Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSWAB minutes 080901 Minutes Regular Solid Waste Advisory Board August 9 , 2001 J Approved November 8 , 2001 Attendance : Roger Barr, Jacquie Gist, James Arndt, Jan Sassaman, Remus Smith, Albert Vickers , and B . J . Tipton Staff : Gayle Wilson, Blair Pollock, Rod Visser, and Wanda McCain 1 . Adoption of Minutes from June 14, 2001 . Moved by Jacquie Gist, 2nd by Remus Smith — Adopted7 to 0 2 . Discussion of Process to Analyze Financing Alternatives for Solid Waste Enterprise Fund . Barr explains the need for having a small committee to evaluate past work and bring back a package for the SWAB to work from . Gist states that because so much work has already gone into the issue of alternative financing, that it shouldn' t be that difficult and the committee would only have to meet a few times to go over that material . Barr agrees not to redo things that have already been done, but there have been some organizational changes , which have to fit into the county ' s scheme of things . Wilson states that staff has re - evaluated previous work which was done 2 or 3 years ago and that work was based on 2 to 3 years prior to that . Initially it was thought that the work would be easy to update but it' s been more difficult and complex and will require more time to update . We are re -testing some of the assumptions from 5 or 6 years ago to make sure that they are still valid . The original number crunching used the Town of Chapel Hill ' s chart of accounts but we will need to convert to Orange County and there isn' t an exact fit . We will not have to do a lot of the financing alternatives work, the financing alternatives evaluated are pretty much the same and can be reused but what ara at issue are some of the assumptions . The numbers are in the process of being redone by staff . Vickers asks if that particular work would be done anyway for the budgeting process . Wilson states that at some point it would have to correspond to the Orange County chart of accounts . 1 Minutes Regular Solid Waste Advisory Board August 9 , 2001 Barr states that if it is agreed to form a committee the scope of analysis is listed on the agenda . Sassaman moves to form the committee . Vickers 21 d the motion . Passed 7 to 0 Barr states that Jan Sassaman could chair the committee since he did such a good job on the previous work . Other volunteers are welcomed . Gist volunteers because the results would affect Carrboro tax rate . Vickers also volunteers . Smith volunteers but states that he is not available on Tuesdays and Thursdays . Coininittee consists of Jan Sassmnan, Jacquie Gist, Al Vickers and Renius Smith . Wilson states that the goal is to have a recommendation to the BOCC in time for them to consider it for the next budget cycle . Because it may be controversial it would be best to have it ready by January or February to give them time to review it . Vickers states that the biggest issue would be to present in a clear format that there is a funding issue and give the options . Wilson states that options were looked at . Staff will apply revenue requirements to those options . There aren' t many options based on previous work . Gist states that the least we could do is point out pros and cons from a citizen' s point of view . Visser states that getting something back to the Commissioners in January is highly desirable . This will affect municipal budgets tax rates in some way . The towns essentially get into their budgets sooner than the county ; that would be another reason to get the report to Commissioners early . The sub - committee should report back to the group by the December meeting and plan a formal action for the board by the January meeting . Gist asks when the BOCC retreat is . 2 Minutes Regular Solid Waste Advisory Board August 9 , 2001 Visser states that it' s usually the 211cl Saturday in December . Gist states that this could be retreat material since it is a long-range project or policy shift . It might be good to have a preliminary report for their retreat . Barr suggest that at the October meeting the sub- committee give a progress report and see where things are . Pollock ask if any action would be required by the (State ) legislature . For example , to set up 2 tax districts , is a change in legislation required ? Visser states that he would have to check on that . There is a section that lays out 8 purposes for which special districts can be created . One of these is solid waste , so we could make it fit . You have to demonstrate that there is a different level of service being provided to a district than to the county at large . Wilson states that the options that will be looked at did not require special legislation . But the committee may come up with something that may require some type of legislation . Given that whatever funding is decided upon it would have to be in place by July 12002 and legislation doesn' t usually happen that quickly . 3 . Staff Updates . Wilson gives updates . • C & D Recycling Ordinance - SWAB Resolution on Rogers Road Water Supply - Solid Waste Facilities Master Plan : The intention is that there will be a solid waste work session by the BOCC on September 11 , 2001 . The ordinance will be one of the topics on that agenda . The attorney is still revising an earlier draft of the ordinance . The first topic will be the SWAB ' s resolution regarding the Rogers Road financing of those fees and charges beyond the mains . They will also discuss the Solid Waste Facilities Master plan . • Illegal Scrap Tire Dump - Little River Clzurcli Road : We are working with the state to abate the illegal tire dump , which is on private property . The Division of Waste Management is negotiating with the property owner to figure out the potential funding for the abatement . If there is any public assistance needed in the abatement the Solid Waste Department will take a lead . The expenditures would typically be reimbursed by the state ' s scrap tire trust fund . • NC DENR Disaster Debris Planning : The state has been applying light pressure to all counties to establish temporary or permanent disaster 3 Minutes Regular Solid Waste Advisory Board August 9 , 2001 debris staging areas . An update was submitted to the Solid Waste Management Plan last summer . We have incorporated a couple of options in the Solid Waste Master Plan for this type of debris . It would be preferable to have a permanent area instead of a temporary one from which the material would have to be moved in 6 months . • Solid Waste Department 's Consideration of Collecting Hillsborough Commercial Garbage : We have talked with the staff of the Town of Hillsborough to see if they would be open to the idea of the SWM department picking up that service for a fee . We could provide businesses with a preferable rate and make some money for the fund . It could also allow us to push recycling opportunities . No decision has been made nor has there been any formal proposals made . James Arndt asks if the Town of Chapel Hill is considering the C &D ordinance also or would it only apply to Orange County in the unincorporated areas . Wilson states that it is being prepared as an Orange County ordinance, but to be practically effective it would have to be adopted by the Towns . Once the Commissioners decide on the substance of the ordinance then it would go to the Towns to encourage them to adopt and enforce it in their jurisdictions . Tipton asks which materials would be targeted . Wilson explains that it won' t be clear until the Commissioners adopt the ordinance . The materials presently included are clean wood waste , dry wall, cardboard and clean metal . There are some ongoing issues with dry wall and manufactured lumber . Arndt states that you can get a less differentiated stream there by adding pressboard and the composite materials . Wilson states that it would make it much easier on the regulated community, but there are some issues with turning that into mulch . We are currently involved in a pilot study at our facility in testing materials already created for arsenic , formaldehyde, and others that you may expect in that type of material . Pollock further explains the testing process for particularly heavy metals, formaldehyde , Volatile Organic Compounds and biological oxygen demand . 4 Minutes Regular Solid Waste Advisory Board August 9 , 2001 Wilson explains that some clean wood waste has been ground and colored . There is a small stockpile of two different colors . We have selected the 17 largest yardwaste customers and offered to give each of them up to 9 cu . yards of the colored mulch . They in turn will give it to their customers and supply us with their names so that the department can survey them about the product . Once the deadline has passed for the 17 customers , mulch will also be given to the government' s Public Works to give them a chance to try it . Sassaman ask what colors are available . Wilson replies red and black . 4 . Other Business . Barr welcomes James Arndt, the new member who replaces Michael Babuin . He served earlier on the C & D Task Force . We are also hoping that at some point the UNC liaison will be approved to become a formal member . The 2002 meeting schedule has also been provided . Along with that Barr recommends that the September meeting be canceled to give the new committee and staff to put time in that work . Smith asks if it would be appropriate to elect a new chair in October if you are canceling the September meeting . Barr states that this would be correct because it was decided to elect a new chair each year . Visser suggest that at least one member of SWAB be present at the September 11 Commissioners meeting in case they want to hear from someone different than the staff the mindset of the SWAB . Barr states he is unsure of his schedule but would plan to be there . Sassaman also mentions he will try to come . Smith asks where the meeting will be held . Visser replies at Government Services Center . Pollock asks if Visser expects SWAB member to make the presentation . Visser expects staff to make the presentation and answer questions . Wilson hands out contact list for updating names, phone numbers, emails . 5 Minutes Regular Solid Waste Advisory Board August 9 , 2001 Pollock mentions that the there is a SWAB portion of the Solid Waste Web site on which they will be listed . Gist clarifies use of her home phone only , not work . 5 . Materials Recovery Facility Materials Recovery Facility ( MRF ) Pollock describes how a materials recovery facility would function in the solid waste plan and that it would be relatively complex and expensive . He states that he thought it would be useful for all of the SWAB members to hear from RRSI ( the original consultants who advised the Solid Waste Department on MRF issues ) and reprise their work on sizing the facility and preliminary scoping of it . He describes future possible scenarios for completion of the MRF development process . RRSI would help us select the builder / owner / operator predicated on the County implementing the plan . The objective is to find out if the SWAB would like to have them at the October meeting to recap their previous work and provide and update update based on the last few years . This would dovetail well with the sub - committee work and their need to hear more about MRFs and ask RRSI questions about MRFs - how they work, how to pay for them, are they successful, etc . Wilson states that they would also be able to address the issue of how to reach the county ' s goal without a MRF . At some point soon, you (the SWAB ) will need to educate yourself on this type of facility to be able to respond to the BOCC as they will be looking to you for a recommendation . Barr states that the only reservation about having them come to the October meeting is that they may have a lot to say and will take a while to give a fair hearing . There will be other things we need to spend time on . Wilson states that the sub-committee work will not be done by October but a progress report and an in-depth discussion of work to date would be appropriate . There may not be a full two hours of discussion . The November meeting will have more substance , we will have finance options that we will be able to apply to future revenue requirements . That meeting will be long and involved and thus he recommends October for the report . Barr asks if they can supply some numbers to say what dollar level we are talking about relative to how much material we have to recycle and how much recycling will be done . If there is a general discussion on the merits 6 Minutes Regular Solid Waste Advisory Board August 9 , 2001 and benefits of recycling we agree it ' s nice but abstract until we try to quantify costs v . size v . amount of materials . The problems come up when you think of it in terms of quantitative cost vs . size vs . what we have . That' s when we focus . Gist recalls previous issues which involved not having enough volume on our ( Orange County ' s ) own to support a MRF at a profitable level , thus we would have to import materials and then there would be more traffic to the neighborhood . It was a matter of size and some labor issues such as paying a ' living wage ' and how big to build the MRF to accommodate only the known materials or anticipate influx of materials from others . ) . Wilson states that the labor issues were were whether we entered into a contract or have our won employees . Depending on how it' s organized , however, we would expect all laborers to be paid a living wage and that can be done contractually . Visser agrees with the points made by Gist . The labor would be contracted out, for example, under any arrangement and we would specify a living wage and any other labor requirements we need them to meet Wilson states that size was very important . They ( RRSI ) stated that generally there was enough material to support a modest smaller facility in Orange County, but the cost could be bought down by increasing the amount of materials . The more materials that came through the less it would cost the county . County could share in revenues . Does that include Alamance or Durham or others , we don' t know but we ran some sensitivity analyses . We need a specific talk about our situation here rather than a " MRF 101 " . Barr expresses the need to get sufficient specific info from consultant instead of just finding out about the merits of a MRF . Visser states that in terms of scheduling, the major reason this is being brought up is because of the sub-committee that' s looking at alternative financing - - it makes sense to do that in the context of what financing mechanism they are going to need to implement, whatever the solid waste management plan, whether we need a MRF is absolutely central to how much it is going to cost . It may be best to dovetail the meeting with the subcommittee ' s work to see what kind of progress the subcommittee makes . 7 Minutes Regular Solid Waste Advisory Board August 9 , 2001 Barr asks if the committee will have moved forward enough to where focused questions will be asked of RRSI or can we just summarize the past experience well enough . Visser recaps that there were three scenarios with small , medium, and larger MRF starting at 15 , 000 tons up to 30 , 000 tons per year with differing numbers of jurisdictions involved . Would that be useful to give the SWAB now ? That might give them a head start . Wilson notes we never really settled on a size but we have the preliminary analysis . Tipton asks how the MRF and the SWAB relate to the Solid Waste Facilities Master Plan . Wilson states that a long- term facilities plan would have to accommodate a MRF (to meet the waste reduction goals ) . While we looked at some sites , we didn' t get hung up on that because it doesn' t take a lot of space , plus the MRF was not highlighted in the master plan because some of the elected officials are not convinced that one is needed . We did assume the continuation of the processing pad and a potential area for a MRF . The commissioners haven' t been willing to openly discuss a MRF . Tipton asked if and how the financing will be looked at . Wilson states that the financing will be looked at assuming the adopted solid waste plan . It wasn' t made a key component of the faciliti ries master plan at this point, but it' s central to achieving the goals . Pollock noted that when looking at the stream of costs and revenues we made the MRF a separate cost and revenue center that showed certain MRF revenues, but also net cost to build and operate based on RRSI ' s experience We modeled the activity at the MRF and collection programs . You will be able to identify costs and revenues from each program in Orange County . Tipton states that when the University first talked about a MRF it wasri t sure where it was going to go , but recently awarded its outdoor recycling collection program to a commingled collection . UNC is interested in a commingled system . Wilson states that a commingled MRF will open many collection opportunities , and it' s impossible to achieve high recycling goals without 8 Minutes Regular Solid Waste Advisory Board August 9 , 2001 some type of MRF . No one can really do it without one , there are a lot of ways to have it but without that processing capability you can ' t overcome the limitations . Smith asks for location of MRFs in NC . Wilson gives locations : Greenville , Greensboro , Charlotte , and Davidson County . If the group would like to visit a MRF it could be arranged . Tipton adds Durham Tidewater Fibre . Notes article about single stream MRFs in CRA magazine . Wilson notes tour to Athens GA MRF . RRSI was tentatively set aside to come to the September or the October meeting but it can be rescheduled for your convenience . Barr suggests that we would not have them for the September meeting and will not decide for the October meeting until the sub - committee has had a chance to meet . See if the data is precise enough to talk about real stuff . Gist moves to adjourn Smith 2nd Adjourned 8 : 20 pm Next meeting : October 11 , 2001 Southern Human Services 9