Washtenaw County officials considering plan to help recycling authority's switch to single stream
Washtenaw County commissioners offered mixed opinions Thursday night about backing $2.7 million in bonds to help expand the Western Washtenaw Recycling Authority.
The authority is preparing to move forward with a plan to switch the way it collects recycled materials from sorted items to a single-stream system similar to the one used in Ann Arbor.
WWRA Chairman Frank Hammer and Dan Myers, the county's director of public works, appeared before commissioners during a special working session to talk about the project.
Commissioner Dan Smith, R-Northfield Township, says he has concerns about the county putting its full faith and credit behind $2.7 million in bonds for the Western Washtenaw Recycling Authority's expansion plan.
File photo
Commissioner Dan Smith, R-Northfield Township, was one of several commissioners who said he had concerns aboutthe proposal — even though Hammer said the $2.7 million is expected to be paid back through homeowner assessments, not county dollars.
"There's a lot of concern on some of these things here about how this is going to be paid for as we move forward, as the bonds come due," Smith said.
Multiple commissioners raised questions about WWRA's budget projections and whether they were realistic. The authority is projecting a 20 percent jump in collections over five years.
Ann Arbor has seen a 20 percent increase in recyclable materials collected since switching to single stream last year, though that's still 40 percent less than projected.
Hammer said WWRA's numbers are "reasonable and defensible." He said revenue estimates are conservative and based on market prices from January, which were about 15 percent lower than they are now. And he said projections for recyclable collections use real numbers from 2010 as a baseline, and those figures are down from previous years.
"Basically when recycling went down with the economy, we fell from 4,000 tons to 3,400," he said. "We're using the 3,400 tons as the base and then planning to expand on that."
WWRA was established in 1991 as a partnership between eight communities: the City of Chelsea, the Village of Manchester, and six townships — Bridgewater, Dexter, Lima, Lyndon, Manchester and Sylvan. In 2006, more than 11,000 households paid special assessments to fund the authority, Hammer told commissioners.
The townships are served by drop-off recycling centers, while the City of Chelsea and the Village of Manchester historically have been provided curbside recycling.
Under the current system, Hammer said, residents must sort recyclables at home and deposit materials into separate bins. The move to single stream, he said, is a matter of convenience for residents, but also is expected to increase the amount of recyclables collected.
Under the single-stream plan, authority member communities are being offered two types of membership: associate member or investing member.
Hammer said four of the existing communities — Dexter, Lyndon and Manchester townships and the City of Chelsea — have agreed to be investing members and are requesting assistance from Washtenaw County in the financing and construction of the improvements.
Other communities still could become investing members, or they become associate members with no debt responsibilities, Hammer said.
An investing member will be responsible for paying off the projected debt over 15 years and will receive the benefits of reduced operational assessments as the new facility comes on line.
An associate member will not pay toward debt but the operational assessment will remain static even as operational costs go down, Hammer said.
The four investing members represent almost 7,000 households. The project debt will be paid back with special assessments, including $68 per year per household for Chelsea, which is paying extra for curbside recycling, and $24 per year per household for the townships.
Starting in 2013, investing members also will pay an operating assessment of $6.35 per year per household while associate members will pay $24 per year per household.
The Sylvan Township Board voted 3-1 Tuesday night to pull out of WWRA, citing concerns about saddling residents with a new special assessment. The Village of Manchester also pulled out of the authority earlier this year, citing concerns about costs for curbside recycling.
Hammer said the authority can survive without them, but he's still hopeful Sylvan Township at least will be an associate member. He said he hopes to hear back from the other municipalities before the end of this month.
Rob Turner
According to the authority's projections, revenues associated with the new single-stream recycling will offset the cost of the new facility and eventually provide a positive cash flow that will diminish member assessments.
County Board Chairman Conan Smith, D-Ann Arbor, said he's strongly in favor of seeing WWRA expand and switch to single-stream recycling.
"I'm excited by the fact that there is a desire on the western side of the county to do more recycling, to expand their participation," he said, dismissing concerns others have raised about WWRA potentially competing with Ann Arbor's municipal Materials Recovery Facility.
"I think it's important that we step back and say this is about serving the public, and if the public on the western side of the county would prefer to have their own facility, they'd like to invest their public resources in creating it, it serves that higher purpose, then absolutely — let's be a part of making that happen," Smith said.
"Our two facilities don't have to be competitors," he added. "They can be collaborators in creating a really rich environment for recycling here."
Commissioner Rolland Sizemore Jr., D-Ypsilanti Township, said he wasn't impressed with the presentation Thursday night. He said it left too many questions unanswered and he'd prefer to look at a countywide solution to recycling instead.
But if the county is going to put its full faith and credit behind $2.7 million in bonds, Sizemore said he at least wants a county commissioner's voice added to WWRA's governing board.
Commissioners Alicia Ping, R-Saline, and Rob Turner, R-Chelsea, both praised WWRA for being fiscally responsible over the years and said they're in favor of the project.
"This is very easy to take, and I know the citizens of Chelsea are very supportive of the Western Washtenaw Recycling Authority and utilize it greatly," Turner said. "I know the surrounding communities, if you go to the pickup points for the recycling, there's cars around there all the time. So it is being utilized and the single source will make it easier for people."
Hammer noted WWRA doesn't receive any funding from the county.
Ryan J. Stanton covers government and politics for AnnArbor.com. Reach him at ryanstanton@annarbor.com or 734-623-2529. You also can follow him on Twitter or subscribe to AnnArbor.com's e-mail newsletters.
Comments
snapshot
Sun, Jul 10, 2011 : 4:16 a.m.
No No, No, bonds for a system adding no significant advantage or benefit. Ann Arbor's program is not living up to it's expectations or the "consultants" projections. This is just "feel good" spending for politicians vying for the environmental vote or "I created jobs" issue. Quit spending taxpayer dollars to promote personal agendas.
Macabre Sunset
Fri, Jul 8, 2011 : 7:55 p.m.
At this point, I can't hear the words "single-stream recycling" without thinking of sweetheart deals between Tony Soprano and some poor city councilman on the take, having no idea what he's gotten himself into. We know this wastes taxpayer money. We know our government officials like to spend. And we know these recyclers lie about how much money they'll generate from this venture. Put all this together, and it adds up to not just a "no," but a "heck, no!"
racerx
Fri, Jul 8, 2011 : 7:26 p.m.
Granted, I'm no expert in recycling, I put my stuff in the gray color top blue container every other week. Still, would not economies of scale work to some extent here? Why not attempt to combine all of the cities in Washtenaw County and run one authority? Why does every city have their own recycling facility? Now. Do I get a Rick Snyder award for my suggestion? Gotta at least be worth a thought.
Stephen Landes
Fri, Jul 8, 2011 : 2:14 p.m.
If "Washtenaw County" fronts money for this effort for other county communities does that mean that Ann Arbor residents who are already supporting a system that isn't paying for itself will be asked to support another system, too? If that is the case then my answer is NO.
Tom Whitaker
Fri, Jul 8, 2011 : 12:32 p.m.
One of the major justifications used by City of Ann Arbor staff and City Council for investing millions into its Materials Recovery Facility for the switch to single-stream was the increased capacity to process materials (presumably for a fee?) from other communities outside Ann Arbor. Governor Snyder says he will reward communities that adopt financial "best practices" including regional cooperation to improve efficiencies. Some local and county officials, despite being Democrats, have expressed support for Snyder and his draconian fiscal policies--some even donated to his campaign. Ann Arbor staff and consultants projected a doubling of tonnage collected for processing by the newly renovated MRF, but only saw a 20% increase, meaning the projections were off by 80%. This means Ann Arbor's MRF has surplus capacity above and beyond the surplus capacity it was designed to have. So considering the above, why is the County Commission not strongly suggesting that the WWRA send their recyclable material to Ann Arbor's expensively renovated single-stream MRF instead of building its own redundant facility? Isn't this counter-intuitive to any sense of good environmental and financial management?
Stephen Landes
Fri, Jul 8, 2011 : 2:15 p.m.
Great comment!
Will Warner
Fri, Jul 8, 2011 : 11:58 a.m.
A person's time is precious. To mandate its expenditure, or stigmatize its non-expenditure, there has to be a really good reason. We need to consider this when asking people to recycle (or because time is money, asking them to pay for complicated processing of trash). Possibly a cost/benefit analysis that assigned an appropriately high value to human time would ultimately justify spending it on recycling. Have we done one? I don't think we are near to running out of resources and we will never run out of places to bury our trash. I fear that we may find that the mania for recycling is an expression of latent Puritanism: God forbid we should just relax and enjoy ourselves; no, we have to atone in rough proportion to how well we live, by, in some places, schlepping our trash across town. People's time is the resource that must be preserved.
glenn thompson
Fri, Jul 8, 2011 : 11:36 a.m.
First, lets do the math correctly. Ann Arbor has failed to meet it's projected increase in recycling by 80% not 40%. Second, the main topic of the 2010 Residential Recycling Conference in Chicago was "We must end the myth that recycling does not have a cost." Single stream recycling is promoted by the soft drink industry as an alternative to bottle return laws. It is promoted by the waste management industry as a "growth opportunity" for higher income for their members. The idea that this facility will lower cost in the future is absurd.
Les Gov
Fri, Jul 8, 2011 : 11:34 a.m.
Oh sure....lets switch! It is working so well in Ann Arbor. Lets spend $3.2 Million now and then in a year when the projections come up short we can spend even more money. Maybe Washtenaw should hire the same consultant that screwed up the numbers for Ann Arbor. .. Has Conan Smith repaid the money he took from Washtenaw County Taxpayers? If not, he has not right to comment/vote on this or any other subject.
Dilbert
Sat, Jul 9, 2011 : 4:30 a.m.
@Chimay: you've got that backwards <a href="http://www.annarbor.com/news/washtenaw-county-board-chairman-defends-his-decision-not-to-repay-591-to-county/">http://www.annarbor.com/news/washtenaw-county-board-chairman-defends-his-decision-not-to-repay-591-to-county/</a>
Chimay
Fri, Jul 8, 2011 : 1:09 p.m.
Conan Smith repaid the money. I don't believe Mark Ouimet has, though.
Victor Lacca
Fri, Jul 8, 2011 : 11:18 a.m.
The devil is in the details- which are projections based on what might happen- except for the accessment to homeowners which you can bet is low in relation to the escalating actual costs. It's a really good idea to keep solid waste out of the landfills and recycling helps. But if you really want some serious bang for the buck charge for the VOLUME of solid waste pick-ups. That will motivate recylcing like nobody's business.
Thinking over here
Fri, Jul 8, 2011 : 4:47 p.m.
Can you provide a link for this?
glenn thompson
Fri, Jul 8, 2011 : 11:40 a.m.
All of the glass "recycled" by the Ann Arbor facility is sorted, cleaned, and crushed at considerable expense. It is then sent to the Westland landfill.
DennisP
Fri, Jul 8, 2011 : 11:05 a.m.
I'm opposed to this expansion. I'm not interested in another assessment. The article conveniently leaves off the term of years for the assessment making it seem like it will be only $25. The move to single stream is unnecessary as it is not inconvenient at all to separate out the recyclables. Ultimately, to service the costs of this expansion (the bond is only the beginning of the cost outlays) there will be new charges or a move towards mandatory recycling or other such nonsense. The proof is that the Ann Arbor Materials Recovery facility is not making ends meet. It overestimated its projected revenues from recycling with reduced home participation. It is now going back to the city to "amend" its contract for more money. I really appreciate the recycling system in place now and make regular use of it. No one seems to have any trouble with multi-stream recycling. No assessments should be placed on homeowners without a vote of the homeowners and, I'm confident, this wouldn't pass voter approval. Also, the county shouldn't obligate all of its residents (that's what full faith and credit means--the county will back the bond entirely even to the point of raising taxes if ordered by a court) for a limited reach program. Any such funds should go towards a county-wide program.
Goober
Fri, Jul 8, 2011 : 10:39 a.m.
Potentially another proposal to spend money not necessarily supported by community needs. What is the savings generated by this investment? How is the community going to insure that the experts providing the projections are accurate and realistic? When are we going to see proposals that truly save money and lower costs instead of this seemingly steady stream of proposals trying to spend money that our economies do not have? I believe we need to get back to basics. Our community leaders need to help us do this and stop creating programs that require funds not in our budgets or revenue streams.