SSO Taskforce Meeting February 20, 2013 11:30 am – 1:00 pm Present: Steve Banner, Paul Bradley, Judy Caldwell, Marley Claridge, Nancy Couture, Les Epperson, Andrew Grant, Bill Hardister, Mohammad Jenation, Jimmie Jones, Ralph Messera, Rita Plyler, Emily Scofield, Rebecca Stoddard, Chad Thomas, Gerry Vincent, Bobby Williams, Lourdes Zapata Guests: Courtney Graham Staff: Bruce Gledhill, Joe Hack, Ryan Johnson, Lexin Murphy, Michael Talbert, Jake Wilson The second 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 at the first meeting. She then began discussing the slide showing the reductions in emissions and increased tonnage that the DSM study expected to find if the threshold was reduced from 16 cubic yards to 8 cubic yards. Emily Scofield asked a clarifying question as to whether the reduction in emissions was in comparison to using virgin materials and Lexin responded in the affirmative. Lexin went on to explain that there would actually be more businesses meeting the threshold than the numbers in the charts reflected because these were based on DSM’s analysis of businesses that fell under the current threshold, but weren’t currently recycling. DSM was trying to capture the increased tonnage that could be collected, which wouldn’t be relevant for businesses that are already recycling. Ralph Messera questioned why we were focusing on adding additional businesses into the ordinance rather than addressing the 4,900 that were currently not in compliance. Lexin explained that the DSM study is two years old, so this number is dated. The number also only represents businesses that meet the 16 cubic yard threshold. Some of these businesses might be exempt, and in fact, DSM had estimated that approximately 33% of these businesses would be eliminated under the 500‐lb exemption. Bruce Gledhill commented that he did not believe this number matches what the County is seeing on a daily basis through our own inspections. He asked Ryan Johnson, the County inspector who completes the recycling inspections, what percent of organizations he typically encounters that are not in compliance and Ryan replied with 3 or 4%. 







Ralph responded that it would be helpful to have more accurate up‐to‐date information, as he is still concerned about the impact on small businesses. Rita Plyler asked Lexin to elaborate on something she had mentioned the previous day regarding programs the County offered. Lexin then explained how the Commercial Drop‐Off Center Program worked. The County places recycling dumpsters at participating host sites and has them collected at no charge to the host business. She went on to note that there are currently 125 of these sites along with nine self‐service drop‐off centers in the County that are open to the general public. However, Lexin also explained that it is likely that the County would have to remove some of these sites if the ordinance was amended to reduce the threshold to 8 cubic yards. This is because the County cannot provide on‐site, free recycling service to companies that would be required to recycle under the ordinance. Moving on to the next slide, Lexin went on to say that DSM had found in their analysis that the overall cost to the County would be zero to reduce the threshold to 8 cubic yards, eliminate the 500‐lb exemptions and include mixed paper. She noted, though, that this was taking into consideration the availability of the County’s Commercial Drop‐Off Center Program. With some of the sites potentially removed through this program, there would be less availability to small businesses. However, the analysis is probably still accurate, since it is two years old, because the County has added a number of sites in the last two years. So we are probably at around the same number that we were when the initial analysis was conducted. Emily Scofield questioned whether these sites would really have to be removed or if they could just be relocated to qualifying businesses and Lexin responded in the affirmative. Judy Caldwell brought up expanding the materials list impacted. The idea being that if they could put more things in the recycling bin, they would have less trash. Joe Hack clarified that the SSO is only tied to contractual trash amounts rather than recycling amounts. Moving on to the Pros and Cons slide on lowering the threshold, Lexin explained that besides the more obvious benefits of increased education opportunities and recycling tonnage and reduced emissions, there would be some simplification benefits in enforcement from reducing the threshold to 8 cy. This would allow an inspector to drive by a site and immediately note, just based on the existence of an 8 cubic yard dumpster, that this business falls under the threshold. However, it would still require an additional conversation with a site representative to determine whether the business falls under one of the 500‐lb exemptions. Nancy Couture brought up the value in tying recycling requirements to permitting and questioned whether this could be connected to business licensing. Ralph responded that state law deems business licensing to be a revenue source only and that it couldn't be tied to regulatory enforcement. So in order to do this we would have to amend state law. Marley Claridge asked whether there was a possibility to still work with business licensing, even if it wasn't in a regulatory manner, by including information about recycling or a recycling survey in the annual business licensing packets. Lexin responded that there is a reference to obtaining more information about recycling on the current information/contact sheet Charlotte Business Licensing distributes. Also, the County sponsored the back page of the Business Licensing 





Booklet last year with an ad related to the SSO. She stated that she could inquire as to whether there might be the capability to include a questionnaire as well. Les Epperson inquired as to whether there had been any consideration of lowering the threshold to less than 8 cubic yards. Lexin responded that the study had only looked at the reduction from 16 to 8 cubic yards, but there were other jurisdictions that had chosen to go to lesser numbers, such as the state of Californian enforcing at the 4 cubic yard level. Mohammad Jenatian commented on one of the cons, which was limited space availability. He noted that this was very important to the HTA members because they get conflicting information from the City and the County regarding the ability to utilize required parking spaces for a recycling dumpster. Lexin noted that the City of Charlotte did currently include this provision in their zoning ordinance, so this should not be a problem businesses were facing in the City, but that she would be happy to help anyone that did run into this problem. Michael Talbert brought up the question of whether many small businesses that would be affected by lowering the threshold would actually need a new recycling dumpster since they only had 8 cubic yards of trash to start with. The general discussion reflected that this could depend on the amount of cardboard the business was going through. With large loads of cardboard, it would be difficult to fit everything into a 96‐gallon rollcart. Rita Plyler discussed a couple of different options she offers her customers looking at larger size containers that could still be kept inside or adding a recycling dumpster but having it collected every other week rather than every week. Jimmie Jones also weighed in, noting that even when a second recycling dumpster was required, he was frequently able to save his customers money by implementing recycling because of the value of the recyclables. Mohammad responded about how important the economic data was to small businesses and that that is the type of information he needs more of. Lourdes Zapata chimed in with a similar request, stating it would be helpful to the Chamber to have a better grasp of the potential costs to small businesses for making these changes. Lexin responded that it was difficult to give out definitive cost numbers because there is no definite price list. There are many variables that can affect pricing including the hauler selected, their current routes in the area, the mix of materials a business generates and their ability to negotiate their contract, just to name a few. Marley asked whether there was a possibility to provide incentives or benefits to businesses for banding together to get a community recycling dumpster. Bruce responded that this was something we could look into. It was brought up again that perhaps the focus should be on those businesses that are currently impacted but aren't recycling instead. Lexin mentioned that it is also possible that because the County uses inspections as more of an education opportunity and that we give businesses a long grace period to come into compliance with a relatively low fine threat, it is possible some businesses that are aware of the ordinance aren't motivated to come into compliance. Bruce responded, though, that all businesses that we have encountered have come into compliance to date. 







Emily Scofield questioned whether the matter of not all businesses being in compliance wasn't a separate issue from what we were talking about today in amending the ordinance. That it is more a matter of enforcement rather than an underlying policy. Michael Talbert stated that he thought another benefit should be added to the effect that we would be burying less valuable commodities in the ground. Paul Bradley brought up the issue of screening for dumpsters again, stating that this is a high up‐
front, lump‐sum cost that businesses would have to address. He gave an estimate of $1,000‐
$2,000 to build an average dumpster enclosure. Jimmie Jones commented that he saw one of his customer's bills for building a dumpster enclosure, and it was $1,200. Lexin moved on to the Pros and Cons for the 500‐lb exemptions slide. She noted that there was not much point in reducing the threshold if we didn’t eliminate or reduce the 500‐lb exemptions because DSM found that the threshold change would only impact 300 new businesses if the exemptions weren’t changed. Besides the already mentioned benefits of increasing recycling tonnage and reducing emissions, it would also simplify enforcement even more to eliminate the exemptions, as this is currently determined by having the tenant estimate the amount of materials they go through in a week and then determining how much that would equal in a month. This takes additional time and business owners or tenants never feel that they actually go through as much cardboard or paper as they do, so it can be a lengthy discussion. The obvious con would be the potential cost impact on businesses that don’t go through large volumes of paper or cardboard. They could choose to self‐haul these materials to a drop‐off center if it was a really small amount, but there is still some cost based on mileage to their vehicle, etc. Bruce asked Ryan how often this comes up, and Ryan responded very rarely is a business completely exempted. Lexin clarified, though, that it is not uncommon for a business to be exempt from one material but not the other. For example, restaurants and convenience stores handle large volumes of cardboard, but very little paper. Ryan also clarified how the volume of materials from a multi‐tenant building is determined, in that he looks at three tenants to estimate their waste, but the person contracting for the service is ultimately the responsible party. Lexin asked the group for final thoughts or concerns about the proposed considerations of lowering the threshold to 8 cubic yards and eliminating the 500‐lb exemptions. Les Epperson asked what the climate was at this time with the Board of Commissioners. Bruce replied that there is no climate at this time, as it is a new board and it is up to us to assist them in making decisions. Jimmie Jones said that he was in favor of dropping the threshold to 8 cubic yards and having more materials added. Lexin advanced to the next slide, which listed materials currently banned from the landfill and brought up the idea that the taskforce could look at including these materials in the SSO as well. Jimmie and Judy expressed some concern with incorporating the entire list. They thought only a couple of them should be included, possibly plastic bottles or aluminum cans. Lexin clarified that businesses would not actually have to be contracting for the recycling of all of the materials. They would just be agreeing to properly dispose of them if their business encountered them. 







Judy went on to say that she thought the group needed to decide which way we were going to go with amending the ordinance, whether it was to broaden what is included in fiber and go to mixed paper and paperboard or to incorporate cans and bottles. Steve Banner mentioned that an additional cost to property managers was to source the “cleaning” of commingled materials, as not all tenants paid attention to what was supposed to go into recycling versus trash. Michael noted, though, that the current ordinance does not penalize property managers for their tenants’ actions. They only have to provide a recycling system and notify tenants of the system. Bobby Williams asked if it would be all right for him to put out feelers to various groups in Huntersville to get their feedback and Lexin assured him and the rest of the group that the County would much appreciate that effort. Ryan also asked the group to try and think about dissenting points‐of‐view and presenting those thoughts in our meetings, so that we can consider all opinions. Mohammad mentioned that he wanted to be sure we would not be making changes to the ordinance that would not now require hotels to go through guests' trash to make sure they separated recycling properly because he thought that would be a huge burden on hotels. Lexin reassured him that the intent of the ordinance was to ensure that recycling service was provided, but not to police trash and recycling containers, particularly when a business' waste is open to the public. Emily Scofield asked how long we expected the amended ordinance to be in place. Lexin responded that unless the taskforce felt it was appropriate to pass the amendment with a sunset provision, the changes would be in effect in perpetuity. Emily responded that taking that fact into consideration, she felt we needed to come up with strong recommendations that will still be relevant 20 years from now. Steve Banner also mentioned his concerns that the needs of multi‐tenant buildings be addressed with any changes to the ordinance. He said that sometimes in multi‐tenant buildings, all of the tenants are responsible for their own waste collection, but the property manager will get one recycling dumpster that serves all of the tenants. Lexin responded that this scenario would meet the intent of the ordinance, since it doesn't require that individual businesses contract for recycling services to be in compliance. They are even allowed to self‐haul. Bruce stated that this information could be made clearer in the ordinance, though, and we would keep it in mind. Lexin adjourned the meeting and reminded the group that she would be sending out a request through doodle to identify their availability for the next meeting in March. Minutes submitted by Lexin Murphy.