Gwinnett Trash Committee Recommendations

At the last meeting of the”Blue Ribbon” Trash Committee on March 2, 2009 I was asked by committee chairman Mike Royal not to publish anything regarding the recommendations on this blog until they had been formally written, reviewed, approved and presented to the individual County Commissioners. I was told by both he and Commissioner Beaudreau that myself and the entire committee would be notified when this happened. Shame on me for allowing myself to be sucker punched. Let me share with you what brings me to make that statement. Just for the record I have been interviewed on several occasions by Jamie Ward of the Gwinnett Daily Post. On April 2, 2009 I received an email from Jamie that his boss forwarded to him from Patrick Malone, one of the committee members. I am pasting it here for all to see:

Your readers would be better served if your reporter would seek another source from Mike Beaudreau’s Blue  Ribbon committee. I would suggest talking to Mike Royal the chairperson of the committee or Rich Edinger, the secretary. The current source apparently has a different agenda that the majority of the committee and as such is distorting the information being relayed to your readers.

For instance, on March 17 committee representatives briefed the County Administrator and staff on our recommendations. On March 24 the chairman and each commissioner (except Kevin Kennerly who had a family illness)were briefed on the specific recommendations and that evening at the Public Hearing the complete report (66 pages) was placed in the public record. This is just one example of the distortions that have appeared in the stories about the trash committee.

Here is a link to the article that inspired Patrick’s email: http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=58042&SectionID=6&SubSectionID=&S=1.What I said to Jamie was that I, nor to my knowledge, any of the committee members were aware of the RFP for a Solid Waste Consultant. I also stated that we as a committee listened to what the public had to say at the six public meetings and the two most common comments were that the citizens of Gwinnett County wanted a choice of who there hauler was and they did not want the trash bill on their tax bill. OK Patrick, so how is my agenda different?

From what I understand, on March 17, 2009 Mike Royal, Rich Edinger, Patrick Malone and Commissioner Beaudreau met with Jock Connell, the County Administrator to discuss the findings of the committee. What is troubling about this is that many of the committee did not even know that this meeting was to take place and there was no input from the committee as to who would represent the committee at the meeting. I can only guess that Commissioner Beaudreau personally selected the members to attend. Moving on to March 24, 2009 as indicated in Patrick’s email, the only comment regarding the committee was made in the audience comments portion of the agenda by Mike Royal. To view the video here is the link: http://eciweb.ecstreams.com/EarthCastIndexerViewer/programViewer.aspx?client=gwinnettcoga&show=BOCpublichearing032409.ecx You will need to go to the comments by the audience, which is the next to last section (it is a little over 32 minutes long) and Mike Royals comments are the last audience comment and Chairman Bannister limited him, as all audience comments were limited, to 3 minutes. At no time during this public hearing was the complete report entered into the public record. It is my feeling as well as the feeling of some of the other committee members that we should have at least been notified that Mike Royal was going to be speaking regarding the committee  findings that evening but that didn’t happen. I guess once again my question has to be, who has a different agenda? One committee member even asked Commissioner Beaudreau if the committee would not be better represented by having a cross section of views represented at all meetings with commissioners or county personnel. That member was advised by Commissioner Beaudreau that there was an ample sampling of the committee represented. In other words, it appears as though Commissioner Beaudreau only wants those who totally endorse his view on the topic to speak or represent the committee.

Trash Committee Recommendations

These recommendations are basedon the committee’s limited exposure to all of the issues. On many issues therewas no clear consensus, so all position votes are detailed on the attached matrix and individual committee members’ comments are included as an attachment.

Recommendations

1. Universal Trash Service(14 yea, 0 nay) Problem addressed: Illegal dumping of trash into the environment. If everyone participates in the county trash service, we expect to reduce littering throughout the county and eliminate the problem associated with residential rental property without trash service dumping their waste into the environment. We believe that mandating that residents pay for curbside pickup outweighs the cost to the community of having to pay to clean up illegal dumping.

2. Billing as a fee on the tax bill. (9 yea, 5 nay) Problem addressed: free riding on universal trash service system by refusing payment. Although there was significant opposition at the public hearings, the committee felt this billing methodology was the only way to enforce universal trash service. The committee considered other billing methods(on water bill, billed by haulers, billed separately by county, etc) but nonpayment of these methods had 2 undesirable outcomes – cut off service and thereby defeat the universal service provision, or allow for a certain amount of bad debt which raises the rates for all others. However, many meeting participants considered this a tax increase even if it reduces their overall expenses for waste disposal.

3. Divide county into 8 trash zones (12 yea, 0 nay, 2 no position)

Problem addressed: maximizes potential for participation by private haulers, keeps bonding requirement modest. 8 zones will increase the odds that more of the existing haulers in the county can win a bid and participate. This also reduces the size of the contracts per zone thereby reducing the performance bond required and facilitates smaller hauler’s ability to compete with the large haulers. We also suggest that there be some limitation on the number of zones any one haulercould be awarded although the committee was unable to make a recommendation on that exact number.

4. Single Hauler per zone (8yea, 6 nay) Problem addressed: ensures economy of scale so that haulers canoffer lowest possible price.

As evidenced by the vote,this was the most contentious issue among the committee members and especially among the meeting participants at the public hearing. For many, freedom of choice was most important. The single hauler concept gained considerable support among the committee when the haulers supported the concept if they could not continue as is, and after they had difficulty explaining how they would bid on a two hauler per zone concept which could not guarantee them a set number of customers. They admitted that the uncertainty in that concept would add cost to the bid results. That and the discussion of a “phased in” conversion over some undetermined period of time impressed the committee members who ultimately voted yea.

5. Voluntary recycling (12yea, 1 nay, 1 no position) Problem addressed: reduces waste stream, thereby maximizing landfill space and making the most of our natural resources. Although the committee enthusiastically supports recycling, it felt thatcitizens should participate voluntarily. Haulers reported current recyclingr ates at approximately 35%. The committee thought a heavy education campaign will increase the recycling rate and help meet the County’s solid waste reduction goals.

6. Expanded list ofrecyclables (13 yea, 0 nay, 1 no position)

Problem Addressed: reduces waste stream, thereby maximizing landfill space and making the most of our natural resources. Allowing more items in a single stream recycling system will significantly increase the volume of recyclables and thereby reduce the volume of solid waste going into landfills. In addition, current private company capacity exists to handle not only the current volume but the increased volume for the foreseeable future. This existing capacity would negate the need to build a multi-million dollar facility at taxpayer expense.

7. Recycling weekly (14 yea,0 nay) Problem Addressed: reduces waste stream, thereby maximizing landfill space and use of our natural resources.

The committee originally considered recycling every other week in order to reduce overall costs to citizens and reduce truck traffic in neighborhoods. Some haulers could not say for certain that costs would decrease. The committee ultimately thought that recycling efforts would suffer if collection opportunities were limited to twice monthly collection.

8. Choice of container size(14 yea, 0 nay) Problem Addressed: Allows seniors to manage containers more easily. The committee realizes that deviations add some additional costs but several citizens impressed upon the committee the difficulty of storing and moving 95 gallon containers. Offering a smaller container (55-60 gallons) that is compatible with the automated systems on the trucks will accommodate these issues.

9. Solid Waste Authority (14yea, 0 nay)

Problem addressed: Lays the legal groundwork for contracting with private haulers for collection services.These recommendations are designed to give the Board of Commissioners the broad brush strokes of a solid waste plan that, in the committee’s opinion, is in the best interest of Gwinnettians. We recognize there is a considerable amount of work to be done to translate these recommendations into action. Bonding, service level agreements, prequalification of bidders, RFP, the bidding process itself and a myriad of other details are necessary in order to achieve the solid waste reduction goals while keeping the county government’s involvement to an absolute minimum. So our final recommendation is the formation of an authority, agency or department to administer the Solid Waste Management Plan, contracts and other necessary compliance functions. Below are additional issues that the committee discussed briefly that it felt should be included in the report:

10. Mandate minimum service standards through Service Level Agreement (5 yea, 1 no position) Problem Addressed: Quality and responsiveness from contracted haulers. Quality and responsiveness from haulers was a citizen concern at all meetings and one way to address this in a universal single hauler per zone system is to have service level agreements as part of the contract. Haulers would be contractually obligated to meet these minimum quality standards to keep the contract.

11. Pick up and pay for both yard waste and white goods as used – (5 yea)

Problem Addressed: Reducestruck traffic in neighborhoods and, in the case of yard waste, maximizes landfill space. Some committee members preferred that neither white goods not yard waste be mandatory and be on a pay as you go basis. This would reducet ruck traffic and, in the case of yard waste, maximize landfill space by promoting composting. However, many on the committee felt that pay-as-you-go would lead to additional illegal dumping, and felt that the illegal dumping problem outweighed the truck traffic problem.

12. Yard Waste – continue on a pay-as-you-go system. (9 yea, 5 nay)

Problem addressed:encourages on-site composting to help maximize landfill space. The committee felt that yard waste is best disposed of at the source through mulching and composting, but realizes that this is not always possible. A pay-as-you-go system is recommended to encourage on-site disposal.

13. White goods/odd sizemandatory weekly collection (12 yea, 2 nay)

Problem Addressed: reduces the likelihood of illegal dumping of these items.

These options need to be offered by all the haulers who receive the contracts for Gwinnett’s solid waste services and should be priced into the basic services fee. This will help prevent illegal dumping into the environment.

14. 2 Haulers per zone (7yea, 4 nay) Problem Addressed: Adds the ability for individuals to fire haulers for poor performance. A minority on the committee wanted to offer multiple haulers per district to give individuals control over hauler performance. Seven members were agreeable to two haulers per zone. Consultation with the haulers at one of the meetings indicated that bidding and pricing details were complexities yet to be determined. A majority on the committee felt that this would lead to increased prices due to the uncertainty introduced to theprocess.

15. 3 haulers per zone (7yea, 3 nay) Seven members were agreeable to three haulers per zone. Problem Addressed: Adds the ability for individuals to fire haulers for poor performance. A minority on the committee wanted to offer multiple haulers per district to give individuals control over hauler performance. Seven members were agreeable to two haulers per zone. Consultation with the haulers at one of the meetings indicated that bidding and pricing details were complexities yet to be determined. A majority on the committee felt that this would lead to increased prices due to the uncertainty introduced to the process.

16. Exceptions permitted with tight restrictions. (10 yea, 3 nay)

Problem Addressed: Gives citizens the ability to address unintended consequences from the universal trash collection policy.

This was much discussed by the committee. Some felt that the only exception would be a resident who owns abusiness with trash service and disposes of their household trash at their business. Several citizen comments indicated that some residents engaged in such practices. Business owners should be required to submit proof of trash service annually to qualify for exception. The committee would challenge the resulting administrators of the Solid Waste process to devise a way to verify that trash is disposed of in this way. Others felt that unintended consequences arise from many regulatory practices, and accordingly there should be a process in place to address such problems. The majority felt that a highbar must be reached before an exception was granted.

17. Continue using Gwinnett Clean and Beautiful for education efforts (9 yea, 4 nay) Problem Addressed:Reconstitutes a relationship that has extensive experience managing the many problems and programs associated with solid waste management. Gwinnett Clean and Beautiful is a non-profit organization that has performed many services for Gwinnett County, including solid waste and recycling education campaigns, Christmas Tree recycling, anti-graffiti programs, anti-litter campaigns, and administering Gwinnett County’s Solid Waste Management Plan. The committee felt that this organization still has much to offer Gwinnett County and urges the board of commissioners to re-engage it to continue its education efforts on behalf of all Gwinnettians.

18. Implement transition plan from current system to a plan such as was bid out in the fall of 2008 for a duration of “x” number of years.

Problem Addressed: Gives haulers with established collection businesses time to adjust their business model to the “single hauler per zone” concept.

Much citizen input revolved around existing haulers being put out of business due to the single hauler per zone concept. A transition plan, as is required in commercial waste collection, would give existing haulers time to adjust to this new process. The committee did not have an opportunity to discuss this concept at length due to time constraints the evening it was introduced.

19. Require bonding in a more easily achievable amount and type.

Problem Addressed: Levels the playing field for companies competing for collection contracts, and protects citizens from company defaults during the life of the contract. Bonding is necessary to protect the citizens during the contract term from companies that may default on their contractual obligations. Bonding requirements must be legal and the fairly applied to the RFP process. The committee advises that the creator of the next RFP determine what function the bond should provide and consult with bonding experts before deciding the bond type and amount.

Individual Committee Members

Ron Baker, Resident of unincorporated SW Gwinnett since mid 80’s, in the “heady” days of county growth. Life Insurance/ College Planning in the early years of a family’s Life. Active in Boston Terrier (canine) Rescue. Spay and Neuter your pets. Veteran US Coast Guard

Lamar Bates

Daniel J Bieller, CEO of Industrial Metal Solutions SE, Inc. Resident of Dacula. Interests/Objectives:Reduce solid waste and increase recycling in a manner that is fair, equitable and acceptable to Gwinnett citizens. Affiliations: No affiliations with Gwinnett Clean & Beautiful, haulers, or other governmental committees. Just an interested citizen.

Captain Tom Cordell,Administrative Officer, Office of the Fire Chief, DeKalb Fire Rescue

Carla Dowell, Resident of Unincorporated Lilburn; Retired, DeKalb County Government (30 years)

Rich Edinger, CommitteeSecretary, Rich Edinger is a professional engineer and Principal Associate withClark Patterson Lee, a professional services firm serving the municipal,transportation, healthcare and education markets, and whose clients includeGwinnett County DOT and several area municipalities. He and his family live inunincorporated Gwinnett County in the Lawrenceville/Snellville area. Rich sees a role for the Countyto implement practices to minimize the negative impacts of the current solidwaste collection process, which include air pollution, high truck traffic,increased road maintenance, inefficient use of raw materials, litter and illegaldumping. The County also has an opportunity to realize an economy of scale inthe collection process that will save money in both the aggregate and for manyindividuals.

Chester Hale. Engineering Manager for the Millennium MatCompany in Suwanee GA. Resident of unincorporated Gwinnett in the Daculaarea. First District Manager for the Gwinnett County Republican Party (at leastI will be after tomorrow morning). President of the Wilshyre Estates Subdivision. Objective/Interest: To be part of a practical, free market solution that incorporates the needs of all of the citizens of Gwinnett County.

L C Johnson, RetiredCitizen. Resident of Duluth. Member of Gwinnett Clean and Beautiful board for several years. Also a Member of several other Local Boards.

Terri Jondahl, CEO of CAB Incorporated, headquartered in Buford, Georgia. Resident of Unincorporated Gwinnett in Buford area. Member of Gwinnett Clean and Beautiful board for 18 months. Interests/Objectives: 35 item single stream recycling, reduced truck traffic, reduction in illegal dumping, assisting in finding a reasonable solution that meets as many needs as possible.

Patrick Malone, SeniorPartner, The PAR Group Tucker, GA, Resident of unincorporated Gwinnett with Snellville mailing address.

James H. (Jimmy) Orr, Jr .,Supervising Engineer Southern Bell/BellSouth (“new” AT&T) Retired, 2 years U.S. Army, 35 years Southern Bell/BellSouth, 13 years publicworks/utility construction, resident of unincorporated Bethlehem, Gwinnett County, Georgia.

William M. “Mack” Perry, Resident of Lawrenceville and have lived in unincorporated Gwinnett County for over 30 years. REALTOR with RE/MAX Around Atlanta in Duluth and a concerned citizen.

Mike Royal, Chairperson

Art Sheldon, Resident of Duluth, Vice President – The Hamptons of Duluth HOA, Executive Committee member of Gwinnett Group of the Sierra Club, Past Chair and Vice Chair of the Gwinnett Transit System Advisory Board. Interests/Objectives: reduced truck traffic, low cost trash service, increased recycling, reduction in illegal dumping, improved customer service by trash haulers.

Individual Committee Member Comments

Ronald Baker I was surprised to hear that a hauler in the “final” meeting had indicated 1 hauler per zone was preferable. I still believe that was a misstatement. However on the theory of low bid in each zone, I guess it fits, so that they can judge the amount of collection per zone.we have then regretfully effectively eliminated “choice”. A level price will have to be established throughout the whole county… Mandatory collection Same day recycle and as Carla said community wide recycle education, a choice of 2 sizes of containers White goods mandatory, with emphasis on possible appliance recycle, mandatory pu of furniture, etc to avoid set offs Yard waste available at negotiated rate as extra per month as needed Private enterprise seems to be able to handle the recycling process, If county wants to get in that business then they need to go head to head with private enterprise and convince taxpayers by showing us the plan, facts comparison, figures and projection proving the cost to reinvent a duplicate is worthwhile or prove that private enterprise recycling is flawed. Isn’t that akin to already acknowledging the fact that it seems recognized a private trash fleet is preferable over a county fleet.? I haven’t seen a county run scrap iron/metals yard lately. .., and this panel will have been born and passed, and not recognized that present codes do not even address space for trash containers in attached units, and did not have the time nor inclination to suggest that subject at least be considered by those who ponder updates to building codes

Carla Dowell In compiling my final comments, I have loosely categorized the issues into four major groups:1) mandatory trash service; 2) choice of haulers; 3) recycling and 4) billing method, (not necessarily in the order shown).

1) Mandatory Service – I support mandatory service, with a strict variance policy, in eight zones with pick up of white goods and odd-sized items mandatory and included. I also am in agreement with bins smaller than 95 gallons, when requested. Yard waste should be separately handled with each customer negotiating with his or her hauler on a pay-as-you-go basis.

2) Choice of Haulers — I am astonished by the final committee vote, however close, favoring one hauler per zone. We have consistently heard residents in meetings express their desire for a choice of haulers. Perhaps it is because they were in Gwinnett in the past when residents were assigned haulers according to zones. The service for some was atrocious; and during that time, the haulers were subject to minimum service requirements, some of which were more strict that those currently proposed. The price was set by the County – the same for everyone. Many residents who were forced to use the largest hauler were glad to see the day when they were allowed to fire one hauler and hire another. This past experience illustrates that competition is not only a consideration of price in the bidding process, but in the service extended to customers. People should be able to choose with whom they do business and many have said they will pay for it.

3) Recycling — I support voluntary recycling with an expanded list of items, once weekly on the same day as garbage pickup. Recycled materials are being handled presently by private enterprise; therefore, construction, management, staffing and maintenance of a county facility appear to be unnecessary expenditures of the citizens’ money. Aggressive endeavors toward education should be implemented, preferably directed by a newly formed Sanitation Authority. The word needs to spread into the communities rather than into the schools with the assumption the students will take it home. Not every house has school-aged kids. There are innumerable sources for disseminating information: professional organizations of all kinds;church groups; assisted living facilities; civic organizations; sports teams; motorcycle clubs; garden clubs………Competition among similar groups is often welcome. Go after the baby boomers. That group is usually the largest in many communities.

4) Billing on Tax Bill — I am not in favor of Gwinnett County acting as a collection agent for private enterprise. According to a gentleman I spoke with in the Gwinnett County Tax Commissioner’s Office on Monday, March 9, 2009, the county currently has 20,500 tax delinquencies and the number is expected to increase. This amount includes delinquencies on all parcels of property, both developed and undeveloped; but it does not include the high number of parcels under bankruptcy. If a large number of residents are not paying their taxes in the first place, then liens for trash bills don’t have any teeth. Additionally, I don’t think the owner (or former owners) of the 15,000+ foreclosures during the past year in Gwinnett are very concerned if liens exist on the properties they are losing or have lost. Yet, under the proposed system of tax billing, these people would have received trash service at some else’s expense – the taxpayers. The difference between collections and disbursements would have been significant since the hauler would have to have been paid for services performed. This would have amounted to a loan from the taxpayers to the tax delinquent, only to be reimbursed at some later date by whoever ended up with the properties. I am told that eventually reimbursement would have occurred, but no one knows how long it may have taken. Even though I support mandatory trash service (which didn’t work in the 1980’s), it appears that some individuals will receive services for which they will never pay thereby placing the burden on those who do. A more simple solution would be to let the haulers do their own billing on a quarterly basis. Mandatory collection should be enforced by the Quality of Life Unit with a reporting method similar to that used by the State in enforcing mandatory automobile insurance. The haulers report service addresses or changes to the QOL Unit and anyone who drops service without securing it elsewhere receives a citation to Recorders Court. This would require minimum personnel and vehicles. Having participated in government budget preparation and allocation for many years, I believe a program modification such as this could be easily funded by the current franchise fee. To those who say the plan which was thrown out had many fans, I ask where all these fans were during the meetings. Perhaps they should have shown up to voice their displeasure that this plan was not going to happen. One resident that keeps coming to mind was the lady who stood at the back of the room at the Snellville City Hall meeting. She was very supportive of the plan that was to take effect on January 1, 2009 — until she changed to the company which would have been her assigned hauler under that plan. She came to the meeting to say she wants a choice of hauler.

In concluding, I think an ordinance with some fluidity would be reasonable with a Solid Waste Authority in place to work out the kinks. When dealing with such a vast number of scenarios, everything cannot be in black and white and, again, one size does not fit all. I also think the haulers may have valuable input as to the implementation of a system that can be equitable for all involved.

LC Johnson My matrix checkoffs support my feelings about the total project, include mandatory trash service and mandatory 35 item recycling, billing on tax bill, 8 zones, single hauler per zone, recycle 2x per month and continue to use GCB for their expertise. After going through the GCB Draft Plan I believe there were missed opportunities for discussions on several fronts.

Terri Jondahl Exceptions: I would agree to allowing exceptions only very reluctantly, if the county could figure out a way to provide a waiver without too much administrative/oversight time. Definitely don’t want to create an administrative monster. Single Hauler Per District: I would much prefer only one hauler have a contract per district to minimize the truck traffic. Could live with two in order to provide choice though more research needs to be done to determine a reasonable way to manage a two hauler per district model. On this particular issue it would sure be helpful to have a broader range of opinion than just those in attendance so that we can make sure that a statistically valid cross section of Gwinnett residents were represented. Container Size: We need options for at least a 55-60 gallon container in addition to the 95 gallon containers – for both trash and recycled items. We do need to accommodate existing and future automated systems. These smaller containers may have to be handled the same as disabled/elderly special needs households Yard Waste and White Goods: Yard waste should definitely be pay as you go, negotiated directly with haulers, but I think that white goods are currently a mandated pickup item by all haulers in order to eliminate the need for people to find places to dump old sofas, furniture, appliances. We maybe better served to keep this as a mandatory part of the hauler’s contract.They must pick up white goods when left out at no additional charge. Solid Waste Authority: If the county wants a Solid Waste Authority rather than GCB Services handling collections I am okay with it, it is my understanding that GCB did extensive work in trying to set up a process that would be effective, affordable and accountable. If the political will and legal opinions aren’t there to support this direction then a Solid Waste Authority is probably the best structure for future administration of solid waste collection. Gwinnett Clean and Beautiful: I believe that GCB should continue its efforts on litter, graffiti and education and preferably the recycling center. It is my understanding that the GCB recycling bank has capacity to last at least five years with the 35 items. GCB’s 501c3 non-profit status has allowed it to raise more than $4 million in donations for the recycling center… something that couldn’t be done by either government or the private sector. The county should also carefully consider the market value of carbon credits, which I have heard estimated at $2 million, and consider how to utilize those to reduce trash fees for citizens. GCB has been a model “Keep America Beautiful” affiliate for many years, receiving many national awards. They work with teachers throughout the county to educate children on the environment and mobilize thousands of volunteers each year for clean up days, Christmas tree recycling and graffiti removal, creating a positive community atmosphere for folks throughout Gwinnett. They conduct extensive surveys each year measuring the amount of dumping and graffiti at various locations throughout the county in order to benchmark their progress. Historically GCB volunteers have been a strong positive force in helping keep Gwinnett a great place to live. I hope that the GCB volunteers continue to be actively involved in these areas of their core strengths.

Patrick Malone: MandatoryTrash Service I believe solid waste falls into the health, welfare and safety category. I see it the same as police, fire, water and sewer services. Having said that there is a group of Gwinnettians that will be hurt by mandatory service. They are the old-time Gwinnett residents who have religiously taken their trash to the dump. However for me this is a Mr. Spock moment, “the good of the many outweighs the needs of any individual”. No Exceptions Once I committed to mandatory service, I also committed to no exceptions. Rental properties and foreclosures are a big part of the littering problem in Gwinnett so they automatically wouldn’t qualify. Those who take their trash to the dump could qualify but there is no reasonable way to verify, so I would eliminate them.That leaves business owners who dispose of their personal trash at their business. I have raised some of my concerns here but have been reluctant to raise my real issue. I believe this practice is at least unethical and quite possibly illegal. Let me explain. If I go on a business trip and take my wife, I cannot include her airline ticket as a business expenses. I pay for trash service at my office and co-mingling my personal trash with my business trash would for me be unethical. I also know the IRS has some pretty strict rules for co-mingling business and personal expenses. I also know that ethics are personal and others may not see the same dilemma. Recently the Swiss bank USB was fined millions for their part in helping American evade income taxes. I think it sends the wrong message for any government to facilitate any form of tax avoidance. Billing on the Tax bill My position here is based on realism. I believe the only realistic way to enforce mandatory service is to bill it witht he tax bill. We currently pay for trash service quarterly and placing it on the tax bill will require payment in 2 parts. This will create a burden for some but I see no other realistic option that will not drive up the overall price of the service. My guiding considerations have always been – what’s good for the vast majority, what is most efficient, what is most cost effective. 8 Zones I think the original plan of 8 zones gives all the current haulers working is Gwinnett a fair opportunity to keep a piece of the business. Single Hauler/Zone My vote here is driven again by what I think is realistic. First, as a business person who regularly responds to RFP’s, bidding to supply a service where the number of customers could range from 100 to 5000 would cause me to bid towards the lower number and the result would be a higher per customer cost than if I was bidding to the higher number. Multiple haulers per zone is possible but not cost effective and I believe cost effectiveness is more important in this economy. I also believe well written Service Level Agreements satisfy most of the public’s concerns about service caused by not having a choice. I also was strongly influenced here by the fact that more than 20% of our county has no choice of haulers (the cities who supply trash service) and none of the city residents are up in arms about infringement of their constitutional rights to choose. So cost effectiveness, efficiency and greater good were my drivers here. Voluntary Recycling This is a place were we can and should given citizens a choice. I have been a recycler for most of my life but I don’t feel everyone needs to do what I do. Having said that I think people who choose not to recycle should significantly pay more than those who do. After all they are putting more volume into our landfills. This additional revenue will offset similar discounts to those who qualify for any of the senior or disabled homestead exemptions on their property taxes. I believe the enforcement is not only realistic but based on my research with the haulers and the tax commissioner, most of the infrastructure is already in place to make this happen. So this meets my criteria of greater good, efficient and cost effective. Expanded Recycling This seems to be a no-brainer that requires no governmental or quasi-governmental involvement. Private business both exists and has existing capacity to handle this for the foreseeable future. 95 gallon or smaller (55-60 gal) container This is another area we can given citizens choice and not lose any efficiency.This YES is also tentative based on haulers confirmation of my assumptions. Yard Waste/White goods/odd size?- pay as your use, 2X month It seems counterintuitive to me to pay money and waste fuel to haul away compost material and then go to the Home Depot to buy lawn fertilizer, mulch and soil amendments wasting more money and oil. However I realize some citizens want this. Rather than have all citizens subsidize this service I think it should be separated from trash service. Your hauler will sell you yard waste bags and pick it up twice a month (balancing twice a month recycling). White goods and odd size disposal will be handled on an as-requested basis and the hauler will collect a separate fee based on volume. Again my YES is tentative pending hauler confirmation.

Jimmy Orr Prefer eight solid waste pickup zones with one hauler per zone as determined by the competitive bidding process on a level playing field beginning with RFP’s, mandatory pre-bid meeting, sealed bids w/ bid, payment & performance bonds submitted at a specified date & time, bid opening at a specified date & time with all bidders or their duly authorized representative present.

William M “Mack” Perry Mandatory trash service at all residences is preferred especially at rental properties. Support billing on tax bill unless a Solid Waste Authority can handle differently. We heard over and over the citizens want a choice of haulers. It doesn’t make sense to oppose this. Support voluntary recycling with a tie to Recyclebank. Support requiring haulers to provide for 35 item single stream recycling. Recycling and trash pickup should all be on the same day. Provide option of 55 or 95 gallon carts for both trash and recycling. There needs to be a body to administer a very strict opt out policy – possibly solid waste authority. Other than trash and recycling everything else should be pay as you go or as needed. No way would I support Gwinnett Clean and Beautiful continuing education efforts. I would be in favor of a 3-5 year implementation plan. Regarding bonding, the board has to be realistic so that all current haulers in the county can compete.

Art Sheldon No Exceptions -No, not sure how to enforce or administer exceptions without adding too much cost to the system unless those who opt out agree to pay a charge which would cover administrative costs (although how much that could be is conjecture whichis why I question allowing exceptions to begin with). Single Hauler/zone – Yes,otherwise one of the two main points of this plan goes out the window and into the nearest dumpster Voluntary Recycling – Yes, include RecyleBank type system to be implemented after we determine the base point for trash sent to a landfill since RecycleBank charges based on savings in landfill fees (50% of the savings goes to them). I can’t see implementing it immediately as we can expect to see more items recycled once we start allowing the 33-35 items to be recycled without the help of RecycleBank. Recycling Frequency 2X per month -Must be every week because of the increased volume (the reason for the proposed 95 gallon recycle bins) Choice of 95 gal and smaller (55-60 gal) containers -yes, possibly even smaller containers such as 30 gallon cans or the existing bins Yard Waste – pay by the use of this service White goods/odd size -Included in the service otherwise we go back to having someone dump it on the side of the road somewhere rather than pay the extra fee. We really need to add that a Service Level Agreement must be part of any plan. I support Billing on the Tax Bill. We would not be acting as a collection agent for private enterprise but be hiring private enterprise to provide a service for which we (the government) will be paying them via the proceeds of the line item on the tax bill. The haulers have already made it clear that the costs of delinquencies are built into the prices they charge everyone which won’t be necessary if the county bills the citizens and collects from the citizens. I believe the county taxes are covered in any lien and eventually paid by the homeowner as it will be taken out of any sale proceeds. The simplest and cheapest solution is to have the county bill the homeowners once a year. Then there is no enforcement required by the QOL unit. Funding would be at a cost determined by planned expenses and added to the winning bid as was proposed in the “new old plan” of last fall. The point of the proposed “new old plan” was to provide service as cheaply and efficiently as possible while making sure all homeowners had trash removal service thus reducing the incentive to litter. Another goal was to reduce traffic and costly to the taxpayers wear and tear on the roads as well as the pollution generated by the trash, recycling and yard waste vehicles. As long as there is a defined and enforceable by penalty or withdrawal of the contract Service Level Agreement then the issue of choice of hauler and the ability to fire them is moot.

The remainder of the 64 page recommendation document consisted of meeting minutes (which have already been published), handouts from the Georgia Department of Community Affairs, handouts from citizens, handouts from haulers and the position matrix which is explained by the individual member’s comments.

Tagged as: Gwinnett County Trash