Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSWAB minutes 120309 Minutes Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board December 3, 2009 Approved January 11, 2010 Attendance : Jan Sassaman, Linda Bowerman, Al Vickers, Remus Smith, Steve Yuhsaz and Doug Guild Staff: Gayle Wilson, Blair Pollock, Paul Spire, Rob Taylor, Cody Marshall, Gwen Harvey and Wanda McCain Guest: Bonnie Hauser, Susan Walser, Kathleen Hoffmann, Carl Hoffmann, - Orange County Voice, Josh Kastrinsky - News of Orange, and Teresa Edwards 1 . Opening and Welcome Sassaman welcomes the board and audience . Hopefully we will get some participation and have an opportunity for you all to speak . 2 . Adoption of Minutes from November 5 SWAB meeting Guild moves to accept. Vickers 2nd . Passes unanimously 3 . Follow-up Discussion from Solid Waste Plan Work Group Meeting Sassaman states that there are two major items of discussion . First is the discussion of the OCV survey . OCV is here to make a presentation . We hope to hear from the floor once the members of the board have had an opportunity to talk and ask questions . I would like to bring that portion of the meeting to a close by 8pm because we have other things to attend to tonight. a . Discussion of OCV Survey Hauser states that most of you know me because I am a regular [in the] audience of SWAB . I have here with me a couple of my associates of Orange County Voice, Susan Walser, Kathleen and Carl Hoffmann who run a human resource business and Carl is a PhD demographer and biostatistician. They have been in analytics and survey work for about 30 years . They have been advising us on the survey process . Back in the September SWAB meeting we first heard about the solid waste work group . You all were talking about the results and things like waste franchising and pay to throw fees . A couple of the SWAB members, I think Doug [Guild] and BJ [Tipton] , said we need to get some rural resident input into the process . We had hoped at that time to do something in collaboration with SWAB to get rural residents' input. There were a series of BOCC meetings where they said we are going to make a decision about closing Bradshaw Quarry based on the October 20th work group report that no one had ever heard about. We scrambled to get a survey out to get some feedback so that the BOCC would have some input from residents before they decided on the services . There were a couple of important features of the work group plans . One was the solid waste franchises in the rural community . The second was user fees and they would either be paid to throw, convenience center fees or a host of others . The third was modernizing convenience centers . To paraphrase, some SWAB 1 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board December 3, 2009 Approved January 11, 2010 members had a concern about fit and price tag . So we did a survey and launched it in October and I ' ll share the results of that. Our objective was to first get input from rural residents about waste services . That is kind of our mission as an organization . Our focus is only rural residents . We don' t get involved with Chapel Hill, Carrboro or Hillsborough issues . We wanted to know what [rural] residents' preferences were for garbage and recycling services and understand their usage patterns, needs and priorities today and a little bit about tomorrow . We wanted to see if we could get a pulse on new services and fees from these residents . We also wanted to test some of the ideas . We couldn' t say do you want to do waste franchising because they wouldn' t know what we were talking about. We tried to formulate questions that would try to solicit their interest in certain kinds of services and fees . We wanted to test the specific things that the solid waste department is looking at and hoped to get a sense of the bigger picture . What do these things mean? We know the county is under a lot of pressure to cut cost and to improve recycling rates, so we wanted to see if there were anything in the survey results that we thought could have implications for that. Here is who responded to the survey . Josh [Katrinsky] is here from the News of Orange . The News of Orange and other channels helped up publicize the survey . We got about 900 rural households . The rules were one survey per household, we kicked out any surveys that had two surveys from the same address, and you had to live in rural Orange County . If you lived in Town - Hillsborough, Chapel Hill, or Carrboro we kicked it out. We kicked out about 40 responses because they failed those tests of the rules . What we did to get people to participate, we publicized in the News of Orange, sent out notices on our own website, and because we were trying to go to the rural community, we went to churches, fire departments and a couple of convenience stores throughout the county . We went to stores that rural residents frequent, the Cedar Grove library and some other places to actually get the survey out to people . There were 881 people that responded after we were done . About 12 . 5 % use garbage collection, 86 . 5 % have dirt or gravel driveways, 40 % have driveways longer than 250 feet and there is a group of folk that like to recycle . We think this is a little different from the sample of folks you would see if you went in town or the folks the solid waste department is dealing with on a broader basis . That really excited us because I think you know that we started as a Bingham group opposing an airport in Bingham Township . Each dot is actually a survey respondent. You can see that we got people from all over Orange County including the way most northern part of county . That to us was extremely exciting . 2 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board December 3 , 2009 Approved January 11, 2010 We asked them to choose one . We didn' t say tell us when you want to go the convenience center . We said what was the time that you preferred to go to convenience centers and as you ' d guess most of them said Saturday . This bothered us because we would have lobbied for Sunday but the Sunday category and the " I don' t care " category are just about the same . Then people wanted to go weekday mornings . Weekday evenings and afternoons were the lowest response . Then if you look by convenience center Saturday was the most convenient time . But when you look at the second most convenient time it varied by convenience center . Eubanks Road and Walnut Grove were weekday mornings and I don ' t know what conclusions you draw from that but we wondered that people are taking their garbage on their way to work in the mornings on weekdays . The other thing that this made us wonder about and actually the solid waste department has already cut the 6 o ' clock hour on weekday evenings but we wondered if the solid waste department wanted to cut cost should they be looking at weekday afternoon or evenings as a possible option to reduce cost rather than shutting down one of the convenience centers . 'That is another idea that we thought that this data suggested to us . This is pretty consistent with the county ' s report. In the spirit of what is convenient the other question of how far do people want to go to a convenience center, 91 % of our responses said they wanted to drive 15 minutes or less . If you ask people how far do they drive to get to a convenience center they don' t know so we asked them how many minutes do they drive one way to a convenience center and then we asked how many minutes are you willing to drive to a convenience center? Most people are 6.10 minutes . Not many people and I think there was a perception that a lot of people in the northern county driving really far to a convenience center that didn' t seem to play out in the survey results . When we asked them how far they were willing to drive they are not willing to drive much further . I don' t know if you have been listening on the solid waste work group . One of the real reasons they want to modernize it because there is a perception of a safety issue . We asked people had they ever had an accident. Most of them said ' no' . We didn' t time bind it but 13 people did report accidents - 4 flat tires, 3 minor cuts mostly from handling material such as wood, someone complained about the speed bump and some others . The actual comments are in the report itself. We asked if you ever had an accident. The other question we asked is what do you throw out. You can see that cardboard and recycling far and away trump any other disposable in terms of what people are throwing away . What this told us in . the spirit of ways to cut cost that it might be possible to take some of these low non essential services and maybe not do them in 3 Minutes Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board December 3, 2009 Approved January 11, 2010 every convenience center . It could be like Wake County and have quarterly events . Wake County once a quarter has pickup for tires, yard waste and other things . Then we started to get into future services and fees . The first question we wanted to know in the spirit of waste franchises is are people interested in having private haulers pick up their trash . You can see that about 60 % of people oppose it and about 20 % were undecided . Fifty-five percent said it was impractical . It' s not just because of money; it is impractical because they had long driveways and other things . But when we asked the question about cost the opposition went up to over 80 % . You can see that people seem to be semi- open to the idea until you raise the cost. This was not about franchise . We never mentioned franchising fees . We only asked them about the $250 / year or more that they would actually pay for the trash pickup . Then we talked about curbside recycling . This gives a profile of the kinds of services people use for recycling . Sixty percent use convenience centers alone . A lot of people use a combination and 25 % of our respondents use curbside recycling . What we found interesting of all the folks that use curbside recycling half of them only use curbside recycling and the rest use curbside recycling in combination with other services . So curbside recycling by itself doesn' t seem to be sufficient. The convenience centers far and away if you put it together 73 % of them use the convenience centers . We really tried to take a look at curbside recycling . Only 344 of our households actually had access to curbside recycling . When we looked at those households we said how many of you actually use the service ? The answer was 60 % use and 40 % don' t use it. That is consistent with the county ' s own experience . The County says about 60 % that have it available use it. Then we wanted to know if you didn' t use it why not. Far and away most of them said they didn' t use it because the convenience centers did it for them . They took their recycling to the convenience centers while they were at it. Then we asked them more about should the county extend curbside recycling and fees . It shows that residents in general are opposed to expanding curbside recycling and fees but even when we looked at the responses of the 344 people that get it they are still divided . So even if you get it you are not still clear that you want it. My opinion is the magic word is mandatory . I don' t know if that is affecting that. When asked about expanding the service only 23 % say we should expand the service . Look at this m contrast to how people feel about convenience centers . When you ask about convenience centers overwhelmingly over 905 of the folks like their convenience centers . It is a good service, people like it and they have pretty strong opinions about it. I would also add that in the comments you will see a lot of 4 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board December 3, 2009 Approved January 11, 2010 compliments about the convenience center service and the people and how they work with the residents . They like the convenience centers for recycling . This was something that our statisticians did . They took a look at the data to see if people were just complaining about fees . What they found was when they looked at the characteristics of the respondents whether it was short driveways, paved roads, type of road - State or county, and whether or not their driveway was. paved it seemed to influence their response . [The next part refers to the statistical significance of the responses : ] The results mean that there is some internal coherence in the responses . It wasn' t just a bunch of rural residence complaining about fees . Then we asked them a bunch of questions about funding . One of the work group issues is funding. How do we keep a sustainable source of funding for the convenience centers ? Almost 95 % agreed that the convenience centers provided a valuable service . Most of them believed -76 % - that everyone should fund them, 10 % believed that only the rural households should fund them and 10 % believed that only the users of the convenience centers should fund them . I have to qualify this because remember only rural residence answered the survey so I don' t know that they can speak for in-town residents . You would have to do another survey for in-town residents . People are not so fond of PAYT . Eighty-two percent said they don' t want to pay it. Eighty-three percent said they wouldn ' t pay it and they said it again when we asked how much would they be willing to pay and we gave them different ranges in terms of how much . One of the things that we asked them was how would PAYT impact recycling . Only 14 % thought it would improve recycling . Most thought it would increase illegal dumping, burning, and illegal use of commercial dumpsters like when rural folks take their garbage to work and throw it out. We also asked about other fees, just to see, general opposition to gate fees . We offered low numbers and 89 % refused to pay a gate fee, 63 % refused an annual fee and 24 % would pay an annual fee of $50 . They don' t like any of the fees but they dislike access fees the least. In the comments there were some reccurring themes . These are comments that either came from emails or just people talking to us . One was " Aren' t we already paying for these in our taxes ? " They are very complementary about the convenience centers . People asked about the schedules . With the schedule cuts, we didn' t hear a lot of complaints about the schedule cuts but people wondered why the schedule cuts have to all be the same and all the convenience centers had to be on the same schedule . People also commented about convenience centers being a place where people go to ity centers for the rural residents . meet. They are commun To close the conclusions we draw from the survey we think the convenience centers are an essential part of the county ' s service to the rural residents for garbage and 5 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board December 3, 2009 Approved January 11, 2010 recycling . They certainly support the county ' s recycling objectives . From a resident' s perspective they are cost effective and practical . It looked to us that curbside service for garbage and recycling work best for households that have short driveways and paved roads . At this time residents oppose services and fees . As you can see it' s not just because of the economy but because it is also impractical . I think people will pay a fee for something they value . We suggest that if the cost for the convenience centers is too high that the county should look at cutting nonessential hours or services rather than cut centers . We wondered if there were other opportunities that could improve effectiveness, meaning improve recycling rates or cut garbage ? One thought is more education . We are lobbying that there should be another entrance or exit at Ferguson only because we had trouble with accessing it when handing out surveys . It was kind of dangerous compared to the beautiful facilities elsewhere in the county . Someone sent us a note about adding a convenience center in the northern part of the county . From a perspective of where we stand as an organization, because I guess you all know there is going to be a meeting on the 15th of the BOCC and we will be asking for Bradshaw Quarry to be kept open . We hope that the solid waste work group will recommend that. We know that there is some work being done to see how to fund that. We are also going to suggest other ways to cut cost than cutting a center . We also feel that if new fees are coming, we think they are, that before the county adds curbside recycling, a $38 fee for all residents, we would like to see the county put the entire picture on the table of all the possible new fees and services they are going to add for residents so we put the whole thing together . So if we are going to be getting a $50 or $100 convenience center fee then maybe that is better than curbside recycling but maybe we don' t need to add all of that. I am sharing with you what we as a community group will be asking the commissioners for on the 15th. Sassaman states that questions will come first from the table and then the audience . Vickers states that I am not surprised at the results . Hauser asks does that mean it is what you expect of the residents Vickers states that I expect that the survey would get those answers . Zero pay or zero dollars is what most people would put down on a survey . Hauser states that they did more than whine about costs . They said it was not practical . 6 Minutes - Regular Meeting d Solid Waste Advi sory Bo December 3 , 2009 Approved January 11, 2010 convenience center user preferences , it is 0 ake is moot if Bowerman states that on the con e cared an that it doesn' t matter because they can ma � it assume that those people me der to e should not worry about those people because or Y not all those times , so `^' to ask the people they would ha ve chosen a times On " Are convenience centers have 1 determine that, we do have to recognize that °T la e percentage of people really • town who use them too . That is going to be a fine It may or may not be accurate . m assumed from this that everything is absolutely • ed that you got the number of returned questionnaires Smith states that I am surprised that eo le are thinking we' ve got a problems e a g that you did . Most rewarding people h had need to cut hours a bit and that there should with most of the folks that we For ears Hillsboroug smaller recycling center in northern Orange County * world and it was in the city smal Y of icking certain laces where people dumped everything We have to do something p p limits of Hillsborough . That will happen agam our refuse up . ' t is not • ust the rural or the people that haven' t Bowerman states that that is true and 1 ed on. Anybody who lives near Eubanks et who are gong to get dump e i get it even if they been annexed y worse it is and if things get they are gong to gets dumped on as don' t qualify for the survey * i with the comprehensiveness of the survey an Guild states that I was impressed d ' resented . There is a lot of useful information thought it was very professionally p there to take into consideration. taken into ill the concerns of the urban residents will be ortant to Pollock states that hopefully do applaud e convenience centers payments and so on. It is pp account as far as the the cen . e that the support 2 / 3rd of the cost of operating a lot of hard work * recognize Y ' s efforts . As a volunteer group It was dearly your group ail half of the people had a positive outlook Spire states that the responses in your email those the way they are operated . It is always our intention on on the convenience centers and Y on a continuing basis and we look forward to making to improve what we have along * improvements as we gsolid_ rical perspective before 1972 there were no county In 1972 Pollock states from a hlsto p p e were 65 mod . There were various dumps where garbage waste services of any k notion of putting unstaffed green boxes out. o f that and cut it the county took on the In the mid-80s they realized the futility % of the users sites all around the county . to 22 sites . Then we found through the license plates survey n towards putting county and that was part of what propelled the cohere was some were out of c ty enters together in 1993 . At each step along the way onboard when the change staffed c g considerable uproar about whatever the change was . 7 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board December 3 , 2009 Approved January 11, 2010 from unstaffed sites to staffed sites and there was a huge uproar that there would be a lot of illegal dumping, people would never get used to staffed sites, why are you getting rid of the unstaffed sites and so on . Fifteen years later they are a stalwart element of county services . It is interesting to note over a period of time that services evolve and people ' s reactions to what services are provided evolve . Now your survey points out how much people embrace the solid waste convenience centers . Well it wasn' t always like that when they first came into being. Hauser states that to qualify when we walked in the room the big target on our back should be " Oh they are going to come whine about something about the rural community . " Services that work in Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Hillsborough are different and what works in the rural community is different. It is our opinion that the rural county doesn' t always get a voice and very often we are an afterthought of services that are given to urban residents . The only reason we are doing this is to see if we can amplify the voice of the rural resident so that we don' t get saddled with services that don' t fit. I think people are happy to pay for good services and the right services but they want services that fit their lifestyle and culture . Sassaman states that I think a lot of work went into this report and there is an awful lot of data . Knowing that OCV is trying to represent the rural portion of the county, I think it needs to be understood that a significant portion of Orange County residents were excluded from the survey, which is unfortunate . We talk about the people that live in the unincorporated vs . those that live in the incorporated areas, those of us that live in the incorporated areas are just as much citizens of Orange County as anyone else that lives in Orange County . The report would have been a lot stronger if it had included all the residents of the county or represented all the areas . I value the convenience centers . I count on them even though I have drop off centers near my home and curbside . The convenience centers and the sheds are really a flagship operation for this county . A lot of people that I know that live in the town agree with me . I would like to say something about accidents and risks . Risk is rarely evident until someone dies . I have seen situations at the convenience centers that make me shudder . Sometime, someone is going to get seriously hurt. They are not risk free . Wilson states that to follow up on the safety comment, most people aren' t aware of the number of near misses . Close oversight by the attendants prevent accidents . It would have been interesting to ask the question and gotten an answer from those people who periodically use a burn barrel or have close neighbors who do . There were no surprises, it' s already been noted that people don' t want to pay fees or any more money for anything . 8 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board December 3, 2009 Approved January 11, 2010 In the slide of frequently disposed of materials, for those who also pay but who have in-town curbside recycling, the graph might have been flipped because they may not use it on a regular basis for recycling and cardboard but it ' s probably valuable for them that have the occasional dead couch, refrigerator or tires . They may not use it as often but what is important to them may be a little different. I am curious as to why folks would oppose curbside garbage collection if it is voluntary subscription service . Hauser states that we are not an urban community . We don' t have networks into the towns, but we would be happy, our survey is on Constant Contact, to give it to you and you could run an m town survey so you could have that data . I also want to clarify on the disposal chart that is not a convenience center chart it is just the frequency of items people dispose of regardless of how they dispose of it. On the community centers it would be nice if those bulletin boards became community bulletin boards . K Hoffman states that the in-town citizens are equally important and we are not in any way disparaging their right to have input and the importance of listening to them . We were focused on the rural community because the changes right now that are being considered are focused on services for the unincorporated parts of the county and there was a very tight timeframe . It would be terrific to hear from people throughout the county . I think that would be a very valuable thing to do . We weren' t uninterested in their input, we just couldri t manage a survey of that size and that complexity in this amount of time . Sassaman states that understanding where you are coming from, my point is that the other residents of the county are equal stakeholders . Harvey states that I know you all spent a lot time on this and I applaud and appreciate that. In the chart of disposal of common household items , it doesn t show the frequency of household garbage [disposal] . Is it because the assumption is the 742 people who said they come to recycle, those same 742 respondents are bringing their household garbage ? Hauser states that we just didn' t ask that quite that way . Harvey replies so I shouldri t imply that. The other thing is on page 6 in the back of the Appendix the question is " Do you use the county' s biweekly recycling pickup service ? , if no why don' t you use the recycling pickup service check all that apply " . You give the number of responses . I was particularly interested in the one that says " I take my household garbage and recycling to a convenience center at the same time . " You give the number of response to be 147 . Then it says a total of 881 . When I add it up it comes to 268 . I wonder what the other 500 people said . 9 Minutes - Regular Mee agd Solid Waste Advisory Bo December 3 , 2009 Approved January 11, 2010 the bside recycling then we divided that into Hauser replies only 344 people get cur Y ones that use it. states that I was trying to get an understanding or appreciation for work as to Harveys convenience centers, is it because they like like our what is the real reason why people e it is the means of disposing of household the recycling opportunities or becaus • Ze they are two separate pieces that exist. garbage? I reco gru " when ou go to it is an interesting point that we didn t say Y K . Hoffman states that primary load in your car? " I think we did back the convenience center what is your enters and you can keep recycling °n Your see because we all use the convenience interested in on your back porch . When you g° ere you porch but you cant keep garbageSo we were really in ergarbage unloading lots of garbage and some recyclingow that everybody people because we kn finding out how to support recycling, on t would have been a good question to ask and don' t en you to the convenience centers . It ors so the lear answer to that• You have to take garbage • You would have had a very c our sample only about 12 % are using garb kevendors , their garbage to have a choice . Out of p are depending on the convenience centers to majority of peopledo with it. because that' s the only thing they can does occur looking that you all rushed to put it together , it d number of responses Taylor states that realizing Y to garbage service shows where your responses come from and the um g at the map that sho entes that are really selves as having access or currently subscri g g who identify them resid at there was a significant portion of the unincorporated like suburbs of the municipalities were there was a very low response rate . Those orated residents and rural Orange residents, their who care unincor p ' t really represented by the responses in your survey * residents perspective isn Y look at the numbers from the Hillsborough Hillsboro h Hauser states that s true . If you hoped the nshi we only had 81 responses from Hl g tow p] [township] and Chapel Hill [ m the truly Hill . We were unable to look closer . We hoop and 87 responses from Chapel curbside the suburban vs . truly rural . Our responses came would be a proxy for high er adop rural communities , You will find that you are getting recycling of Hillsborough and Chapel Hill. participation anon in the curbside program in those Taylor states that there is more p p work group 0 % set out, which would workout to s e /o p suburban areas , upwards of 7 When thinking about the possibility as the w ora ed participation in some cases . Wh ld a the discussed, of levying fees to support the convenience centers on lurk wou pay residents , thos e residents of the suburbs that are outsideo town those in the far exact same fee and have the same vested interest in thistopic reaching rural areas . 10 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board December 3 , 2009 Approved January 11, 2010 Hauser states that the survey said even if you use curbside services you still use the convenience centers . Taylor states that to Gayle' s point earlier that the utilization is different. You might get a different response when you think about which services are important to them at the convenience centers . As a staff member thinking about how we serve the citizens I recognize and value the perspective the survey provided, I just want to acknowledge that I don t think that it represents everyone, I don' t think you would say so either, it doesn' t represent the opinion of the entire unincorporated community . Hauser states that no [it doesn' t] but I think there is a philosophical question that we had within ourselves about the convenience centers that puts it in the same category as libraries, schools and other services, that people that don t use schools and don t use libraries still pay for them and still feel like that is part of the community . The community needs some way to handle its garbage that we all pay taxes for . If you live in town, curbside service cost a little more to deliver and serve, which makes sense . In the rural community convenience centers make more sense and they are a little bit cheaper . I don t think anybody wants them for free, that' s my opinion, but people think they are paying for it now . Guild states that I think that it [the survey] pretty much accomplished the goal upfront. It wasnt supposed to be representative of the entire county . It was just supposed to bring more of a voice to the rural residents into the picture . I don' t think anybody came into this thinking this was going to be a comprehensive survey of all county residents . Vickers states that it was obviously designed to get the unincorporated areas perspective and that' s what it got. It truly doesn' t represent those in the incorporated areas . Sassaman concurs . It would have been a lot stronger had it looked at some of the others . Some of you all have mentioned that there are other purposes of going to the convenience centers . My first and primary purpose is to take things that I think somebody can use to the [salvage] shed . Hauser asks what is the role of SWAB in relation to the solid waste work group . Does this group have any input on the work group or what is your opinion on extending ide recycling or fees ? franchises or curbs Sassaman states that the members of the SWAB are ad hoc members the solid waste work group . However the solid waste work group is a group that is represented by all of the governmental jurisdictions that will sign the plan that we are working on. 11 Minutes - Regular Meeting d Solid Waste Advisory Bo December 31 2009 Approved January 11, 2010 ous of ho Hauser states that I am cull vv this will affect your opinion in terms of what services the county will rec ommend for the unincorporated area . Did the survey influence your opinion? rite work group Sassaman states that the place for it to become effective is the solid n ou are welcome an one wants to offer if it has changed their opinion Y and not here . If Y to speak up . Vickers states that the solid waste task [work] group is a product of the Orange ' a product that was to include political jurisdi tions coon County Commissioners . It is p Chapel Hill . Some of the members have to be ty Hillsborough, Carrboro and p residents . The way ' was designed doesn t say there will be unincorporated hen it was put representatives That was one specific group that wasn t iden together as a group ? loners and by staff Commiss Sassam an states that they are represented by the County towns e represented by elected and b the SWAB members , just as each of to l representation 1/4 to each In as much Y officials , staff and SWAB members . It is an equal as people want to attend . Vickers not es that the issue is how many people attend . Sassaman states that this is a g ood time to segue into the solid waste plan since we of that group . have been talking about the purpose complete Solid Waste Plan Pollock states that there are two b . Discussion of Schedule to and that are integrated with each other . One is than things that we need to focus on one 2006 and m the State of NC to complete a solid waste 10 year p statutory obligation from ittal . The three ears . The updates were due June 2003b, m update that plan every Y t we have done the June 2009 . We are about five moms out- of-date from our recent update could be something as simple as an interim pl it that e Saymuch about cycles with not very much substance to it that doesn' t stalemating � terms of last couple of how to move towards the stated goals . There has been there has been continual work some of the issues . At the same time , at the stafflevel helped move towards the incremental done to move towards the 61 % goal which has So the Work needs to be finished just to goal of 50 % waste reduction of the last couour real intent is to come up with a meet our statutory obligation on the p an 61 % waste reduction, integrated solid waste plan that meets our goals,as a fiscal perspective * comprehensive de on the dollar bill and show s how to get there from a financial perspective both the shade When we talk about sustainability we have to gi beisustainable financially as well as and the ecology flag . So the plan would have to onin the Work group . environmentally . That challenge has been 12 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board December 3 , 2009 Approved January 11, 2010 The way the work group has been addressing this with input from the solid waste advisory board has been a series of iterations on different elements of the plan. The element under recent discussion is the unincorporated areas bundle of issues related to waste collection, curbside recycling, and the convenience centers . The work group has been very deliberate, comprehensive, and very detailed iO n its approach to this . It has taken an extraordinary amount of time to get to a series of recommendations which will ultimately go to the County Commission. Another big item on the table that hasn t been finally addressed yet although there has been a lot of study is " whither the commercial recycling into a lesser extent commercial waste collection? " There are other elements of the plan, regulatory and other measures, to increase waste reduction the same way corrugated cardboard, scrap metal, and wood were banned are there more bans that would be effective ways to move towards waste reduction . Is there any kind of regulatory approaches that are appropriate here ? PAYT is a general kind of approach that has been discussed and it is not clear where we go with that. As another major element, there is an overall financial plan . At this point the landfill is still something of a profit center for the enterprise fund . A transfer station -- not so much, but we still need that and a way to pay for it. Recycling has its 3 -R fee . How do we want to look at the financial situation and recommend how to proceed on that? Doing each of those things in a kind of iterative deliberate process as it has been done can take an extraordinary amount of time . My opinion in watching the process and being part of it is that we just don' t have the kind of energy and fortitude to go about it quite as deliberately and get done in a timely manner that is going to give us momentum and satisfy the real objective which is to get the plan moving, achieve our goals and move forward . There are a couple of approaches for the board to discuss . One is prove me wrong and to say this deliberate process is really appropriate . It works . It is important to discuss all these things in detail and continue at this level . For example the meeting on the [December] 15th will complete the work on the unincorporated area and be able to make a firm recommendation. Then it would move on to commercial recycling . Take all the reports that have been done , technical analyses, and series of options debate and discuss those and come forward with a recommendation on that and so draft forth. At the conclusion of those set of iterations, direct the staff to produce a plan that includes the recommendations on all of these . Then take the draft plan and shop it to the municipalities as we' ve always done and to the public which there is some keen interest in solid waste and it is required to have a least one public hearing and we' d have more than one . Another potential approach is to proceed in a different manner . We are on the path of this work on the unincorporated area in terms of there is fairly firm recommendation 13 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board December 3, 2009 Approved January 11, 2010 from the work group and backstopped by SWAB on notions about curbside recycling and I believe those will also be informed by the OCV work as the work group shapes its final recommendation to the BOCC . There is outstanding work yet on the notion about waste collection and the big piece of outstanding convenience centers . I don' t think there is any reason to stop that work . There is every reason to proceed to finish that public as a stand-alone set of that work, have a recommendation and either bring issues to discuss and get public feed back or bundle it. After that staff could take the reports, do our best work on the regulatory measures, take the financial analyses and create the draft plan and bring it back for SWAB discussion, work group discussion and once it has been a little more shaped, as a ough the municipalities and then to public whole for public discussion both thr hearing . Going the second route would take away some of the detailed discussion but would speed the process up and would enable a much more timely completion that is only one year late instead of two years late . That would not only be to get our ticket punched by the State but would end up with some substantive document that would have value and provide the county with direction. The first path is more deliberate and detailed and longer and the second path is possibly a little more streamlined and itially drop out but there is ample opportunity a few of the details may in for public review . Vickers states that the sooner we get a document the quicker the process will finish . The more we go over the same territory we have to re- educate more people because the committee' s makeup changes with time . After each election. Let' s have a document people can critique, the quickest way to get there is probably the most appropriate . Bowerman concurs . Smith concurs . Put it on paper, then let' s study it. Yuhsaz states that not having seen one of these plans before and therefore not knowing what it looks like, but it seems that if we are trying to make decisions about what direction to go in the unincorporated area of the county, we need to have a good handle on what they are going to be before creating a plan otherwise we might be going in one direction and it may not be the way the plan says . Those basic decisions have to be made and I am not sure that they have been made yet. That is what the work group is working on, but I don' t think there is a consensus on what we are going to do about expansion of curbside recycling or the possibility of extending vendor pickup through a franchise system . Those things really haven t been brought to a decision point and those are going to be critical parts, I think, of the plan. While I 14 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board December 3 , 2009 Approved January 11, 2010 want to see something, it really needs to be something that corresponds to what the decisions are and that is hard to do if the decisions haven t been made . Pollock states that to be a little more clear the staff position would be to agree with the fact that we are at the cusp of completing some work on the unincorporated area stuff . Then there is the balance of work . Do we want to go through a similar set of iterations or do we want to [let staff] compile the recommendations and let those be discussed as the body of the whole ? Clearly the work in the unincorporated area has so much gravitas now and so much interest that we would not recommend stopping that. But it' s the ' after that part' so will we finish in six months or two years . Wilson states that staff is ready to go in either direction . Blair can summarize some of the key elements of what is required to be submitted for the State process . The plan does allow for you not to have everything all figured out. There can be certain elements in the plan that are general so that you don' t have to have every T crossed or I dotted . Sassaman states that to go back with a little historical perspective . I too would like to see this come to an end . This process was started several years ago . There were a whole different set of issues . The thing that we got hung up on at the last plan was to MRF or not MRF . Should there be an in-county MRF ? Should we build it and own it? Should we ship out to a merchant MRF ? How are we going to deal with collection? How are we going to push forward our agenda for a 61 % recycling goal and should we maintain that goal? All those issues fell by the wayside because over the years that we have been playing with the plan the economics and the technology have changed . A lot of the things that we evaluated particularly in some of the incorporated areas we made the decision early on that it made more sense to go outside with the MRF . We increased the efficiency of the recycling on the various recycling routes . We are going further with that when we have the rolling carts instead of the blue bins . A lot of the things talked about early on and looked at in detail have been implemented . There are a number of issues we are still struggling with but most of the people on the work group have become educated into the issues of waste disposal, hauling and recycling . All the meetings that we' ve had served to educate the members of the work group . It seems that in many ways many of the work group members are in the position that they don t need to think linearly . We don t have to focus on one issue and go through it step by step . It makes more sense now to look at some of the residual issues in a big picture . I' m not sure that we need to look at things quite as quantitatively as we have . What I have talked with Blair about is the possibility of approaching the work group with a list of the issues or the things that need to be decided what are the determining issues associated with them . Then how do they relate to those objectives we talked about two meetings ago . What are the options for handling the commercial solid 15 Minutes Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board December 3 , 2009 Approved January 11, 2010 waste in the unincorporated part of the county ? What are the issues associated with various options for handling the commercial solid waste ? How do they affect our goals of recycling, decreasing our carbon footprint and economics ? If necessary when it comes to writing the final plan it might be that a decision has not been made on some of those things but these are some of the steps we might take in the years ahead to make those decisions . With the economy the way it is, it might be better for us to do some of those things and think about some of those things in two to three years when hopefully it will be a better tax base . Bowerman states that going through the whole MRF thing reminds me that I know they want a long-range plan, but it seems that technology and political climate etc . change so quickly that it is almost silly to have a long-range plan . Maybe a long- range goal or hope a little more something fluid than a literal plan " this is what we' ll do" and then if we don' t do that we are a failure when that suddenly became obsolete four years into it so we didn t do it we look back and didn' t follow the plan but did choose what made the most sense in moving forward . Vickers states that the long range plan is revised every three years according to the State rules . Pollock states that an example of that when we looked at the MRFs, the level of robustness of the technology as well as the number of operating, well-financed, and well established facilities we could get to was one . Now there are three and a fourth trying to get born . So we did get outpaced by that. We don t want to be in the perpetual planning mode but we do have to re- evaluate every three years but if we have some firm goals we' ve never wavered as a county and municipalities from our waste reduction goals established collectively in 1997 . In a lot of ways that has served us well in the perspective that is firm, everyone bought into it and we can measure steady progress towards it. That is an OK kind of measure, so in terms of an interim step , let' s shift gears and talk about for the time being something a little less politically charged which would be commercial recycling. If a goal of the county based on a considerable amount of survey work done on the commercial enterprises and focus groups and a fair amount of due diligence to get feedback from that community, says that the commercial community wants what the residential community has . They value it. They want to buy into it. They like pubic provision of service and that becomes something we put forward as a plan recommendation. All the details about how to pay for it exactly but if the idea is that the goal in this planning process is that commercial is going to look more like residential in three years -- that is good enough . Sassaman states that what I think we are saying is that we are in the perpetual planning process but it is time to write down where we are in that process and submit it to the state and then continue as we see fit. 16 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board December 3, 2009 Approved January 11, 2010 Vickers states that it should be realized that the plan is what we are currently thinking and I don t think the BOCC has the authority to commit the board five years from now to what they are going to do . Essentially we understand the direction we are heading but as we go each major step I' m sure the board will look at it and decide if that is appropriate at that time . We are getting hung up on that this has to be " the plan' that we are going to stay with . The reality is plans will change . We have to move forward to get a direction for the near term . Sassaman asks Blair if he has his marching orders . 4 . Programs/Services Updates Transfer Station Site Search Wilson states that it is scheduled . There is an agenda being soon distributed for the December 7th meeting where the commissioners will again discuss what to do about a transfer station. They could make a decision. They could ask for more analysis and evaluation. 2010 Meeting Schedule Wilson states that in discussing with Wanda the schedule for the SWAB meetings for next year, I noticed a considerable conflict with the BOCC schedule . I have identified six of the eleven meetings for 2010 where the BOCC has a meeting that same evening . The SWAB needs to discuss whether it wants to choose some alternate meeting dates or whether you care or not of the conflicts . The dates of the conflicts are March, May, June, September, October and November meetings . Vickers states that it' s the first Thursday of the month does it help to change the day of the month . Bowerman asks a different day or a different Thursday . Wilson states that either of those may get around some of the conflicts . Sassaman states that Wednesday is a ' no meeting' day for commissioners and every Wednesday is free for us . I would only have one conflict with that in February . Vickers states that May and June are budget months and even if you move the date, it will most likely be that Steve will be tied up in some kind of workshop . Smith states that he does not want to meet on Wednesdays I am tied up with a church group . I would like to suggest that we accept this calendar through February 4th and then bring it back to allow others to look at their calendars . Thursday is my best day . Sassaman states that he will not be available on January 7th and February 4th. 17 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board December 3, 2009 Approved January 11, 2010 Vickers states that the other option is to leave the schedule as it is and modify the weeks that we have a conflict. Wilson states that it looks like Monday is one of the days they don' t meet. Sassaman asks SWAB how they feel about Mondays . How does the 2nd Monday with trying to get anything we need to get to the BOCC? Do we feel comfortable agreeing with the 2nd Monday of the month? Vickers moves to change the meeting date to the 2nd Monday of the month . Guild 2nd . Motion passes . Rogers Road Well & Septic Survey and No Fault Well Polio Proposal Wilson states that just for your information the BOCC have been discussing a well and septic survey for the Rogers Road neighborhood as well as the possibility of no -fault privately owned well repair policy for properties adjacent to the landfill . It is my understanding that the commissioners have adopted and authorized staff to proceed with the Health Department well testing survey . They have also directed the manager to bring back a more complete and thorough no fault on well repair policy to consider at some future meeting . Vickers states that my only concern from reading about it - is it appropriate to use enterprise funds . The enterprise fund was raided for $ 600, 000 for waterlines in the past and in that study it was clear that the landfill had nothing to do with the Rogers Road contamination issue which is a real issue but it is upstream of the landfill completely . Wilson states that the well testing is a small amount and could be funded by the enterprise fund . Also the Health Department is looking for a grant to fund it. It is a rather small amount of money and the commissioners do have the authority to do that if they so direct. Sassaman states that there may be some wording in the interlocal agreement that says something to the affect the enterprise fund money can be used for the neighborhood and has no bearing on causality . Yuhasz states that my recollection of the interlocal agreement does say that funds from the enterprise fund can be used for the neighborhood to the extent allowed by law . In each case the county attorney will review the applicable law to see if the fund is in fact usable for that purpose . I would expect that that overall analysis will become part of the manager' s plan . 18 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board December 3, 2009 Approved January 11, 2010 Pollock asks if the basis of the 3000 ft. boundary is known . Yuhasz replies that is when the [University Lake] quarry no-fault well plan was put in place; from that, it was carried over . That is the only reason . Pollock asks if there were a problem found in some of the wells are the remedies going to be absolutely tied to the notion of the well repair or would the remedy more likely be hooking people to the waterline . Yuhasz state that it is going to be which ever is most economical . If it turns out that the attachment to the OWASA water system is more economical in the long run then that will be chosen . Bowerman asks if a household' s septic system [is failing] , is sewer considered part of this also . Or do you decide, once they have water, even if their septic is failing it doesn' t matter anymore ? Yuhasz replies that there is a task force that is in place now that is looking at potential funding mechanisms for extension of sewer services for the Rogers Road neighborhood . We met and had a brief discussion about that. There is a handful of lots that can be served either immediately or with a small extension of the existing sewer system . There is not much possibility of any kind of extension of the sewer system to a large area of that Rogers Road community until there is some injection of funds by a third party, a developer or something along those lines . Part of what is happening with this study there is the Engineers Without Borders which is an organization that works with different community groups and they are part of this study . One of the concerns in starting this was that once failing septic systems are identified you can' t ignore them . You have to do something about that. The Engineers Without Borders is the organization that we are expecting/ hoping will take the lead in doing something about that. I' m not sure how it will work out but I do know there are tentative plans to deal with the potential failing septic systems in some way that is satisfactory both to the Health Department and the people who live there . Vickers states that it may be difficult because North Carolina is very restrictive on individual waste systems . There are things that you can do elsewhere that you can t do here . Yuhasz states that there are more things that you can do here than people would normally think . A lot of those things are expensive . That is where we get into the question of how do you fund those kinds of remedies also if that is what is required . That is going to be the more difficult part of this study . 19 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board December 3, 2009 Approved January 11, 2010 Spire states that availability of water lines running by units is one thing but using the enterprise fund to hook up water to the house is a legal technicality that the County ran into last time . Vickers notes that the low cost loans that were available were not used much because about 65 % were renters so the landlords couldn t use the funding. Yuhasz states that part of the reason for doing this is to see if there can be a sufficient number of houses that need remedies that the neighborhood could qualify for CDBG (Community Development Block Grants) , money from other places . You don t want to be short of the minimum . Bowerman states that you do have to know if their septic systems and wells are failing because if they are, then they are drinking it. Solid Waste Convenience Center Operations Guidelines Wilson states that included is a copy of the SWCC policy and procedures that have been in place for some time . What we done is written down various policies and procedures a year and a half ago that have existed for years . I just wanted you all to know that there are written guidelines that we go by so all the attendants are doing the same thing and we have uniformity and so if the people they ' re trying to advise say ' you' re just making it up ' we can show them this policy . Other Wilson states that as a hand out tonight as an update you have some recent department recycling activities that primarily relate to the C &D aspect. A reuse workshop on Nov . 17th in conjunction with Chatham County and Central Carolina Community College, a Green Building trade show was conducted here . There is a lot going on that no ones knows about so this is a taste of some of the things we do . 5 . Board Member Comments Guild asks if you all would be interested in having a recognized academic expert in plasma arc technology come speak to us . Sassaman asks who would pay for it. Guild states that that question is open. The other part of it is there will be a commercial demonstration up and running by this spring and if there is any way to organize a trip to see it, I would like to do that. Vickers asks where is it located . Guild replies Texas . It is a partnership of Waste Management and the company that makes the units from the Dallas area . If we can have someone come to give a presentation I' d like to do that well enough ahead and a visit to see it. 20 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board December 3, 2009 Approved January 11, 2010 Sassaman states that real issue would be finances . We don' t have a budget. Wilson states that the general answer from the staff perspectives is ' yes . ' Does he come for nothing then we just put him on the agenda . If we tour the pilot in Texas that' s an additional expense . I don' t want to rule it out. We would need to look at cost and potential benefits . If the manager and the BOCC don' t have a problem and the money is in the budget then perhaps so . We have taken one tour to the laboratory in Georgia Tech . about ten or twelve years ago hopefully some progress has been made since then. This is the type of thing this group should be doing, bringing in folks and expanding the knowledge base it just depends on what it costs . Sassaman states that the only thing to say is to thank you all, OCV and other members of the public for all your input and hard work over the year . I whish you a happy holiday for whatever holiday you choose to celebrate . 6 . Other Business None Bowerman moves to adjourn . Guild 2nd , Adjourn : 9 * 00 pm Next meeting : January 11 , 2010 21