Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSWAB minutes 110801 Minutes Regular Meeting - Solid Waste Advisory Board November 8 , 2001 Approved December 13, 2001 Attendance : Jan Sassaman, Remus Smith, Albert Vickers, B . J . Tipton, Barry Jacobs, and Brian Ketchum Staff : Gayle Wilson, Blair Pollock, Rod Visser, and Wanda McCain Jan Sassaman volunteers to chair the meeting 1 . Adoption of Minutes from August 9, 2001 . Moved by Remus Smith, 2nd by Al Vickers — Adopted 5 to 0 2 . Organization Issues - Designation of New Chair - Al Vickers nominates Jan Sassaman as new chair . Brian Ketchum - 2nd Sassaman is elected and appointed as new chair . 4-0 3 . Chapel Hill Commercial Waste Reduction Task Force - Pilot Program Request - Vickers gives a summary of what the Town Council is proposing . The Town of Chapel Hill wants to implement a pilot program to help reduce waste in the commercial sector and is asking the county to fund the program . Wilson states that the Solid Waste Department has been involved in the process . There was a (Town of Chapel Hill) Task Force formed to demonstrate to some of the businesses how to reduce their waste and thus the amount that they have to pay for collection . We were approached about setting up a pilot program in a restaurant, office building, and an apartment complex to pick up materials depending on the type of business and to do a waste audit . We have tried to be helpful to the Town and explained that, at that time, there was room for some expansion for food waste . If the pilot program expansion fell within that budget it could be paid for out of this budget. While waiting for the Chapel Hill Task Force to get back to us, we went ahead and added restaurants that were requesting the service and now we no longer have any additional budget for additional food waste and glass programs . We did offer to take on more facilities if the Town would fund the additions . We already have food waste and commercial glass programs in several places around town and could tell the Town the level of reduction achievable based on existing programs . The only area where we could gain additional information is with mixed paper . We could set a container at an apartment 1 Minutes Regular Meeting - Solid Waste Advisory Board November 8, 2001 complex and set one at another business and measure the waste shifted (to recycling) . The Town' s Solid Waste Task Force wanted to stick with the original program, which leads us to this request . Pollock states that from a tip fee standpoint Chapel Hill is getting the majority of the benefits of the program . It' s not to say that we don' t want to expand the program but we are maxed out budgetarily . Tipton states she thought this was going to be a commingled program . Wilson states that would be something we wouldn t be able to do . Sassaman ask how much are they aware of what the County is doing . Pollock states that a list of every restaurant on the program and an indication of whether it was in Chapel Hill or not, was given to the Task Force . Ketchum asked what the reaction of the Task Force was to the information. Pollock states that the Task Force viewed the information and potential pilot programs as a companion piece to what happens at establishments when the Town moves to a Pay-As -You-Throw commercial waste system . How will they react when they are paying for two or three time per week waste collection? Would they recycle ? We could use the information from the bar and restaurant program to extrapolate from what we' re doing now . Vickers states that looking at the request letter what has not been done . Ketchem : Is it that the only thing you' re not doing right now is the mixed paper at commercial or multifamily sites ? Pollock states that there is the potential to work with one or two multifamily complexes to see how more potential recycling can be removed from their waste if there are more recycling sites put in to make recycling easier . We could see if they reduce their dumpster frequency further . Sassaman suggests that a letter be drafted using the materials given to the Task Force, written to Mayor Waldorf, stating what the Solid Waste Department is doing now and this is what we can do . In view of budgetary constraints, we don' t feel comfortable going to the Commissioners asking for the money . 2 Minutes Regular Meeting - Solid Waste Advisory Board November 8 , 2001 Ketchem stated it seems like a duplication of almost everything . You ' ve already got a mechanism to put the mixed paper in place . Are there any commercial establishments where you could get them to pay for it ? CCB has just moved into the new buildings across from the Friday Center . Could they pay for it? Jacobs states it would make sense to pick a site on the route for the in-house program, for example as you' re going from Chapel Hill Town Hall to Carrboro Town Hall, there could be a stop . Wilson states that, in the Solid Waste Plan, it is envisioned that there would be universal commercial collection, which means all business, would get it . For the commercial sector, it is hard to do expansions . Sassaman states that some of the businesses have their own mechanisms for handling stuff . Tipton states that you' re maxed out but if you look at the request a little differently, they are asking that your budget be expanded . Wilson states this is true but we have enough food waste and commercial glass establishments that we service on a regular basis that the additional information could be gained from reviewing the data we have already . The potential for getting information by adding new sites is minimal . Pollock states that there is another nuance, if the Commissioners give us an expanded budget there is this political thing . Should the Town of Chapel Hill be the one that gets it or should it be first-come, first-served ? We have a waiting list . Jacobs states that the key point is that they are calling it a pilot program . We don' t need a pilot program to gather information . The second point is that there is a waiting list already . Vickers states that the one issue not addressed is mixed paper . Are you not doing that now? 3 Minutes Regular Meeting - Solid Waste Advisory Board November 8, 2001 Wilson states that we do not have any commercial collection of mixed paper . We could put mixed paper in select apartments or businesses and see how much mixed paper is shifted . Smith asks if the new complex across from Timberlyne would be a place to start . Could this be part of their lease contract? Pollock states that we are interested in doing a pilot mixed paper program that is more appealing in an office building because the grade of paper is better and we might not have to pay . Wilson states that with a pilot program, the better it works the more difficult it is, when the program is over, to end the service . Sassaman asked about the cost on an annual basis to set up something in an office complex . For example at the new complex at Meadowmont , next to the Friday Center . Are we talking about $2, 000 per year . Can we talk to David Kimball at CCB ? Wilson notes that it is not near any of our routes . Even if they pay, I still have to pull a truck off a route (and there' s a cost to that) . Ketchem asks if the Council is expecting an official response from the SWAB . Should we try to break down what they are asking for, address what we think is already being done and the ones that aren' t being done and [provide] some options for doing these ? Wilson states that staff can prepare a draft memo for you all to look at . What they are asking for is not unreasonable, it' s that we can provide them the information that they are seeking by alternate means at no cost . 4 . Other Business * Update on Nov . 7 Public Hearing for Regulated Recyclable Material Ordinance Wilson states that 80 % of the speakers were farmers that were concerned about prohibiting the burning of land clearing debris as it relates to agriculture . The attorney had a problem exempting them from the ordinance . The task is to try and find a way to accommodate agriculture burning of land clearing debris . Burning land clearing debris is indistinguishable when burning on a farm versus burning in a development . 4 Minutes Regular Meeting - Solid Waste Advisory Board November 8 , 2001 There are certain definitions of farms and the use-tax could help . A large portion of the county is agriculture but the actual extent of farming is less than that . Developers are going to try to find a way around every rule they can . The attorney has to find some way to accommodate the farmers . Jacobs states that solid waste is the same regardless of the way it is produced . No one gets that . I would ask the staff to look at other options . Instead of worrying about how we word the ordinance, we can worry about who we want to exempt and how to assist them which is a positive way . Wilson states that there are some ways to deal with this issue . Other issues mentioned were illegal dumping . That is a law enforcement issue and the manager and the sheriff will be talking about that . There was sentiment for exempting from regulation those loads that were dumped illegally {when someone brings the mixed regulated material to the landfill as part of the cleanup ) . There was a speaker advocating a certain type of burning called air curtain burning . It is a fairly cheap way to get rid of large amounts of trees and stumps . It is a fairly clean burn, a smokeless operation, burns at extremely high temperatures, and burns quickly . The ordinance does not recognize that type of burning or exempt it. Sassaman ask how that compares in terms of effort and time with grinding . Wilson states that it' s less expensive and produces small amounts of fine ash . I don' t know how we are going to approach this issue . Jacobs states that in speaking with the attorney, we could see as characterizing that as a different [type of] burning. Wilson states that in a [Hurricane } Fran situation you may want this type of burning, but not in a day to day situation. Wilson further summarized that there were other questions about space on job sites to do the sorting . We were asked for ways these materials could be sorted on a small site . The methodology for dealing with that is site-specific . There were questions about exemptions from storm damage and comments about the unreasonableness of a 60- day delay to promote deconstruction . 5 Minutes Regular Meeting - Solid Waste Advisory Board November 8 , 2001 Wilson stated - I think that the public hearing went wonderfully . This is a fairly significant ordinance in terms of how it' s going to affect contractor s and it wasn' t contractors that came to complain about it . I think we are almost there and we can address most of the issues . * Status of Alternative Finance Committee Analysis Wilson states that staff has been spending a lot of time working on 10-year plans for the various programs . (hand out draft of C &D program) . There will be 8 or 9 programs that will follow this format . Sassaman requests a review of what you passed on to me about our request, the letter we sent to the Board of County Commissioners and everyone should be aware of that (This refers to the letter that the SWAB sent to the Commissioners affirming that they support the existing plan and the goals . ) Wilson states that the Commissioners had questions regarding assumptions . The SWAB prepared a memo to respond to the questions . The letter has not been addressed by the County Commissioners yet . Visser states that to get it into the Commissioners hands we may pass it along as part of the Manager' s memo possibly soon so that the staff and SWAB have responded to the BOCC about the SWAB ' s assumptions on developing options for alternative financing for the next FY Wilson states because we are not sure when the Commissioners will be able to give you their decision, we are proceeding based on our knowledge and experience with developing the programs . We also are concerned that without alternative financing, we would spend all the reserves keeping the existing programs running and the finance director would not advise spending all the reserves . (Wilson explains the handout, which describes how the tenyear financial projections are developed by the staff for each program) . The first example given is the Construction and Demolition Program which, overall, makes money, generates a surplus, even assuming the ordinance and the facilities and personnel that accompany that . This is a working document. There are division budgets, a division may include parts of various programs . These are not program budgets, they have to be broken down to program cost . Program cost assume tonnages over time as programs are expanded or implemented . Or, as in the case of the MSW landfill, cessation of operations 6 Minutes Regular Meeting - Solid Waste Advisory Board November 8 , 2001 causes revenue to go to zero but expenditures such as post closure costs continue . Thus it' s fairly complicated and it was built on the format utilized 3 or 4 years ago, but there have been a lot of changes, thus we have to recreate It Pollock explains that every single budget line item is in here for each program, not only salaries but all the benefits . For example the C &D educator is in the recycling budget but because what they' re doing pertains to C &D waste, they become part of the program for this . Wilson adds that you can also use this spread sheet to determine if you pay for equipment out of capital, operating or debt financing . Sassaman ask if you have the most problematical line items . Wilson states that the ones that are difficult are capital items and those associated with assumptions of new programs, i . e . the processing facility . We have to assume size throughput, level of automation, two stream v . single stream, do we have additional efficiency . How does the tonnage increase balance against efficiency and the new trucks that will be required ? How do you phase it in? Do you do it all in one year or phase it in over two years . Sassaman suggests using a limited sensitivity analysis . Wilson replies, we' ve thought about that but want to have the programs all thought through first before we begin the ' what if' scenarios . Tipton asks if white good and tire tax reimbursement revenues are shown there . Wilson explains that they are not associated with the C&D management program. They go with the MSW landfill and then switch to the transfer station . Some of the costs are ascribed due to the fact that we' re also managing the scrap metal from the C &D there . There will be a prof orma for a transfer station one, toxicity reduction program, administration, multifamily collection . Sassaman ask about the time frame . 7 Minutes Regular Meeting - Solid Waste Advisory Board November 8 , 2001 There are many levels of interaction with the other Departments such as whether public works will be considering universal rural curbside waste collection . Do we reduce or eliminate dropoff site collection if that happens . Wilson states December . Visser states that there must be a sound baseline of documented assumptions and then do the sensitivity analysis and come up with a range - - but be conservative if you ' re going to overstate costs by contrast don' t tell people that we ' re going to have $ 75 to $100 per year availability fee that might turnout to be $30 or $40 . Sassaman states that there are 2 sides to the whole issue — how much is it going to cost and the alternatives of coming up with the money . Vickers states we have to come up with the ballpark of the money we need . Sassaman replies that we ' re charged with the task of suggestions and recommendations . Visser states it is possible the SWAB may determine that the cost of meeting the goals is too great and they may recommend that the goals be reconsidered . Some of the Commissioners are concerned that when the 61 % goal was established it was not done with the type of analysis that the SW staff is doing right now, the detailed analysis of the costs . A possibility would be to look at X facility what increments of waste reduction does that achieve at what cost . SO, if we' re at 35 % now, how do we get the next two percent, then four percent . Sassaman, you want it in terms of increment per dollar . You dori t want to spend 50 % of your money to get 5 % more . Wilson states that when the plan was adopted there was a range of cost . That was well known, they were not pursuing the plan and goal in a vacuum . Those costs were prominently displayed in the reports . There are increments that can walk forward that are cost associated with, but they aren' t just additive . As you go forward, some of the options affect other programs . They can merge . We can assume a few percentage points increment but to make the 15 to 18 % jump, you' re going to run into processing issues . This has all bee addressed . In one way it' s simple . You' re going to move materials and you have certain choke points, we' re approaching it now . I could start collecting commercial recyclables tomorrow but how am I going to prepare 8 Minutes Regular Meeting - Solid Waste Advisory Board November 8 , 2001 and sort them . We can do the increments but at some point in the next 5 - 7 percent reduction range, you will hit the choke point . What gets you through that point will bump the cost up but will also bump the materials you can then recycle up also . The first way to do it is to price out the plan, then when we see what the cost is, we can say what if we don' t have a MRF, what can we do without it, what can we do to get 5 % and then we go through that process . Sassaman raises the concern about what will happen to remote landfills five to ten years in the future . Wilson agrees this is the most difficult thing of all (to predict the future of the landfill business ) . The system we' re moving to involves significant economic risk . There is an intellectual understanding of the risk but there is a large degree of uncertainty . In Virginia, there is surplus landfill capacity now but the New York waste may fill that up . If you have to send the stuff long distances, for example to Pennsylvania, the transportation cost dwarfs the landfill costs . Those counties that have built long term disposal capacity will be the envy of all counties . Some are even getting back into the business like Mecklenberg County . But once you' re out of the business, it' s almost impossible to get back in . Vickers discusses the analogy of the hazardous waste landfills being replaced by hazardous waste incinerators . Tipton ask what needs to happen to move forward . An intensive work session — charrette might help . Sassaman states that it was hoped that the consultant would be in a position to get us started to see the big picture . Vickers asks are we at the stage for a charette . The solid waste plan has not been interpreted into what it means financially . Jacobs states that maybe we could change the way to define 61 It could be frozen in 2002 . Pollock states that statutorily the base was set in 1991 -92, we could go back to the State and pick another base year . 9 Minutes Regular Meeting - Solid Waste Advisory Board November 8 , 2001 Jacobs states the State is tapped out in enforcement and support . It is a very benign system . We might say that we recommend 61 % as of the year the County took over Solid Waste operations . Visser states that 61 % is great but if it' s going to cost a billion dollars to do that we may not want to proceed Jacobs states we might want to think creatively about our definitions . Pollock states that based on this year' s calculation against 1991 -92 we are at a 36 % waste reduction . Arithmetically we are looking to cut 25 % off waste generation . That boils down to 431 lbs . per person . In another month we will know if this can be done . Visser states that the 61 % goal by 2006 is only the goal of the elected officials, staff and the citizens of Orange County . Another way of looking at it is keep 61 % but do it by 2011 . The Board of Commissioners has said we should be patting ourselves on the back for the accomplishments made . We are among the leaders of the state in per capita reduction . Let' s celebrate . If we get another one or two percent, that' s cause for celebration. The Commissioners are faced with practical impacts of what it cost to do that and balance that against all the other things like affordable housing . Jacobs states that no one wants to back away from being aggressive or a leader, but if it' s going to take hundreds of thousands of dollars to achieve 2 % , then we need to be creative so that we don' t kill ourselves over a self- imposed political decision . People are going to say " I can' t back down because then I won' t be pro-environmental' . Sassaman suggests that maybe it needs to be spent on source reduction instead of materials handling . Something came up in one of the subdivisions, we should start to consider threshold size of a sub- division at which point there would have to be mandatory recycling containers for the community as opposed to having to go to house-to - house . We should build in a central location if it' s more than twenty five houses . I could push that through the planning process . Does this group think it' s a good idea, will it save us any money ? Maybe as you come on line, it should be a requirement that you recycle . We could get the existing later . We' re losing ground because we' re not being aggressive . 10 Minutes Regular Meeting - Solid Waste Advisory Board November S , 2001 Wilson states that in Chapel Hill the Solid Waste staff is involved in the development review process . All commercial and multi-family establishments, if it is determined that they will generate enough recycling materials, are required to set aside space for the containers needed . All new developments are held to that standard for outdoor storage for . Jacobs states that is just in Chapel Hill and this needs to be in other municipalities too . There needs to be some type of an agreement with all the municipalities . Within our own jurisdiction there need to be standards . Maybe staff can write a memo . . . . about what they could require . and build it into the development review process in Orange County and make a proposal to Hillsborough and Carrboro about what they could require . Wilson states that all commercial or multifamily projects must have this before they are approved, but not residential, and that we should continue with the process we have started to see what the conclusions would be . Tipton notes you can make the space but it doesn' t mean they' ll use it . Meeting adjourned 9 pm Next meeting . December 13, 2001 Southern Human Service Center Room D 11 � I I I