2001-04-12 Work Session
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
WORK SESSION WITH SOLID WASTE ADVISORY BOARDPAGE 527
APRIL 12, 2001
ASSEMBLY
The New Hanover County Board of Commissioners held a Work Session with the Citizens
Solid Waste Advisory Board on Thursday, April 12, 2001, at 5:00 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 purpose of the Work Session
was to hear a report from the Citizens Solid Waste Advisory Board on disposal of solid waste. He
requested Commissioner Pritchett, a member of the Advisory Board, to begin the presentation.
Commissioner Pritchett spoke on serving her third term as a member of the Citizens Solid
Waste Advisory Board and she expressed appreciation to the members of the Advisory Board for the
time given to serve in this capacity. She introduced the following members: Chairman Buck
O’Shields; Past Chairman Ed Fox; and representatives from each of the municipalities, Tim Fuller,
Kure Beach; Tom Ames, Wrightsville Beach; Bill Reed, City of Wilmington; City Councilman Frank
Conlon; and Harry Oaks from Carolina Beach.
ACTIVITY REPORT FROM THE CITIZENS SOLID WASTE ADVISORY BOARD
Mr. Buck O’Shields, Chairman of the Advisory Board, presented slides showing that the
amount of waste generated in New Hanover County in FY 1987-1988 was 125,000 tons per year.
Ten years later, the amount of waste generated was 250,000 tons per year, and the waste stream
continues to grow. In an effort to manage the waste stream, the Commissioners adopted the
following policy statements that were included in the latest Land Use Plan Update approved under
CAMA guidelines:
7.1. Establish and maintain an environmentally responsible cost-effective system for managing
solid waste that protects public health, provides adequate waste disposal capacity, includes
mandatory solid waste collection, recycling services, and waste reduction opportunities.
7.2. Meet the established waste reduction goals that are set by the State and adopted by New
Hanover County.
7.3. Continue to seek ways to reduce and manage the solid waste stream through establishment
of countywide garbage pickup, expanded recycling programs, composting, expanded
hazardous waste pickup, education, and multi-jurisdictional cooperation.
7.4. Eliminate illegal trash dumping through strict monitoring and enforcement including increased
fines, signage, rewards, and other means.
7.5. Continue to support and improve the County’s innovative incinerator and landfill systems.
In an effort to maintain an environmentally responsible solid waste disposal management plan,
the Advisory Board has been involved in the following activities:
1.On June 7, 2000, the Advisory Board visited Charleston County South Carolina to
see the solid waste system being used because it has been touted as an effective
system that could be used in New Hanover County.
2.In July, October and November, 2000, the Advisory Board worked toward
establishing a mandatory collection system in New Hanover County. Time was spent
deciding how to accomplish this goal, how to work with the haulers, and how to
establish a billing process.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
WORK SESSION WITH SOLID WASTE ADVISORY BOARDPAGE 528
APRIL 12, 2001
3.In December 2000, discussion was held on the legal aspects of a mandatory collection
system and the ordinance needed to implement this type of system. Assistance was
received from the County Staff in drafting an ordinance.
Many comments and concerns have been received about the amount of time taken to move
forward with implementing a system. With the number of stakeholders involved in the process,
people have legitimate concerns that need to be thoroughly discussed. Unfortunately, the Advisory
Board has been faced with erroneous information circulating in the community which has generated
a great deal of concern. Members of the Advisory Board have attended meetings to help the citizens
understand that no decisions have been made and no dollars have been spent at this time.
The Advisory Board is aware of the Commissioners wanting a recommendation presented
prior to FY 2001-2002 budget decisions; however, due to many unanswered questions regarding
current costs compared to user fee costs, and the impact of a user fee on the parties involved, the
Advisory Committee does not feel this recommendation can be presented within the requested time
frame; therefore, the Advisory Board is requesting the Commissioners to consider the following
recommended strategy:
Continue to fund the cost necessary to cover the operation of the environmental management
program to include the transfer from the general fund and not enact a solid waste disposal fee
for FY 2001-2002 because of the following reasons:
1.The general fund transfer does not require new staff or additional costs compared to
approximately 5-10 new positions and costs involved with implementing a new solid
waste disposal fee.
2.Property taxes for the general fund transfer are income tax deductible compared to
waste disposal fees, which are not deductible.
3.Continued use of the existing general fund transfer will generate little public comment
relative to the significant public comment that will be created by imposing a new fee
for both residential and commercial customers without all the intricacies being worked
out.
4.It is highly unlikely that a reasonable disposal fee system can be enacted for the
coming year given the following logistics involved:
Creating a customer data base.
Creating a billing system.
Adequate staff and facilities to perform the work.
The lack of full cooperation with all major haulers.
Fiscal Year 2002-2003 and Future Years:
For the long term, the Advisory Board and Staff
will develop a solid waste management system to eliminate the general fund transfer. This
system will include the following:
1.Develop a mandatory residential collection system with additional services such as
recycling for residents of the unincorporated areas while providing a savings to
residents through coordinated collection. The City can provide the design and
implementation of the collection service. Billing would cover both collection and
disposal. The County would provide funding to the City for a position to help cover
the cost of this task. The Advisory Board feels that the least expensive and best
option is to work with the City to establish the collection service.
2. Develop a hauler license or other regulatory means to ensure that commercial solid
waste generators will pay a disposal fee commensurate with the amount and type of
solid waste they generate.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
WORK SESSION WITH SOLID WASTE ADVISORY BOARDPAGE 529
APRIL 12, 2001
3. The County needs to pursue the following programs:
(a)Determine the most cost effective method of reducing household hazardous
waste in the waste stream and develop a waste toxicity reduction program.
(b)Adopt a Solid Waste Ordinance to ensure environmentally sound solid waste
collection and disposal.
(c)Move toward public-private development of a construction demolition waste
facility to reduce landfilling.
(d) Work toward improving the cost effectiveness of processing recyclables.
The Advisory Board has also been asked to prepare and present to the Board of County
Commissioners an ordinance that would address some of the issues regarding solid waste collection.
One of the key issues is importation of waste from out of the county into the Landfill. Every time
this occurs, valuable space is used at the Landfill and problems are created in the operation of the
incinerator. The County should adopt an ordinance to prohibit outside waste from coming into the
Landfill or being dumped at the incinerator.
County Manager O’Neal explained that the County’s permit for the WASTEC Facility allows
waste to be received from out-of-county under a controlled agreement. The permit for the Landfill
is restricted. On occasion, requests have been received from other counties who want to incinerate
a particular load of materials. In these cases, the County has negotiated a higher fee for disposal.
In closing, Mr. O’Shields requested the Board to consider funding the Environmental
Management Department for FY 2001-2002 to allow time for a system to be put in place that will
alleviate the general fund transfer.
After commenting on the possibility of finding better ways to carry out some of the tasks
outlined in the FY 2002-2003 and Future Years proposal, Commissioner Pritchett suggested
changing the word “would” to “may” in the second sentence to read...this system “may” include the
following.
Chairman Davis asked if the County was still transferring $2.5 million from the general fund
to subsidize the WASTEC Facility. County Manager O’Neal responded that money was still being
transferred from the general fund to the environmental management fund at a cost of less than 2 cents
on the tax dollar.
Chairman Davis expressed concern for the continued transfer of funds and the potential for
new federal and state environmental regulations being imposed on incineration that could make it cost
prohibitive to operate the WASTEC Facility.
Mr. O’Shields advised that he thought the goal of the County was to eventually have a self-
sustaining Environmental Management Fund. Initially, the operation of the WASTEC Facility and
Landfill were set up as an Enterprise Fund. The intentions were for the entire operation to be self-
sustaining with the exception of the ½ cent sales tax that was earmarked to pay the bond debt. When
the haulers began taking waste outside the County, this created a huge loss of revenue that resulted
in having to transfer money from the general fund to subsidize the environmental management fund.
Chairman Davis requested a figure on the current balance of bond debt and asked when this
debt would be paid in full.
Environmental Director Ray Church responded that the debt was approximately $18 million
with an annual payment of approximately $2.7 million. The debt service should be paid by the year
2008.
Mr. O’Shields commented on the citizens of the County electing to have a combined solid
waste disposal system through incineration to reduce the volume of waste going to the County landfill
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
WORK SESSION WITH SOLID WASTE ADVISORY BOARDPAGE 530
APRIL 12, 2001
and stated that New Hanover County was the first county in the State to establish a lined landfill.
The first bond issue passed by a ratio of 14 to 1, and in 1986, the voters voted 4 to 1 to approve
expansion of the incinerator. No other bond referendums have been passed with this level of public
support. During the past 20 years, no outcry from the community has been received to change the
combined solid waste disposal program.
Commissioner Caster expressed concern for not knowing what recommendation was being
presented to the Commissioners from the Citizens Solid Waste Advisory Board on the agenda for
Monday, April 16, 2001.
Mr. O’Shields responded that the Advisory Board is requesting the Commissioners to
continue to fund the operation of the environmental management program, including the general fund
transfer for FY 2001-2002. This will allow time for the Advisory Board to develop a solid waste
management plan that will eliminate the need for the general fund transfer.
Chairman Davis asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak.
No one spoke.
Chairman Davis asked if there were any further comments or questions from the
Commissioners.
Vice-Chairman Greer expressed concern for the cost of incineration during a difficult budget
year and stated that he could not support the long-term strategy because he felt the County would
be going in the wrong direction.
Mr. O’Shields objected to the statement made by Vice-Chairman Greer and stated the long-
term strategy would not be sending the County in the wrong direction. This strategy was based on
the input received from the Commissioners, general public, other Solid Waste Advisory Boards from
1970 through the Land Use Plan Update. The public has provided direction and it has been followed
by the Advisory Board; however, if the Commissioners want to change that direction, the Advisory
Board should be informed.
Vice-Chairman Greer referenced Item #7.1 in the policy statements presented from the Land
Use Plan Update which states that New Hanover County should “establish and maintain an
environmentally responsible cost-effective system.” He stated that he was willing to debate whether
the existing or proposed system would be cost-effective, and noted that it was not right to take parts
of the Land Use Plan without considering all of the plan.
Mr. O’Shields responded that cost-effective from the general public means they are willing
to pay what it takes to carry out the combined use of the incinerator and landfill as recommended 20
years ago. There has been no outcry from the public to make a change since that time.
Commissioner Pritchett suggested voting separately on the two issues: (1) continue to fund
the operation of the environmental solid waste management program, including the transfer from the
general fund for FY 2001-2002; and (2) consider the long-term strategy. She emphasized the
importance of continuing to fund the existing program until a recommendation can be presented by
the Advisory Board that will eliminate the need for the general fund transfer for FY 2002-2003.
Chairman Davis agreed with Commissioner Pritchett and suggested preparing written
comments on why the Board should continue to fund the existing program for FY 2001-2002 and
briefly explain the meaning of the long-term strategy so the Board will know what is being requested.
Mr. O’Shields advised that the Advisory Board and Staff would be glad to prepare brief
written comments, but noted that it would be impossible to provide any specific figures on the long-
term strategy until further study has been completed.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
WORK SESSION WITH SOLID WASTE ADVISORY BOARDPAGE 531
APRIL 12, 2001
Commissioner Pritchett explained that many parties will be part of the mix, such as working
with the City to establish a collection system, hiring additional employees, and purchasing equipment.
These types of items need to be thoroughly studied with cost estimates determined before a final
recommendation is made to the Board of County Commissioners.
Chairman Davis expressed appreciation to the members of the Citizens Solid Waste Advisory
Board for the time and effort given to study this issue.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Davis called for a motion to adjourn.
Motion:
Commissioner Caster MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Boseman, to adjourn the
meeting. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman Davis adjourned the meeting at 6:20 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Lucie F. Harrell
Clerk to the Board