Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 06-08-2004-9bORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: June 8, 2004 Action Agenda Item No. ~-~j SUBJECT: Proposed Waste Reduction, Reuse, and Recycling Fee DEPARTMENT: Solid Waste Management PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No ATTACHMENT(S): 5/26/04 Carrboro Mayor Letter 4/26/04 Solid Waste Director Memo 4/13/04 Solid Waste Director Report 3/23/Q4 Counfy Attorney Letter re: Waste Reduction, Reuse, and Recycling Fees (under separate cover, previously distributed) INFORMATION CONTACT: Gayle Wilson, 968-2885 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732-8181 Chapel Hill 968-4501 Durham 688-7331 Mebane 336-227-2031 PURPOSE: To consider approving a proposal to implement for FY 2004-05 a tiered Waste Reduction, Reuse, and Recycling Fee (3R Fee) to be assessed on all improved Orange County property to finance recycling and waste reduction services/programs. BACKGROUND: Orange County is the recognized leader among North Carolina's 100 counties far its progressive and professional approach to solid waste reduction and recycling efforts, Orange County's innovative and well-managed programs have led to a per capita reduction in solid waste disposed of more than 45% since 1991-92, In 2002-03, Orange County became the first county to achieve the State goal of 40% per capita waste reduction compared to the baseline year, Ironically, Orange County's waste reduction success has created a financial paradox, as the reduction in waste received at the landfill has led to reduced revenues available to pay far recycling and reduction programs, In recognition of this developing financial trend, discussions of the need for supplemental financing far the solid waste enterprise fund have taken place since 1993, and in earnest since about 1996. Enterprise fund reserves have been utilized to subsidize these reduction and recycling programs for many years, However, the increasing success of and investment in these programs have reduced the historical availability of surplus tipping fee revenue due to the diminished volumes of waste being disposed, This situation has culminated in the current situation of significantly reduced available fund balance to continue the annual subsidies necessary to maintain existing programs and services. Therefore, an additional source of supplemental income is vital to enable continuation of the existing array of services to Orange County citizens, At the April 13 and May 5 work sessions, the BOCC discussed the recommended fee structure that includes: Basic Services Fee (B) - $36 per year -services provided to or on behalf of everyone. Examples are HHW, electronics, drop-off site services, food waste and other recycling administration/education. This fee would apply to all improved properties in Orange County, including residential, non-residential, tax-exempt, and governmental (with the exception of University property, which is served by University-funded and provided recycling services). Rural Curbside Services (R) - $52 per year (including the Bfee) -Those who receive or have available biweekly curbside recycling collection in the unincorporated areas. • Urban Curbside Services (U) - $75 per year (including the Bfee) -Those who receive or have available weekly curbside recycling collection in the incorporated areas. • Multi-Family Services (M) - $50 per year (including the Bfee) -Those who receive or have available apartment/condominium type recycling services. Pursuant to the Commissioners' direction, a public hearing on this topic was scheduled and advertised to coincide with the May 27, 2004 public hearing on the 2004-05 operating budget and 2004-14 Capital Investment Plan. At the Board's request, staff met in May 2004 with the governing boards of the Towns of Hillsborough and Carrboro to present more information and answer elected officials' questions about the proposed 3R fee.. A letter on the stabject from Carrboro Mayor Mike Nelson is provided as an attachment. Discussions about the proposed 3R fee are expected to take place on June 7 between the Chair and Vice Ghair and representatives of the Chapel Hill Town Council. County staff are preparing a set of "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQ) regarding the 3R fee for posting on the County website and for distribution as part of the County's educational outreach materials on the need for and structure of the fee, once the BOCC has made its formal decision about implementing a 3R fee far 2004-05. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Implementation of the recommended fee schedule for FY 2004-05 would help stabilize the County's solid waste enterprise fund by generating approximately $3 million to fund reduction, reuse, recycling programs and services and the County's educational outreach efforts related to these. Current plans are for the fees to be billed with the County s annual real property tax bills that are typically mailed in late ,July to early August. One new position, funded through fee proceeds, will be needed immediately in the Revenue Department to assist in implementation and maintenance of the billing and collection of 3R fees. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board approve the proposed set of fees or a modified alternative financing plan either at this meeting or as soon as possible thereafter in June 2004. ~°®~lf~ ®F' CAR64~®R® NORTH CAROLINA WWW TOW NO RCARRRORO ORG Urange County Board of Commissioners Mr. Barry .Jacobs, Chair P.0 Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 May 26, 2004 Dear Conunissioner .Iacobs: I wish to tharIl< you and your colleagues for delaying a vote on the new Waste Reduction, Reuse, and Recycling Fee. The Canboro Board of Aldermen and i appreciate your willingness to hear from other elected officials in the county on this important matter.. We also appreciate the detailed presentation we received on May 20, 2004 from Gayle Wilson, Orange County Solid Waste Management Director. Mr. Wilson's presentation was instructive, The Board of Aldermen and I have discussed this matter and have the following comments. We believe: 1) The fee is regressive-an owner of a $lmillion home pays the same amount as the owner of a $100,000 home. 2) A tax, as opposed to a fee, is a more progressive and fairer inshument 3) Supporting a waste fee instead of a tax is philosophically inconsistent with our community's values. In particular, we believe that this fee seriously undercuts the argument the county has made in years past when seeking enabling legislation for an impact tax instead of an impact fee 4) A ice, unlike county property tars, cannot be deducted from ene's income taxes. A tax is preferable because this deductibility increases affordability and is particularly important to those of us of modest or average means.. 5) The costs should be shared equally amongst all residents of the county. Mr. Wilson's report suggested that a fee is more equitable because owners of unimproved property do not benefit from recycling services. We strongly disagree with this position and believe that recycling and reusing materials is a significant comnnmity benefit. The obvious analogy is with public schools. We all pay for the schools whether or not we have children or whether or not our children attend private or public schools. We believe it is not consistent with our cormmunity's values to start down the slippery slope of assessing fees 301 WEST MAIN STREET. CARRBO RO. NC 27510 1919) 9428541 FAX 1979) 918-4456 TDD (800) 826-7653 AN EQUAL OPPO RTU NITV PROVIDER based on perceived individual use rather than benefits to the entire community.. 6) If a fee is going to be applied, it should he instituted evenly. That is, all tax- exempt organizations should be treated alike,. We were surprised to learn that some tax-exempt institutions will be exempt from the proposed WRRR fee and others will not. Por example Mr. Wilson informed us that iJNC, the largest non-profit in our conununity, will not be required to pay the fee,. As you can see, the Board of Aldermen and I have serious reservations about this fee, this particular instnunent for collecting the revenue necessary to pay for our solid waste recycling programs. Our reservations, however, should not be construed to as opposition to achieving a stable revenue stream for your program, Simply put, we believe revenue should be sought through progressive means that reflect the values of our community, that payment for services should be based on means not flat rates. Again, tharilc you for entertaining continents from other elected officials in the county. We bust you will make the decision that is in Che best interest of the citizens of this county. Sincerely, Michael R. Nelson Mayor Memm andum To: County Commissioners .Tolm Link, County Manager From: Gayle Wilson, Solid Waste Director Sub,jeet: Reduction, Reuse & Recycling Fee -April 13, 2004 Follow-up Date: April 26, 2004 5 This memorandum responds to questions asked and issues raised at the April 13 Board of Commissioners meeting related to the proposed Waste Reduction, Reuse, and Recycling Fee. Staff will restate each question/issue, as we understood it, and respond accordingly, It is important that BOCC questions and concerns be adequately addressed so that the WRRR Pee can be revised as necessary and adopted at the earliest opportunity so that final preparations for billing can be completed. If the WRR:I2T were not included on the fax bill, a separate billing would be needed in FY 2004/05 that would be costly and likely have a far lower collection rate. While it is possible to conduct a separate billing if there are delays in adoption, substantial negative consequences can be anticipated.. 1. How will small studio/efficiency apartments and other similar special residential situations be assessed, including Carol Woods? Basic Services Fee (B) Sororities, Fraternities, and Elderly Assisted Living (EAL) aze proposed to be assessed one (1) Basic Fee for each 4 persons (assuming an occupancy of one per room). Fraternity and sorority houses would be charged seven (7) basic fees. For Elderly Assisted Living facilities the fee will be determined based on the number of EAL units dedicated to EAL, care.. For exarnple, we would include 114 of the tota1402 housing units of Carol Woods as qualifying as EAL. These type units have no kitchen facilities and are typically,just sleeping units, thus for the 114 units, 29 Basic fees will be charged. EALs and fraternity and sorority fee schedule has been refined from that included in the April 1.3 report.. Our view regarding efficiency/studio apartments is that the owner would be assessed a Basic Fee for each unit as with other multi-faznily facilities. Furtherniore, there appears to be no existing list indicating how many of the estimated 14,000 apartments in the County would be considered studio/eff ciency type apartments, though our records indicate that at least :3,500 of those units are one- bedroom units. In order to meet the tax billing deadlines it would be unlikely that such information could be obtained in the necessary timeframe should the BOCC wish to provide some preferential fee consideration. However, such information could be more realistically developed and adjustments made for the second year of the fee if necessazy/desired. Granville Towers is proposed to be assessed one (1) Basic Fee for each 13 students. Tax Exempt/public housing/land trusts are proposed to be assessed one (1) Basic Fee for each housing unit. Multi-famil Fee M Each Basic Fee unit receiving multi-family services would also receive the Multi-family Fee (Same ratio as Basic Fee). In the case of fraternities and sororities, each would receive 7 (M) fees. For EAL facilities, if the (B) fee is 4 units equal one Fee, then the M fee will be also applied as 4 units equal one (M) fee,. Urban Curbside Fee (U Each Basic Fee runt receiving urban curbside services would also receive the Urban Curbside Fee (Same ratio as Basic Fee).. If the (B) fee is 4 units equal one fee, then 4 units equal one (LI) fee also. Staff does not believe that square footage is a good sun°ogate for a fee for residential units. Square footage does not seem to correlate to waste production or recycling usage for residences. Nationally, however, non-residential sector square footage does seem to strongly correlate when used in conjunction with type of use (i.e. warehouse, travel agency, grocery store, convenience store, etc.). Should the Board of Cornmissioners wish us to make other assumptions regarding any of the above, staff would welcome such guidance,. 2. Would there be a policy to address low-income residents unable to pay the fees? The WRI2RF proposal presented on April 13 does not contain provisions related to means-testing in cases involving low income or an inability to pay.. The proposal currently assumes that any governmental jurisdiction may choose to pay all or part of airy fee on behalf of any individual or group residing in that jurisdiction. As noted by the County Manager at the April 13 meeting, the County has historically not waived any fees, but has provided other means to pay those fees.. For exanzple, Habitat for Humanity maybe required to pay impact fees for homes they built and then can be reimbursed from a different fund, rather than the County's waiving the fees. In the event the Board of Coinrnissioners wishes the County to serve the role of assessing the ability to pay and facilitating/subsidizing pcyments, staff has provided an outline as to how that maybe done, Approximately 18 months ago, based on concerns from the BOCC about helping citizens who might have an inability to pay ambulance bills, staff (Revenue, DSS and Budget) devised ali EMS Assistance Program. This prograni involves staff from the Revenue Department doing referrals to the DSS staff for determination of income qualification, upon receipt of a request from a citizen who may request assistance in clearing an EMS bill because of their inability to pay it. Eligibility criteria are based on the 200% poverty level determined by Medicaid. The DSS budget includes a line item through which the EMS bills of qualified individuals can be cleared.. Staff propose to work toward devising a similar program to be able to assist eligible individuals in the payment of the proposed WI2RRF and to bring back to file BOCC at a later date the program for approval. 3. Why has the proposal recommended delaying the non-r°esidential component of the fee? Given the extent of the work necessary to develop an accurate and timely residential database, coupled with the fact that less than 10% ofnon-residential type facilities receive a direct service, staff has recommended that for the time being, the non-residential sector pay only an amoral Basic Fee (B) of $.36 initially. Staff believes that priority should be given to developing and refining t9re residential billing database, to whom the vast majority of the services are provided and where the majority of the fees will be assessed. Significant effort is underway to reconcile the existing departmental services address database with the tax property identification number database for each recycling service area. The effort, while considerable, is expected to be completed in time for testing and insertion onto the 2004 property bill Tlus corrunihnent to getting the residential billing correct in the limited timeframe requires us to make choices on where fo devote our resources. There simply wasn't time to complete anon-residential analysis. hr fact, the BOCC has still not given final approval to the proposed fee and additional changes/revisions could still be required in the residential sector. hi the stafl'report of April 1.3, we indicated that we believed the non-residential sector analysis would take place no sooner than FY 2005/06 following implementation of the initial fee schedule. Staffbelieves this approach to be a reasonable schedule with limited equity or financial implications, especially since significant conmrercial sector expansions aze unlikely in the neaz teen, Developing the required non-residential fee beyond the simple interim recornmendation included in the proposal will necessitate considerable fieldwork. Such anon-residential fee shucture would likely include developing groupings by type of business, estimations of square footage, additional address/property identification information, etc. While there are templates available from some other communities, all would require modification specifically for Orange County. Experience in other ,jurisdictions adopting non-residential fees tied to the size and use intensity of the property showed a year or more lead-time necessary to collect these data, validate them, and gain local approval. 4. What ar°e the plans regarding assessing uninhabited rural structures? For habitable residential type stnrctures in unincorporated Orange County the policy would be to charge a Basic Fee (B), with additional service fees such as (R) charged if applicable. These residences do not have to be occupied, only habitable. Those residential type structures that are not habitable (i.e. used for storage of hay, supplies, equipment, are physically uninhabitable, not actually a dwelling, etc.) should not be assessed a fee. Those that are billed may appeal that assessment and have the fee assessment eliminated (simple documentatior>/proofmay berequired). 5. What are the plans for private contractor served units? The proposed fees relate to County governmental waste reduction and recycling services and programs provided for and available to the various user sectors. We have not considered private contractor served units in our costs/revenue estimates because the proposed fees do not fund the private contractor services, the private sector provides little or no residential recycling services upon which the fees are based, and the proposed fees do not fund garbage collection or disposal whatsoever,. In the case ofneighborhoods/developments that have chosen for whatever reason to forgo available publicly provided recycling services in favor of recycling services provided by a private contractor, the various residences will be assessed the appropriate fees based on the type of service the County would provide should the County be asked to provide recycling service.