2001-12-17 Special Meeting
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
SPECIAL MEETING, DECEMBER 17, 2001PAGE 933
ASSEMBLY
The New Hanover County Board of Commissioners met in Regular Session on Monday,
December 17, 2001, at 5:30 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 advised that the purpose of the meeting was
to hear a report on a proposed Solid Waste Collection System for New Hanover County as developed
and recommended by the Solid Waste Advisory Board. He noted that public comments would be
received after the presentation, and he requested each speaker to limit their remarks to six minutes.
PRESENTATION OF PROPOSED SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SYSTEM FOR NEW
HANOVER COUNTY
County Manager O’Neal reported the purpose of the proposed solid waste collection system
was to implement a plan that will allow the Environmental Management Fund to operate as an
enterprise fund supported by fees and revenues generated. He advised that Mr. Dave Weaver,
Assistant County Manager, and Mr. Ray Church, Director of the Environmental Management
Department, would present the history of solid waste in New Hanover County.
Director Church reported that New Hanover County became involved with disposal of solid
waste in 1980. Prior to that time, the County contracted with a private contractor and private landfill
until the County became involved in a lawsuit when the contractor applied for a permit to expand the
Flemington Landfill in 1978. This created the need for the County to pursue other options and an
agreement was reached to use a sited landfill located on Dow Road in Pleasure Island, which resulted
in a legal issue with the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. Another agreement was reached to use a
sited landfill on Blue Clay Road that ended in a lawsuit because of a zoning issue. The County then
tried to site a landfill in another county. A permit was close to being issued by the State when citizens
became aware of the plan and contacted their local legislators which eventually resulted in the N. C.
General Assembly enacting legislation prohibiting New Hanover County from siting a landfill in
surrounding counties. This action resulted in the County constructing the first lined landfill in North
Carolina on Highway 421 North in November 1981.
Due to the rapid use of the County’s landfill space at that time, the Board of County
Commissioners requested the Solid Waste Advisory Board to review other options such as recycling,
composting, baling, and incineration to reduce the volume of waste going to the landfill. After a
review of available options, the Commissioners at that time decided to construct a waste-to-energy
facility. In 1982, a bond referendum passed by a margin of 14 to 1 to construct a waste-to-energy
facility, now known as the WASTEC Facility. In 1984, New Hanover County opened the first 200
ton per day waste-to-energy facility in North Carolina. In 1989, the State became more involved in
solid waste issues and enacted Senate Bill 111 requiring counties to implement recycling programs,
establish waste reduction goals, ban certain materials from the Landfill, including yard waste,
appliances, batteries, waste oil, and scrap tires. In 1991, the WASTEC Facility was expanded to 450
tons per day and the WASTEC Advisory Board was created to assist Staff with defining problems
and making recommendations for improvements to the facility.
In 1995, a regional landfill was opened in Sampson County and a significant reduction in the
amount of waste carried to the Landfill was experienced. The Board of County Commissioners then
appointed the 2001 Solid Waste Advisory Board to present a solid waste management plan to
generate sufficient revenue to allow the Environmental Management Fund to become an enterprise
fund.
In concluding his presentation, Director Church offered to answer questions and said that
Assistant County Manager Dave Weaver would report on the trash flow in New Hanover County.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
SPECIAL MEETING, DECEMBER 17, 2001PAGE 934
Commissioner Caster asked what was the original cost of the WASTEC Facility and
expansion at a later date.
Director Church responded that the initial cost of the WASTEC Facility was $13 million and
the expansion was $29,000 million, which included re-tubing of the older units and additional air
pollution control equipment for the two units.
Assistant County Manager Weaver presented the following overview of the trash flow in New
Hanover County:
77,000 tons residential trash
6,000 tons industrial waste
77,000 tons construction and demolition waste
98,000 tons of other commercial waste
258,000 Total Tons Per Year
Out of the waste generated per year, the disposal of waste is managed as follows:
135,000 tons burned in the WASTEC Facility
123,000 tons carried to the Landfill
258,000 Total Tons Per Year
10,000 tons are recycled from all sources.
Assistant County Manager Weaver reported on the FY 2001-2002 Budget and presented the
following revenues and expenses for operation of the Environmental Management Department:
REVENUES:
Tip fees $ 7,946,000
Recycling 128,000
Electric Sales 1,504,790
Grants 260,000
Transfer from General Fund 2,950,000
TOTAL $12,788,790
EXPENSES:
Administration $ 623,883
Recycling 704,022
*WASTEC Facility 9,196,809
**Landfill 2,264,076
TOTAL $12,788,790
* Includes $3,019,916 for debt service
**Includes $638,398 for capital and debt service
Assistant County Manager Weaver presented the proposed FY 2002-2003 Budget under the
proposed Solid Waste Management Plan for New Hanover County. The major difference is the
increase in fees and no transfer from the General Fund to the Environmental Management Fund:
REVENUES
Fees $11,632,685
Recycling 128,000
Electric Sales 1,561,728
Grants 260,000
TOTAL $13,582,413
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
SPECIAL MEETING, DECEMBER 17, 2001PAGE 935
EXPENSES
Administration $ 651,763
Recycling 650,000
*WASTEC Facility 9,325,262
**Landfill 2,955,388
TOTAL $13,582.413
*Includes $3,007,241 for debt service
**Includes $1,288,373 for capital and debt service
Assistant County Manager Weaver presented the following benefits of implementing a County
collection system:
(1) Provide collection services with maximum efficiency and economy.
(2) Provide a full range of residential solid waste collection services including recycling, yard
waste pick up, and bulky item collection.
(3) Eliminate the property tax subsidy to the Environmental Management Department.
(4) Ensure that disposal of solid waste is environmentally sound and is economically effective.
(5) Level the playing field allowing small haulers to enter the solid waste collection market
thereby increasing competition.
(6) Reduce illegal dumping.
The following steps were presented for implementing a commercial collection system for the
entire county:
(1) The County will contract with private haulers to collect commercial solid waste.
(2) The County will establish a billing and contract administration system.
(3) The haulers will negotiate the collection fee with commercial clients.
(4) The County will calculate the disposal cost based on volume and waste density.
(5) The County will send one bill to each client for disposal and collection costs.
(6) The County will pay the waste hauler.
(7) The County will provide additional services to its commercial clients such as recycling and
waste reduction.
(8) Existing efforts to work with special industrial wastes will continue.
(9) Commercial clients may haul their own trash if County requirements are met.
Discussion followed on how the County would calculate the disposal cost based on volume
and weight density. Assistant County Manager Weaver explained that currently haulers have a good
idea of the tonnage collected from a business based on the volume and density of the trash. The
County will use the same density factors as currently being used by the haulers combined with the size
of container used by a commercial business.
Further discussion was held on the costs involved with the County establishing a billing and
contract administration system. Assistant County Manager Weaver advised that the Finance
Department was still in the process of calculating a figure, but it is anticipated that the cost should
range from $200,000 to $300,000 per year to administer the billing system.
The following steps were presented on implementing a residential collection system in the
unincorporated county:
(1) The County will contract with private haulers through negotiation to collect residential solid
waste in exclusive zones.
(2) Services will include pick up of solid waste, yard waste, bulky items, and recycling.
(3) The County will pay the haulers depending upon the number of households receiving services
or the number of 90-gallon containers picked up in the zone.
(4) Special provisions will be provided for elderly and handicapped persons.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
SPECIAL MEETING, DECEMBER 17, 2001PAGE 936
(5) Residential clients will be billed bi-monthly by the County through property ownership, not
by tenancy, with one bill including the costs of collection and disposal.
(6) All resident owners must participate in the system and will be billed.
Other items that need to be considered are as follows:
(1) Some haulers may view the proposed system as a form of flow control. The County Attorney
and Legal Department have thoroughly studied N.C.G.S. 153-A-136.292 and feel the County
is legally able under this statute to implement the proposed solid waste management program.
(2) The existing contracts between haulers and commercial clients will need to be amended
because current contracts charge only one price to cover the haulers’ estimate of collection
and disposal. Under the proposed plan, the haulers will be charging only for the cost of
collection, and the County will be adding a disposal cost based upon the quantity of
collection. It is hoped that existing contracts can be amended to reflect this change after
contacting their clients.
(3) The County can administer a billing system for $200,000 to $300,000 per year, or this service
can be contracted out. The administrative, collection and disposal fees will be combined into
a single bill for each residential and commercial client.
(4) Private residential subdivisions may provide for their own collection if County conditions are
met. Residents would have to be provided the same services as the County provides and a
tip fee based on tonnage would be charged by the County to the Homeowners Association.
(5) The City of Wilmington and beach municipalities will provide residential and some
commercial trash collection. Municipal systems may continue under present operations, but
the tip fee will increase from $30 per ton up to $45 per ton. These are estimated figures and
are subject to change during the budget process. Interlocal agreements will be needed, and
the County will honor existing municipal ordinances and procedures.
The following steps will be necessary to implement the proposed plan:
(1) Develop a public education program.
(2) Develop database and residential zones.
(3) Contract with haulers for collection.
(4) Develop a billing and administration system.
(5) Prepare ordinances and interlocal agreements.
(6) The adopted FY 2002-2003 Budget will include the new fee structure.
(7) Collections will begin July 1, 2002.
The following comparison was presented showing the fee paid under the existing system and
the proposed system for solid waste disposal:
Existing Proposed
Disposal Fee Per Year$33.90 Disposal Fee Per Year$48.30
Property Tax Support Property Tax Support 0
Value of home tax support:
$50,000$ 9.10 per year
$80,000$14.50 per year
$150,000$27.30 per year
$400,000$72,80 per year
TOTAL ranges from $43.00 to $106.70 TOTAL$48.30
Municipal collection systems can continue under existing systems. The tip fee will increase
from $30 per ton to $45 per ton and municipal residents will experience savings in County taxes.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
SPECIAL MEETING, DECEMBER 17, 2001PAGE 937
Commercial accounts will be highly variable. A commercial client can estimate the fee
increase as follows: (1) ask hauler to provide approximate annual tonnage; and (2) multiply tonnage
by $15 per ton because of the increase in the tip fee from $30 to $45 per ton to calculate the
additional disposal cost charged through the collection system. If a commercial establishment is
located in an area with a high property value and does not generate much trash, the business will save
money under the proposed plan. If a commercial establishment operates a restaurant with a large
volume of wet garbage, the disposal fee will increase because of volume and weight.
One industrial facility was selected and analyzed to reflect the disposal fee that would be
charged under the proposed plan. The results were as follows:
Present Disposal Costs
2,550 tons of sludge @ $40 per ton$102,000
800 tons of trash @ $30 per ton 24.000
Property tax support for disposal 45,136
TOTAL$171,136
Projected Disposal Costs
2,550 tons of sludge @ $45 per ton$114,750
800 tons of trash @ $45 per ton 36,000
TOTAL$150,750
SAVINGS$ 20,386
Discussion has been held with industries and there is concern for increased administrative
costs under the proposed plan. It is hoped the increase costs will be insignificant compared to current
costs.
In closing the presentation, Assistant County Manager Weaver offered to answer questions.
Commissioner Caster requested a figure on the debt service for the WASTEC Facility.
Finance Director Shell responded that the annual debt service for the WASTEC Facility was
$3 million with a total debt service for the Environmental Management Department at $3.3 million.
The debt service figure will decrease slightly over the next six years and drop significantly in 2009.
Commissioner Caster asked if the current contracts between the haulers and commercial
clients could be amended.
County Attorney Copley explained that every effort would be made to work with the haulers
in amending and honoring the existing contracts; however, the County does not have authority to
require haulers to change their existing contracts.
Vice-Chairman Greer asked how often bills would be mailed for commercial accounts.
Assistant County Manager Weaver responded that residential accounts would be billed bi-
monthly; however, no definite decision has been made on how commercial accounts will be billed,
but it will probably be on a monthly basis.
Chairman Davis opened the floor to receive comments from persons who signed up to speak.
Mr. Jim Auten, representing Waste Industries, requested the following persons to introduce
themselves: Mr. John Crumpton, Republic Services A-1 Sanitation; and Mr. Chris McKeithan, Waste
Management. He informed the Board that all three companies had united in their opposition to the
solid waste collection system proposed and submitted by the Solid Waste Advisory Board. He
requested the Commissioners to consider the only practical solid waste option available to New
Hanover County. This option will not intrude on the free enterprise system that is vital to the total
well being of the community and nation. The private haulers operating in New Hanover County are
not a road block to the County’s goal of developing an environmentally sound, cost-efficient, long-
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
SPECIAL MEETING, DECEMBER 17, 2001PAGE 938
term solid waste plan. The haulers want to be a part of the solution by working with the County to
develop and implement a good plan. More importantly, the haulers want to ensure they have an
opportunity to continue their services in the future.
Mr. Auten reported that several weeks ago, a meeting was held with Commissioner Nancy
H. Pritchett, Environmental Director Ray Church, Assistant County Manager Dave Weaver, and Mr.
Buck O’Shields to discuss the three companies’ differences with the plan submitted by the Solid
Waste Advisory Board. It was felt that discussion could help everyone to better understand the roots
of the differences. The meeting was beneficial because it helped the haulers to better understand the
dedication of these four individuals in meeting the challenges of developing a solid waste collection
plan for New Hanover County. During the meeting he spoke on behalf of the haulers about their
objections to the plan, and Commissioner Pritchett noted that she had heard the objections but would
like some suggestions to resolve the problem. Mr. Auten advised that the following presentation was
being made because of this request.
Before beginning the presentation, Mr. Auten referenced a subsequent meeting with County
Manager Allen O’Neal and Assistant County Manager David Weaver in an effort to reach common
ground. While no solution was found, Mr. Auten stated that he was impressed with the County
Manager’s concern for the employees at the WASTEC Facility and for his desire to provide a plan
that will be right for the citizens of New Hanover County.
On behalf of the three hauling companies, Mr. Auten presented and discussed the following
options:
1. Maintain Status Quo: Keep the WASTEC Facility open and continue to fund disposal of
solid waste by transferring money from the General Fund to the Environmental Management
Fund. The haulers can live with this option, but this choice represents a cost problem to New
Hanover County and its taxpayers. The reason for selecting this option is to fund the
WASTEC Facility. According to the FY 2001-2002 Budget, the cost of operating the
WASTEC Facility is $9,196,809, and the projected cost for FY 2002-2003 is $9,325,262.
The Commissioners were cautioned not be blind sided by the Solid Waste Advisory Board
or Staff when attempting to hide the amount of funding required to keep the WASTEC
Facility open by requesting approval of a convoluted comprehensive solid waste plan. For
example, countywide residential service is not dependent upon the WASTEC Facility
remaining open.
2. Close the WASTEC Facility: The WASTEC Facility can be closed and the solid waste
program can be funded from revenues generated by use of the New Hanover County Landfill.
No money would have to be transferred from the General Fund and no tax increase will be
required. The current cost of operating the WASTEC Facility is $9,196,809 compared to
$2,264,076 for operation of the New Hanover County Landfill. Converting these numbers to
an actual cost per ton based on actual tonnages reported to the State of North Carolina
produces figures of $84.86 per ton to dispose of garbage at the WASTEC Facility and $15.22
per ton to dispose of garbage at the County Landfill. The figure of $15.22 is logical and
would accomplish the Commissioners’ goal of solving the cost problem by eliminating the
General Fund subsidy. The haulers can live with this option.
3. Implement the Proposed Solid Waste Management Plan Presented by the Solid Waste
Advisory Board: The intention of the Solid Waste Advisory Board is honorable, but the three
hauling companies strongly object to a solid waste plan that will intrude upon the free
enterprise system. The County would take over the customer base of the haulers and
subcontract the service to the private sector. This proposal is a threat to haulers because if
a future Board should decide to award one bid for commercial and residential collection to
one hauler, the other haulers would be powerless. A future Board could also decide to
purchase a fleet of trucks with the County providing the trash collection service. Some people
may not be opposed to either of the two scenarios because the City of Wilmington does
contract out some services and at the same time operates a fleet of garbage trucks. There is
a major difference between losing business to a City of Wilmington annexation versus the
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
SPECIAL MEETING, DECEMBER 17, 2001PAGE 939
public taking of a business by the County. When the private sector loses business to a
municipal annexation, the municipality involved is obligated to compensate the private sector
for its lost business. When the private sector loses business to a County taking, there is no
compensation; therefore, this option is not acceptable to the haulers. For example, the 30
years taken to build Waste Industries into a major hauler will go down the drain without
restitution if the proposed plan is adopted.
Mr. Auten advised that an independent poll was taken from the taxpayers of New Hanover
County on December 11, 12, and 13, 2001 with the following questions asked:
Question #1: Three options have been presented and are now in front of the New Hanover County
Board of County Commissioners, and we would like to know which of the three options you would
prefer:
•Option I: Maintain Status Quo: Keep the WASTEC Facility open and fund the solid
waste program by transferring money from the General Fund to the Solid Waste
Fund.
Poll Results: 30.3% of respondents.
•Option II: Close the WASTEC Facility and fund the solid waste program with
monies generated from the New Hanover County Landfill with no money being
transferred from the General Fund or no increase in taxes.
Poll Results: 27.7% of respondents.
•Option III: Keep the WASTEC Facility open and fund the solid waste program by
adding a new fee to all taxpayers of New Hanover County.
Poll Results: 19.7%
22.3% of respondents offered no opinion or simply replied unsure.
Mr. Auten stated from the results of the poll it was obvious that many of the respondents were
unsure about the proposed options. This means that many of the voters do not understand the details
of the plan. If the voters knew that the cost of operating the WASTEC Facility equates to $84.86
per ton compared to $15.22 per ton at the New Hanover County Landfill, it would be interesting to
see the results of the poll.
Questions #2: Is having a choice important to you when selecting your waste collection company?
Poll Results: 64.7% responded yes
24.4% responded no
Mr. Auten advised that obviously, the citizens of New Hanover County want a choice of their
solid waste collection provider. There are only two practical options, continue the status quo or close
the WASTEC Facility. The decision of rendering the right choice for the citizens of New Hanover
County rests in the hands of the Board of County Commissioners.
Chairman Davis asked Mr. Auten who performed the poll, paid for the poll, and what segment
of the population was called.
Mr. Auten responded that Low Country Associates, a firm from Myrtle Beach, South
Carolina, performed the survey and the fee was paid by the three hauling companies. He advised that
Mr. Donald Smith, who assisted with the survey was present and would be glad to respond regarding
the persons polled.
Chairman Davis requested Mr. Smith to provide a copy of the poll to the County
Commissioners.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
SPECIAL MEETING, DECEMBER 17, 2001PAGE 940
Mr. Auten advised that a packet including the survey had been prepared for each County
Commissioner.
Commissioner Pritchett referenced the option of having the choice to select a hauler and
stated that she assumed no one was polled in the City of Wilmington because the residents do not
have the option of choosing a hauler, which would invalidate that portion of the poll if residents of
the City were polled. She also referenced the presentation on closing the WASTEC Facility and
asked who would pay the existing bond debt.
Mr. Auten advised that the debt would be paid by the savings and profit gained through
disposal of waste in the County Landfill. The profit generated from the tipping fees at the Landfill
would pay for the bond debt. If the County continues to charge the existing $30 tipping fee with the
actual cost of landfilling being only $15.22, the profit for the total tonnage available would be
astounding.
Mr. Chris McKeithan, representing Waste Management, Inc., advised that Mr. Auten had
clearly pointed out that New Hanover County has a funding problem with waste disposal.
Unfortunately, Staff at the Environmental Management Department has been looking for a way to
fund the problem and not solve the problem. This problem can quickly be solved by closing the
WASTEC Facility and sending all waste to the New Hanover County Landfill. At a cost of $15.22
per ton, the total cost of disposal for the entire waste stream at the County’s Landfill is $4 million.
The budgeted annual cost for operating the Landfill and the WASTEC Facility is $13.5 million less
the debt service of $2.8 million leaving a difference of $10.7 million. If you deduct $4 million for
operation of the Landfill, a profit of approximately $6.8 million will be generated. The $6.8 million
is not an audited number, but it is a figure that should be reviewed and considered when trying to
make a decision on disposal of solid waste.
In closing, Mr. McKeithan referenced the legality of the County taking over his business and
other waste haulers’ businesses to fund the WASTEC Facility. Staff has presented the Charleston
County Plan, the Prince William County Plan and now the proposed plan. Until the cost of
incineration is addressed, the problem will not be resolved. He referenced the comments made by
Assistant County Manager Weaver regarding the savings to residential and commercial customers
under the proposed plan and stated that currently the $3 million transfer from the General Fund
represents 2 cents on the tax rate. He asked if the County Commissioners were planning to reduce
taxes by 2 cents to provide this savings to the taxpayers.
Mr. John Crumpton, representing A-1 Sanitation Republic Services, reported that his
company purchased A-1 Sanitation three years ago, and stated that he had been discussing problems
about the operation of the WASTEC Facility with the Solid Waste Advisory Board, Staff, and the
Commissioners for the three-year period. His company’s position is to support the County if an
option is approved that will keep his company and other companies competitive in the marketplace.
He informed the Board that he did not have another disposal option, nor did he plan to look for one.
The garbage companies are looking to the County to keep the free enterprise system in place so their
companies can continue to grow. A-1 Sanitation has made a major investment in the community and
the company wants to stay in New Hanover County. Even with the desire to be a partner with the
County, his company cannot support the solid waste collection program presented by the Solid Waste
Advisory Board. A-1 Sanitation could support the County in residential collection services, but the
proposed commercial collection system is another issue. A-1 Sanitation can support keeping the
current disposal system in place with operation of the WASTEC Facility, but this does not resolve
the subsidy made by the County to continue burning garbage. He requested the Board not to adopt
a plan that will take control of his business and not allow his company to remain competitive.
Mr. Matthew Brigance thanked the Board for an opportunity to speak and reported that
SeaCoast Disposal, Inc. began in 1998 and is a privately owned company. This business is proof that
the free enterprise system works with a budget over $1 million. SeaCoast Disposal, Inc. has
legitimately competed with three large haulers and has been successful. The solid waste collection
plan recommended by the Solid Waste Advisory Board will reduce competition for small haulers and
in the long-run will not save money for the residents. The program implemented in Charleston is under
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
SPECIAL MEETING, DECEMBER 17, 2001PAGE 941
one hauler with 95% of the business which eliminates the small “mom and pop” companies. It is not
fair for New Hanover County to consider a plan that will seize the customer base of the hauling
companies to pay for the County’s expense of operating the WASTEC Facility. With the stroke of
a pen, the Board can abolish the free enterprise system and create a socialist monopoly operated by
the County. He urged the Board to think very carefully before rendering a decision.
Mr. David Gore, co-owner of Gore Marine, reported that his company has been located on
Highway 421 across from the WASTEC Facility since 1988. During the past eight years, the amount
of waste burned in the incinerator has increased and a severe problem is being experienced from soot
when the wind blows from the northeast. The company custom-rigs sport fishing boats and has never
advertised because of their reputation. Meetings have been held with Mr. Ray Church about the
problem and he has tried to be a good neighbor. Parachutes were purchased by the Environmental
Management Department to cover the boats. With only five employees, the parachutes were too labor
intensive. Mr. Church then hired prisoners to wash the boats, but problems were experienced with
supervision.
In concluding his remarks, Mr. Gore informed the Board that in October, the peak season of
the year, several new boats arrived. The soot was extremely bad and it cost approximately $2,800 to
clean the boats. Currently, he has a boat scheduled to go to the Raleigh Boat Show that is covered
with soot and will have to be cleaned. He requested the Board to see if something could be done to
resolve this problem that has become a significant expense to his company. He stated that he had
patiently dealt with the problem for a long time and something needed to be done so he could stay in
business.
Mr. Dennis Barbour, a member of the Carolina Beach Town Council and representative for
the Town of Kure Beach, Town of Wrightsville Beach, and City of Wilmington, requested the Board
to allow the municipalities more time to review and understand the options proposed for solid waste
disposal. The beach communities and City of Wilmington are partners with New Hanover County in
determining the future of solid waste management. Conceptually, the municipalities support the effort
to charge fees sufficient to pay for operational costs so solid waste disposal can truly become an
Enterprise Fund. At this time, the beach communities cannot agree blindly to enter into a binding
interlocal agreement with a 50% increase in disposal costs without clearly understanding the
alternatives. The work and effort given by the Solid Waste Advisory Board and County Staff is to be
commended, but the best solution for solid waste management must be found. The beach communities
and City of Wilmington are now more than ever in a position to communicate with one another and
work together to find a solution.
Mr. Randy Peebles, a resident of 330 Pettigrew Drive and concerned citizen, reported that he
was an avid supporter of the continued use the WASTEC Facility. When the decision was made to
use incineration in the mid-80's, he commended the Commissioners at the time for their progressive
decision that has resulted in a long-term benefit to the County in handling waste disposal. He urged
the Board to implement a mandatory countywide collection system so the WASTEC Facility can be
fully utilized. It has been difficult to understand why this type of system has not been implemented
over the years. The Commissioners now have an opportunity to implement a countywide system that
will provide residents of the unincorporated county the same services received by municipal residents.
Presently, residents of the unincorporated county do not have curbside service for recycling, yard-
waste, or bulky material collection. A countywide collection would generate enough revenue to allow
the WASTEC Facility to be self-sufficient and save precious landfill space.
Mr. Buck O’Shields, speaking as a private citizen interested in solid waste, acknowledged the
efforts of persons serving on the Land Use Plan Update Committee several years ago and read the
following items that were placed in the update:
1.Establish and maintain an environmentally responsible cost-effective system for
managing solid waste that protects public health, provides adequate waste disposal
capacity, mandatory solid waste collection and recycling and waste reduction
opportunities.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
SPECIAL MEETING, DECEMBER 17, 2001PAGE 942
2.Meet and exceed established waste reduction goals.
3.Continue to seek ways to reduce and manage the solid waste stream through
establishment of countywide garbage pickup, expanded recycling programs,
composting, expanding hazardous waste pickup, education and multi-jurisdictional
cooperation.
4.Eliminate illegal trash dumping through strict monitoring and enforcement including
increased fines, signage program awards and other means.
5.Continue to support and improve the County’s innovative WASTEC Facility and
Landfill systems.
Mr. O’Shields advised that these options were chosen by the people over a course of two years
in preparing the Land Use Plan Update.
Mr. O’Shields stated as Chairman of the Solid Waste Advisory Board for the last eighteen
months, numerous meetings have been held with several options being redrawn in an effort to address
the concerns of the haulers and allow them to remain in business. During these meetings, there has
never been discussion or an effort made to take business away from the haulers. Instead, various
attempts have been made to work with the haulers. The first effort was to encourage haulers to run
their routes and charge residents as desired. The next effort was to establish zones and allow the
haulers to bid on the zones, which was not acceptable. Another effort was to establish a mandatory
collection system in the unincorporated county which was not acceptable to the haulers.
The current effort is the proposed solid waste collection plan being discussed today. Under
this plan, the County would contract with private haulers to collect commercial solid waste. The
County would be responsible for billing and contract administration. The haulers would contract with
commercial clients, and the commercial clients would pay the County. The County in turn would pay
the waste haulers. The County would also provide additional services to its commercial clients such
as recycling and waste reduction.
Another part of the plan is residential collection whereby the County would contract with
private haulers to collect residential solid waste. The County would establish collection zones in the
unincorporated area of the County. Services would include collection of solid waste, yard waste,
bulky items, and recycling. Contracts with the haulers would be over a 10-year period to allow haulers
to recover capital costs. The amount paid by the County to the haulers would be dependent upon the
number of 90 gallon containers and number of households receiving services. Now there is concern
among the haulers about the language in the contracts. A suggestion has been made for the haulers
to hire an attorney to review the contracts and recommend language that would be suitable to them.
Mr. O’Shields advised that the Solid Waste Advisory Board has made every effort possible to
create a marriage between businesses and citizens who want services by giving the haulers an
opportunity to write contracts that will be acceptable to them. As of this date, no response has been
received from the haulers. The municipalities have been willing participants and it is understandable
why there is political concern with their respective constituencies. The concern of the Solid Waste
Advisory Board has been trying to prepare a solid waste collection plan to allow the WASTEC Facility
to become an Enterprise Fund with no funding from the taxpayers.
In response to citizens concerned about taxes and feeling the WASTEC Facility should be
closed with full utilization of the New Hanover County Landfill, Mr. O’Shields reminded the citizens
of what happened 20 years ago, when the County was at the mercy of private contractors who had
landfill permits outside of New Hanover County. Without incineration, the County will lose its control
of managing solid waste disposal and when the County landfill becomes full, the County again will be
at the mercy of private contractors with sited landfills.
Mr. O’Shield concluded his remarks by saying as Chairman of the Solid Waste Advisory
Board, he was extremely frustrated about not being able to present a solid waste collection plan that
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
SPECIAL MEETING, DECEMBER 17, 2001PAGE 943
would be acceptable to all parties involved. He requested the Board of County Commissioners to
consider the options and make a decision because the Solid Waste Advisory Board could only make
recommendations.
Chairman Davis, speaking on behalf of the Board, expressed appreciation to Mr. O’Shields and
other members of the Solid Waste Advisory Board for the years of work and effort given to make
recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners.
Mr. David Carnell, a retired engineer and concerned citizen, advised that in July 1996, the
Mayor of Wilmington expressed concerned about the cost of incineration and the increase of the tip
fee from $30 to $32 per ton and considered carrying the City’s trash to the Sampson County Landfill.
The City and beach communities still have this option and do not have to participate in a 50% increase
in disposal costs when there is no advantage or incentive to them. Municipalities can carry waste out
of New Hanover County because there are no regulations in North Carolina General Statutes that
allow counties to interfere with franchises and other arrangements municipalities have for disposal of
waste generated within their boundaries.
Mr. Carnell also expressed concern for implementing the plan recommended by the Solid
Waste Advisory Board with no definite cost projections. Unfortunately, no money has been made on
recycling during the years and the program now costs $704,022 per year with a diversion of only 4%
of the waste stream or 10,000 tons. If the 10,000 tons had been carried to the Landfill, the County
would be ahead because of the revenue generated from the tip fee. The County will be lucky to
receive $80,000 in revenue from the recycling program for the coming year. The citizens have been
told that recycling is a State mandated program, which is not true; however, the County has continued
to squander resources in trying to maintain the recycling program and reach an unachievable goal. The
root of the problem as pointed out by the haulers is the cost of burning trash. It is not necessary to
place additional tax burdens on businesses and homeowners in the County to provide an efficient,
environmentally acceptable trash disposal system. The New Hanover County Landfill is more
environmentally acceptable than the WASTEC Facility. In order to dispose of the toxic ash waste
from the incinerator, the County had to build a lined Landfill.
Mr. Carnell advised that solid waste disposal can be profitable in New Hanover County by
using the Landfill. He presented figures and stated that 25% of the time the Landfill is taking care
of the total waste stream of New Hanover County because the incinerator is not in operation. This
means that the six people handling the Landfill can manage the waste flow and the 50 people at the
incinerator are not disposing of anything. At the Sampson County Regional Landfill, there is a work
force of only 10 people to handle 2,000 tons of trash a day. The total flow of trash per day in New
Hanover County is about 730 tons. This means that closing the incinerator and maintaining a $30 tip
fee will generate revenue in the amount of $7.6 million less $2.8 million for debt service, $2.3 million
for administration and $704,000 for recycling leaving a profit of approximately $1.8 million. This
would be the best plan to follow instead of increasing taxes on homeowners and businesses.
In concluding his presentation, Mr. Carnell noted that County Staff has not considered the bio-
reactional process. Twenty-six years ago, research by the EPA recognized that water was very
important in a landfill and could reduce the time for stabilization from several decades to 2 or 3 years.
When regulations were formulated for Title D landfills in 1991, the EPA recognized that landfills are
biological systems that require moisture for decomposition to occur. Research through the years has
proved conclusively that moisture promotes decomposition and stabilization. This is a process that
will not wear out or require replacement of expensive parts like the incinerator. It will extend the life
of the landfill, reduce landfill operating costs, and hopefully begin to achieve the waste stream
reduction goal issued by the State. Mr. Carnell urged the Board to close the incinerator and use the
landfill for solid waste disposal.
Mr. David Sims, a consulting engineer and member of the 1981 Solid Waste Advisory Task
Force, reported that he voted to recommend construction of the incinerator. After studying this issue
for over 20 years, he now feels it is time to close the incinerator.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
SPECIAL MEETING, DECEMBER 17, 2001PAGE 944
In 1981, the Solid Waste Task Force recommended constructing an incinerator. At that time,
the County did not have a landfill, and it was projected that the cost of incineration would be
approximately $15 per ton which was comparable to the cost of operating a landfill. This appeared
to be a proven technology and relatively inexpensive to build and operate. At that time, W. R. Grace
agreed to purchase the steam that would be produced by the incinerator at a good price which would
generate additional revenue. A bond referendum was placed before the voters, and it was approved.
For some reason, the former County Manager did not follow the recommendation of the Task Force
and decided to construct a one-of-a-kind specially built incinerator instead of an inexpensive prototype
incinerator that would have been easy and inexpensive to operate. This action resulted in paying twice
as much to build the incinerator with operating costs being much more than anticipated or
recommended by the Task Force.
Over the years, environmental regulations began to change with the law requiring sophisticated
and expensive pollution control equipment. W. R. Grace relocated from New Hanover County and
Carolina Power & Light Company purchased the electricity generated from the steam that was sold
to W. R. Grace at a much cheaper price. Environmental regulations continued to become more
restrictive and costly equipment had to be added to catch particulates and boiler blow downs. With
continued growth of the waste stream, the County built the New Hanover County Landfill, which was
the first lined landfill in the State, and continued to operate the incinerator. The cost per ton of waste
disposed at the incinerator is now $84 versus $15 per ton at the Landfill. This is a difference of $6
million that New Hanover County is losing per year by continuing to use the incinerator. The general
fund has to subsidize the operation of the incinerator and annual payment of the bond debt.
The solution to solid waste collection in New Hanover County is to divert trash going to the
WASTEC Facility to the Sampson County Landfill at approximately $34 per ton versus $84 per ton.
The New Hanover County Landfill can continue to operate at $15 per ton and the volume of waste
going into the landfill can be controlled by the tip fee in order to preserve landfill space. The number
of employees will be reduced to those needed to operate the landfill. The profit made will pay for the
operation of the landfill and the debt service.
In concluding his comments, Mr. Sims advised that officials at the Sampson County Landfill
have offered to sign a long-term contract to receive County trash at much less than $84 per ton. He
stated unfortunately everything that prompted the Task Force to recommend building the incinerator
has reversed itself over the past 20 years and time has come to retire the plant.
Commissioner Pritchett noted as a point of clarification the figures quoted for the cost of
operating the WASTEC Facility and utilizing the Landfill were not from Staff but from Mr. Auten’s
presentation.
Mr. Sims responded that Commissioner Pritchett was correct, but stated that Mr. Auten’s
figures were very close to his calculations. It appears that everyone has a different figure.
Commissioner Caster commended Mr. Sims for presenting the history of incineration from the
perspective of being a member of the first Task Force voting in favor of building the incinerator and
20 years later feeling the plant should be retired because of its costly operation. He expressed
appreciation to Mr. Sims for his long-term interest and recommendations.
Mr. Sims expressed appreciation to Commissioner Caster for his comments and stated that he
volunteered his time with no motivation other than to save money for the taxpayers.
After hearing no further comments from the public, Chairman Davis asked if any members of
the Board would like to comment.
Vice-Chairman Greer stressed the importance of everyone understanding what is being
recommended under the solid waste collection plan proposed by the Solid Waste Advisory Board.
He said for example, if he owned a business in New Hanover County and needed his trash picked up,
he would have to find a hauler who contracts with the County; the hauler would notify the County that
he had contracted with his company to haul the trash; the hauler would then pick up the trash and
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
SPECIAL MEETING, DECEMBER 17, 2001PAGE 945
notify the County that he had picked up trash; the County would send a bill to his business for
payment, and the County in turn would pay the hauler. Vice-Chairman Greer stated that it was difficult
to understand how this process could be cheaper than the existing procedure where a business owner
contracts with a hauler who hauls the trash and bills the owner. The problem is that the WASTEC
Facility is too costly to operate. Staff has performed an outstanding job in operating the incinerator;
however, the numbers presented show that New Hanover County received a total of 258,000 tons of
waste. Of that tonnage, 123,000 went to the Landfill and 135,000 went to the WASTEC Facility. The
issue not mentioned is the fact that out of the 135,000 tons going to the WASTEC Facility, 50,000
tons of ash had to be taken to the Landfill. This means that the total waste burned was only 85,000
tons. If this figure is included in the total cost, the disposal cost per ton would increase to
approximately $100. Incineration is just too costly, and if the County wants to do what is right for
the taxpayers and the environment, the incinerator should be closed. If this facility is closed, the
County will get rid of $9.1 million in operation expenses, the tip fee at the landfill can remain at $30
per ton which will generate revenue in the amount of $7,740,000. If the $3,000,000 bond debt is
removed from this figure, there will still be $4,740,000. If the current cost of operating the Landfill
is increased 50%, the County will still have a profit of $1,240,000.
Vice-Chairman Greer concluded his remarks by saying if the Board is interested in cutting costs
and not charging more money to the taxpayers, the incinerator should be closed. If the Board wants
to retire the debt more quickly, the tip fee can be increased. After discussion with the three major
haulers, it appears that each company would be willing to enter into a contract to assure the County
that the same amount of trash will be carried to the Landfill for the period of time needed to pay off
the debt service. This plan would reduce the cost of operation, get rid of the waste in an
environmentally sound way, and keep all trash in New Hanover County since the Landfill has a 20-year
plus life expectancy. New techniques could be explored to extend the life of the Landfill or the County
could send trash to other landfills. The Board of County Commissioners should decide on a plan that
will save money for the taxpayers.
Commissioner Pritchett noted that she had spent more time on this topic than anyone in the
room, except for Ray Church and Dave Weaver. She stated that she would not vote to close the
WASTEC Facility since she believes this process is more environmentally sound than burying trash.
Hearing no other comments, Chairman Davis called a ten minute break before hearing the
presentation from EnergyPath, Inc. on the use of biomass fuel at the WASTEC Facility.
PRESENTATION BY ENERGYPATH, INC. THE USE OF BIOMASS GREEN ENERGY
Mr. John Griffin of EnergyPath, Inc., introduced himself and Mr. Tom Retson, his associate,
and requested the Board to concentrate on a completely different perspective for use of the WASTEC
Facility. He advised that EnergyPath, Inc. provides engineering and consulting services to commercial
and industrial clients throughout North Carolina. The company also works with agricultural firms in
dealing with environmental by-products.
After working with Mr. John Hubbard, Plant Manager, and Mr. Ray Church, Director of the
Environmental Management Department, for 30 days and touring the facilities, he and Mr. Retson
have a better understanding about the operation of the WASTEC Facility and Landfill. The purpose
of the presentation is to propose a way to use the WASTEC Facility to its fullest extent.
After a review of the WASTEC Facility looking at operating revenues, income produced by
the tip fees, electrical generation revenues and debt service, it has been determined that the incinerator
is operating at a deficit of $3 million per year. It is easy to see that a $30 tip fee for a $52 million
facility equates to about 450 tons per day in processing and results in a $3 million operating deficit per
year. The material being converted into electricity is simply not valuable enough to warrant being
processed at the WASTEC Facility.
After hearing presentations on the three available options, EnergyPath, Inc. would like to
present Option 4 which is to convert the WASTEC Facility to use of biomass green energy.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
SPECIAL MEETING, DECEMBER 17, 2001PAGE 946
What is Green Energy?
Green energy is the common name for a variety of things that come under the heading of
renewable energy. Some of them are wind energy, solar energy, hydroelectric energy or water
energy. Other states, such as Washington and Oregon, have abundant water resources.
Wyoming and Colorado have prevailing wind resources, desert states have solar resources, and
North Carolina has renewable energy in the source of biomass.
What is Biomass Green Energy?
Biomass is green energy, a product of farms, fields, and forests in North Carolina. Biomass
is organic matter that is produced through the soil, particularly in conjunction with sunlight.
It involves the production of energy from biomass waste products that can include forest
products, wood products, pulp and paper, animal byproducts, agricultural byproducts, such
as silage and chaff. Biomass green energy is environmentally friendly, as it takes organic
material that is produced in conjunction with the production of farm and forest goods and
consumes it to produce steam energy and electricity.
Is Biomass Green Energy Conversion a New Thing?
This conversion process has been in practice around the world for over twenty years. In the
United States, over fifteen states are requiring electrical grids to consume green energy from
renewable sources. A majority of European and Asian countries also produce biomass green
energy from the byproducts already mentioned. It is a safe and proven technology which has
been shown over and over to be environmentally friendly.
The WASTEC Facility in New Hanover County has a disposal capacity of roughly 450 tons
per day. The facility has a broad spectrum state-of-the-art emission controls technology and is
outfitted with equipment dedicated to scrubbing, precipitating and cleaning air emissions before they
leave the incinerator. This facility is an efficient producer of electricity, currently converting municipal
solid waste to electricity. The facility is well operated, well managed and is an ideal plant for the
biomass conversion process.
In order to eliminate the $3 million annual operating deficit at the WASTEC Facility, it is felt
that a biomass green energy alternative would be a responsible step to take in resolving this shortfall.
It is predicted that in the next ten years, there will be an abundance of facilities similar to the
WASTEC Facility that will be using biomass energy conversion.
Mr. Griffin closed the presentation by saying that the WASTEC Facility was environmentally
friendly for dealing with biomass energy conversion and stated this usage could be implemented by FY
2002-2003. He offered to answer questions.
Commissioner Caster requested Mr. Griffin to explain the use of turkey litter as a biomass fuel
for the WASTEC Facility.
Mr. Griffin responded that one use to consider for the WASTEC Facility is the combustion of
turkey litter. With the number of turkey farms in southeastern North Carolina, there is an abundance
of the litter, and it appears this industry will continue to grow. With more rigid environmental
restrictions being placed on the disposal of turkey dropping and wood shavings, the industry is looking
for cost-effective ways to dispose of the litter. Traditionally turkey litter has been spread on farm fields
as fertilizer; however, it is a very concentrated fertilizer containing high amounts of phosphorous
which tend to accumulate in the ground soil and become a problem for the groundwater. Many other
states are now combusting turkey litter to take energy from the material and reduce the volume of the
litter down to elements of phosphorous. Fortunately, the WASTEC facility is a good facility and can
be put to good use consuming at least some portion of its waste intake by incinerating a biomass
product like turkey litter. The ash from combustion of turkey litter has a value of roughly $70 per ton
once the phosphates have been extracted. This by-product is a valuable commodity and would
generate a significant amount of revenue.
Vice Chairman Greer referenced the statement made regarding a disposal capacity of 450 tons
per day at the WASTEC Facility and explained that this figure should be adjusted to approximately
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
SPECIAL MEETING, DECEMBER 17, 2001PAGE 947
310 to 385 tons per day since the facility cannot operate 365 days per year at full capacity because of
downtime needed for maintenance. If the incinerator operated at a full capacity and disposed of 450
tons per day, the dollar figures would still reflect a deficit of $1,750,000. According to figures
presented by Director Church and staff, the revenue generated from burning waste produced
$7,875,000 and the projected expenses for next year are $9,625,000.
Mr. Griffin responded that the WASTEC Facility was not reviewed as a stand-alone facility.
Consideration was given to the inflow of revenue and outflow of expenses including capital expenses;
however, Vice-Chairman Greer’s point is well taken, and the revenue generated would be smaller with
a reduction from 450 tons per day to 350 tons per day.
Commissioner Caster noted that after discussion with Mr. Greg Walker, Director of the Cape
Fear Resource and Development, Inc., he believes there are people looking to build incinerators now
in rural counties to take care of disposing of turkey litter. Pilot projects are being planned and funded
through N. C. State University for combustion of turkey litter. New Hanover County already has an
incinerator and this would be an environmentally safe way to dispose of the litter and generate revenue
for the WASTEC Facility.
Mr. Griffin informed the Board that private capital is being engaged to build and run
incineration facilities for disposal of turkey litter. To ignore the fact that New Hanover County has
a $52 million incinerator very closely aligned with the requirements to incinerate this biomass
byproduct would be overlooking a great opportunity. After reviewing the operation of the WASTEC
Facility, it is felt that this facility is far more valuable than its current use allows.
Chairman Davis asked Mr. Griffin if the Board should decide to close the WASTEC Facility,
would a private enterprise be interested in purchasing the facility.
Mr. Griffin responded that the market value of the WASTEC Facility would not be sufficient
to retire the bond debt. If the facility is liquidated at the current time and the scrap is sold, it would
be considerably less than the value of the plant.
After hearing no further comments from the members of the Board, Chairman Davis expressed
appreciation to Mr. Griffin and Mr. Reston for the informative presentation.
A lengthy discussion followed on need for the Board to make a decision regarding the
operation of the WASTEC Facility for the upcoming budget year. Chairman Davis requested County
Manager O’Neal to briefly comment on the time frame needed for Staff to move forward with the
budget process.
County Manager O’Neal informed the Board that after mid-February, it would be difficult to
prepare the budget without a decision being made on the options presented at the Work Session. If
the Board decides to implement the plan presented by the Solid Waste Advisory Board, a great deal
of work will be required to create a mechanism to handle the billing process. He stressed the
importance of the haulers, municipalities, and county being in sync on the option selected.
County Manager O’Neal also mentioned that he had met with Mr. Griffin and Mr. Retson and
asked them to provide a prospectus reflecting what EnergyPath, Inc. would provide in a consulting
contract and statement of work. The combustion of turkey litter is an option that can be considered
by the Board, but Staff will not pursue any option until direction is given by the Board.
Commissioner Caster suggesting studying the combustion of turkey litter and stated that Mr.
Greg Walker would assist the County in trying to secure grant funding for the study.
After discussion of the need to study the issue and provide direction to Staff by mid-February,
Chairman Davis asked when sufficient information could be provided to the Board on the cost and
scope of a study.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
SPECIAL MEETING, DECEMBER 17, 2001PAGE 948
County Manager O’Neal advised that after discussing this issue with Mr. Retson and Mr.
Griffin, he felt a contract to conduct a study could be presented to the Board on January 7, 2002.
Discussion was held on the possibility of securing funds to pay for the study. Mr. Greg
Walker, Director of the RC&D, informed the Board that after speaking with Ms. Cynthia Mosley of
the N. C. Division of Energy, a work plan needs to be forwarded to her as soon as possible for her to
begin checking into funding possibilities. He noted that an answer should be received from Ms.
Mosley by January 7, 2002.
Further discussion was held on when the study could be completed. County Manage O’Neal
informed the Board that the study could be completed by February 18, 2002.
Motion:
After a lengthy discussion on the need to study the combustion of turkey litter before
rendering a decision on the other options presented, Commissioner Caster MOVED, SECONDED
by Commissioner Pritchett, to make a decision on whether a study should be performed by
EnergyPath, Inc. on January 7, 2002, and to resolve as a Board that a decision will be made on
selecting one of the options by February 18, 2002, so Staff can move forward with the preparing the
FY2002-2003 budget. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED 4 to 1. Vice-Chairman Greer voted in
opposition.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Davis called for a motion to adjourn the meeting.
Motion:
Commissioner Pritchett MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Caster, to adjourn the
meeting. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman Davis adjourned the meeting at 7:15 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Lucie F. Harrell
Clerk to the Board