Loading...
2002-02-18 Special Meeting NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 29 SPECIAL MEETING, FEBRUARY 18, 2002PAGE 69 ASSEMBLY The New Hanover County Board of Commissioners held a Special Meeting on Monday, February 18, 2002, at 2:00 P.M. in the Assembly Room of the New Hanover County Courthouse, 24 North Third Street, Wilmington, North Carolina. Members present were: Chairman Ted Davis, Jr.; Vice-Chairman Robert G. Greer; Commissioner Julia Boseman; Commissioner William A. Caster; Commissioner Nancy H. Pritchett; County Manager, Allen O’Neal; County Attorney, Wanda M. Copley; and Clerk to the Board, Lucie F. Harrell. Chairman Davis called the meeting to order and stated that the Special Session had been called to discuss options for disposal of solid waste in New Hanover County. He requested County Manager O’Neal to begin the presentation. County Manager O’Neal spoke on concern about the transfer of money from the general fund to the environmental management fund and stated that a financial overview of the present Solid Waste Management Program would be made by the Finance Director followed by a report on the study conducted by Energy Path, Inc. on the use of biomass fuel in the WASTEC Facility. Presentations will also be made on the development of a countywide commercial and residential collection system, development of a stand alone residential collection system, and the possibility of re- instating a flow control ordinance. After hearing these presentations, the Board is requested to decide on which option to use so Staff can prepare the budget for FY 2002-2003. FINANCIAL OVERVIEW ON PRESENT OPERATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT Finance Director Bruce Shell reported that the Environmental Management budget is comprised of four cost centers: (1) New Hanover County WASTEC Facility; (2) New Hanover County Landfill (3) New Hanover County Recycling Program; and (4) Administration. A balanced budget is prepared annually reflecting revenues and expenditures of the entire operation. The Finance Office uses the full accrual approach, which is all inclusive of costs, such as interest payments, Landfill closure, post-closure costs, and depreciation. A modified accrual approach is also used to maintain the actual budget revenues and expenditures, cost of debt service, and a cash flow reflecting the money needed to operate the department. Depending on the method used, different costs can be derived. The following report was presented: Environmental Management (Landfill, WASTEC, Recycling, & Administration) This division is a New Hanover County government entity with no income or property taxes that has depreciation for full accrual purposes. The cash flow analysis provides a good picture of actual operational results showing the cash received and cash expended. The cash received is comprised of tip fees, grants, electric sales, and recycling revenue. Cash expended is comprised of the current operating expenses and debt service. A spread sheet was presented reflecting four years of audited data beginning with FY 1998 through FY 2001 showing revenues and expenditures. The four-year average reflects that revenues exceeded expenditures by $1.4 million without debt service. The purpose for breaking out the debt service is because 90 percent of the debt is general obligation bonds that are required by law to be paid whether using just the Landfill or the WASTEC Facility and Landfill. The debt service payment has created the deficit in the operation of the Environmental Management Department which has required transfers from the general fund to the environmental management fund annually to offset the deficit. The fund balance under the modified method has ranged from $4.7 million in 1998 down to $2.9 million in the past fiscal year. Under the full accrual method, the depreciation expense and Landfill post-closure costs have created a negative retained earnings. A spread sheet was presented showing the operation of Environment Management from its inception to the previous fiscal year. When comparing the revenues generated versus the tipping fees, it clearly shows that the success of Environmental Management is based on the amount of the tipping fee. If the tipping fee is insufficient, money must be transferred from the general fund to cover the debt payment. The cost per ton has changed dramatically over the last four years because in the last two years, there were large capital costs plus boiler downtime at the WASTEC Facility that decreased electrical revenues. A question frequently asked is the difference in cost if the WASTEC Facility is closed and the County operates only the Landfill versus operating both the WASTEC Facility and Landfill. When averaging the four years of audited data, operations will cost $1.3 million less if the WASTEC Facility is closed. There will also be a one time cost associated with decommissioning the WASTEC Facility ranging from $500,000 to $750,000. In summary, solid waste disposal produces net operating revenues over operating expenses. The long-term debt service payments are not being fully paid by current operations. The debt payment is approximately $3 million per year. If a decision is made to close the WASTEC Facility, the savings of $1.3 million will not be sufficient to pay the debt service payment. When reviewing the WASTEC balance sheet, the plant and equipment are valued at $47.4 million with a book value after depreciation of $14.9 million and a disposal value of almost nothing. The liabilities are $15.1 million in NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 29 SPECIAL MEETING, FEBRUARY 18, 2002PAGE 70 general obligation bonds, $1.4 million in installment debt for a total debt of $16.5 million. The WASTEC Facility is an asset valued at $47.4 million with debt of $16.5 million which represents an equity investment of $30.9 million. When analyzing the Landfill, the MSW (Municipal Solid Waste) flow has doubled over the past 10 years, and it is felt that if the County continues to grow, the MSW will continue to increase. The existing landfill receptacle will be full in less than 5 years. The estimated life of the Landfill at the current rate is 40 years with operation of the WASTEC Facility and 20 years if the WASTEC Facility is closed. With operation of the Landfill, New Hanover County is in the position to have a competitive impact on charges by other landfills. For example, in Mecklenburg County, a private hauler was charging a tipping fee of $32.50 per ton to carry waste to a privately owned landfill. After applying for and receiving a permit from environmental agencies, Mecklenburg County opened its own Landfill, and the same private hauler reduced its tipping fee from $32.50 to $18.00 per ton. Finance Director Shell concluded the presentation by saying that he felt it was critical for the County to stay in the solid waste business for the benefit the citizens. He offered to answer questions. Commissioner Caster asked where the operation of the recycling program was shown on the spread sheet. Finance Director Shell responded that recycling was included in the total cost on the spread sheet and stated that the expense for recycling is approximately $300,000 per year over the revenue received from the program. Commissioner Pritchett noted that the $300,000 figure did not include cost avoidance by not having to dispose of recycled items. Vice-Chairman Greer requested the number of available acres in the Landfill. Environmental Management Director Ray Church responded that the size of the Landfill is approximately 500 acres with a large portion being wetlands that are suitable for MSW disposal. REPORT FROM ENERGY PATH, INC. Mr. John Griffin reported that Energy Path, Inc. entered into a contract with New Hanover County to provide the Board with a detailed set of recommendations that could be implemented to allow the WASTEC Facility to operate at a financial breakeven point over the next five years. After evaluating multiple management options, which include closing WASTEC or using a different type of fuel to operate WASTEC, several other municipal solid waste operations were studied throughout the country and around the world. It was found that WASTEC is being operated in an excellent manner compared to similar facilities, and it is unfortunate that WASTEC has to compete with private interests. The situation today is that WASTEC has been operating at an annual deficit of $3 million because of a general obligation bond payment that will be in place until 2009, at which time the debt will be just about retired. Traditionally, this deficit has been subsidized by the general fund which is comprised of property tax revenue. The County Commissioners do not want to continue the general fund transfer to cover the debt service for WASTEC. Some independent waste haulers feel that WASTEC should be closed because it is creating a hardship for the private sector. In order for the WASTEC Facility to break even or produce a profit, the Board should consider the following recommendations: 1. Recharter WASTEC as an enterprise fund 2. Continue to operate as a Municipal Solid Waste facility 3. Consider privatizing the WASTEC Facility in the future 4. Tip fees should be stabilized 5. Establish long-term independent waste hauler agreements 6. Operate WASTEC like a business by maximizing revenues and minimizing expenses 7. Rationalize the WASTEC power generation When speaking to the Board of County Commissioners on December 18, 2001, it was felt that WASTEC could be used to incinerate turkey litter as a biomass fuel for the incinerator since the area is adjacent to the largest poultry producing area of the State. When studying this use, obstacles were encountered with North Carolina industry politics and regulatory timing issues. Currently, the amount of phosphorus ( the primary nutrient in turkey litter) is not in compliance to regulations established by the federal government; however, the poultry producers in North Carolina have been grandfathered in for a period of five years, which means that the producers will not acknowledge the problem and do not want to make investments until required to correct the problem by the Environmental Protection Agency. It is unfortunate that this is not a near-term viable option; however, there are private investors moving forward with the necessary steps to resolve this issue. Since turkey litter is not a viable option at this time, the Board should consider the following recommendations: 1. Increase plant capacity utilization 2. Incinerate more Municipal Solid Waste 3. Generate more electricity NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 29 SPECIAL MEETING, FEBRUARY 18, 2002PAGE 71 4. Maximize revenues 5. Minimize expenses Charts were presented showing that the primary capacity utilization at WASTEC is burning municipal solid waste which has varied from 50 percent to 83 percent because of equipment break downs and the supply of municipal solid waste versus tipping fees which have also varied. The amount of municipal solid waste burned is the direct function of the amount of revenue produced in terms of tipping fees. Currently, WASTEC is permitted to produce a maximum of 10 ½ megawatts of power, which is a large amount of energy. Over the past 10 years based upon this capacity, WASTEC has been operating between 20 to 45 percent, which is excellent. Very few facilities can generate revenue at this level for a 10-year period. If the recommendations presented are implemented, it is predicted that WASTEC will operate at an 85 percent burn utilization beginning the next fiscal year and topping out at 90 percent in FY 2007-2008. The figures presented are based upon bench marking throughout the country. It is also predicted that electrical generation will increase from 50 percent to 60 percent over the next five years. In FY 2002-2003 through FY 2006-2007, it is anticipated that the tons of waste consumed and the associated tip revenues should grow from a low of 138,000 tons per year to a high of 144,000 tons per year with revenues increasing from $5.65 million to almost $6 million. The biggest challenge will be to stabilize the tip fee structure and form a long- term partnership with the waste haulers that will benefit both parties. It is imperative to stabilize the tip fee structure in order to improve the performance of the WASTEC Facility. In summary, WASTEC can achieve the financial breakeven goal over the next five years and become a valuable asset to the County without a lot of re-invention or investment. The tip fee must be stabilized at a fair cost to all parties involved, and a steady flow of municipal solid waste must be incinerated at WASTEC. The County and independent waste haulers have reached a point of either moving toward litigation or finding a simple solution to accommodate both parties. The independent haulers are interested in having a private enterprise based system with quality services provided to the customers. Based upon analysis of other counties and municipalities, the haulers in New Hanover County do a good job with a viable competitive business. Of all options reviewed, the idea of closing the WASTEC Facility was not considered because there is no financial reward. The County has a good opportunity to enhance WASTEC and make it a profitable venture. Commissioner Caster expressed surprise at the WASTEC efficiency performance and stated with downtime and only three boilers, it will be difficult for WASTEC to maintain that level of efficiency. Mr. Griffin responded that many facilities analyzed had two boilers instead of three and one generator instead of two. With the knowledge of Mr. John Hubbard and his team on the operation of WASTEC, it is possible to reach these percentages; however, it is difficult to arrange for quick repairs and minimize downtime when Staff has to appear before the Commissioners to secure funds. A contingency account should be established to provide funding for repairs and scheduled maintenance at the plant. Chairman Davis asked if WASTEC could become an enterprise fund with sufficient revenue to cover expenses, including the debt service, if the tip fee is stabilized, a steady flow of trash is received, and the generation of electricity is optimized. Mr. Griffin responded that under the current arrangement with CP&L, the WASTEC Facility is producing a small fraction of electricity as outlined in the CP&L contract. The WASTEC Facility can meet the contracted amount of 7 ½ megawatts with CP&L plus the three additional megawatts allowed under the agreement. The other point to note is that under the contract with CP&L, there is a curtailment of 4,000 megawatt hours per year, which equates to $170,000 the citizens of New Hanover County are paying when WASTEC is generating steam and electricity and not being paid under the current contract. This creates a difficult situation for the management of WASTEC and this issue should be addressed. Commissioner Pritchett asked Mr. Griffin if he had an opinion on the longevity of the WASTEC Facility. Mr. Griffin responded that a group from Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, predicted a 15-year life for WASTEC if repairs and planned maintenance are continued. A contingency of $100,000 to $150,000 per year for a 5-year period should be established to provide for repairs and maintenance. The group felt this was a state-of- the-art facility. After hearing no further remarks, Chairman Davis expressed appreciation to Mr. Griffin and Mr. Retson for the informative report. DISCUSSION OF TRANSFER FROM GENERAL FUND AND DEVELOPMENT OF A COUNTYWIDE COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL COLLECTION SYSTEM Assistant County Manager Dave Weaver advised that Environmental Management has been annually subsidized over the past years with up to several million dollars from sales tax revenue and general fund transfers. The Board has clearly stated that it desires to eliminate the general fund transfer in the upcoming budget; however, in discussion with municipalities, haulers, and some local major industries, they would prefer the County to continue the general fund transfer in lieu of implementing a countywide commercial collection system. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 29 SPECIAL MEETING, FEBRUARY 18, 2002PAGE 72 In order to eliminate the general fund transfer, the Board can consider the recommendation made by the Solid Waste Advisory Board which is to implement a countywide commercial collection system along with a residential collection system in the unincorporated county. This type of system would allow the Environmental Management Department to capture sufficient revenues to replace the general fund transfer with a user fee system. However, establishing a countywide commercial collection system will be complex and costly to implement with the need to purchase new software and hire additional Staff to administer the program. The municipalities cannot be required to participate in a countywide commercial collection system, and some municipalities have informally objected to entering into interlocal agreements with New Hanover County. If this type of system is to be implemented by July 1, 2002, it will require a tremendous amount of effort by Staff. Assistant County Manager Weaver stated that another option to consider is implementing a stand alone residential collection system in the unincorporated county by providing not only garbage collection but curbside recycling, bulky item pick-up, and yard waste pick-up. He pointed out that a stand alone residential collection system would not offset the general fund transfer, and noted that Director of Environmental Management Ray Church would address the details of this option during his presentation. In closing, Assistant County Manager Weaver offered to answer questions. After hearing no questions or comments, Chairman Davis expressed appreciation to Assistant County Manager Weaver for the presentation. DEVELOPMENT OF RESIDENTIAL COLLECTION SYSTEM IN THE UNINCORPORATED COUNTY Director Ray Church reported that establishment of a residential collection system in the unincorporated county will require dividing the County into zones that will be assigned to the haulers based upon the percentage of customers currently being serviced. Services will be improved to include not only garbage collection, but curbside recycling, yard waste pick-up, and bulky item pick-up. This will be a mandatory system, and the billing can be performed by the County or the private haulers. The County will be required to monitor the residential collection system for quality of services, and special service provisions will be made for elderly and handicapped persons. Establishing a residential collection system will require a 90-day start up for the purchase of equipment, development of a customer data base, routing, and cart delivery. If this system is to be implemented by July 1, 2002, the Board must make a decision by April 1, 2002. In closing, Director Church offered to answer questions. Chairman Davis asked what additional work will be required if the Board decides to implement a countywide commercial collection system and residential collection system in the unincorporated county. Director Church responded that a tremendous amount of time will be involved with implementing a countywide commercial collection system because of having to establish a data base collection to determine the name and location of each commercial customer and the type of container being used by each customer. Chairman Davis asked if the municipalities and City of Wilmington decide not to participate in a countywide commercial collection system, will the residential collection system and countywide commercial collection system generate enough revenue to cover the cost of operating the WASTEC Facility, including the debt service. Director Church responded that he had not calculated the revenue figures without participation by the municipalities and stated that he would be glad to provide this information to the Board. Commissioner Pritchett asked if a commercial collection system would include construction and demolition (C&D) debris. Director Church advised that most commercial collection systems do not include C&D, but this service could be included as a part of the countywide commercial collection system. After requesting the Chairman for time to make a few remarks and passing out a WASTEC and Landfill Financial Data Summary Statement, Vice-Chairman Greer reported that he felt Director Church and Staff were performing an excellent job in the operation of the WASTEC Facility; however, as a County Commissioner elected by the citizens and a former member of the Solid Waste Advisory Board, he felt compelled to make a few remarks. Vice-Chairman Greer expressed concern for the difficulty in obtaining figures on the operation of the WASTEC Facility and the Landfill. Many times the numbers differ, for example, when asked about the amount of Landfill space available on Highway 421, the response received was approximately 500 acres. There are four or five documents that show the available space is 400 acres. In another document, it suggests selling up to 7.5 megawatts of electricity to CP&L and today in one report, it was stated that 10.5 megawatts could be sold to CP&L. In the information provided earlier, the average tonnage disposed was 251,000 and the Director of Environmental Management has stated 270,000 tons. When requesting the cost to operate the Landfill, one of the goals and objectives from the FY 1998-1999 budget was to maintain the operational cost per ton below $7.50. None of the information presented refers to $7.50 per ton fee. With these differences in numbers, it is difficult to know the actual cost of operation for the WASTEC Facility and Landfill. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 29 SPECIAL MEETING, FEBRUARY 18, 2002PAGE 73 Figures have been presented and published by New Hanover County showing the Tonnage Carried to WASTEC from 1994 up to 2002, the Cost of Operating WASTEC, and the Gross Cost Per Ton with an average cost per ton at $73.63. At the bottom of the financial statement is a list of tons carried to WASTEC, Ash Carried to the Landfill, Adjusted Tons, WASTEC Cost, and Net Cost per ton. When reviewing figures for 1999, the numbers show that 128,000 tons were carried to WASTEC out of which 51,200 tons of ash were carried to the Landfill. This means that only 76,800 tons were incinerated equating to a cost per ton of $102.18. Using ash as cover for the Landfill is fine, but the tons of ash represent 20 percent of the tonnage carried to the WASTEC Facility. Many counties use dirt or synthetic covers for landfill cells, and it is difficult to understand why New Hanover County is wasting valuable landfill space by putting ash in the cells. When reviewing costs to operate the Landfill for the past nine years, the Finance Director has combined the Landfill costs and WASTEC costs into the Environmental Management Fund which allows the profit from the Landfill to offset the cost of operating the WASTEC Facility. If these costs are calculated separately, the actual loss in operation of the WASTEC Facility over a nine-year period is approximately $31 million, and the profit at the Landfill is $11.5 million. The County does not have a problem with the amount of the waste stream, but there is a problem with funding the waste stream. If a $40 tip fee is charged, this will be a 33 1/3 percent increase in fees passed to the customers. If a $40 tip fee is multiplied by 270,000 tons, the revenue generated will be $10.8 million which is not enough revenue to cover the cost of operating the WASTEC Facility. If the Board decides to stabilize the tip fee at $40 per ton or establishes a contingency fund for future breakdowns and upgrading the incinerator, the County will continue to spend thousands of dollars on the WASTEC Facility. Vice-Chairman Greer noted that after serving as a County Commissioner for a number of years, the County has been transferring general fund monies to upgrade the WASTEC Facility feeling that a plateau would be reached and costs would begin to level off. Unfortunately, this has not occurred. When a decision is made on the direction to take in addressing solid waste management, the Board must consider the taxpayers and make a decision that will allow the County to solve the problem, not fund the problem. It would be foolish to form another department in the County for trash collection. The numbers have been presented and they speak for themselves. He urged the Commissioners to do what is right for the citizens. Chairman Davis asked if any representatives from the municipalities would like to speak. Councilman Frank S. Conlon spoke on being a member of the Solid Waste Advisory Board and stated, as one member of City Council without discussion of this issue with other Council Members, he would support the City joining in and administering a commercial collection system similar to the system proposed by the County. Chairman Davis expressed appreciation to Councilman Conlon for his support. LEGAL OPTIONS Assistant County Attorney Holt Moore reported that approximately nine years ago, New Hanover County implemented a flow control ordinance that required all commercial waste haulers within the County to dispose of waste in County owned facilities. Before the flow control ordinance could be enforced, Waste Management, Inc. went to Court and filed an injunction against the County based upon a U. S. Supreme Court case that was similar to the case filed in New Hanover County. A decision was made by both parties to wait until a decision was rendered. The Supreme Court ruled that flow control was unconstitutional, and the County did not proceed with enforcement of the ordinance. Recently, a New York Federal Appeals Court found that a flow control ordinance, virtually identical to the County’s, was not unconstitutional. The Supreme Court decided not to ro review the New York case. Based on this decision, it does not appear that the New Hanover County flow control ordinance is unconstitutional; therefore, Staff would like to request the local Court to lift the injunction so it can be enforced. If the County should be successful in this effort, it would solve the problem of getting the waste flow to County owned facilities. Discussion was held on the time involved with lifting the injunction. Assistant County Attorney Moore advised that the injunction could be lifted at the local Court in a few months, but the case would probably be appealed. Chairman Davis asked if lifting the injunction would allow Waste Management, Inc. to continue its original lawsuit. Assistant County Attorney Moore responded that Waste Management, Inc. would be able to continue with its original lawsuit which could take a number of years to resolve; however, if the injunction is lifted, the ordinance could be enforced until a lawsuit is filed. Chairman Davis expressed appreciation to Assistant County Attorney Moore for the presentation. ADOPTION OF FRANCHISE SYSTEM SIMILAR TO DAVIE COUNTY Assistant County Attorney Holt Moore presented a sample copy of a franchise between Davie County and a commercial waste hauler. The agreement requires every waste hauler in the unincorporated county to sign a franchise and carry waste collected to facilities owned by Davie County. The franchise system has been a success, well accepted by the community and when challenged legally, it was upheld by the Court. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 29 SPECIAL MEETING, FEBRUARY 18, 2002PAGE 74 Assistant County Attorney Moore concluded his presentation by saying if the Board decides to consider the franchise system, consent will have to be received from the City and three beach municipalities. If the municipalities are not interested in becoming a part of the franchise, the agreement will be limited to the unincorporated county. The Board will then have to determine if a franchise system in the unincorporated county will provide sufficient waste flow and revenue to meet current needs. After hearing no further comments from the public, Chairman Davis asked if any member of the Board would like to comment on the options presented. Commissioner Pritchett read the following portion of a Press Release dated November 5, 1993: First, control of the flow of solid waste allows us to ensure that solid waste is disposed in an environmentally sound manner that reduces future environmental liability. It is absolutely critical to realize that the County is ultimately responsible for the protection of public health through the environmentally safe management of solid waste. The County is also charged by the State with meeting solid waste reduction goals, which can be achieved only through flow control. Landfilling is like putting trash in a giant zip-lock bag. The trash does not go away and, sooner or later, the bag will break and the landfill will leak, creating environmental liabilities and economic costs on future generations. Allowing solid waste to be landfilled outside of the County simply because cheaper tipping fees can be found, creates the potential for County liability with future Superfund clean- ups and other environmental problems. It is important to note that waste-to-energy conversion of solid waste is preferred by EPA over landfilling in the hierarchy of solid waste management strategies. Second, control of solid waste flow establishes the stable revenue stream necessary to pay the debt service on capital-intensive solid waste management facilities. New Hanover County has invested approximately $45 million in its Waste-to-Energy Facility, requiring an annual debt service of over $4 million. We cannot walk away from these investments, and we must ensure that the facilities receive adequate tip fees. These are the basic reasons why we believe that Waste Management, Inc. is wrong and is doing a disservice to County residents in its lawsuit. We have every intention of upholding our solid waste flow control provisions in court. It is important to note that all other solid waste haulers in the County are complying with our regulations. Commissioner Pritchett noted that the Press Release was from the Chairman of the Board who was Robert G. Greer at that time. Commissioner Pritchett suggested enforcing the flow control ordinance since an opportunity has been presented to overturn the injunction. She strongly objected to closing a $47.4 million facility that will be a gold mine in the future which presently has a debt service of $16 million. She also noted that if the flow control ordinance is enforced, it may not be necessary to establish a countywide commercial collection system and residential collection system in the unincorporated county. If the decision is made to implement the commercial and residential collection system, the date of implementation should be delayed until January 1, 2003, in order for Staff to have time to work out the logistics. Vice-Chairman Greer advised that he was in favor of constructing the WASTEC Facility but stated that changes have occurred since that time. Unfortunately, the County is now burning tax dollars instead of making money. The best way to resolve the problem is to close the WASTEC Facility and enter into long term agreements with the three major haulers to keep the current flow of trash in the County for a period of time that will allow the incinerator debt to be paid with no loss to the County. The millions of dollars generated from use of the Landfill can then be used to fund schools and other needs without increasing the property tax. Commissioner Caster agreed with the statements made by Vice-Chairman Greer and noted that incineration is costing too much money to operate. This is not reflection on Director Church or Plant Manager Hubbard, but the County cannot continue to spend thousands of dollars on this facility. He also spoke in opposition to implementing a countywide commercial collection system and residential collection system in the unincorporated county and stated it would probably be wise to close the WASTEC Facility. Commissioner Boseman stated that she was in favor of implementing a residential collection system in the unincorporated county. After further discussion, Chairman Davis asked if any member of the Board would like to make a motion. Motion: After hearing no motion, Chairman Davis moved to: (1) keep the WASTEC Facility open; (2) implement a countywide commercial collection system and residential collection system in the unincorporated county to allow WASTEC to become self-sufficient with no transfer from the general fund; (3) pursue reconsideration by the Courts of the County’s flow control ordinance; and (4) pursue the burning of turkey litter or any other by-product to bring additional income to the County through incineration. The motion was SECONDED by Commissioner Pritchett. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED 3 to 2. Commissioner Caster and Vice-Chairman Greer voted in opposition. County Manager O’Neal expressed appreciation to the Board for making a decision and advised that a report would be prepared outlining the time frame required to implement the collection system. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 29 SPECIAL MEETING, FEBRUARY 18, 2002PAGE 75 Discussion followed on whether the Solid Waste Advisory Board should continue to function since their recommendation had been approved. County Manager O’Neal requested time to review this matter and report back to the Board. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Davis adjourned the meeting at 4:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Lucie F. Harrell Clerk to the Board