new [cost] numbers are derived, we will do a budget amendment and bring the money out of reserves to construct the site . Gist asks if this means that it will not necessarily wait another fiscal year . Wilson states that there is a possibility for construction this fall . Vickers asks where the Rogers Road water line item shows up . Wilson states that the $ 550 , 000 is in the current year budget and is already encumbered to OWASA and does not show up in next year ' s budget . The remainder , the additional funds , for instance , depends on the results of the resolution . , Depending on when the commissioners approve the budget, they will increase the expenditures by bringing the amount needed out of reserves . If it is not done until after the budget is approved, then there will be a budget amendment to bring the money out of reserves . Barr states the budget year changes at the end of June . Pollock states there is one minor change on page 1 under the 2nd bullet under recycling services and programs — it should read all plastic bottles . Barr states that since there isn' t any motion on the budget we will move on to the next item . 5 Minute . Solid Waste Advisory Board June 14 , 2001 Gist states that the commissioners may want some type of response from this group regarding the budget . I would move that the SWAB has reviewed the manager ' s recommended budget and found it satisfactory . Smith 2nd the motion Vickers states that the revenue this year exceeds the budget by $ 250 , 00 yet you project less revenue for the coming budget year . Wilson states that there are a lot of dynamics and shuffling from year to year . We make conservative estimates . One thing done regarding fees was calculating on historical experience, the amount of tonnage of C & D tonnage . [We] know that a private company is opening a C &D transfer station, thus C &D tonnage was factored down . Motion adopted Barr gives background on the items 5 and 6 . The overall issue has to do with the financing of recycling operations . If there is no [ dedicated] financing of the recycling operations , a crisis will ensue within the near future . There was not enough surplus generated to cover these without some [ other] way of dealing with it . We should make some recommendation as to what should happen . We should look at the current situation as far as plans that have been adopted and previous recommendation of how they [recycling operations] should be financed and try to get a picture of this globally . Items 5 and 6 are here so that we can figure out what to do . Wilson states that over the summer and fall this group will be asked to comment on the approved solid waste management plan and ask the commissioners to either go forward with the existing plan, modify it, or start over . The plan is a very significant component in determining the need for alternative financing . 5 . Review of Solid Waste Facilities Master Plan. Wilson gives slide presentation of facilities plan of the Eubanks Road site . The facilities master plan includes the current MSW landfill , a transfer station, C &D landfill and management area, yard waste management, scrap tire management, white goods management, moving the existing convenience center to the south side of Eubanks Road, relocation of the scalehouse to the north side of the road, and development of an electronics and battery processing and storage area . The plan consists of structures that do not relate to the solid waste management plan, i . e . not the MRF . It does not include a MRF because we want to be sure that the Solid Waste Management Plan will go forward before spending a lot of time on design . 6 Minutes Solid Waste Advisory Board June 14 , 2001 Vickers ask what type of material will be collected for the resale store . Wilson replies there will be a list of materials of interest . Items will be selective . Pollock states that what tends to sell is brick, block, but dimension lumber and plywood do not sell very well . Barr questions the amount of parking needed . Wilson replies that the design is not final but would assume 6 or 8 spaces would be enough . Barr asks if it would be seen from the road . Wilson states that initially it would , but once the county buys the property and possession is taken, a buffer will be planted from scratch . Barr asks when the transfer station would go into operation . Wilson replies approximately January 2007 . Barr ask if there has been a definite decision to site the transfer station at this location . Wilson states that this is the purpose of the facilities plan, to try and answer where things are and where they will be going . This is a recommendation, which will hopefully result in a final decision of where it will be located . Barr states that transfer station has different time longevity than the other buildings . Vickers asks if any other locations have been considered . Wilson states there has been no other interest in a siting study . Barr states there is no objection to the transfer station but it seems there is a big decision embodied to put it at that location because it implies that something will go at that site for some time . Vickers asks if a decision has been made where the garbage will be shipped . 7 Minutes Solid Waste Advisory Board June 14, 2001 Wilson states it ' s premature to evaluate that now because things could change in the next 6 years . Vickers asks is there is rail potential . Wilson explains that there is potential , but have previously looked at it and based on the [low] tonnage the cost is prohibited . Vickers asks if there has been talk of a joint transfer station with Durham . Wilson states that there have been meetings to try and find sites in southern Durham County to be used but there were none . Vickers asks if the transfer station is placed on Eubanks Road then that would preclude cooperation with Durham Wilson states it does . All the while the clock is not stopping . We are getting closer [to landfill closure ] every day and have to plan to take care of business and if something happens with cooperation with another jurisdiction, so much the better . You would need to already have a site and start preliminary design by 2003 . ( area for [ disaster debris] Fran-type of debris ) Gist states that in 1995 there were discussion regarding the Neville Tract would not be used for landfill purposes and that the area would be turned into a park . Spire states that the use of the Neville Tract [for disaster debris] would only be in case of an emergency . Vickers states that it would make sense to have it out there because the equipment is there and hopefully you wouldn' t have to use it . Wilson states that the State is requiring all counties tordesignate areas for that type of material [ disaster debris ] . Vickers asks if a MRF would be needed, where would it be . Wilson states there is only one possible location, which would be at the recycling pad [proposed new south side location, not current pad location] . Wilson proposes a [unspecified] site in the northern part of the county , which is estimated to be about 50 acres , for a transfer station to handle all the waste generated north of I - 85 plus a recycling facility for LCID and disaster debris landfill . 8 Minutes Solid Waste Advisory Board June 14 , 2001 This transfer station would cut down traffic on Eubanks Road and divert approximately 23 % of the currently landfilled waste which is generated in this part of the county . That would more equitably distribute the burden of waste management and would allow us to bid a smaller transfer station on Eubanks Rd . A part of this site is also proposed to receive and recycle inert materials and land clearing debris . The ordinance will ban burning land clearing debris . This has not been presented to Board of Orange County Commissioners but the manager has seen it . Barr ask when the commissioners would see this . Wilson explains that it may be work session sometime in September . Vickers asks if it makes sense to put a MRF at a current landfill location . Wilson explains that both sides could be argued . From a transportation standpoint it would be close to ideal . Vickers states that he and Jan Sassaman have been asked to present a report to the Town of Chapel Hill on the activities of the SWAB . 6 . Process for reviewing the Solid Waste Management Plan and Alternative Financing. Barr states that there will be a committee to work on this issue and get some kind of information that can be reviewed . This would get organized in August . Gist ask if this committee would review the Solid Waste Management Plan and Alternative Financing and report back to the SWAB . Pollock states that another way to look it would be to look at the Solid Waste Plan and let that drive the financing decision . Pollock states that, in the previous work, there are some pretty good models to play " what if" with, thus you won' t be starting from scratch . Wilson states that while the plan is the most significant cost element, there are a number of other cost elements . It is fairly complicated and we ' ll try to break it down . 9