Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSWAB minutes 120607 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board December 6, 2007 Approved February 7, 2008 Attendance : Jan Sassaman, Bonnie Norwood, Remus Smith, Al Vickers, Michelle Grunwald, Mike Nelson, BJ Tipton and Linda Bowerman Staff: Gayle Wilson, Blair Pollock, Paul Spire, Wanda McCain, Nicole Ard, Hary Howard and Rob Taylor Guest: Gary Carver, Tracy Kuhlman, Robert Campbell and Curtis Harper - all introduce themselves when asked . 1 . Adoption of Minutes from October 4 SWAB meeting Norwood moves to accept. Grunwald 2nd . Passes unanimously 2 . Board Member Comments Norwood states that you can tell a difference who is working on how clean the whole place looks, but particularly the shed . More brownie points for Vann . The road is nice and clean . The smell, that stuff is not masking very good . Smith states that the meeting last week was very informative . 3 . Solid Waste Management Planning - Interim State Report Pollock states that in October you all received and endorsed a resolution requesting the BOCC adopt the notion of providing an interim solid waste management plan to bring the county ' s three-year solid waste planning update into compliance with the state requirement. The original due date was June 30, 2006 . This past Monday, the Board adopted your recommendation to go ahead and permit the staff to prepare the interim solid waste management plan. The interim plan is a little different from the standard solid waste plan that we usually prepare, which is both descriptive of past activities and prescriptive in terms of what we look forward to doing in the next planning period . This particular interim plan will focus primarily on the descriptive aspect of what we ' ve done, not only in the three-year period of 2003 -2006 but also the other intervening eighteen months and highlight some of our accomplishments, for example the addition of mixed paper at residential and multifamily [locations] . The prospective part will do more than actually lay out what the plan is, it will describe the planning process which is rather deliberate and inclusive of all the various local governments, and explain why we are running behind on our plan and what we have been doing for the last eighteen months with the solid waste plan work group and you all, along with progress in planning in the commercial recycling plan and evaluation of the processing center . You all will see the draft once it is completed . Subsequent to that we will make a progress report to the BOCC, after which there will be a public meeting about the plan that we will host with the Board . The staff intends to accomplish the substantive 1 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board December 6, 2007 Approved February 7, 2008 work on that document in the next 60 to 90 days . You' ll see it after that work is done . Optimistically you' d see it at your March meeting. Vickers asks what does that do to the other plan that we' re working on with the task force, what will be the next due date with the State . Pollock replies June 2009 to stay on the statutory cycle . Two other comments I would like to make are that some of the commissioners ask why we are doing this . There are three things - we don ' t like to be out of compliance with our requirements from State statues, we have no NOVs for operations, and we' d like to keep our same status for the bureaucratic requirements as well . There is the potential that being out of compliance could affect some permitting that we might be looking at doing, and there is a State grant cycle that we sometimes seek money from, the State ' s Division of Pollution Prevention, and while we might be awarded a grant we would not be able to receive any funds until we came into compliance . 4 . Extending Landfill Capacity - Considering Ban or Collection Program Expansions Wilson states that at a previous Board of Commissioners meeting there was talk about transfer station siting and initiating a new siting process and Commissioner Nelson asked if there was a way to extend landfill capacity by considering banning some materials . I spoke with the county manager and we are preparing a report that will be expanded a little to include possible program expansions for adding new materials . Staff will look at a number of materials and access their potential for being banned and what that might get us . The preliminary conclusion is that some program modifications may give a little more result. Bans are somewhat tricky because you want to ban things that are easy to identify such as cardboard or tires as opposed to smaller items that may come in plastic bags that you can' t see into , and most facilities don t have the resources to do that. We' re going to look at other program expansions . Pollock states that you are the advisory board, so we welcome any advice from you on what path you think we might take, whether it' s a ban path or economic incentive/ disincentive, or just more recycling opportunities . Historically in our community since we ' ve started recycling in 1987, every time there has been an opportunity for recycling, people have jumped all over it. The addition of mixed paper is a good example . The mixed paper caused an 18 % jump in urban curbside recycling. The electronics program now recovers more per capita than any program in the southeast. There are two schools of thought. One is that in the waste stream now, still 20 % of what we throw out is newspapers , cans, bottles, magazines, and cardboard that we are already able to recycle . Do you offer more programs, better education and outreach, and ask people to bring more stuff forward ? Everything we do demands an effort and what are they [these residual materials] worth in landfill space savings ? 2 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board December 6, 2007 Approved February 7, 2008 Another component is as we ' ve done in the past with corrugated cardboard, wood and scrap metal, do we ban materials from coming into the landfill and set up an enforcement structure with penalties and additional scrutiny of the waste stream? We don t set up a ban without an economically viable market. The final leg of this, which remains unexplored, is do you provide more economic incentives to people to do the right thing other than just tipping fees ? Do you reward recycling? With that we ' ll open up the floor to you all for the kind of things you want to see added to programs or ways you think we might gain more landfill life . Wilson notes we don' t want to short circuit the planning process but there is urgency for saving landfill space . Nelson states that there isn' t much to add to what Gayle and Blair said . I ' ve always been a big proponent of getting whatever we can out of the waste stream. I have noticed that at Carr Mill mall or any other mall there is nowhere to recycle bottles or cans so the only thing to do with it is throw it away . I am not going to walk around with my Coke can all day . So there seems to be some opportunities or low-hanging fruit. Norwood states that at the Eubanks Road site, I ' ve heard on several occasions, people wanting a shredder for their sensitive documents . I wonder if there is a market for that. We would recover more mixed paper if there was one at one of the locations where you could come to shred your stuff. Wilson states that there hasn ' t been a consideration of a shredder at the convenience center . A more industrial type shredder would have some safety precautions . We have looked at assuming shredding responsibility for our government offices such as finance, personnel or social services . Most of all that paper gets shredded anyway . We have always had the conflict of when people bring things in at a drop- off site or convenience center [their] feeling confident when they put their stuff in there someone is not going to climb in and start riffling through it. Sassaman states that one approach to this would be to have some commercial entity that would be willing to come in once a month for that. Wilson states that that is a good idea. We can discuss that in the work group process and check with our consultant to see if other places have done that and how they ' ve gone about it. Norwood asks if there is a baler on-site . What do you bale aside from cardboard ? 3 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board December 6, 2007 Approved February 7, 2008 Pollock states that there is a baler for plastic bottles, one for steel cans and one that compacts IIardboard. = Comment []S1 ] : Need to fix - - - - - - - - - - - - - - formatting here on (margin) Norwood asks if the one (baler) for plastic bottles would be able to handle the other rigid plastics such as swimming pools . Wilson states that we would have to get another one for that. Grunwald states that I ' ve come across some figures that in this country we throw away 60 pounds of clothing per person on average . There are three major industrial rag companies rather close regionally . They buy by the ton and are starting to develop contracts with municipalities for this material and turning it into shop rags . They are buying mixed materials and there' s a huge market for unsorted stuff. Some other companies want it sorted . Wilson states that in our community there are a lot of outlets for reusable clothing. Staff has had this conversation and the convenience center of the future will accept those materials . The problem we have is there isn' t room at the centers . We have to modernize the centers and look at the way we separate or combine materials to make more space . Bowerman notes that there is someone who takes the unsold clothing and sells it. Norwood says Goodwill in Durham bales it and sends it out. Smith states that we need to do more of what we are doing. We run out of water, we have to save more, we are recycling some, but we need to do more; let' s get more people doing it. Vickers states that when this group started in 1999 the landfill was going to close in 2003 and it' s been extended and extended and extended, mainly through better programs and diverting more materials . What is the real limit? What is it that you think you can get? How far can we go with this landfill? Wilson states that the closer you get to the end the harder it is to extend . It' s harder to get big chunks now . We have extended it by more recycling, better operations and citizens' waste reduction. Vickers notes he couldn t recycle his shredded paper but was instructed that it can be . Taylor states we direct people with large amounts of shredded paper to the sites with open top dumpsters so they can easily empty their bags of paper . 4 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board December 6, 2007 Approved February 7, 2008 Vickers notes that cardboard is recycled at the curb elsewhere but not here yet. Wilson further discusses why cardboard is not required to be recycled in the residential sector as there is no program for collection Vickers further states to Blair that you did an analysis of what is still in our waste stream so you know what materials have the opportunity to be reduced . Where are the opportunities, especially with cardboard ? Pollock states that every five years we pick 60 loads of garbage proportionate to the amount disposed of [in each sector] . The last pick that we did in 2005 showed that by weight close to 3 % of the residential waste stream was still corrugated cardboard . By volume, cardboard is much less dense than a lot of other materials so what you are talking about tonnage wise translates to about 700 tons a year of material that is available in the residential waste stream. It' s gone down since our first waste sort in 1990 . If you look at food waste it is 20 % , but it is challenging to go after in the residential sector in particular . Bowerman asks do we know what the grocery stores do with the plastic bags they collect. Pollock states that that particular component of the film is very small compared to the big heavy frozen food packaging filth that they get. That is where most of their money comes from . The grocery bags just go right in the bale with that. We can sell it if we can get it properly sorted . Bowerman asks if margarine tubs - would we be able to add that. Taylor states that we are finding markets for injected molded plastics and some processors are starting to invite that material in with the traditional cans and bottles mix, yet they are not opening it up to all resin types . We have moved away from telling people that we want # 1 or # 2 plastics, to all bottles, which is a simple message . We have considered how to ask for those materials and what type of contamination would come along with it. Should we go back and ask for ' injection molded but only # 2 and #5, would that make people more crazy ? Wilson notes that we are cautious because we want to keep our materials salable and if we allow too much contamination it will be rejected and landfilled . Taylor notes that if we had our own processing capacity, we could accept more materials . Relying on other processors means we have to take them only what they accept. It' s possible to accept injection-molded tubs and cups only at drop off sites . 5 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board December 6, 2007 Approved February 7, 2008 Bowerman states that this was big years ago, there was a time when there was a big push to tell people not to take so much packaging into your house . Maybe we push that again. Another thought is trash compacting. The last thing is books, where do they go . Taylor states that paperback books can be put in with mixed paper . Hardback books need to have the binders and covers torn off and then recycled with mixed paper . The covers are trash . Wilson states that the use of compactors does not in the end produce a lot of compaction more than we do at the landfill . We can focus again on source reduction . Sassaman states that I agree with Remus that we should be doing more of what we are doing. We need to see why is it that some people just don' t recycle . In my new neighborhood there is no cardboard while in my old neighborhood, there was a lot of corrugated cardboard at the curb . What is the difference ? Why do we get aluminum cans at the landfill when everyone knows cans are recyclable ? Spire states that looking at the trash coming in, there are a lot of small haulers or private people that bring in huge bags of aluminum cans or bottles and throw them in the dumpster . From little communities, not really trailer parks . That is a stream of people there that is not being reached through education. We try to get them pulled out [at the convenience centers] but you mostly have to be there to get it. It' s everybody' s . It' s all through the trucks . Tipton asks if there are any specific large generators that you' re seeing . a furniture manufacturer, a mattress manufacturer ? I 'm for holding the municipalities to the same standard as the commercial for cardboard but making cardboard recyclable at the curb, I' m all for the commingled for the restaurants and businesses and adding more food waste to the programs . Make it easier, but if there is an industry in the county that has a waste stream that someone could go in and do a waste assessment and then divert that waste stream. Spire states that that is done using our regulated recycle materials ordinance . Wilson says that one response to enforcement is that haulers do decide to go elsewhere . We do identify repeat offenders and follow them back. There are other problems, for example that for a rolloff from a retail store that is filled with construction waste like a Lowes or Home Depot, the contents must go in a lined landfill regardless of contents . Howard states that I don ' t speak for the Town of Chapel Hill . The Town Council is committed to a PAYT option. Residential trash in Chapel Hill has dropped 5 . 6 % in 6 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board December 6, 2007 Approved February 7, 2008 one year . The reason for that is mixed paper at the curb and continuing education. I have the smallest [curbside rollcart] waste container in the State at 68 gallons . Then you get to the question of the stuff that is still out there . Are there plastic bottles, aluminum cans and other stuff still in the waste stream that can be recycled . The answer is ' yes' . We' ve done a pretty good job educating but the population turns over a lot. The curbside cardboard would be nice for the residential portion. If you work through the concept of PAYT there has to be a reason why you want to do it. One is to recapture the cost of doing business . That opens up conversations about if it' s a regressive tax or not. Another is to reduce the solid waste going into the landfill. That is a key good reason to do it. The residential tonnage was 8,700 or 8,800 tons a year when the town was a lot smaller in 1987 when recycling started . Sassaman opens comments to the guests . Campbell states that in observing in and around Chapel Hill as I clean buildings, the compactor behind the courthouse in downtown Chapel Hill on a given weekend there are beer bottles, aluminum cans, tin cans and even wood that end up in the compactor . If you go down around Big Frat court or Little Frat court, the sororities on Pittsboro Road and even down to Lenoir dining hall, there are aluminum cans and metal cans in those compactors . Education is a good thing to have if you educate the ones that are actually using those sites . Where we fall short is where we allow those types of facilities to police themselves . If there were someone from solid waste that went around to these sites and was aware of what was going on and target the ones that are using those sites . I know the law is going to change for those that have a liquor license but there are some that use those sites where they have gone and cleaned up buildings and don' t have access to the private facility to get rid of their waste; they use those because the compactor behind the courthouse doesn' t stay locked . It' s broken. At Carrboro Plaza on the weekend you see private pickup trucks use that site to drop off waste including recyclables in the waste . This stuff has to be coming into the landfill. How do you separate it when they are doing it on a regular basis ? We are talking about a recycling program that will expand the life of the landfill, my understanding is that we set a goal of that we would close the landfill at a certain time . I understand there is a need for recycling, I understand there is a need for solid waste but at the same time there is not a need for Eubanks Road neighborhood to be subjected to solid waste and facilities . If you are more stringent to those that use these facilities that have the resources, that have their own compactors how are you going to be able control this . I still say that the University is one of the largest producers of waste but they are not on a real mandatory recycling program . There are a lot of their aluminum cans that end up in these containers . Even the waste from the hospitals and Lenoir Dining Hall and food service -- they have a lot of food waste, cans, paper products in all going into the same bin. If we want the residents to be more concerned 7 Minutes been Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board December 6, 2007 Approved February 7, 2008 about recycling when are we going to get the University and these large facilities involved in mandatory recycling . It' s not for the resident to do 100 % recycling. It is time to bring everybody on board and do a massive educational program that will produce recycling for all of Orange County . Carver states that I agree with Reverend Campbell, I am not in favor of extending the landfill . The sooner that sucker closes, the better I like it. When I first started going to landfill meetings Mr . Olive use to get up at most meetings and talk . He used to say, living in Chapel Hill, we ought to be able to come to good conclusions . You have the University, Duke, and a highly intelligent population, surely this community can come to and solve a problem. That hasn' t really happened up to this point . 5 . Solid Waste Management Plan Work Group Recommendations and Next Step Pollock states that at last week ' s solid waste plan work group meeting, a couple of developments took place that we think are important. One was that staff and our technical consultant, RRSI, came up with a short-term plan to commingle all recyclable cans and bottles and develop the capacity to ship them to a private merchant processing facility. The work group endorsed that interim step . The consequences of the endorsement are that we have significant amount of work to do to begin to prepare that. Our consultant has provided us with a doable but ambitious timetable to make the kind of improvements and changes at the recycling area at the existing facility on Eubanks Road . We need to do that. It also has the benefit to us of freeing up significant amount of labor and equipment time from our existing staff to enable us to take on some short-term improvements and enhancements to the collections program. There are some budgetary implications associated with this . We will address that in greater detail in next year' s budget but we think we can accomplish all the physical improvements to the site and staff shifting under our current structure . There are a couple of important outcomes of this . One is that it is pretty clear at the current time with our current volume of materials that we don' t need to consider in the short run building our own materials recovery facility . One of the corollaries to considering this facility at the Eubanks Road site now is that the bigger decision of where, when, and if, we build a materials recovery facility can be put aside . So the requirements for capital, siting etc . can be put aside for now . It is important to consider processing once we have a larger volume, but we don t have to make that decision now . The other thing is that it gives us a trial run with going to the merchant facilities in a more systematic manner with a larger volume of materials . We had asked the consultant to do a market test of what the different private facilities might offer us versus what it might look like if we were to build our own facility . In the short to 8 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board December 6, 2007 Approved February 7, 2008 medium term (one to five years) it looked fairly attractive to ship out recyclable materials . This will tell us what will happen in the market place and we can work that out on a smaller scale before we expand our programs . Sassaman asks to be refreshed on what you are talking about in infrastructure and outlay in terms of money and effort. Pollock re-presents the work of the consultant and makes a preliminary drawing of the coverall area, slightly expanded area . We can reduce truck trips now conducted in 40 cubic yard containers by two- and-a-half times into 110-yard trailers . We lose some revenue from not selling source separated baled materials against the savings in labor and truck time from more efficient loading and transport in our existing building . We would build nothing new except a concrete wall inside the existing operations area . Vickers states that at the work group meeting it was reported that there would be a net savings of $254, 000 + and would loose $154, 000 so a net about $100, 000 is that still a pretty decent projection? Pollock states that we feel pretty confident about the numbers . When you project what kind of savings and losses you ' ll have do it based on current operations . There may be greater revenue from mixed cans and bottles . The fuel savings may increase as fuel prices rise and the labor savings are likely to be put back into new programs . Tipton notes that commingling may induce more recycling and ease of process . Kuhlman asks now that you will be making it so that the recycling will be shipped in larger trucks which will be coming out to Eubanks Rd . , what are the plans for accommodating the trucks that are coming out from the north side? Wilson replies that they are talking about one a day . There won' t be any changes for that. Spire states that there will be less traffic on the road because instead of having a lot of small trucks on the road there will only be one big truck. Campbell asks where does the University fit in with your mandatory recycling. Where do they fit in in the scheme of reducing a large volume of waste through recycling? Wilson replies that the University has its own comprehensive recycling program and does an excellent job of recycling. It delivers its waste to the Orange County landfill and subjects it to the same mandatory recycling enforcement as everyone else . They also have a fairly significant oversight of their construction projects and construction 9 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board December 6, 2007 Approved February 7, 2008 waste that they generate . They also enforce the County ' s Regulated Recycle Material Ordinance on the contractors' projects as well . Tipton states that there is a 48 % recycling rate at UNC right now . Campbell asks how it is scrutinized especially with closed containers . I have pictures of containers at the University that have tires and furniture in them . It happens at the beginning and end of the semester . Is there someone that observes these containers when they come into the landfill to make sure the furniture is pulled out? Tipton states that at student move in and move out we place special containers that we staff especially for student moving . The landfill has two landfills — one for municipal solid waste and the other for construction and demolition waste . We get in the containers and when we see tires we pull them out. If you have site that you know of call my office and we will take care of it. Broken furniture is to be disposed of, so some containers may have furniture in them . 6 . Waste Transfer Station Siting Process Wilson states that the BOCC are in the process of interviewing firms / consultants to conduct a siting process . They will in the next few days make a decision and hopefully within a few days after that they can meet with the consultant and discuss what kind of process they are going to follow and start talking about what the various siting criteria might be . It will be after the first of the year before the siting process gets underway . The Board has stated that they would like the process to be completed in no more than a year . They have also clearly stated that there will be ample opportunity for public input and observation of the process . There will not be a citizens committee . The Board will personally oversee the process . The details of the process and the criteria have not been discussed and can' t be until the consultants are on board . Tipton asks who will chair the search . Wilson replies the chair of the County Commissioners, who is Barry Jacobs . Carver asks why would it take a year . In the past whether it' s been landfill searches or transfer station site searches, it' s been pretty secretive in that the community does not know what sites are under consideration. Wilson states that it takes a year because it is a fairly complicated process if you do it in a systematic way . There are a number of criteria . You have to look over the entire geographic area of the county . There are various screening schemes you go through based on criteria . I cari t imagine a systematic county-wide search in three to four months . You periodically come back to the committee to show them the process so 10 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board December 6, 2007 Approved February 7, 2008 far and they make mid-stream adjustments or go back and re-dos . You plan for significant public input. Carver replies I understand the bureaucracy however supposedly this process had already been done . Supposedly, we looked at the county, we looked at various sites previously before we came to Eubanks Road, so why are we starting from scratch? Using GIS and other things you have a starting point. Sassaman states that you are asking the wrong body that question. We no longer are in the process . We haven' t been asked anything [or for further opinion by the BOCC] . Carver states that you are still in a position to do some advising. It is to the consultant' s advantage to stretch it out. He is not interested in doing it fast and efficient. Nelson states that this can ' t be stretched out. We are about to run out of landfill space . Siting a transfer station, going through the permitting process , State and local, is going to take a long time, so this cant be stretched out for a long period . The reason that this process is being opened up is because we want things to be transparent, we want criteria that are clear . I understand your anger -- we are just trying to do it better this time, do it right this time and it is going to take a little while . Carver states that it is good that it is opened up . That was a good decision. I think it is the right way to go but I don' t think you have to start from scratch. I think a consultant does stretch out the time unnecessarily . Wilson states that we are starting at zero because that' s the intention; we don' t want to be influenced by any of the things that happened before . The sites that were looked at before were not generated by a systematic, comprehensive, county-wide process . The Board would get more criticism if they didn' t go back to zero . We are going to start from scratch. Carver states that if you don' t want to end up at the same point, the simple solution is to say up front Eubanks Road is off the list. That makes it a valid search. Sassaman states that the SWAB does not have a say in this particular issue at this point in time . The BOCC are the ones who ' ve said " We will make the decision . " If you want to be heard by someone that can help you, you need to talk to them. We have said our piece and we're done with it. i Carver states that maybe I misunderstood that the last go around that this advisory board made a recommendation to the county commissioners that the Eubanks Road site was the proper site . 11 Minutes Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board December 6, 2007 Approved February 7, 2008 Sassaman states that what we were asked was can the waste transfer station be accommodated on that site . The political decision belongs to the political body . Campbell states that we' ve been in the position before . The process did not start from zero if Eubanks site is still on the table . I know that it is not off the table, so why hold a carrot in front of a donkey if he is pulling a cart and there is food on the left and right. As long as that carrot is in front of him he is going to proceed that way . You can hire the greatest consultant in the world and say you are starting here and Eubanks is still on the table what makes you think they will do an efficient job . That is why I say some citizens should be part of the process because citizens in this county were shafted . There is systematic institutionalized racism in the process of the government process . Until the criteria for the search is changed we will come back to the same circle . It is time for the circle to be broken. It is time to uncircle the covered wagon of politics and let' s look at the social impact that your decisions are making. You can recommend that Eubanks Road site be taken off and citizens be a part of the process when comes to deciding where the site will be . If we do like they did in Greensboro, there is not a home within two miles of that transfer station. Technically doesn' t it take ten acres for a transfer station? When you were going to put it on Eubanks Rd . you have less than ten working acres if you put a buffer around it. You would have to move some of the already buried solid waste . Let' s be honest with the people, the residents of Orange County . Stop treading upon the intelligence of the people and let' s do the right thing. Do we have a social conscience ? Or are we trying to be politically correct? Let' s change the process . Let the little people be a part of the abundance of life rather than those being impacted by the decision of a few politicians . Sassaman states that you make a good point, but again you are making it to the wrong people . You need to make it to the Board of Commissioners, the people who make the decisions . If someone on this board wishes to bring up a resolution or motion at the next meeting there is an opportunity for that as at any meeting and we will entertain it. It is not on the agenda and at this point part of what we need to discuss or what we have as a charge to discuss . 7. Programs/Services Updates Solid Waste Operations Center Wilson states that we are in the final stages of executing a building contract with the contractor and hope to break ground immediately after the holidays . Landfill Leachate Sezver Project Wilson states that this is in the attorney' s hands [and we are] working trying to complete some easements . It' s not clear when the issue will be resolved . 12 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board December 6, 2007 Approved February 7, 2008 Comprehensive Plan Pollock states that this is in the hands of the planning staff. Their consultant has asked for a lot of information and they will be bringing that back in February . I will have a more complete update for you at the January meeting. Landfill Gas Recovery Wilson states that was on the December 3rd BOCC meeting, the manager presented some options for the Board to consider how to proceed . There was a request that the manager speak with a representative from the University who wishes us to negotiate exclusively with them and not to pursue and RFP process . The manager has a meeting the University on Monday and we will discuss the item again with the Commissioners again on Tuesday to get directions on how to proceed . 8 . Other None Smith moves to adjourn . Adjourn 9 : 10 pm Next meeting : January 3, 2008 Government Services, Hillsborough 13