SSO Taskforce Meeting April 25, 2013 11:30 am – 1:00 pm Present: Steve Banner, Paul Bradley, Leamon Brice, Chris Capellini, Marley Claridge, Nancy Couture, Les Epperson, Tommy George, Bill Hardister, Jimmie Jones, Rita Plyler, Emily Scofield, Rebecca Stoddard Guests: Linda Ashendorf, Alex Bialik Staff: Bruce Gledhill, Laurette Hall, Ryan Johnson, Trey Miller, Lexin Murphy, Michael Talbert, Jake Wilson The fourth meeting of the SSO Taskforce was called to order by Lexin Murphy. 



Lexin Murphy began the PowerPoint presentation and did a brief summary of the issue before the group and some of the relevant background information that was presented in the previous meetings. She then began discussing the potential impacts of removing the Temporary Site Exemption (TSE) from the SSO. Lexin cited approximately 40 major events in 2012 that County staff were aware of, 18 of which recycled, for 35 tons of recyclables generated from events. She went on to discuss the services available through the City of Charlotte and the County for event organizers that wanted to recycle. At this time, Bruce Gledhill inquired as to whether there were any representatives from the towns in attendance that could discuss recycling services they provided. Leamon Brice commented that all events in the Town of Davidson had to obtain a permit, and the Town required them to recycle. Davidson actually provides the containers for the events because almost all events are on public property. Les Epperson also clarified that while the City of Charlotte’s Public Assembly Permit asked event organizers if they were going to recycle, even if they answer no, the City still provides recycling containers and collects them. One of the requirements for the City’s assistance, though, is that the event must be on public property. The County can still provide assistance if the event is on private property, as long as it is open to the public, and Jake Wilson mentioned several large events that the County does assist. Lexin clarified that there is no permit required when the County is involved. We do have an Event Recycling Toolkit Application on our website, but this is just for people to fill out if they want to obtain help through the County, it isn’t required. Requirements from the towns vary, as Leamon already stated that they provide recycling for events in Davidson, but there is a large event in Mint Hill that the County has been unsuccessful 




in encouraging to recycle. Jake pointed out that the Parks & Recreation Department also provides recycling services to any events that are held in parks and brought up several examples. Jake stated that one of the challenges with these events is that the organizers (and their commitment to recycling) can change from year to year. This brought the group to the question of how would the SSO be applied to special events if the Temporary Site Exemption was removed. Lexin brought up the possibility of basing it on our standard threshold, for example 16 cubic yards, if that remains the threshold for businesses. Then she brought up other alternatives that cities across the US are using. For example, Alameda, CA bases their threshold on number of estimated attendees. In Atlanta and San Francisco, they require recycling at all outdoor events. Austin provides an incentive in the form of a rebate program through reimbursements for events that recycle. Lastly, Seattle requires the beverage vendors take responsibility for providing recycling service for their own beverage containers. Bruce inquired as to whether event coordinators typically contract for their own trash at these events or if the municipality handles it. Les stated that in Charlotte, organizers can identify on their permit application whether they need trash service. If so, the City will provide it, but they charge the organizer for it. Michael Talbert mentioned that in some cities that have good event recycling programs, they require vendors to serve beverages in recyclable or compostable containers. There was then a question as to whether the city provided composting services, but Jake answered in the negative. Les stated that this had been tried in the past in collaboration with Earth Farms, but all of the compost containers ended up going in the trash due to contamination. Rebecca Stoddard confirmed that as this is a new concept, it’s necessary to have volunteers to tell people what can go in which container. Rebecca stated that she felt a standard threshold on trash is too ambiguous for special events because the average person in the public has little to no idea of how much waste they generate. She thought it should be mandatory for all events. Jake disagreed, saying that if people had to contract for recycling services, especially for smaller events, they would be less likely to participate. Rebecca brought back up something that Emily Scofield had mentioned in a previous meeting, that we needed to be bold in our recommendations given the fact that this ordinance might not be amended again for another 10 years. Les talked about how the recycling rate at special events had not increased a great deal since we started doing this. He believes this is due both to contamination and that the materials being given out at events are not recyclable. Emily said that this was also an opportunity for community education, and that we needed to let organizers know that this is what our community expects, and they need to find a way to do it. Bill Hardister brought up the fact that we are only talking about 40 events right now, but the Health Department permits at least 80 events a year, especially during the summer. Anytime there is food for sale, the event must get a Health permit and contract for garbage service. Bruce asked whether there wasn’t an opportunity during this permitting of events that we could let them know there is an expectation as to how recycling should be handled. Bill stated that 






state law does not allow them to enforce rules that are stricter than the state’s, so they could not enforce recycling requirements as part of the Health permitting process. Michael brought up the question as to whether some events might specifically try to eliminate recyclable containers from their event, so that they didn’t have to have recycling service. Ryan also questioned whether the ordinance would continue to be enforced based on providing a separation system or the actual recycling of materials. The way that the ordinance is currently written just states that the contracting entity must provide for the separation of materials. Michael stated that if we continue with that wording, event organizers would not necessarily have to provide adequate recycling containers in accessible locations. His point being that temporary events might need to be treated differently than brick and mortar establishments in the application of the ordinance. The discussion moved on to the C&D industry. Lexin highlighted that there is over a million dollars of missed value in relation to cardboard in the C&D waste stream. Pallets are another common C&D material that are landfill banned and represent $90,000 in missed value. Lexin then posed the question as to how the Ordinance should be applied to C&D. Should we just lift the temporary site exemption and treat them like other businesses with the existing 16 cubic yard threshold, or do they need special considerations? Lexin also mentioned at this time that the County will be pursuing a broader C&D ordinance affecting potentially more materials or the overall C&D diversion rate in the near future. Michael will be holding a Construction Forum in June to discuss this issue. Lexin went over some methods used in other Cities and Counties such as requiring certain percentage diversion rates, requiring recycling if more than 8 cubic yards of waste is generated, requiring a separate container for recyclables and providing a rebate program for a certain diversion rate. Michael brought up the fact that enforcement would be very different for construction sites versus special events if the TSE was removed, as there are only 40‐80 large special events a year but almost 10,000 large construction permits were issued in 2012. He felt that to effectively enforce the ordinance, it would need to be addressed through Code Enforcement. Michael also mentioned that cardboard came at the end of a new home construction in the finishing details, but the real meat of C&D recycling would not be addressed through the SSO. It would include clean wood waste and concrete. He was also concerned that we didn’t have adequate representation from single family or commercial builders or C&D waste haulers in the room to provide their feedback. Linda Ashendorf agreed that we needed more input from the C&D community. However, Laurette clarified that any recommendations from the Taskforce would be brought to the C&D community. The plan is to get input throughout this process. There was some discussion as to what companies currently provide sorting and mixed waste processing of C&D materials. Michael stated that he was hopeful a company would step forward in the next year and take the lead in this area, which is the biggest challenge for small family builders. Bruce questioned whether a mixed waste processor was really necessary to address cardboard, though, which is what the SSO impacts, as there is already a solid market for 





cardboard. Michael agreed that cardboard was a relatively small volume and could be taken to any of the County’s over 100 drop‐off facilities, so it wasn’t a huge hardship. At this time, Lexin clarified that while cardboard may be a relatively small portion of the waste stream per site, in the aggregate, it is a lot of tonnage that is being lost and if the TSE was removed, cardboard represents our best opportunity for making an impact on both waste reduction and air quality based on DSM’s 2011 study. Bruce brought up the fact that there would need to be some tweaking of the standards for construction sites, since they don’t use 8 or 16 cubic yard dumpsters, but rather 30 or 40 yard containers. Extending this thought, Lexin said that one way the SSO could be enforced on construction sites is by requiring that any site that places a container larger than 8 or 16 cubic yards recycle, and not try to determine how many cubic yards a week that trash dumpster would represent. Bruce said that that would be almost everyone, though. Lexin went over the pros and cons of removing the TSE, stating there would be overall economic gains to the County, a reduction in emissions, increased recycling tonnage and it would level the playing field between both temporary and brick and mortar sites and between companies that are trying to do the right thing and recycle even though it is not required and those that are not. Cons include the fact that this would be difficult to enforce and would probably require working with other divisions or jurisdictions, as well as space constraints and a lack of mixed waste processing facilities. However, Michael clarified that he did not feel construction sites needed mixed waste processors just to address cardboard. Tommy George inquired as to whether there was any type of inspection that occurred at special event sites. Les and Bill confirmed that both a fire inspector and a health inspector are involved. However, Rebecca clarified that with food trucks, the health inspector verified their operations in advance. Michael inquired as to whether the County could potentially provide drop‐off locations for pallets and Bruce answered that this was a possibility. He also clarified that all of our full‐service facilities already accept clean wood waste. Joe Hack commented, though, that by breaking pallets into wood waste, we are not reusing them to their best purpose. Joe also mentioned that he had found that places that do deliveries using pallets are usually glad to get their pallets back. Bruce brought up that there was a network of people in pick‐up trucks that unofficially pick up pallets as well. Michael reminded everyone that there are also pallet recyclers that would pay for pallets that are in good shape. Laurette said that she felt the infrastructure was in place in the County to handle both pallets and cardboard. Lexin mentioned that the pallet study the County had initiated a few years ago also found that, for the most part, whole pallets were making their way back into the marketplace already. Lexin posed the question as to whether we should remove the TSE. There was a consensus on this point. She then asked whether people felt there needed to be any special considerations for event recycling. Tommy said that he would require all special events to recycle with a focus on education as part of that effort. Les concurred; adding both indoor and outdoor events should comply. The group was in agreement. 




Lexin now posed the question as to whether there should be special considerations for construction sites if the TSE is removed. Tommy inquired as to whether that would mean that even a small bathroom remodel job would be impacted. Lexin answered that it would, but the SSO would only apply to cardboard and pallets, so homeowners could put leftover cardboard boxes in their existing recycling cart. It would not require that contracting occur for recycling service. Emily inquired as to whether drink containers such as bottles and cans that are consumed on construction sites would also be included. Lexin replied in the affirmative, clarifying that the conversation is focusing mainly on cardboard and pallets because they would be the biggest components of the waste stream that would be impacted. Bruce was in support of creating some threshold for C&D and said one measure that is already tracked is dollar value, which might create an opportunity for establishing a threshold. Lexin let the group know that that is how Portland enforces their C&D diversion rate. It only applies to projects that are over $100,000. Chris Capellini commented that he did not feel there was enough information available at this time for the Taskforce to make a recommendation. He thought we should wait for the outcome of the Construction Forum in June. Tommy inquired as to whether construction sites could throw all recyclable materials in one dumpster and Lexin explained that it depends on the type of service that site has contracted for. Bruce commented that if the builder wanted to combine all materials together, there would likely be a provision in the ordinance to allow them to meet the requirements by contracting with a mixed waste processor, similar to the way that brick and mortar businesses can now do. However, this type of entity does not currently exist. But if the builder wanted to collect single stream materials such as cardboard, bottles and cans on their own, they could put all of those items in together at any County Drop‐Off Center. Lexin brought up the suggestion of creating a threshold for C&D that was just based on the size of the container, ignoring the frequency of collection. This would make enforcement simpler. There was some discussion of the space constraints on single family construction sites, with Michael, Joe and Laurette noting that some builders had gone to smaller containers used in combination with storing materials in garages. This has allowed for additional sorting to occur on‐site. Lexin concluded the meeting, noting that we would continue the discussion of recycling on construction sites at that time. Minutes submitted by Lexin Murphy.