1993-08-05 Work Session
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
SPECIAL WORK SESSION, AUGUST 5, 1993
BOOK 23
PAGE 618
ASSEMBLY
The New Hanover County Board of Commissioners held a Special
Work Session on Thursday, August 5, 1993, at 9:00 A.M. in the First
Floor Assembly Room, 320 Chestnut Street, Wilmington, N. C.
Members present were: Commissioners Sandra Barone; William A.
Caster; William E. Sisson, Jr.; Chairman Robert G. Greer; County
Manager, Allen O'Neal; County Attorney, Wanda Copley; and Deputy
Clerk to the Board, Teresa P. Elmore.
vice-Chairman Mathews was absent.
Chairman Greer called the Special Work Session to order and
stated the purpose of the meeting is to discuss the proposed Solid
Waste Management Plan. He expressed appreciation to those
attending the meeting, especially to Senator John Codington, and
Representatives Karen Gottovi, David Redwine, and Dewey Hill.
Representative Thomas Wright came in during the meeting and was
welcomed at that time. All those present were urged to take part
ln the discussion.
County Manager O'Neal requested the Commissioners to consider
two items of business before starting the work session as follow.
APPROVAL FOR ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURES FOR THE DINAMATION EXHIBIT AT
THE MUSEUM
County Manager O'Neal reported the Dinamation Exhibit at the
Cape Fear Museum is exceeding all expectations with the number of
visitors viewing the exhibit. In order to keep up with the extra
cleaning chores, the housekeeping staff will need to work
additional hours. He requested approval to spend an additional
$4,000.00 for the overtime. This cost will be offset by the
admission fees raised from the exhibit.
Motion: Commissioner Sisson MOVED, SECONDED
Caster, to approve the spending of $4,000.00 in
the housekeeping staff at the Cape Fear Museum.
MOTION CARRIED AS FOLLOWS.
by Commissioner
overtime pay for
Upon vote, the
Voting Aye:
Commissioner Barone
Commissioner Caster
Commissioner Sisson
Chairman Greer
Absent:
Vice-Chairman Mathews
DISCUSSION ON THE POSSIBILITIES OF MERGING THE POLICE DEPARTMENT
WITH THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
County Manager 0' Neal reported the County has received a
response from the City of Wilmington accepting the County's offer
to begin discussion on the possibilities of merging the Police
Department with the Sheriff's Department. County Manager O'Neal
requested approval from the Commissioners to allow County staff to
work with City Staff in developing options for a possible merger.
Chairman Greer confirmed that the Commissioners at their
meeting on July 26, 1993, discussed the City's request to consider
contracting with the Sheriff's Department. Although the Board was
not interested in the Sheriff contracting to operate the City
Police Department, the Board did authorize staff to proceed in
discussion with City staff on the options for a merger of the two
departments.
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN WORK SESSION
Chairman Greer began by giving the legislators a brief history
of the solid waste problem in the County. An incinerator seemed to
be the best path for the County to take in dealing with the solid
waste stream since the County did not have large land areas
available for landfills nor the surrounding counties wanted to
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
SPECIAL WORK SESSION, AUGUST 5, 1993
BOOK 23
PAGE 619
provide land for this purpose. It was believed that by selling
generated steam and electricity, an incinerator could make money or
at least cover the cost of its operation. The facility is
supported by tipping fees of $60/ton, (which is among the highest
fees on the east coast), and subsidized by tax dollars. The County
spent $40+ million for the incinerator through bond indebtedness.
Chairman Greer went on to explain that other counties are
considering a regional concept. Since landfills operate more
cheaply than an incinerator, the County's waste stream could be
transported to other counties. If that happens, the cost per ton
will increase at the incinerator and more tax dollars will be
needed to support the facility. The Commissioners are confronted
with the following dilemma: Should a flow control ordinance be
adopted, and is it legal? Should we establish district waste areas
with a district tax? Should the tipping fees be reduced by half?
County Manager 0' Neal informed the Board that the WASTEC
Commission on July 28, 1993, voted to recommend adoption of a solid
waste management plan in order for the County to require refuse
generated in the County to be disposed of at the WASTEC facility
which would assure economic viability of WASTEC and for the County
to continue to meet the debt obligation.
Mr. Ray Church, Director of Environmental Management,
explained that the purpose of the proposed solid waste management
plan is to comply with the Solid Waste Management Act of 1989 and
to determine ways to decrease waste products from entering the
landfills with such methods as reprocessing centers, recycling
facilities, compost facilities, markets, etc. He explained the
plan also enables the County to protect its solid waste investment
with continual revenues supplied by tip fees. G.S. 130A-294(a)
(5a-5b) allows a local government to have flow control only after
the State has approved a solid waste management plan for a
designated geographical area.
Representative Redwine stated it was his understanding that
the State will not be in a position to approve any solid waste
management plan for at least six months to two years because the
State has not adopted the requirements for a plan. Also, the
General Assembly has not debated the flow control issue.
Mr. Church explained SB111 outlines the requirements for a
solid waste management plan. Plans have been approved for Alamance
County, Buncombe County, City of High Point, and Cabarrus County.
Mr. Tim Cole, Recycling Manager, explained there are two types
of plans: a local comprehensive plan (the plan staff has prepared)
and a designated area plan. A designated geographical area plan is
less complex and only needs to comply with Subdivision (Sa) of the
Statute. In order for a county flow control ordinance to apply to
solid waste generated wi thin municipalities, the plan must be
approved by the municipal governing bodies. But a county could
have a plan and a flow control ordinance that applies only to
unincorporated areas or to some of the municipal jurisdictions.
Chairman Greer stated he felt the State's regulations should
be directed to the counties who are not doing anything to solve
their solid waste disposal problems. New Hanover County has made
good efforts in building an incinerator and lined landfills.
However, the State has told the County that incineration will not
count in the waste reduction goals, even though there is an 80%
reduction of the waste stream that is burned.
Representative Redwine stated it was not the State's intent to
have more rules and regulations for counties. Based on regulations
used in other states, SB111 was passed to give counties some
directions in how to manage their waste stream. He commended New
Hanover County for their efforts.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
SPECIAL WORK SESSION, AUGUST 5, 1993
BOOK 23
PAGE 620
Commissioner Barone reiterated there should be some relief for
counties who are already working to solve their solid waste
problems and asked Representative Gottovi to give the status of a
proposed bill that she is working on that will help the County.
Representative Gottovi endorsed the County's proposed plan.
She stated that New Hanover County may need to consider a franchise
system in the collection of garbage because the county is congested
and most residents are unable to dispose of their yard waste. She
briefed the board on a bill she is working on that will give the
County a reduction for having a waste-to-energy facility. Also, a
bill will be considered next spring that will allow burning of
pallets as fuel in a waste-to-energy facility.
Chairman Greer pointed out that State law does not allow
disposing of yard waste in lined landfills. The County's problem
is that everything is burned when possible; however, during the
peak months of summer, all waste including some yard waste is taken
directly to the landfill.
Representative Gottovi commented the County is in a hurricane
prone area where huge amounts of yard waste and debris can be
generated. Certainly after it all dries out, the incinerator would
be a responsible way of handling the debris. She emphasized the
County Commissioners are charged with the responsibility of
environmental health and are liable - politically, physically and
legally for what happens at a landfill. The County thought Waste
Industries had solved their solid waste problem when Flemington
Landfill was opened. Although she was not a commissioner when the
landfill was opened or permitted, she is still involved with the
legal suit against the County by EPA. As more privately owned
waste companies build and operate large landfills, counties will
need protection. SB1003 allows local governments to review any
amendments to a permit that would affect the waste flow. Case in
point, the Town of Kernersville approved a company to build and
operate a landfill for the residents of Kernersville and parts of
Forsyth and Guilford Counties. Three weeks after the permit was
issued, the State approved amendments to the permit which allowed
garbage from other states and changed the nature of the garbage to
include asbestos and hazardous waste. The landfill will probably
be filled within the next five years and Kernersville will need
another landfill. Waste companies are in the business to make
money and not to solve county problems.
Commissioner Sisson stated that during the ThermalKem issue,
the State started supporting the policy of source reduction. The
Commissioners also will need to address how to handle waste that
should not be burned at the incinerator.
Representative Redwine stated that he is a great believer in
regionalism, not only in solid waste but in other matters of mutual
needs. If surrounding counties are talking about a regional
landfill and New Hanover is not involved, the County may have a
nice facility with no solid waste stream to burn. If the trend is
to have landfills and it is the cheapest way to go, then the
Commissioners should consider regional landfills.
Commissioner Barone stated in order to achieve the 25% waste
reduction goal ordered by the State, she supported removal of
cardboard and construction material from the waste stream. If
waste haulers were to keep these products separated for commercial
accounts, a substantial reduction in the waste stream could be
realized. Also, by reducing the tipping fee to $40/ton, the County
should see an increase in the garbage received from other counties.
Mr. Church replied that the maJ or haulers are providing
separate containers for cardboard at an additional cost. Also, at
this time of the year with the influx of tourist, the incinerator
is unable to handle waste from other counties. A Construction and
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
SPECIAL WORK SESSION, AUGUST 5, 1993
BOOK 23
PAGE 621
Demolition Debris Processing Facility lS budgeted for this year
which will also target cardboard collection. If the County does
not have a flow control mechanism, the facility will not have the
revenues needed to support it. Another problem is how to get the
materials to the right place whether it is to be recycled, used as
fuels, or stored for the Wastec facility.
Although the Local Government Planning Rules have not been
finalized, Mr. Church reported the State has told the County to use
Volume III of the State Plan as a guide for developing a plan.
Paul Chrissman, who reviews the plans for the State, did not
approve the plan submitted last year because it was not specific.
Also, the State will not consider giving the County a 10% credit
for incineration until they have reviewed the County's
comprehensive solid waste management plan to see how source
reduction, reuse, recycling and composting will be implemented.
Mr. Church felt that SB111 is not a way to penalize the
County, but a way in which Staff and the Commissioners can control
the growth of the waste stream.
Mr. McKeithan responded he felt the County is meeting the
intent of SB111 with the $40+ million incinerator and lined
landfills. He expressed concern that once materials such as yard
waste are taken from the waste stream of the incinerator, the cost
per ton for the waste that is burned at the incinerator increases.
He condoned recycling efforts, but asked the legislators to provide
legislation to enforce use of recycled products. There is an
unlimited supply of recycled material, but a very limited demand
for it.
Mr. Church replied the State recognlzes yard waste as a
reusable product, either for mulch or compost and the County should
not bypass burning garbage for the sake of burning yard waste.
Also, yard waste is not a good burnable material.
Mr. Church presented slides showing the County implementing
some of the requirements of SB111. In order to conserve the
landfill space, the County is excluding scrap tires, white goods
and other items from the landfill. The County and the
municipalities have good recycling programs and the City of
Wilmington has an impressive mulching program.
Demographic information was given showing actual and projected
waste disposal figures. It was noted that the City of Wilmington's
recycling program significantly reduced the waste stream beginning
in 1988-89. With current efforts, the landfill should last 120
years instead of the average 30 years.
Mr. Tim Cole, author of the Proposed Solid Waste Management
Plan, gave a brief summary of the plan and recommendations for
future efforts with a special focus on waste reduction efforts and
improvements in collections.
In conclusion, Mr. Cole stated the plan calls for the
formation of a Solid Waste Advisory Committee which will recommend
specific objectives in achieving the solid waste reduction goals.
Commissioner Barone expressed concern
ordinances have been legally challenged and
areas around the country. She did not want
money on legal fees to defend the ordinance.
that flow control
defeated in several
to spend taxpayers'
Mr. Church suggested the Commissioners read the information in
the Work Session notebooks regarding the legal cases on flow
control and discuss this matter at another meeting.
Chairman Greer stated that the plan is very comprehensive;
however, he does not want to restrict the direction the County
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
SPECIAL WORK SESSION, AUGUST 5, 1993
BOOK 23
PAGE 622
takes in the future regarding flow control.
Mr. Church answered the State is satisfied with our disposal
facility and the plans for a C&D Processing Facility. However, the
State is wanting the County to address solid waste management
according to hierarchy developed in SB111.
In discussions concerning the yard waste ordinance, Mr. Church
explained the intent of the ordinance is to bring the County in
compliance with the State's objective to have a separate collection
for yard waste and to make mulch and compost from the debris. In
order to protect the haulers, Staff recommended inserting a clause
in the ordinance that would allow a load of garbage to have 15%
yard waste. A few haulers are picking up some of the yard waste;
however, some residents are having to find other ways of disposal.
There are times the incinerator is not operating and the yard waste
goes into the landfill. It is believed that burning yard waste may
hinder the BTU value rate in steam production.
Chairman Greer pointed out to the legislators that the County
does not want yard waste in the landfill and is doing a lot to
reduce the waste stream from the landfill.
Commissioner Sisson felt that the County should provide a
facili ty to handle yard waste. The City's compost and mulch
program has been real successful due to their having separate
collections for yard waste.
Chairman Greer stated the residents in the County are paying
more money now than city residents for trash pickup. If a separate
collection for yard waste is required, there will be an increased
cost to the hauler and the resident.
Mr. Church informed the Commissioners that the private entity,
who constructed a compost facility and contracted with the County
to handle the debris from the March 13th storm, is not in operation
at this time because there is not a continuous flow of material.
Separate collection for yard waste will be needed to keep the
facility running.
County Manager O'Neal suggested statements in the plan to be
changed to offer more flexibility to the County. He recommended
adding the clause "or other collection and recycling mechanisms as
might be available" to the executive summary under item (7) of the
seven point waste reduction plan.
Commissioner Sisson stated the County will eventually need to
address the issue of how solid waste is collected in the county.
The current system does not meet our needs because it is not cost
effective or efficient. A private entity may come up with a better
system, so we need to keep our options open. The proposed plan
does not lock us into one mechanism. As recommended in the plan,
a citizens' advisory group can be appointed to give
recommendations.
Mr. Peterson, who served on the Citizens Solid Waste Task
Force in 1987, stated the Task Force recommended increasing the
size of the steam boilers at the incinerator and they developed a
collection plan using a commercial bidding system with districts.
Certain areas could be set aside for minority or small business
owners. The County would need to establish procedures for the
haulers to follow and to collect special fees or add the cost to
the property tax in order to give some flexibility in the fees for
the elderly or hardship cases. It should not be a franchise system
with the haulers collecting fees from the residents and doing as
they desire.
He reported that former County Engineer Ed Hilton strongly
recommended a franchise system because it seemed to be a simpler
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
SPECIAL WORK SESSION, AUGUST 5, 1993
BOOK 23
PAGE 623
way to go. He did not believe he would get the support from the
County to administer the program. If there is not a good
collection mechanism, trash dumps will continue to be a problem in
the unpopulated areas of the county. A collection system should
collect white goods, old sofas, yard waste, etc.
Mr. Church reiterated that it would be more economical to have
a system with the haulers collecting garbage at every house on a
street than with the current system. Also, separate collections
for recycled materials or yard waste would be practical.
Mr. McKeithan replied staff needs to address problems with the
cost at the incinerator before addressing problems with the
haulers. It would definitely be more efficient to have one hauler
collect in an area, but keep in mind that 40% of the disposal fee
is due to the tipping fee. The haulers who have provided service
to this area for many years, may loose their business at a flip of
a coin if trash collection is up for bid. The haulers are willing
to meet with the County, as they did several years ago, to work out
a plan that is best for everyone.
Mr. Church stated there are many residents who will pay more
and have less services available if the County does not provide
some kind of collection mechanism. The County may need to expand
the landfill sooner than anticipated if changes are not made.
Staff has a lot of questions and concerns on collections and is
researching to see how other counties are operating.
In the discussion of the Yard Waste Ordinance, there was some
misunderstandings between Staff and the Board on the interpretation
of the ordinance. Chairman Greer requested the ordinance to be
discussed at the next meeting to make sure the County lS ln
compliance with the State law.
In order for the Solid Waste Management Plan to be considered
for adoption at the next meeting, Commissioner Caster recommended
to modify the wording on item 3 of the Executive Summary by simply
stating: "Enforce the County's yard waste ordinance." instead of
"Enforce the County's recently passed yard waste ordinance banning
yard waste from disposal facilities."
Commissioner Barone stated the County should insist the State
use the 1988-89 waste figures as the baseline in setting the waste
reduction goals of 25% for 1993 and 40% for 2000, because that is
when the County started working on reducing the solid waste stream.
Mr. Church explained the State will allow some flexibility in
which baseline the County uses, but the County will have to furnish
a good argument in support of the basis. Although the City's
recycling program has been quite effective in reducing the waste
stream, the recession caused more of an impact in 1988-89.
Chairman Greer asked staff to make the changes to the Solid
Waste Management Plan as suggested by the County Manager and
Commissioner Caster and have it ready for consideration at the next
meeting. With these changes, the plan gives other options for the
County to explore in achieving flow control.
CONSENSUS: It was agreed to schedule a Work Session after the
regular meeting on August 16, 1993, to discuss options of flow
control for the County.
Commissioner Barone stated there are three additional points
to address such as: 1) urging legislators to require manufacturers
to use a certain percentage of recycled products in manufactured
goods to increase the use of recycled materials; 2) requiring
sellers of appliances to share the responsibility of disposal and
collection of abandoned or broken appliances; and 3) correcting the
problems associated with unmanned collection sites of recyclables.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
SPECIAL WORK SESSION, AUGUST 5, 1993
BOOK 23
PAGE 624
Senator Codington answered there is a new law that requlres a
$5 tax on purchases of new white goods.
Mr. Church was concerned the appliance tax would be disbursed
the same way as the scrap tire tax, which is reimbursements based
on per capita and not on the number of tires disposed. Also, he
acknowledged there are more problems with the unmanned collection
si tes; however, these sites collect more recyclables than the
manned sites. All sites are donated and need to comply with zoning
regulations. The best solution is curb side recycling.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further discussion, Chairman Greer adjourned
the Work Session at 12:05 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Teresa P. Elmore
Deputy Clerk to the Board
.
.
.
~
MINUTES OF SPECIAL WORK SESSION, AUGUST 5, 1993
PAGE 624
Senator Codington answered there is a new law that requires a
$5 tax on purchases of new white goods.
Mr. Church was concerned the appliance tax would be disbursed
the same way as the scrap tire tax, which is reimbursements based
on per capita and not on the number of tires disposed. Also, he
acknowledged there are more problems with the unmanned collection
sites; however, these sites collect more recyclables than the
manned sites. All sites are donated and need to comply with zoning
regulations. The best solution is curb side recycling.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further discussion, Chairman Greer adjourned
the Work Session at 12:05 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
~~ (J~
Teresa P. Elmore
Deputy Clerk to the Board
,~