SUMMARY OF A WORK SESSION HELD BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN

OF CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA, THURSDAY, JULY 5, 1990 AT 7:30 P.M.

Mayor Howes called the work session to order.

Council Members in attendance were Julie Andresen, Joyce Brown, Joe Herzenberg, Nancy Preston, Alan Rimer, James C. Wallace and Roosevelt Wilkerson, Jr. Council Member Werner was absent excused.

Also in attendance were Interim Town Manager Sonna Loewenthal, Assistant Town Manager Florentine Miller, Public Safety Director Cal Horton, Public Works Director Bruce Heflin, Solid Waste Administrator Gayle Wilson, Administrative Analyst Randy Ballard, and Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos.

Mayor Howes thanked Council Member Brown for information she had shared with the Council concerning solid waste disposal alternatives.

Ms. Loewenthal stated that the purpose of this evening's session was to determine whether the Council wished to modifications of the Town's procedures for refuse collection, and if so, which alternatives should be considered. Ms. Loewenthal noted that the staff had composed a total of eight different options for refuse collection. Ms. Loewenthal indicated that if a change were desired, this could be determined by December or January, and included in the proposed 1991‑92 Town budget.

Public Works Director Bruce Heflin briefly reviewed the solid waste collection alternatives and their related estimated costs. Mr. Heflin noted that this listing of options was not exhaustive. Mr. Heflin also stated that the options did not address commercial refuse collection or recycling.

Council Member Rimer said that refuse collection methods at townhomes warranted special review by the Council. Council Member Rimer noted that the City of Seattle, Washington and the City of Raleigh had recently enacted fees for refuse collection service. Council Member Rimer stated a fee system was three levels below the Town's current collection system. Council Member Rimer said he was not in favor of the Town presently pursuing this option.

Council Member Preston requested clarification of Council Member Rimer's observation that the Town was three levels away from a fee structure. Council Member Rimer said that once weekly pick‑up was one step below current service, curbside pickup was two steps below, and fees were three steps removed from the current system. Council Member Rimer noted that the previous Council had considered changing the Town's refuse collection on two occasions since 1976. Council Member Rimer noted that the collection method had remained unchanged after both discussions. Council Member Preston inquired whether charging a fee for refuse service would result in a lower tax rate. Council Member Rimer said this was correct, adding that a total cost‑of‑service fee or some percentage thereof could be charged to refuse collection customers.

Council Member Preston inquired whether the volume of refuse generated decreased as levels of recycling increased. Mr. Heflin said this was generally correct. Mr. Heflin noted that the Town did not currently have a market for recycling of mixed paper. Council Member Preston asked whether refuse tonnage had decreased since the inception of the Town's residential recycling program.

Mr. Heflin said this was correct.

Council Member Wallace inquired about the length of the work week for sanitation collectors. Mr. Heflin said that collectors were paid for four ten‑hour days, but could go home after completing collection along their assigned routes. Gayle Wilson, Solid Waste Administrator, noted that the average work week for a sanitation collector is thirty‑two to thirty‑four hours per week. Council Member Wallace inquired whether faster work and a higher margin of efficiency justified a pay differential for collectors. Mr. Heflin said yes. Mr. Heflin noted that the task system was working well as a motivational tool to develop a cadre of long‑term employees. Council Member Andresen inquired how long the task system had been in place. Administrative Analyst Randy Ballard noted that the system had pre‑dated his tenure of eleven years with the Town. Assistant to the Attorney Richard Sharpless noted that the Hawaiian term for the task system was "Pau Hana", literally translating to "when the work is done, you can go home".

Council Member Brown stressed the need for the Town to develop a long‑term solid waste strategy. Council Member Brown noted that the City of Seattle, Washington had initiated a program centering on waste reduction.

Mayor Howes observed that refuse collection costs could be reduced by producing more money from recycling or by reducing labor costs for refuse pick‑up. Mr. Heflin observed that the fees charged in Seattle for refuse collection were quite high. He added that these fees were based on the amount of refuse set out for pick‑up. Mayor Howes inquired whether a fee incentive was essential. Mr. Heflin said a fee incentive was necessary and advisable in such a system. Mayor Howes inquired whether Seattle had observed an increase in illegal dumping activity. Mr. Heflin said yes.

Council Member Andresen inquired about the Council's desired objective in discussing refuse collection methods. Council Member Andresen asked whether the principal objective was to save money. Council Member Andresen also noted the importance of determining whether Town resident saw refuse pick‑up as an essential Town service. Council Member Brown stated that the Seattle plan offered a variety of collection options to City residents.

Council Member Andresen inquired whether any private collectors made backyard refuse pick‑up. Mr. Heflin stated that some private collectors provided this service. Council Member Wilkerson noted that some private collectors strongly suggested that refuse carts be rolled out to the curb.

Council Member Andresen asked which apartment communities had private backyard pick‑up. Mr. Heflin noted that residents in the Glen Lennox, Willow Terrace and Cooper's Square neighborhoods had backyard pick‑up. Mr. Heflin added that several other neighborhoods received similar service due to grandfathering clauses. Council Member Andresen requested additional information concerning the possible implementation of rollout carts with modified collection trucks. Mr. Heflin stated that this option would involve curbside pick‑up. Mr. Heflin added that the new trucks would be loaded from the sides, rather than the rear. Mr. Heflin said that loading could take place more quickly, since it could be done from both sides. Council Member Andresen inquired about the cost of the modified trucks. Mr. Wilson said the modified trucks would cost $100,000 each, contrasted with $60,000 for each of the current trucks.

Council Member Andresen inquired whether the chipping of brush would impact the volume of refuse at the landfill. Mr. Heflin said potential savings could possibly be realized by this approach. Council Member Andresen asked whether brush collection would impact overall methods of refuse collection. Mr. Heflin noted that if the style of refuse truck were changed, the method of brush pick‑up might also need to be altered.

Council Member Preston stated that option #2, curbside pick‑up, was not a viable option, since Town residents were not inclined to carry their refuse receptacles from the back to the front yard. Council Member Preston stated that weekly rear yard or weekly/biweekly roll cart collection merited further consideration by the Council. Council Member Preston said it appeared to be extravagant for the Town to purchase new and modified refuse collection vehicles. Council Member Wilkerson noted that safety factors should be considered before possibly purchasing new vehicles for roll cart collection. Mr. Heflin added that roll cart systems work better in flat areas with few roadway curves.

Mayor Howes stressed the need to receive public comment on the Town's current and alternative refuse collection methods. Mayor Howes noted that a fee‑based system could be used to encourage behavior modification relative to waste disposal.

Council Member Brown noted that the City of Newark, New Jersey had recently reported a fifty percent reduction in refuse volume attributable to recycling. Council Member Brown stated that other communities had extensively examined refuse pick‑up systems. Mr. Wilson said that commercial and industrial refuse customers in Newark were required to participate in the City's recycling program. Mr. Wilson added that very few communities have curbside recycling volumes exceeding ten percent. Mr. Heflin noted the City of Newark does have a fairly high percentage of residential recycling. Mr. Heflin added that many U.S. west coast cities, including Seattle, have high participation rates in their recycling programs.

Council Member Wallace said the concept of a flat fee in lieu of taxes for refuse collection was somewhat flawed. Council Member Wallace noted that there would be an expectation that tax rates would fall by a like amount of the collection fee charged. Mayor Howes noted that many beach communities charge a flat rate refuse collection fee, resulting in no true incentive for modifying behavior. Mayor Howes added that Town residents appeared to perceive the current refuse collection system as being very good.

Council Member Brown noted that recycling was a preferred method over incineration of wastes and other alternatives. Council Member Brown observed that if there was no incentive for waste reduction, there would similarly be no incentive for participation in recycling programs.

Council Member Andresen stressed the importance of receiving public input on refuse collection methods. Council Member Andresen inquired about the viability of providing alternative waste collection methods. Mr. Heflin noted that there were several options possible with curbside refuse collection. Mr. Heflin added that it was also to provide exceptions for elderly and infirm residents.

Council Member Rimer noted that it was possible to design refuse collection routes by use of computer techniques. Council Member Rimer inquired why Mayor Howes did not think refuse collection fees were not presently a good idea. Mayor Howes noted that an additional fee would likely be charged without a corresponding reduction in tax rates. Mayor Howes added that the fee systems in many communities did not offer incentives for volume reduction.

Council Member Rimer said that the Town was currently recycling and glass, but did not offer similar programs for mixed paper or plastics. Council Member Rimer stressed the importance of establishing an office/commercial/institutional program in the near future. Noting that thirty percent of wastes are generated by residential customers and the balance by business and industrial customers, Council Member Rimer said it was unrealistic to expect residents to do more than their fair share of recycling.

Council Member Brown encouraged the Council to think in broader terms, perhaps structuring a twenty‑year strategy for solid and hazardous wastes. Council Member Brown also emphasized the need for a Town solid waste education program. Council Member Preston said some of the area long‑term solid waste goals were being addressed by the Regional Solid Waste Task Force. Council Member preston noted that commercial recycling matters had not been explored in‑depth to date. Council Member Andresen asked what percentage of waste at the Orange County Regional Landfill was generated by the University of North Carolina. Mr. Heflin said that 18‑20% of the waste was originated by the University. Mayor Howes noted that the University had recently hired a new Recycling Coordinator.

Council Member Wilkerson said he favored expanding the Town's recycling program to include commercial customers. Council Member Wilkerson added that he did not favor the introduction of a refuse collection fee. Council Member Wilkerson noted the importance of providing incentives for reduction of waste volumes. Council Member Wilkerson said the Council had the option of making recycling participation mandatory in the future.

Council Member Wallace said that the Town is a very pro‑recycling community, with little prodding necessary for a high participation level. Council Member Wallace stated that many residents appeared very satisfied with the Town's current refuse collection methods. Council Member Wallace suggested that a survey of preferred collection methods could be conducted by the Town. Mayor Howes noted that the possibility of providing the same level of refuse collection service at a lower cost was very unlikely. Council Member Rimer stated that the Town staff was being asked to identify alternative methods for realizing current and future cost savings.

Council Member Brown suggested instituting the use of smaller roll out containers for pick‑up. Council Member Rimer noted that a graduate student in Portland, Oregon had suggested the implementation of a refuse collection system linking container sizes to the color of the receptacles. Council Member Rimer said that the‑ system was never implemented, but would have likely offered an interesting study in psychology.

Mayor Howes requested that the Council provide the staff with guidance on which refuse collection methods to evaluate in greater detail. Council Member Preston suggested that weekly rear yard and weekly/semi‑weekly curbside collection with roll carts be further explored.

Council Member Andresen asked whether it was realistic to formulate a fee option at this time. Mayor Howes stressed the need for initially formulating a good overall plan. Mayor Howes said it would not be a good idea to introduce a Town refuse collection fee at present. Mayor Howes emphasized the need for the Town to work with the University and businesses on waste and recycling education. Council Member Andresen said the staff should also provide information on keeping the current refuse collection system in place. Mayor Howes noted that many Town residents favored keeping the current refuse collection system.

Council Member Brown said that if steps resulting in volume reduction were not taken in the near term, it would be necessary to explore a variety of other options for waste disposal. Council Member Rimer said that the State of North Carolina's Hazardous Waste Management Commission had erred by not including a public relations program in its plan of action. Council Member Brown said that County residents would suffer deleterious consequences if the Town did not begin a waste reduction program in the near future. Council Member Wallace suggested offering incentives to encourage the production of less refuse. Council Member Andresen said that some fee systems could inadvertently penalize larger families.

Council Member Brown re‑emphasized the need for establishing longterm community solid waste goals and plans. Council Member Rimer suggested that Council Member Brown and himself could draft a report to the Council outlining possible long‑range alternatives for refuse collection. Mayor Howes encouraged the Council Members to work on such a report. Council Member Wallace suggesting holding a public hearing on solid waste alternatives in September. Mayor Howes said all parties would benefit from expeditious consideration of alternatives. Henry Whitfield said he would be glad to assist the Mayor or staff in any way possible with examining solid waste alternatives.

The work session concluded at 6:51 p.m.