Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-11-02 Work Session NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION, NOVEMBER 2, 1995 BOOK 25 PAGE 74 ASSEMBLY The New Hanover County Board of Commissioners held a Work Session on Thursday, November 2, 1995, at 10:00 A.M. in the Conference Room of the New Hanover County Administration Building, 320 Chestnut Street, wilmington, North Carolina. Members present were: Commissioners Sandra Barone; William A. Caster; William E. Sisson, Jr.; vice-Chairman E. L. Mathews, Jr.; Chairman Robert G. Greer; County Manager, Allen O'Neal; County At torney, Wanda M. Copley; and Clerk to the Board, Lucie F. Harrell. Chairman Greer called the meeting to order and reported the purpose of the Work Session was to discuss the proposal for constructing a Material Recovery & Buy-back Facility at WASTEC. PRESENTATION ON DEVELOPING A MATERIAL RECOVERY & BUY-BACK FACILITY Director of Environmental Management, Ray Church, read the following Internal Mission Statement: "The mission of the New Hanover County Department of Environmental Management is to protect human health and the environment for present and future generations by conserving and preserving our natural resources through the most economical and technically sound methods available. The primary focus of the Department is the practical management of municipal solid waste through an integrated waste management approach including: waste minimization, reuse, recycling, composting, energy recovery through incineration, and landfilling." Director Church requested the Solid Waste Planner, Geof Little, to present the concept for developing a Material Recovery & Buy-Back Facility. The following report was presented: A Material Recovery & Buy-back Facility would be a win-win situation for New Hanover County, the private haulers (large and small), the Keys vocational Workshop, and the public. Existing funds would be used to construct the facility through remaining funds from the 1993 bond issue. The plan is a public/private concept with the County providing the building and negotiating long-term contracts for staffing through the Keys vocational Workshop; purchase equipment through lease/purchase with request for proposals; and perform materials marketing through requests for proposals. The facility would buy back a clean material from the public and provide all haulers with equal access to markets and processing. The County would provide the following items: (1) a 25,000 square foot building with tipping, sorting, baling and storage areas as well as loading bays and bathroom facilities; (2) a weighmaster, weighmaster Station and scales; (3) computerized tracking system; (4) glass storage bunkers (to be purchased with grant funds); and (5) a parking area. The County and Department of Environmental Management would be responsible for administering staffing contracts, marketing contracts, public awareness of the facility, monitoring of the Buy- back operations; and maintain the Drop-off Program. The Keys, Inc. would be responsible for staffing to handle administration and benefits, the daily operations of the materials sorting and processing and general maintenance of equipment and housekeeping. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION, NOVEMBER 2, 1995 BOOK 25 PAGE 75 The advantages to the County and Department of Environmental Management would be minimizing County staffing needs, maintaining the Department's responsibility for overall solid waste management, provide an incentive for all private haulers to expand collection services, improve WASTEC operations, and provide long-term stability for the Recycling Program. Also, no additional funding would be needed since the revenues would cover the debt service as well as the operation and maintenance of the facility. This facility would create a flexible, responsive program and establish the key element in integrated solid waste management. The 40% wastestream reduction goal would be met and $180,000 would be saved in avoided Landfill costs. The advantages to WASTEC would be improving boiler feedstock, improving boiler efficiencies, improving ash quality, increasing the capacity of WASTEC, and complying to the Steel Can Ban law. The advantages to the haulers would be a system that would provide all haulers with equal access to processing and markets, eliminate the need for heavy capital investments in building or equipment costs, allow for the use of existing vehicles for collections, allow efficient co-mingled collections, and provide cash or credit for materials delivered to the MRF/Buy-back Facility. The advantages for Keys, Inc. would be long-term stability for the program, the provision of meaningful employment opportunities for 20-25 clients, indirect assistance to the families of the clients, and potential for two to four supervisory positions for the vocational rehabilitation clients. The advantages to the public would be to establish a single, simple, uniform recycling program that would create less confusion and provide potential for encouraging participation. Civic groups would profit from recycling and anyone with access to a pick-up truck could earn money. There would be a stand-alone budget to pay the debt service, operations and maintenance of the facility. The initial budget would be based on processing and marketing 9,000 tons in the first year. The special needs would be an initial escrow account for Keys, Inc. staffing and buy-back funds. Also, an additional security measure may be needed at the facility. The disadvantages would be the possibility of a complicated traffic pattern at WASTEC, the possible need for ordinances prohibiting theft of materials from curbside collection or from drop-off locations, and possibly increase the delivery of mixed loads of trash to avoid tip fees. The development of a Materials Recovery Facility will allow for cheaper processing of recovered materials through the use of Keys, Inc., avoid duplication of costs in the private sector, create a simple, flexible, uniform recycling program, and help the County reach the 40% wastestream reduction by the year 2000 as required by the State. This facility will assist the County in complying to the Steel Can Ban, buffer the haulers and recycling programs from volatile markets, and add capacity to the Solid Waste Management System. Currently, the County is paying $40,000 per year to the City of wilmington in processing fees with no revenue in return. The value of this program to the City is $180,000 per year. The City's processing capabilities are limited and there is no ability to process cardboard, steel cans, or accept commingled materials. Also, there is a lack of storage space at the City's facility and the future of this facility is uncertain because of the Smith Creek Parkway. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION, NOVEMBER 2, 1995 BOOK 25 PAGE 76 If the County uses the private sector, capital, operation and maintenance costs will be avoided and there will be no oversight responsibilities. However, the disadvantages could be the tendency of the private sector to target only high-dollar materials with low revenue materials re-entering the wastestream, such as cardboard, and mixed office paper. The County cannot expect the private sector to recycle unprofitable materials without reimbursement. Also, the private sector could consider revenues only, not cost avoidance, such as Landfill costs. The question to be answered is whether the County can support three or four variable recycling programs. The disadvantages of the proposed facility are that no flow control authority is in place to direct recyclables to any facility and, after contacting several private firms, it appears that a population base of 300,000 is needed for a facility of this type. In summary, the proposed Materials Recovery Facility will accomplish the following objectives: Accept commingled materials. Have all necessary permits in place. Provide a long-term solution to recycling. Become a wastepaper packing house with utilization of the State ports. Attract Recyclables through Buy-back. Remove the non-burnables from the wastestream. Reduce landfilling costs while improving WASTEC fuel stock. Be self-supporting. Accomplish goals of the Mission Statement. A lengthy discussion was held on whether the private sector or the County should handle recyclables. Commissioner Barone strongly objected to the County not working with the private sector and recommended contracting out this service. She also expressed concern for the County not working more cooperatively with the haulers in trying to resolve the solid waste disposal problems. Mr. Chris McKeithan, President of Waste Management, Inc., expressed concern for not being contacted by the County Staff when preparing the proposal. He advised that Waste Management, Inc. already had the equipment necessary to perform the curbside collection of recyclables and reported if the County would not interfere with the private sector this service would be handled by the private sector. He reported 67% of the wastestream is commercial waste and recommended establishing a cardboard ban at the Landfill. County Manager 0' Neal inquired as to whether Waste Management, Inc. was collecting recyclables with homeowners in the unincorporated areas, and if so, what was the percentage of customers being served? Mr. McKeithan responded that curbside recycling was offered to their customers at $2.00 per month to approximately 300 to 400 customers. Assistant County Manager, Dave Weaver, inquired as to whether Waste Management, Inc. could collect the steel cans? Mr. McKeithan responded the company had been collecting steel cans for the City of Jacksonville and Carolina Beach for the past four years. A lengthy discussion was held on the facility being self- supporting. Chairman Greer expressed concern for other cities and municipalities having these types of programs with populations of 300,000 and questioned whether enough revenue could be generated in a County with a population of 140,000. He stated, in his opinion, NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION, NOVEMBER 2, 1995 BOOK 25 PAGE 77 there would not be enough revenue generated to support a facility of this type. Director Church responded that avoided Landfill costs will save the County a great deal of money. The non-burnable materials will be removed from the wastestream, such as steel cans and glass, and burnable materials, such as wood waste from the Landfill, will be used to fuel the boilers. This process will improve the feedstock and efficiency of the boilers, improve the ash quality and greatly reduce the need to construct another lined cell at the Landfill at a current cost of $2,000,000. He advised that the wastestream had grown 12% last year, and he emphasized the importance of the County doing everything possible to reduce the wastestream and comply to State requirements. He assured the Board that the proposed facility would be self-supporting. County Manager O'Neal requested direction from the Board. Chairman Greer advised that after discussion with members of the Board he felt the Commissioners were not in favor of the Material Recovery Facility. He reported the Board would have to decide if this service should be provided by the private sector. A lengthy discussion was held on commercial waste being 67% of the wastestream and the need to ban cardboard at the Landfill. Further discussion was held on addressing the problem with the stockpiling of construction debris. After further discussion, the County Manager was directed to prepare an ordinance banning cardboard at the Landfill with this item being placed on a future agenda, and Staff was requested to work with the haulers in addressing the stockpiling of construction debris. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Greer expressed appreciation to Director Church and Staff for an excellent job in preparing the proposal, and he adjourned the meeting at 12:00 Noon. Respectfully submitted, Lucie F. Harrell Clerk to the Board