Loading...
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 ,~