SSO Taskforce Meeting June 24, 2013 11:30 am – 1:00 pm Present: Steve Banner, Paul Bradley, Leamon Brice, Les Epperson, Bill Hardister, Ralph Messera, Rita Plyler, Rebecca Stoddard, Gerry Vincent Guests: Brandon Banner, Curtis Beatty, Krystal Brown, Mollie Clark, Ashley Hendrick Staff: Bruce Gledhill, Patrick Granson, Joe Hack, Laurette Hall, Derrick Harris, Ryan Johnson, Gene Morton, Lexin Murphy, Abdullah Oufkir, Joe Padilla, Maryssa Shanteau‐Jackson, Michael Talbert, Jake Wilson The sixth meeting of the SSO Taskforce was called to order by Lexin Murphy. 



Lexin Murphy began the PowerPoint presentation, reminding the group that this was the sixth meeting and could be the last if the Taskforce was ready to make recommendations. She also updated the group on the fact that the County no longer wishes to address tracking and measurement of commercial waste stream through the SSO, besides what is already done to address certification of mixed waste processors. A new topic that Lexin brought up in the discussion was some of the benefits Mecklenburg County has enjoyed because of the passing of the original SSO. These included expanded infrastructure and jobs in the recycling industry, conservation of landfill space and helping companies become “green” prior to the green movement really hitting its stride. The issue of conserving landfill space is a big deal that people do not always recognize. While relatively low tipping fees might now be taken for granted, once local landfill space becomes limited or ceases to exist altogether, the cost to haul waste further distances for disposal will significantly impact everyone in the County. Lexin then provided a summary of the discussions to date and some of the relevant background information that was presented in the previous meetings. One new piece of information that was brought up was a study presented by the National Association of Homebuilders Research Center, which found that in a typical 2,000 square foot house, approximately 600 pounds or 20 cubic yards of cardboard was produced. This provides an answer to the previously presented question as to whether there are significant enough amounts of cardboard produced in construction of single family homes to make it worth addressing through the SSO. Lexin also presented updated pros and cons to removing the Temporary Site Exemption (TSE) on the construction industry, based on comments the County has received from interested parties. 




On one of the cons, enforcement, she let the group know that while enforcement may be difficult on the County’s end, the Taskforce should not let that influence their recommendations. The County will find a way to provide enforcement; what we are really interested in is what the group would like to see happen. The other new concerns that have been brought forward by the construction community are potential contamination by other residents in a developing single family neighborhood and minimal oversight of workers, which could lead to contamination issues. Lexin explained to the group that based on the discussions the Taskforce has had over the last six months, as well as presentations and discussions that the County has had with other organizations, we are now ready to present and discuss staff recommendations. The Taskforce does not necessarily have to agree with these recommendations, and they can choose to come up with their own. These will just give the group a starting point. For businesses, staff is recommending that the 500‐lb exemption be removed, the threshold reduced to 8 cubic yards per week and the materials affected be expanded to include mixed paper and all of the landfill banned items. Lexin explained that the County is proposing these measures be enforced by an inspector examining what is in a business’ dumpster. So, for example, while car batteries are a landfill banned item, there wouldn’t be an expectation that a business arrange for car battery recycling services. As long as the inspector didn’t see car batteries thrown in that business’ trash, they would be in compliance. Lexin also explained how the County had decided on selecting these items rather than making the requirements match the list of things that can be recycled residentially, stating that since residents are not required to recycle everything they can recycle, the County wanted to be fair in how the ordinance is applied. And since the County is seeking enforcement of the landfill banned items on residents as well, this would be consistent with what is being proposed for businesses. Paul Bradley asked for clarification on if what was being proposed is that instead of the landfill being required to enforce banned items, Mecklenburg County would now be able to do it. Lexin replied that yes, the County could now enforce at the generator level, though the State would still have the authority to enforce at the landfill itself. Bruce Gledhill brought up the fact that glass was purposely left off of this list because of DSM’s findings that glass is not a significant part of the commercial waste stream besides what is already addressed through the ABC law, and because staff have heard that the commercial infrastructure to handle glass is less developed than that of other materials and some facilities are not interested in accepting glass. Ralph Messera inquired as to how this law would compare with other similar county laws in the state. Bruce answered that he was not aware of any similar law that currently existed in the state. Mecklenburg is the only county regulating commercial waste. Bruce went on to explain that the potential law being considered in the legislature that would prohibit local governments from enforcing laws more strict than that of the state should not apply to the SSO (according to our attorney) because the state does not currently have any similar law on the books. Joe Hack talked about the fact that Mecklenburg County generates more commercial waste than most other counties in the state because of our dense population, which gives us more of an 




opportunity in this situation. Laurette Hall and Bruce also went on to discuss the fact that other counties do have commercial programs, some of which are higher performing than ours, but none of them quite mimic what we have done with the SSO. Steve Banner inquired as to whether this might negatively affect medical facilities that have a lot of wet waste that recyclers don’t want to handle. Lexin explained that the changes to the SSO would not require that businesses of any sort generate less trash in general. It would just restrict them from putting the specifically identified recyclable materials in the trash. She also stated that there would be a maximum allowable contamination level identified, with the idea that an inspector wouldn’t want to see more than 10% contamination in a typical dumpster. Ralph brought up the question that had been posed in an earlier meeting of whether we shouldn’t be focusing our efforts on the large number of businesses identified in DSM’s original study that were not in compliance with the current SSO. Lexin explained that upon further discussion with DSM, she had found out the number they presented was not the number of non‐compliant businesses, but rather the number of businesses that would still generate enough trash to fall under the SSO, even if they were implementing recycling, which isn’t really relevant to our current discussion. Bruce also pointed out that the proposed changes to the ordinance addressing materials would have a larger impact than just the new businesses added based on the reduction of the threshold, as all businesses would now need to add these new materials to their recycling mix as well if they generate them. Steve asked about enforcement of the SSO on owner versus tenant, and Lexin and Bruce stated that the language of the ordinance would not change, so it would continue to be enforced on the contracting business entity. The next staff recommendation was for special events and cited the removal of the TSE, reduction of threshold to 8 cubic yards per week (which would probably capture all events that contract for at least 8 cubic yards, as they are not typically longer than a week) and expanding the materials affected to include mixed paper and landfill banned items. Lexin mentioned the fact that the Taskforce had previously expressed a desire to require every special event recycle, with no threshold. However, County staff wanted to be consistent with how the ordinance is applied to other business entities, so we went with 8 cubic yards. She did clarify, though, that the Taskforce could still choose to make their recommendation a threshold of zero. Les Epperson expressed support for making the threshold 8 cubic yards, as it would be difficult for smaller events to comply otherwise. Rebecca Stoddard stated she was in favor of requiring that all events recycle, as this was our opportunity to be bold and set a standard for the future. The final staff recommendation for construction and demolition sites was to eliminate the TSE, reduce the threshold to 8 cubic yards per week (which could be enforced by determining how often a larger container, such as a 30 or 40 yard, was emptied) and expand the materials affected to include mixed paper and landfill banned items. Lexin stated that the idea here is with some strategic waste reduction efforts by the builder, sites could fall below the threshold, which would prevent the County from ever looking in their dumpsters. This would eliminate the contamination concerns that have been brought up if residents or subcontractors did not use the appropriate container for recyclables. 





Joe Padilla stated that he would be happy to reach out to builders and find out what number the construction community would be comfortable with in terms of threshold. He said that he had received some initial feedback that he thought compliance would be possible for larger builders, but he wanted everyone to keep in mind the difference between a small and production builder. For small builders, he does not believe they would be able to meet these requirements unless the developer provided recycling service. Joe P asked how this would be applied, and Lexin responded it would be applied in the same way the current ordinance is in that it would be the contracting entity’s responsibility. Joe P stated that with small builders that only have one or two lots in a neighborhood, the developer typically provides waste service. Joe P said he thought it would be helpful to the group to visit a construction site and get a better feel for how an open site like this typically operates and some of the related challenges. One of the builders’ biggest concerns is maintaining an uncontaminated waste stream. Lexin replied that the County saw contamination in drop‐off center sites as well, but we were still able to maintain an overall acceptable contamination rate. It was discussed that a cardboard dumpster in a neighborhood could actually become a resource to residents, so that they had a place to put their moving boxes as well. Joe P stated that he still did not have a handle, though, on where this is working and how it is working. Krystal Brown commented that she thought sites that were being successful in recovering recyclable materials were utilizing commingled recycling facilities. Lexin stated that that was an option to meet the ordinance requirements as well. The County could certify mixed waste processors in the construction community. Joe P said he would like to see a pilot program first that doesn’t mandate compliance, so we can see how this would work. Lexin clarified that she wanted to make sure everyone realized that construction sites wouldn’t have to use the same size or type of container that is used for trash for recyclables. There are large dumpsters that have slits for cardboard, which would require workers to break down boxes. These could actually be helpful to builders as she has heard from haulers that construction sites do not typically break down cardboard boxes, so the contracting entity is paying for a lot of air space in a dumpster. Joe P said the issue would be where is that container located. Joe P also mentioned that he had recently been to one of the County’s self service drop‐off centers and noticed a large amount of materials dumped there. He has the concern that the same thing will happen at construction sites, and that the cost of trying to secure the sites would be too expensive. Bruce replied that while there are contamination issues associated with all of our drop‐off sites, it is manageable. He stated that we have to consider whether we want to govern to the lowest common denominator or try to do something better. Laurette Hall and Rita Plyler both agreed that there is contamination in every sector of the non‐residential community; it is not limited to construction sites. Lexin clarified the enforcement process, explaining that this wouldn’t be a situation where the County would have zero tolerance. We would have understanding if we stopped by a site and the builder stated that residents had contaminated their dumpster, but if they had the same problem every week, we might need to investigate further. Ryan Johnson followed this up by 


stating that the primary thing he is looking for during inspections is whether people are providing for a system of separation for recyclables and education about what is available. Lexin explained that once the Taskforce has made their recommendations, the County will need to start our public education and outreach process. She then asked the group to weigh in on how they felt about the first staff recommendation addressing businesses. Ralph inquired as to whether the exemption relating to physical constraints would still be in place and Bruce replied in the affirmative. Bill Hardister inquired as to whether this ordinance would impact lodging facilities as well, and Lexin replied in the affirmative. Bill said he thought that was important because he believes people expect recycling to be available in their rooms. Leamon Brice agreed, stating that he thinks people expect to see recycling service available everywhere they go, and he thinks the staff recommendations move us in that direction, so he’d like to see us move forward with all of them. Ralph said he didn’t have a problem with the recommendations either, except he would like to see us visit a construction site as Joe P suggested. Lexin next asked the group for their feelings on the staff recommendations related to special events. Paul asked for some clarification, stating that 8 cubic yards as a threshold wouldn’t be very much. Laurette agreed, stating we are only looking at exempting small events that don’t contract for dumpster service. Paul asked how the ordinance would affect an event such as Festival in the Park. Lexin explained that they would need to be setting aside their cardboard and providing recycling containers for bottles and cans generated during the events. Joe Hack clarified that even small events that occur on park properties already have recycling service available through Park & Rec, so they wouldn’t have to contract for anything. There was general consensus that an education campaign would need to accompany any of these changes in the ordinance and that 8 cubic yards would be a good threshold. Lexin asked the group for their thoughts on the staff recommendations related to construction and demolition. Leamon stated that he was in agreement with Ralph’s suggestion of visiting a site first before making any recommendations. Lexin asked whether people would prefer to visit a site themselves or have County staff visit and present the findings to them. There was a mixed response to this question, so Lexin stated she would work with Joe P to see when the site visit was available and anyone that was interested in attending could do so. Minutes submitted by Lexin Murphy.