SSO Taskforce Meeting May 29, 2013 11:30 am – 1:00 pm Present: Paul Bradley, Judy Caldwell, Nancy Couture, Les Epperson, Tommy George, Bill Hardister, Jimmie Jones, Gerry Vincent, Lourdes Zapata Guests: Linda Ashendorf, Brandon Banner, Jeff Edwards, Jane Freeman, Travis Haston, Joe Padilla, Matt Pannell, Vincent Sabotin Staff: Nadine Ford, Bruce Gledhill, Patrick Granson, Laurette Hall, Ryan Johnson, Lexin Murphy, Michael Talbert, Jake Wilson The fifth 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 previous meetings. She then began discussing the potential impacts of removing the Temporary Site Exemption (TSE) from the SSO. The first topic Lexin brought up for discussion was space constraints. She said that she has heard from several people that there is not room for an additional dumpster on construction sites; however, she has also heard that a second dumpster might not be necessary. For example, Lexin related that she had spoken to a hauler today who stated that most of the sites they work with require their delivery people for major appliances to take back their boxes and packaging. So these sites don’t see much cardboard in dumpsters. Nancy Couture stated that they allow the clients that they provide recycling service for who don’t have room for a container to just flatten and stack their cardboard. Jane Freeman reported that on their commercial construction sites, similar to what Lexin described from her conversation with a hauler, they will require that cardboard and packaging be taken back if it cannot be recycled on‐site. Lexin then asked Jane if she saw the cardboard recycling requirement ask a significant burden. Jane replied in the negative, as long as they are allowed to commingle their waste and have it separated off‐site for recycling purposes. Lexin replied that she felt the County would support a commingled process as long as we put in similar regulations to those currently in place for certified mixed waste processors. Joe Padilla stated that the biggest concern that jumps out at him is that there are typically multiple builders working on a site, but there would have to be one location where all of these builders could take their materials. If we are looking at central locations, that would then fall to 






the developer to provide. He said it would be a simpler process if it was only one builder working in an area, but even then, if they have 30 or 40 homes they are building at once, it would still be a logistical problem. Lexin asked if there were a certain number of homes a builder would need to have in an area that would make this type of regulation more feasible or if the group felt it should always be the developer’s responsibility. Joe P said the question was how you balance things out for each individual builder to have to separate out materials and take them somewhere else at the end of the day. This would require coordination between construction managers, builders and developers. He said he had concerns with making a developer responsible when they have so little interaction on the job site. Lexin said another way to look at it would be for the developer to be responsible for providing the service, but the homebuilder be responsible for not putting recyclables in the trash. Ryan Johnson clarified how the SSO is currently enforced on multi‐tenant sites in that it is the property manager’s responsibility to simply provide recycling service and educate their tenants about its availability. Lexin replied that she thought in this case, there could be some responsibility applied to individual home sites if there are specific dumpsters for each one. Vincent Sabotin responded that this scenario sounds like a logistical nightmare. He feels single family construction should be left out of the initial ordinance amendment. Travis Haston asked whether we were talking about enforcing these restrictions at County‐
owned landfills or all landfills. Bruce explained that we had not worked out all of the details as to how enforcement would take place, but currently, the ordinance is enforced by a County inspector driving to individual businesses. Travis also questioned whether this regulation would actually level the playing field. He stated that some people would follow the rules, those that wanted to do the right thing, and some wouldn’t, and those following the rules would ultimately be the ones punished because it would be too hard to enforce. Joe P agreed that enforcement would be problematic. There was a question as to whether these materials could be taken to County drop‐off centers and Bruce clarified that pallets can be taken to the full‐service centers and accepted as yard waste for $19/ton, while cardboard can be dropped off for free at any of the 100+ drop‐off centers in the County. Gerry Vincent asked whether the County could look into lower cost options to accept pallets from smaller builders. Lexin commented that she didn’t think the pallets were the items that were concerning everyone and the builders in the room agreed. Travis commented that in a development with a single builder, he did not think this would be difficult. But if there are multiple builders, who decides who’s paying for the facility and how does it get divvyed up? Is it the responsibility of the developer to mandate it? Travis also asked whether cardboard could still be recycled if it got wet. Bruce responded that it depends on who’s taking the material and what their standards are. The County will accept wet cardboard. Travis thought wet cardboard would be a problem because subcontractors would not pick up their materials every day. Jane agreed and said that is why they don’t allow the cardboard to go in their commingled container because as soon as someone throws a can of paint in with it, it’s ruined. 






Lexin asked Judy Caldwell whether they saw a lot of cardboard brought into Sonoco for sale and whether any of it is coming from construction sites. Judy replied that they see some cardboard brought in by individuals. She also commented that they do allow moisture to an extent, but if it has turned into paper Mache, then they no longer want it. Vincent commented that he thought the key was to set the threshold to a point where you capture the larger projects that are going to generate a lot of OCC and not burden the small individual home builders. Lexin questioned the group again as to what they thought the threshold should be based on and what the number should be. Matt Pannell asked the question as to what would be in it for the homebuilders. They would be willing to comply, but they would want to know what their incentives are since there is such a small margin in home construction. Joe P commented that even if it is a single builder with 30 homes being constructed in a development, there would still be a relatively small amount of cardboard produced each day on each site and that would have to be collected and aggregated. He felt that single family construction should be exempted because there was not enough material generated to justify this. Jane questioned whether cardboard recyclers would be willing to put a container on these sites if the builders were using it because it would be an opportunity to make money. Travis stated that he did not typically see the companies that were delivering appliances and fixtures installing them, so he did not think it would work to try to save the cardboard once those things were installed and call the delivery company back out to get it. Travis also asked questions about the mixed waste processor exception, wondering how that would be enforced if he was planning to just have a guy on his site load everything into a pickup truck and sort it himself. Lexin responded that she didn’t think this scenario would meet the County’s standards for the exception. Joe P stated that he would rather see this done as an incentive program through the County rather than a mandatory requirement. Tommy George questioned as to whether everyone was still on board with removing the Temporary Site Exemption at all. Joe P answered that it depends on how it is applied; he thinks it would be easier for commercial construction to implement than residential. Jane stated that she disagreed with that assessment. She said they have 30 contractors on‐site for a commercial job. It’s not convenient; it’s just a matter of taking the responsibility and doing it. The response was that it would be more convenient for the County to inspect a commercial site and tell whether they are compliant and who is responsible, whereas it would be much more difficult at single family sites. Jane replied that she did not believe the intention was to check every construction dumpster in the County. She said it was more of a trust factor, and while some people will do the wrong thing, it is all about accountability and responsibility. She does not feel it is a cost issue because there is revenue available for the materials we are discussing. Judy Caldwell suggested the idea of a landfill credit for builders that do the right thing but are under whatever the group decides the threshold should be. Patrick Granson asked whether there were any other incentives builders would want to see. Joe P suggested fee credits or things related to permitting. Patrick also asked whether the current commercial drop‐off centers were logistically placed or if there might be an opportunity to move some of them to be more 





convenient for job sites. Jane asked whether Mecklenburg County provides recycling containers to job sites and Bruce replied in the negative. Bruce asked Patrick how readily available some statistics were that could be used for thresholds such as value of permits or square footage. Patrick replied that they did collect square footage information on residential and commercial permits. He said that the issuance of permits for commercial was a little more complicated, as oftentimes the permit is broken into several deliverables or smaller permits. He said multi‐family construction also has different facets because condos are issued as individual permits, but apartment complexes get one permit for all of the apartments. He said that he felt there needed to be different levels to these requirements, and they should ramp upwards. Lexin asked whether there was a possibility that we could provide reduced rates to people that bring construction waste to the Foxhole if they bring in a certain amount of cardboard for recycling purposes as well. Bruce replied that we could look at that for someone that fell below the threshold and wasn’t required to recycled, but that it would be difficult to track and ensure we were actually getting material from a Mecklenburg County builder. Travis asked what Mecklenburg County did with cardboard we collected and Lexin replied that we bale it and sell it. Bruce went on to explain that cardboard sells for around $100 per ton. Considering that you would have to pay $30‐50 per ton to dispose of cardboard there is a $130 per ton difference in recycling the material versus landfilling it. This is variable, though, as cardboard is a commodity. Lexin stated that the last thing she had heard from the group was that we needed to establish a threshold for construction and we could consider using a dollar value to set it. Patrick replied that he would like to see Joe P and the homebuilders come back with some suggestions. Joe P responded that he would rather see the threshold based on number of lots than dollar value because a million dollar home is still going to generate around the same amount of cardboard as a more affordable home. Lexin then asked how the threshold for commercial or multi‐family would work. Patrick suggested that County staff reach out to the GCAA to get their input on this. Judy brought up that commingled construction waste presented an opportunity for someone in. Patrick asked for additional information about how mixed waste processors work. Michael explained that in some parts of the country, communities require that all of their construction waste be sent to a facility for processing before it goes to a landfill. These facilities calculate the amount that they are able to recycle of the total waste sent to them. Bruce also clarified that while we don’t have one of these facilities in Mecklenburg, we do have a mixed waste processor that deals with business waste, Plyler Paper, and they are audited by the County based on their performance or the amount of recycling that comes out of their waste stream. Michael stated that if we had a similar facility for C&D, this would be a non‐issue because construction companies could just take all of their waste there and not have to deal with separation. He also believes something like this is coming to the area soon. Lexin invited anyone to contact her with thoughts on a specific threshold and stated that the County would come back with some recommendations at the June SSO Taskforce meeting. 




Lexin began relaying the results the County got from DSM on the update of their small business survey. DSM talked to 28 companies and found that it would cost them on average $30‐50 per month for a 6‐cubic yard dumpster. This does not include trash service or any reduction to trash that might come from incorporating recycling. DSM’s findings represent a 45‐65% savings since their last survey in 2011. They also found that 25% of businesses would see a $20‐25 per month savings from their trash costs by implementing recycling. This data came from DSM interviewing four haulers. All of these results are representative of the SSO threshold for business being reduced to 8 cubic yards. While the group felt that a 6‐cy container was an odd size, there were some haulers and businesses that reported used it, and there was also a suggestion that this number could come from adding up multiple smaller containers. DSM also examined materials collected from haulers. This was to determine what is currently accepted and whether it would be feasible to make the commercial stream match the residential stream under the SSO. DSM found that most of the haulers accept everything except for glass. There was also one hauler that didn’t take rigid plastics. From the small business survey, DSM found that the average of all businesses responding reported generating 77 PET bottles, 54 aluminum cans and only 14 glass bottles per month. Lexin clarified that this was only small businesses, though, and if we expanded the materials in the ordinance, large businesses would also have to incorporate recycling for these materials. Judy questioned where these specific numbers came from and Lexin answered that they were direct questions to businesses on DSM’s survey. The businesses for the survey were identified by looking at companies that employ between 4 and 49 employees, so there were a few larger waste contractors that ended up being captured in this group. Lourdes Zapata questioned how recycling of these materials would be enforced if they are not being enforced at landfills. Lexin responded that if additional materials were incorporated into the SSO, the County would be enforcing at the generator level. Linda Ashendorf clarified that landfills did enforce to some extent. If a hauler showed up with an entire truckload of aluminum cans, they would not be allowed to dump at Republic’s landfill. There was a question as to whether the County will be able to enforce any new laws since there is a bill currently at the legislature restricting any local laws that are stricter than state laws. Bruce replied that the County attorney’s interpretation is that the SSO will not be affected by this law, should it pass. Tommy stated that he thought it was unlikely that enforcement would be really effective, so the key to anything moving forward is education. In the hope that people will do the right thing if they know about it. When Lexin asked whether anyone had recommendations about where the threshold should be, Tommy said that he supported an 8 cubic yard threshold and should include all materials. Jimmie said that he would support going to zero because the infrastructure is already here. Paul Bradley brought up that it could be difficult for some small businesses to make changes to their hauling contracts to incorporate recycling. Many contracts include automatic renewals that do not allow for changes. Bruce suggested that a contract would be unlawful if it required a business to maintain a level of service that was contrary to local law. Minutes submitted by Lexin Murphy.