PUBLIC SERVICES & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE February 2, 2017

Transcription

1 PUBLIC SERVICES & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE Chairman Hameister called the meeting of the COG Public Services & Environmental Committee to order at 11:40 A.M. in the COG General Forum Room. Members present: Messrs. Barlow, Luck, Hameister, Steve Miller (substitute for Ferguson Township); Mses. Stilson Others present: Messrs. Garthe, CRPA; May, CRPA; Cory Miller, UAJA; Onufrak, CCRRA; Steff, COG Executive Director; and Mses. Shafer, CCRRA; Adams, COG Refuse and Recycling Administrator; Maras, COG Refuse and Recycling CITIZEN COMMENT Mr. Hameister distributed a map of a Columbia Gas Proposal regarding the Centre Hall-Hanover Foods Proposed Project cost estimates. He shared his concern that the properties in yellow were being subsidized by the project. Mr. Steff shared his personal understanding that property located within 50 feet of the line is connected by Columbia Gas for free. He said his reading of the map did not show a departure from this. MINUTES Motion was made by Mr. Luck and seconded by Mr. Barlow that the minutes of the January 5, 2017 meeting of the COG Public Services & Environmental (PSE) Committee be approved as presented. The vote in favor was unanimous. COMMITTEE PICTURE The Committee agreed to move the photo to the March meeting when it is anticipated that all members will be present. The photo is for the COG webpage that discusses the Public Services & Environmental Committee. ZERO WASTE LUNCH Ms. Adams informed the Committee that the COG Building has begun offering organics recycling to its employees when it began an organics recycling contract with State College Borough (SCB) on February 1, Organics collection containers are now located upstairs in the kitchen and downstairs in the General Forum Room. Ms. Adams reminded the Committee it began having zero waste meetings in December She provided an overview of a zero waste lunch and explained what can be put into organics recycling (compostable paper products, food, etc.). She added that COG Staff will begin working with committee coordinators to introduce zero waste lunches to all COG Committees and the General Forum. Ms. Adams reported staff has started to recruit COG employees for the drop off program and thus far the response has been small. She said participants will receive a kitchen pail and a five-gallon transport container, and will be responsible for dropping off their organics into the organics cart. She invited interested Committee members to participate. In response to Mr. Luck, Ms. Adams said extra food from meetings is offered for use by others and not disposed of immediately. In closing, Ms. Stilson confirmed that coordination and implementation will take place at the staff level.

2 Page 2 of 5 PSE COMMITTEE PRIORITIES COMMITTEE FEEDBACK Ms. Adams reminded the Committee that at the January meeting they reviewed PSE priorities and focused on the Sustainability/Energy Conservation priority. She said everyone agreed to the suggestion to ask their individual municipalities whether they were interested in supporting an AmeriCorps volunteer to work on sustainability/energy tasks. Committee members reported that they had not discussed with their boards/councils. Mr. Luck asked Ms. Adams to send a note to the managers so that it can be placed on a future agenda. Ms. Adams emphasized that what is most important at this time is to determine if the position is worth supporting. Mr. May added that determining potential tasks will make it possible to determine what the position will look like. He emphasized the need for the work to be valuable to the municipalities and COG. He named some potential areas such as climate adaptation, severe weather, data collection, and ordinances. He reiterated that if there is enough interest that the Centre Regional Planning Agency (CRPA) could begin identifying projects and include funding in the 2018 Budget. Mr. Hameister suggested Ms. Nardone at ClearWater Conservancy as a potential contact because of her experience with AmeriCorps volunteers. There was consensus among committee members to support an AmeriCorps position. Ms. Stilson returned the discussion to the priorities: 1) Environmental Initiatives, 2) Update the Act 537 Plan, 3) Fiber Optics Infrastructure, and 4) Sustainability/Energy Conservation. She wanted to make sure that the items listed were still being worked on and whether they were in the proper order. Mr. Luck responded that he thought these are what the Committee is working on, but they are not prioritized. Ms. Adams referred to the Committee s letter dated May 11, 2016 that the priorities should be ranked in order of importance. There was some discussion to rank them based on current work focus as: 1) Act 537, 2) Fiber Optics, 3) Environmental Initiatives (which includes Regional Organics) and 4) Sustainability/Energy Conservation. Mr. Luck suggested and the Committee agreed they not be prioritized because they re all in progress and the ranking seemed to only demonstrate a false urgency. Mr. May confirmed that the Act 537 Update is moving along and nearly done in some areas (e.g., beneficial reuse). Mr. Steff then mentioned last month s meeting with Mr. Hernandez regarding KINBER. He reminded the Committee that Mr. Hernandez asked whether the participants wanted to commit to Phase 2. He suggested COG participate with the condition this information be included: 1) cost estimates for the operation and maintenance of the system, 2) proposed method for handling service disruptions, and 3) an all-inclusive cost estimate including expenses for installing lines, permits, right of way access, and other related expenses. There was group consensus that Mr. Steff should tell Mr. Hernandez that we would participate with these conditions being met.

3 Page 3 of 5 Mr. Hameister suggested talking to the State College Area School District (SCASD) and other potential facilities. Mr. Luck stated that in a discussion he had with SCASD he learned SCASD is interested in the long-term, but because of deadlines, they had to commit to something else for now. Mr. Luck was also informed by SCASD that they need to find out whether they can invite others to share in their lines, because they were partially funded by E-Rate, which may only allow for educational institutions. REGIONAL ORGANICS RECYCLING PROGRAM UPDATE Ms. Adams informed the Committee that she visited the 5 municipalities that participate in COG s Refuse & Recycling program to provide them with information about the development of the proposed Regional Organics Recycling Program. This included sharing a timeline with the goal of reporting to the General Forum in March to make sure there is continued interest to move forward. Ms. Adams then reviewed why COG is investigating an Organics Recycling Program and stressed the importance in providing elected officials with the necessary information as to the purpose behind the Program. She referred to a chart that showed that regional households averaged 1 ton of trash annually in the 1990s and now are about.75 ton/ household/year. She informed the Committee that this coincided with the addition of recycling paperboard and electronics. She said the goal of a Regional Organics program is to decrease landfill waste further. She mentioned that State College Borough realized a landfill waste reduction of 25-30% with the introduction of their Organics Recycling Program. Ms. Adams addressed some of the questions she heard from various municipalities related to the compost facility. She said the plan is for the organic material to go to the SCB Compost facility, but the relationship stills needs to be defined. She emphasized a need to discuss how the product will be managed, such as who owns the material at the end of the process. Ms. Adams said that this Program obviously would significantly expand the SCB operation although they do have the physical capacity. Ms. Adams returned to the original 5 questions: 1) Should the service provider or COG/municipalities own the carts? 2) Should COG consider carts for trash collection in the new contract? 3) How will costs be distributed? 4) Should the program include properties outside the Regional Growth Boundary (RGB) or should they be phased in later? 5) Is there support for a drop off program to begin in the interim? In regards to cart collection, Ms. Adams indicated that there is near consensus on the point of moving to carts and a desire for two cart sizes. Mr. Luck mentioned some members of the Patton Board had concerns. Ms. Adams agreed and said that it was true that carts would not work for all households for various reasons. She added it was a small enough number that those houses will be able to be excluded from having carts and that determining an estimate of households should be determined ahead of time to include in the bidding specifications. Ms. Adams also said there was general agreement that COG should own the carts and the cost should come through the bill. She added that the contractor will be responsible for storage, delivery and maintenance. Ms. Adams mentioned a need to identify a process for small bulk items and occasional excess trash. She added that in the bid specifications there will be an opportunity to recycle your old trash can. Ms. Adams talked about costs and recommended that all residents pay the same fee structure. She said she would like to see organics costs rolled into the recycling fee, not as a separate cost. She said the incentive

4 Page 4 of 5 for residents to choose between low or regular usage would remain. Ms. Adams said that the municipal feedback showed a majority of support for this, but there was some concern about required participation and that some elected officials desired an opt-out option. She said this will be the most challenging issue to solve. She added that the most successful programs are those where the program costs are embedded within the cost of the program paid by all residents. Ms. Adams emphasized the goal is to have a successful program and reduce the amount of waste going to the landfill. She expressed concern that there will be less participation if it costs more to participate in organics recycling. Mr. Onufrak followed up and said if the goal is to reduce the amount of waste, then that is what COG s bidding specification need be based on. He stated if residents are allowed to opt out and pay a lower fee, it defeats the Program s purpose. Mr. Luck began a discussion in which opting out and fees were discussed. Concern was expressed that those who opt out would pay less and be throwing away more. It was discussed that those who opted in to the Organics Program would be covering the greater tipping costs for those who opted out and where placing more trash at the curb. It was suggested that those who opt out of organics pay more for their refuse, so that the total fee would be the same. There was consensus among the Committee that opting out should not result in a lower fee. Ms. Shafer shared that State College Borough (SCB) residents who backyard composted initially didn t participate in the SCB Organics Recycling Program but most of them began participating within the first year when they learned how much more the organics recycling collection included. She suggested that perhaps devising a method for people who truly are practicing zero waste could be created to allow for option to opt out. Mr. Onufrak reminded the Committee that this project involves 15,000 households and the bidding process will be disruptive without a planned commitment. Mr. Onufrak suggested that the current local ordinances will need to be amended prior to the implementation of an organics program. Ms. Adams concurred and stated that ordinance review is part of the process prior to the next contract. Ms. Adams stated the discussion of the Committee shows how much education COG needs to do. She reminded the committee that the 32 elected officials are representative of the views of the general population. She discussed the need to have more conversations with residents especially if costs are increasing. Ms. Adams talked about defining the rate structure and identified a need to work with the Centre County Recycling and Refuse Authority (CCRRA) to understand how the change in the COG program will affect rates for the county and other municipalities. Mr. Steff pointed out this is not a revenue neutral proposal for CCRRA. That if more things go into organics, CCRRA will see a decrease in their waste disposal revenue. Ms. Adams proceeded to discuss the service area and stated the Committee recommended it would include all those who are already served. She said she is trying to determine whether there are differences in waste practices between households who reside within and outside of the Regional Growth Boundary (RGB). She emphasized a need to further assess because one consequence of phasing in or excluding areas

5 Page 5 of 5 of the current service area could result in two different service area rate structures. She surmised that the residents who are living in more concentrated population areas are currently subsidizing those outside the RGB. She also reminded the Committee that our current program is All In and that this has helped to keep down costs. Mr. Luck said he is not prepared to separate out those residing outside the RGB. After some discussion, Ms. Adams said it sounded like the committee was in agreement that it should be available to everyone. In regards to the question of regional drop off program, Ms. Adams informed the Committee that a Home-to-Work Organics Drop-Off program has begun for COG staff. She said that CCRRA is planning to begin one in March. She explained to the Committee that this is to help decide if a drop-off program would be feasible for the region. Ms. Adams concluded by identifying the next steps which include: continuing work on identified tasks, creating bid specifications, developing an educational outreach program, improving community awareness, and seeking out grant/funding opportunities. She said she would create a draft of the 5 Question matrix to share with the Committee at the next PSE meeting with the intent to then present it to the General Forum in March. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Hameister asked Mr. Cory Miller to comment on the letter from Spring-Benner-Walker Joint Authority to the Benner Township Supervisors regarding sewer service along Shiloh Road. Mr. Miller responded that the UAJA is waiting for confirmation from DEP that 1) these properties are in UAJA s service area and 2) that Benner Township has moved them to UAJA s service area. He emphasized that the UAJA needs evidence that both Act 537 Plans indicate that UAJA can serve it. Mr. May added that Benner Township needs to take formal action. Ms. Shafer mentioned two items of interest: Watershed Clean-Up Day will take place on April 22, 2017 and Household Hazardous Waste Collection is scheduled for April 27th and 28th, ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting of the COG Public Services & Environmental Committee was adjourned at 1:02 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Lisa M. Maras Recording Secretary