Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSWAB minutes 090309 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board September 3, 2009 Approved November 5, 2009 Attendance : Jan Sassaman, Linda Bowerman, Al Vickers, Remus Smith, Doug Guild, Steve Yuhasz, and BJ Tipton Staff: Blair Pollock, Paul Spire, Rob Taylor, Terry Thomas, Hary Howard, and Wanda McCain 1 . Opening and Welcome Sassaman states that Bonnie Norwood is ill and won ' t be here tonight. There is a card here for her for you all to sign if you ' d like . Please get it back to me by the end of the meeting and I will get it mailed tomorrow . Tonight we have a major item of business to deal with, which is to restart the process of the solid waste management plan. We hope to kick off the work group next month . We will need to fill one of the elected official ' s positions . As most of you know, Bill Strom, Chapel Hill Councilman, has resigned and hopefully Chapel Hill will fill that slot. Tonight Blair will be leading us through the process of identifying and giving us some preliminary talking points and decision points we need to make . Then we will have a quick report on the transfer station site search. 2 . Adoption of Minutes from August 6 SWAB meeting Smith moves to accept. Vickers 2nd . Passes unanimously 3 . Solid Waste Management Plan Decision Points and Strategy for Unincorporated Area Waste Management Pollock states that as we got ready to reengage in the solid waste plan it became clear that trying to serve the whole ' meal' , all the decisions at once, was an overwhelming task . Prior to going forward with the whole menu we have made some staff-level decisions that might be more fruitful to convene the Solid Waste Advisory Board to focus on each course at a time . The first course is the work in the unincorporated areas . Part of the reason that it has come to the fore is the issue around the closure of the Bradshaw Quarry convenience center and the cut back of hours due to our budgetary constraints . So we bundled the issues related to the unincorporated areas . In no particular order with respect to priority, because they all intermesh, they are -- the decision to provide franchise waste collection service for predominately residential waste, secondarily to provide franchise collection for nonresidential/ business waste . The sub-choices are to either provide as part of the residential franchise, as a stand-alone, or coupled to some other animal such as the Hillsborough nonresidential franchise is one that came up . The next two decision sets are related to the convenience center operations -- how to finance them and should we work with the current set of convenience centers, assuming that Bradshaw is permanently closed . A decision has to be made for geographic equity around the county . If you divide the county into four quadrants, Eubanks would be the center for the southeast quadrant, Walnut Grove is for the 1 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board September 3, 2009 Approved November 5, 2009 northeast quadrant, High Rock is for the northwest quadrant, and Ferguson is for the southwest quadrant. When you go into the northeast and southwest they are kind of skewed relative to where they might be if they were going to be equi- distance to where everyone is [lives] . Geographic equity would cause consideration of moving Walnut Grove to a new site maybe at a [planned County] park at Hwy57/ Mincey Rd / Schely area [on County-owned property] . In particular, where the transfer station would be located out on Hwy 54 west, close the Ferguson site and open a modernized convenience center at the transfer station. The other part of the convenience center set of decision-making relates most specifically to how to operate them, because to continue to solely operate them using general fund money, with a little of enterprise money because of the recycling, has reached its constraints . What we are asking you to consider in essence is -- should we charge for any or all items brought to the convenience centers ? The final item is how to proceed to expanding rural curbside recycling programs . A set of options could be to continue as we have done, to move forward during this fiscal year to provide services in the southwest quadrant of the county to create some compensatory service for people that are losing the Bradshaw Quarry site, thirdly to gather our sources and doing a full implementation the balance of the 1 / 3rd [of rural residents] that don' t have rural curbside in probably a two year time frame . The way the memo is laid out was to address the franchise issue first. There was quite a bit of work around this with Olver, our consultants . There were three reports, only ided - one related to the implementing of rural residential two which were prov franchising and the other analyzing the rural commercial franchise . I am not sure if it is fruitful for me to go on at this point or whether we should stop and ask if you want to consider the franchise item first. Wilson states that it may be easier to do them one at a time . Pollock states that starting with franchising the key decision is franchise or no franchise and all the decisions stem from that. Should it be mandatory or not? How many districts should we have ? There are also other subsidiary decisions . Is the franchise PAYT ? Should we get different size carts [for PAYT] ? How do we deal with the elimination of small haulers? The Olver report goes through a rigorous economic and environmental analysis and with a voluntary franchise, the economics to the homeowner are borderline [they are not much better with a franchise than the current open competition] . The average fee from the current private haulers equals that of our projected franchise cost per household in a franchisee provided roll cart. 2 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board September 3, 2009 Approved November 5, 2009 A couple of points regarding franchise activity : if we don' t some how take into consideration the fact that disposal .at the convenience centers is perceived as ' free ' for all, the solid waste, the economic advantages of franchising decrease, as people don' t account for their costs of self-hauling . On the other side of the coin the notion of mandatory franchising, for cultural reasons as much as anything else, despite the clear economic advantages it is not something we want to push at the staff level or advocate at this point. That is up to you all . Smith asks are we in a position to have to reinvent the wheel . What are other counties doing? Can we go by their experience ? Pollock states that there are a number of counties in NC that have franchised waste collection services in the unincorporated areas for some years . The county that we have looked to most frequently is Catawba County . They have an exclusive franchise for ten years with one hauler for residential, commercial and construction waste . It is voluntary but exclusive . The residents that don' t use it have to use the convenience centers where they charge $1 / bag . The commercial would have to self haul to the landfill . Two years ago when we did the data collection they had about a 40 % participation rate . At the other end of the spectrum, Craven County has six haulers with very tiny districts . There is a lot of disposal outside the system . Their solid waste manager admitted to a lot of illegal dumping and burning from people trying to get away from the PAYT and franchise . Smith asks in Catawba County what is their per ton cost according to our cost now - for the individual cost for at home pickup . Pollock states that I didn' t get an update this year but it was an oddly incentivized arrangement. It was like $15 per month if you subscribe to the recycling service and $20 if you did not accept recycling . Their rationale was that it cost the hauler more to landfill the waste that got recycled, so a program with recycling should cost less . Sassaman asks typically who sets the fee . Pollock replies there is usually a biding process and then the county selects the lowest bidder that is qualified . Wilson states that the BOCC would approve the rates and make the award . Vickers states that in the discussions of the last work group meeting we went through most of the franchising operations . I think we got down to the point where the issues were one franchise to cover the county or was it sensible to do multiple because of 3 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board September 3, 2009 Approved November 5, 2009 geographical problems of distributions . Some areas are denser and others less dense that might make more than one franchise make sense . Pollock states that the Olver report recommends a maximum of three districts with one franchisee getting awarded to no more than two . A competitive bidder could get them all . Vickers states that aren' t there some parts of the county where no services are provided because it is too remote ? Pollock replies that is correct. One of the advantages to franchising is to obligate the franchisee to provide service . Speaking to the Bradshaw Quarry area issue those people who are now stating that no one will come out and serve them, the franchisee would be obligated to provide service under the conditions of the contract. Yuhasz states that to understand when you say ' mandatory' that means that every household in the county would be required to take this service ? Pollock replies that is one way to look at mandatory . A ` soft' mandatory is the model which eliminates other options except going to the landfill . In other words the convenience centers might be maintained, but they would only accept things other than MSW or eliminate them [SWCCs] completely and have only the franchise and self -haul . The way mandatory was analyzed by Olver was that everyone would have it and everyone would pay . Yuhasz asks if the payment would go directly to the solid waste collector in that situation. Pollock states that the report, which hasn' t been endorsed, indicates that it might be to our advantage to act as the fiscal agent, collect the fees and administer the program . But more typically, the franchisee collects the money . Sassaman states that on the flip side is it correct that the franchisee would be required to collect from all households in the area in which it has the operating permit . Pollock replies in a voluntary situation yes . In a mandatory it is more likely to go either way, because it could be incorporated into the tax structure or other ways of collecting . Sassaman clarifies that he is asking if the franchisee would be able to determine if there are certain households he would not collect waste from due to access issues . 4 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board September 3, 2009 Approved November 5, 2009 Wilson states that there would have to be service standard based on driveway capabilities and access to turn around areas . We would be fairly demanding if we got to that point. Pollock notes that there can be additional fees levied for additional services to less accessible areas that demand special services . Yuhasz asks what do we spend per household on manning the convenience centers now . Thomas - inaudible Vickers states that the number may be in the Olver report. Pollock states that one simple way to look at the problem with a broad brush is to divide the Sanitation budget by the approximate 21 , 000 households in the unincorporated area . Wilson states that in figuring out the basis for a flat fee, should it be just the the unincorporated area households that we divide by or all the households in the County, because [currently] all the households contribute for the payment of the SWCC operations through their county taxes, while it' s mostly unincorporated [area] households that use the SWCCs . Pollock states that when we talk about the convenience centers one thing that could be brought back up is the notion of a flat per household fee for the unincorporated areas . Sassaman asks Blair to summarize Statue 160A . 327 about the issue of how displacing existing waste collectors might affect us in Orange County . Wilson states that the law requires a minimum of 15 months notice to all private haulers that provide that service within the jurisdiction of the considered franchising . It has several notice requirements prior to making the decision by the governing board so that the potentially private haulers can have an opportunity to come to meetings, hear the debate [and] , discussions and offer their own comments . Once a decision is made to implement, in lieu of waiting 15 months to implement the franchise system, there is an alternative of paying each private hauler 15 months worth of gross income for the customers they have at the time of the adoption of the franchise . Sassaman asks what is our situation with regards to private haulers that need to be notified ? 5 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board September 3, 2009 Approved November 5, 2009 . Wilson states that the process would be to obtain the names and address and notify all the haulers that might be affected to tell them that the BOCC is about to begin discussions on considering a decision to franchise waste collection in the unincorporated areas . There are two or three different kinds of notification to take place . There are time frames by which notification must be given. Once the notification is given, the Board proceeds with their deliberations . In the end, if they decide to implement a franchise, then they have to decide to proceed with the waiting period or with the compensation option. Tipton asks if there is any plan for focus groups to include stakeholders to get their thoughts? Pollock states that that has been discussed by staff. There are two ways of contemplating bringing the public into the solid waste plan process . One is an issue at a time . The other way is once you all and the work group have had a chance to address the issues and put together a reasonable , cohesive approach to have people come in and look at the entire thing to give their opinions on some or all of the plan . The difficult part with going with a piece at a time is that we ' ve already been at this four years and it could take another four years to get consensus . Getting a cohesive plan out might be a better approach . Sassaman states that it has been on the table all along that once there was a draft plan it would go out for public comment. There may be some issues that need to have focus groups . That would be a topic for the work group as a whole . Tipton states that in this case we are talking about the franchise for the county . Sassaman says, yes for the unincorporated areas, both residential and commercial . Vickers adds that Olver did look at options that included residential and commercial . Pollock states that the thing that was neglected at the beginning was to get a clear message from the Advisory Board, so that when the work group convenes hopefully next month that you all could be the leaders with the level of discussion you have had about it and come with some concrete ideas or opinions to the table . Then the work group would be carrying the recommendation to the Commissioners . Sassaman asks have you received what you want from us to move on to the next item . Pollock replies no . I was hoping to get a stronger feel if you have a " yea / nay " about it. 6 Minutes Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board September 3, 2009 Approved November 5, 2009 Sassaman states that personally there should be some franchise system or some kind of system that makes sure that everyone who wants their solid waste collected has the available service . I struggle with if it should be voluntary or mandatory . I would slightly lean towards mandatory for the flow control, issues of efficiency, carbon foot print etc . Vickers states that the mandatory or non-mandatory function will probably be a BOCC issue . Sassaman states that that may not be the case, maybe regarding the county, but the Towns don' t really care ( about rural area franchise) . The whole process on this plan has been to incorporate and involve the Towns' elected officials this time . Vickers states that my feelings on mandatory and non-mandatory is that you prefer people to have as much choice as possible but the reality is in the sparse areas it may need to mandatory to be practical to work . If it becomes where participation is necessary for most of the population to be viable, you are stuck whether it is mandatory or not. Sassaman states that voluntary would cost more for the individual than a mandatory . If a hauler has to go down a one mile gravel road with ten homes, it would be better to get all ten homes for efficiency rather than to be forced to get one that volunteered for the service . Wilson states that with a franchise, PAYT can be used; by nature it is a PAYT subscription . There could be different size carts with different fees . There could be weekly or bi-weekly options . There could be a small menu of services to subscribe to within that franchise . Smith states that personally, voluntary would be better for several reasons . For instance I won ' t fill up my garbage can once a month . I don' t have that much garbage . There are a lot of people in Orange County like me - single, living by themselves, elderly, that have friends that will take it to the convenience centers, etc . - I think it should not be mandatory for that reason. I also think it will cost the individual more . Tipton states that I thought this had been discussed and that it was an issue we ' ve moved past that there are so many opinions about franchising about whether you would use it or not use it, etc . I understand your thinking of wanting to take a full package out, but I still think that if you are going to keep thinking about this topic, it would be good to get a handful of rural residents and ask them what they think . Sassaman asks would it make sense to bring that up as an agenda item at the next work group meeting . 7 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board September 3, 2009 Approved November 5, 2009 Pollock replies yes . Vickers states that to BJ ' s point the discussions we had on the franchising always got tied into convenience centers or the fees . That will be another thing that is important to the rural residents . It has to be clear when discussing franchising because it is also discusses changes of how the convenience centers are operated . Wilson states that maybe it could be discussed at the work group meeting to get some guidance . Maybe a series of forums could be set up around the county to solicit some input. One trick with that is giving the people enough information so they know what is being considered and talked about to clearly direct and focus their comments . Guild states that the informational idea is great and would need to be done before having meetings . From a political standpoint it would not be a good time to impose another fee after a tax increase . Wilson notes that this would not be implemented for two to three years . Vickers states that the discussion should be limited to two or three items like if there is mandatory recycling, you can keep the convenience centers without fees . If you do voluntary it almost demands charging fees at the convenience centers . Yuhasz states that it is not clear on exactly what the impetus is to provide the rural collection service is if it is not tied to the convenience centers . It seems that to discuss franchising waste collection in the unincorporated parts of the county we necessarily have to include the projections on the convenience centers because it affects the kind of decisions made on voluntary or mandatory . What is the thinking for the future of the convenience centers, because that would to some degree drive the discussion on franchising collection i incororate n the unincorporated parts of the county ? Pollock states that all seem to be in agreement on that. The memo states that the decisions are tightly intertwined . One of the things that the RRS analysis of the drop - off and convenience centers did was show some different scenarios where you begin to charge fees and wean yourself from the general fund, if that is an important way to go . Some people think a user-pay system is more equitable than a tax based system . What is the fairest system is somewhat philosophical. Another thing that didn' t come out in this round of discussion but it has been clear previously was most of the privately hauled waste now goes elsewhere . In my recent polling of the eleven waste haulers in the county, several of them don t come to the Orange County landfill . We are losing a fair amount of waste that would be critical to help support our operation now and in the future . The other thing is if the county has 8 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board September 3 , 2009 Approved November 5, 2009 an ongoing concern about reducing its carbon footprint having a single hauler is far more efficient and some data in the Olver report show this . Further why have 433 , 000 trips to the convenience centers when a more efficient franchise might halve that? The corollary item to franchising for residential waste collection is how to provide collection for business and unincorporated, non-residential, [and] other kinds of entities . There are a few ways to go about it. One is to continue as it is now, laissez faire . The analysis by Olver showed there was economic advantage for those who get private collection against a franchise because of a lack of density of businesses . Another way to attack that problem is to attach as many businesses as possible to a rural residential franchise . Another way is to assume every franchisee is responsible for all of the waste in that area regardless of its origin . As a corollary issue, if we are charging at the convenience centers, is there any need to keep the business out or if you are there paying for the use of the convenience centers does that become an option [to let businesses in? ] . Again the same set of issues comes up - does it make sense from a flow-control perspective, where it clearly doesn' t make sense economically [to individual businesses] , to have a stand-alone franchise . In the past we also examined the notion of a franchise partnership , in particular with Hillsborough, but conceivably it could also be with Carrboro or Chapel Hill . Wilson states that some of the rural business also have difficulty getting service and are charged a higher rate . it is to combine the small rural business to be put on the curbside One way to do program with a couple of bins or carts and be picked up in a residential manner instead of requiring every business, regardless of size, to have a dumpster . Given the report , the conclusions and what we know about the county it doesn' t seem to make sense to have a stand-alone commercial franchise other than guaranteeing everybody they could find someone to service them . Sassaman asks what do small business out in the county do now . Tipton replies they have to contract. Wilson states that they can haul to the landfill or contract. Pollock states that the next thing is decision three about convenience centers . We tried to break out the two decisions for the convenience centers, one related to a set of operational and financial decisions and the second to a set of decisions related to geographic equity, where future centers might be located . 9 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board September 3 , 2009 Approved November 5, 2009 In November the Work Group considered financing of the convenience centers . There was interest in financing bulky items and other non-bagged wastes with a fee . The RRS report showed how we could finance the whole system with fees . Gaston County uses a punchcard system for bagged waste and bulky wastes . It is challenging to handle a punchcard type system on very busy times at the convenience centers . Our way of handling bulky items now is not efficient. We may get fewer items if we charge, as free goods are ' abused' more . We could continue to do the tax base and add some fees . We are reaching a point where taxes alone cannot finance the SWCCs . We could also look at the model that says every household in the unincorporated area could be levied a flat fee as a condition of using the facility and everyone else could buy in that wanted to use the facility as they do in Chatham and Durham . Sassaman asks for a review of how they are funded now . Pollock states that using a round number over 90 % of the funding for the convenience center operation, which is $1 . 8 million, is from the general fund . This means that every private property owner, regardless of jurisdiction or type, pays for it, but non- residential entities are excluded from using it [SWCCs] and residential in the urban area have garbage service they pay for with their Town taxes . The other less than 10 % [of funding for operating SWCCs] is because we have recycling services there that are covered through the portion of the 3 -R fee . Sassaman asks what we are talking about in terms in incremental costs if it came from taxes . Is there a significant increase ? Wilson states that if you are talking about how much more given improving the sites added to what we are already paying I' m not sure . The modernization cost to separate service vehicles from the citizen/ customers, to have more concrete so the sites are easier to clean, so they are arranged to add additional recycling and waste reduction services / programs to eliminate the front loading dumpsters, and switch to compactor and pre crushers for bulky items, per site it would be approximately $ 7500, 000 - $800, 000 range multiplied by four sites . There will not be that much cash to do it so most of that would be debt financed . The actual finance payment would be more in the range of $300, 000 - $400, 000 / year . What makes it complicated is in order to not make the sites quite so large and have so much capacity is one of the reasons we are talking about a franchise to try and shift some of the massive quantity of users from convenience centers to curbside so they only come [to SWCCs] occasionally . It is not a significant amount if combined with ity to reduce the intensity of the use . some curbside opportun Sassaman states that I would hate to see any disincentive for recycling and would like to see all the incentives for recycling and disincentivize throwing stuff away . 10 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board September 3, 2009 Approved November 5, 2009 Wilson states that any vision that staff might have on this regard would be the convenience centers primary use would shift to a primary use of recycling and a secondary use for waste collection for those [who] for whatever reason need to use the SWCCs for waste . Smith asks if there is much dumping at the unmanned sites such as the one behind Home Depot in Hillsborough. Taylor states that there is a significant amount of illegal dumping at the unstaffed 24 hour / day recycling sites . They are cleaned five days a week . It is basically a 20 / hr week job to visit all the sites . The sites are treated fairly well by the citizens, but there are bulky goods left there and residential garbage in bags also . Pollock states that we have already discussed the decision item regarding modernization and redistribution of the convenience centers . This is an interesting and interactive issue . Looking at the map of the Monday night BOCC agenda item, you can see the distribution possible . We could invest in the centers that we know will stay around like Eubanks Rd . and High Rock Rd . to improve their function and make them safer for the public . In the northeast there has been a demand for collection of hazardous waste . We bump up against the fiscal constraint. How will the services and changes be paid for - a fee, a tax, or do nothing? Do you all think it is a useful thing to modernize the centers in the ways described ity ? Things are bad now but they could be and how important is geographic equ better . We own 2 1/2 sites now and the others we have good long-terms leases . We own property at a future park out [on] Schely Rd . We could consolidate Ferguson and Bradshaw into a new site possibly on Hwy 54 . Yuhasz states that looking at the basic numbers given tonight, which is there are roughly 20, 000 families in the unincorporated part of the county . It is roughly costing $2 million a year to keep the centers open which work out to be about $100 / family / year to handle their solid waste . I understand that it doesn' t account for the transportation cost from their home to the centers . With franchising it would roughly be $400 / family / year . I am not sure that most people in the county are going to see the benefit in paying that extra $300 / year . I need a reason for us to go forward doing this . That is what I am having a hard time with. I understand we want to make improvements to the centers but are they necessary improvements . I ' d like to know what the external reasons are for looking at the way the centers are operated so that I can factor that into the decision making process . Pollock states that with regards to franchising, using the Olver report numbers of $21 . 40 times twelve come out to a little less than $400 [more like $258] . The point is 11 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board September 3 , 2009 Approved November 5, 2009 well taken. We are pretty much at the limit of what the centers can do especiallys we reduce the hours . As the rural population grows and more houses come into being it will be difficult to handle much more material there . The other issues are around flow control of the waste we don' t capture now and the idea that [we want to] to make it easier and safer for people [to manage their waste] . Sassaman states that I am struggling with understanding all the issues and know upon what basis to make my own judgment. It seems that we should be looking at some criteria or guiding principles to weigh the alternatives against. It was sort of done in the work group, but it should be re-looked at because of the economy and things have changed over the past two years . Yuhasz states that I am not necessarily saying we should not spend more I just want to know why we should . Wilson states that there are a lot of issues and sub-issues . For the citizen that delivers stuff to the centers their time and fuel is not free . And how do you monetize emissions which are not free either . Dumpsters leak, front loading trucks leak, it is easier to clean up and keep the leaking liquids out of the ground . We can do a cheaper version too . What we are trying to do is find out what the community wants and needs and hit the balance between environmental, cost, efficiency, equity, availability and convenience issues . Vickers states that one of the things wrong with the cost issues is the cost of savings are inrect cost s that aren' t recognized by the citizen . The cost of individual travel is not recognized by most people . Wilson notes that there are people who come two to three times a week to convenience centers . Pollock states that on the decision to expand rural curbside currently we are serving about 2/ 3rd of the county with the rural curbside recycling program . Typically those are the denser areas and the routes have grown outwards from the towns . Some have grown by infill, by citizen demand, and rerouting . We are now at the cusp of a three- part decision . In essence we 've grown by a route or two every year . We could begin to provide the Bradshaw Quarry southwestern quadrant with service by December if that was something demanded partly as compensation for closing the convenience center . We could also hold off and do the rest of the county year after next with serious routing and a capitalization program with the additional trucks needed . A third decision would be to continue to incrementally add homes, which is not very efficient for us . We are beginning to bump up against our capacity to add to existing routes . It makes more sense to leapfrog to the next level . We are asking for feedback to bring forward . 12 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board September 3, 2009 Approved November 5, 2009 Taylor states that this year there is a capacity to add 900 to 1 , 000 units to the program which would not be full coverage for the Bradshaw Quarry area . Sassaman asks what percentage would it cover . Taylor replies looking at Mt. Willing as the top boundary and Hwy 54 as the bottom there are roughly 1 ,500 homes in that area . Sassaman asks what keeps you from capturing the remaining specifically, another route or truck and driver . Taylor states that two trucks are run every day . We would have to re-route in order to add that 900 or 1 , 000 units . Also with every household getting two bins that is the inventory of bins on hand . With two trucks a day and the miles covered and materials collected we are getting close to capacity in that section of the county . We with some significant re-route of the whole program, which could do the full region would be geared to expanding service in that area and then there would be no more juice to squeeze on the other [programs to get more route time for rural expansion] and at that point we would have to run a third route truck . Sassaman asks is there a type of analysis done that maximizes the efficiency . Taylor states that basically we look at the neighborhoods and areas and compare them to the other areas serviced and think about the service rate . We try to be conservative generally . It depends on the nature of the area . We look at all of that and make the best guess . Wilson states that to clarify, the BOCC has not approved the expansion yet; we have told them we could if they want us to . We are waiting on authorization to proceed . The other thing is there have been some questions regarding the ability to afford to expand recycling in that area, why not [instead] keep the convenience center open. The short answer for that is there are two separate pots of money . The 3-R fee is dedicated money that can only be used for recycling and waste reduction services and programs according to the County attorney . The convenience centers are 90 % funded through general fund . Yuhasz asks that isn' t it the case with curbside recycling there is an addition fee charged for that? Wilson replies yes $38 / year . 13 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board September 3, 2009 Approved November 5, 2009 Yuhasz states that there is also a $37 fee that everyone pays whether they get curbside service or not. How does the $38 / year compare to the cost of actually servicing the additional households ? Taylor states that the new homes are not budgeted in this year . The capacity to serve them exists with i in n the routing . The layout of money the recycling division for adding those homes would be fuel cost. We have enough bins now . Next year those houses that got the service would get the rural curbside fee and that would fully fund the continuation of that service into the future . Yuhasz asks if the $38 / year would be enough to fund the service, why not extend it throughout the county . It could start in January 2010 and charge everyone the fee next year . Wilson states that it could be done January 2011 . There needs to be a budget cycle to budget the additional several thousand bins and acquire the truck and driver . Pollock states that the key answer in terms of cash flow is the 3R fee has been developed to where it is self-sustaining . From a policy perspective, it hasn' t been done because the marching orders in terms of the solid waste plan haven' t driven us in that direction . In addition further out, [the] houses are further between with more narrow [private] roads; we come to address a much higher proportion of service equity issues . The challenges are disproportionate to the number of houses remaining to add . Wilson states that we are willing to do it if the Commissioners want to and provide the resources . We have no reason not to take it from county line to county line . Yuhasz states that that was the sense of my question . If we are concerned about equity county-wide then it ought to be county-wide . The question really is the additional $38 / household / year sufficient to pay for a program that would be county- wide, if not what would that cost be . Taylor states that looking at the rural curbside program covering 95 % of the county the fee does get more expensive because effectively the further the units the more expensive it is to serve . It would be more like $44 per unit. Sassaman states that if you have what you need at this point we should move on . 4 . Programs Services/Update Transfer Station Site Search Wilson states that at the commissioners meeting on Tuesday night the county manager presented four options on how to possibly 14 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board September 3, 2009 Approved November 5, 2009 proceed . The BOCC essentially said " proceed on all fronts . " Hwy 54 site will remain a candidate site at this time . There is no more dedicated work to do on the site - the environmental work is complete, . There is a conclusion on the wetlands that they are not prohibitive of constructing and operating a transfer station there . The other possible option of the Town [site] on Millhouse Rd . - the Town has not met since the county inquired as to whether they were going to formally offer it or not. The Board wishes to wait until the Town s last meeting of the calendar year around November 28th to get an answer from them . The issue of temporarily or permanently going to Durham is still on the table . They authorized the manager to write a formal letter to the City of Durham to get a formal response to whether Durham is willing to receive the waste short- or long-term . There was a new option laid on the table Tuesday for another piece of property on Millhouse Rd . across the street from the Town property . This is a ten-acre site that the county already owns that is directly adjacent to the northern part of the landfill property and it was purchased originally for incorporation with the Blackwood property for a park site . The BOCC did ask for additional evaluation of that property to verify if it has any environmental problems, whether it is suitable land or permitable for a possible transfer station . They also authorized the manager to proceed to get request for proposal from firms to obtain a firm to possibly design and permit a transfer station. They authorized the initiation of a RFP processes . They authorized staff to solicit letters of interest or intent of possible landfills that would take our waste . This would not be for a bid or formal quote but to show interest in bidding . I don' t know when this will all be pulled together . It will take a little while to get the additional environmental information for the ten-acre site, called the Paydarfar site, which is the [name of the] previous owner . We are moving forward on what we can . The Board set a deadline by when they hope to make a decision . That is the last meeting of this calendar year - December 7th. We generally need about 30 months to pull this off from the date the site is selected . There are interim contingency options should there not be enough time . If the decision is made on December 7th I think we can do it. If it is delayed beyond then it becomes a little questionable and cutting it a lot closer . Sassaman states that, being at the meeting, I was particularly chagrinned that the Durham transfer station option is still floating around . Almost exactly 3 years ago we sent a resolution to the BOCC opposing the [use of] the Durham transfer station . I see some options open to us to weigh in. Do you think if we said anything at this point the Commissioners would listen? Yuhasz states that I am convinced there are members of the public on every side that know the commissioners don t listen to anybody . It does seem that if the SWAB has a 15 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board September 3, 2009 Approved November 5, 2009 strong feeling that the Durham site is not appropriate a reaffirmation of the statement would be in order . Part of the reason the Durham site was brought up was to suggest nity to site a new transfer station that would be that there might be an opportu convenient to both Orange and Durham counties . In preliminary conversations with the City of Durham it was clear any improvements they did to their station would occur at, the current location. That makes any cooperative agreement much less attractive than one sited nearby [closer to Orange County] might be . I think there is less likelihood that Orange County will actively pursue that. I think we are still going to talk to them [City of Durham] in the case that we need to, on a temporary basis, take some of our solid waste to Durham . Guild asks if the 10-acre property is the property that was purchased from the woman who is deceased now . Wilson replies no . The 10-acre property [that could be a transfer station site] is located adjacent to The Blackwood property which is about 100 acres and next to it. Guild asks so there is no part of that [Blackwood] property being considered at this point. Yuhasz states that no part of that specific property purchased from the Blackwoods is being considered for waste transfer purposes . In fact there are specific deed restrictions on using that property for that purpose . Sassaman asks does anyone feel a strong need or think it would be worthwhile to make any kind of recommendation to the commissioners at this point. With no comments we will move on . Other - None 5 . Board Member Comments Vickers states that looking at the recycling brochure, I have some planter boxes that are type 2 HDPE but the brochure says don' t put that in the recycling bin but ' type 2' it is one of the preferred plastics . Taylor states that the plastic that is in the flower pots [injection molded plastic] behaves differently when it is melted and can' t be mixed with bottles in terms of processing the material . It has a different melting index . The markets right now are mostly welcoming bottled plastics which are blow-molded . We are anticipating to add at the end of this month a specialty plastics collection at the drop -off sites which target the injected molded plastics . 16 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board September 3, 2009 Approved November 5, 2009 Vickers states that most planter boxes are not but these were specifically states as recyclable . I thought [it] was an oversight. Taylor states that most planters are [high density] polyethylene or HDPE and they will be welcomed in the grade of plastics that will be called rigid plastics, but they are still not welcomed in the mix of materials that goes to the processing facility that get the stuff from curbside recycling . Bowerman asks what about the clear ones that all food comes in. Pollock states the clam shell type take out containers won' t have a market. Tipton states that I almost feel like with the planning process that you all have in your mind what you want to do or least a good idea . One method of negotiation is a single document plan which going forward having a plan and having it picked apart. It might be time to put together the plan or vision as you all see it and present it and let it be picked apart or tweaked or understood . Everything you' ve talked about makes sense to me, but I think it has to be presented almost as a whole with some exceptions and not mixing too many things together . Sassaman states that it seems that a good bit of it is identified . We have implemented a few things already . It might be time to go ahead and write the plan and if there are a couple of areas where there are alternatives, highlight those . Tipton states that it could start out with a map with the county locations and the convenience centers and say they will collect these things and other things will be collected through franchising . Paint the picture . Put it out there and see what happens . Sassaman states that this process that Blair is following came from the idea of trying to get the elected officials involved in the planning process . Wilson states that perhaps then at the October workgroup meeting staff could create a straw man rural plan, bring it in, have it discussed, altered by the work group . That is doable . The one little caveat would be [that] our original plan was to have a system put together to integrate one part of the system to another . For instance [for] the rural section we could calculate cost but if you add residential and commercial and rural with some other programs and integrate the service and some of the resources you may come up with a different cost than the component by itself. Tipton agrees . So start painting those pictures and having those things, but I feel like there are too many variables or too many things going on; until we get something we 17 Minutes Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board September 3, 2009 Approved November 5, 2009 can really see and look at and get clarity on some of the pieces, we are going to keep spinning our wheels . I think some decisions would be good . Pollock states that this iterative approach of trying to make decisions on pieces has been arduous, so that is a good alternative, to set up a plan and a cost model . We can get in the ballpark and make suggestions . The days of talking about stuff without a price tag are over . I don' t have a problem pursing it. Guild asks when the plan was due ? Wilson replies, June 2009 . Vickers states that the only problem I' ve had with the process is when we have the work group meeting we have the Towns' elected official and once in a while the county elected official shows up . The biggest impact when we are having the discussion will be the rural residents and they are least represented . Yuhasz states that it seems from the discussions we are really faced with a choice of having efficient, effective, modern convenience centers or universal, mandatory curbside pickup . I don t see how we can afford to have both of those . Some of the discussion really needs to be focused on which of those two directions do we want to go . Without having some examples and understanding the implications of [what] each of those two specific things are it is going to be tough to make that kind of decision . I think you are right BJ that we need a picture that we can go over as we need to . Guild asks is there something we could do between now and the work group meeting to increase the representation rural population . Wilson clarifies are you talking about eliciting the public prior to the work group meeting? Guild replies not public input but representation of that sector . Wilson states that it will now be potentially the most represented because not only do we have a commissioner on the SWAB who is automatically a member of the work group, but we have another county commissioner who is a member of the workgroup and not on the SWAB . If they both attend, there would be two county commissioners at that work group meeting . Yuhasz states that I would speculate that the Towns would not be interested in the discussion of the convenience centers and how they are managed . 18 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board September 3, 2009 Approved November 5, 2009 Pollock states that the issue with the convenience centers interaction both from the standpoint [that] tax support is 2/ 3rd from the urban areas and the other pieces where the Towns implement PAYT without the convenience centers doing it as a corollary, we are interested in that interaction . 6 . Other Business Sassaman states that there is the potential of combining the work group meeting with the SWAB meeting . Wilson states that you will need to decide if you want one meeting or two meetings . Smith replies two meetings . Smith moves to adjourn . Vickers 2nd . Adjourn 9 : 28pm 19