Mayor & Commission Meetings

LEGISLATIVE REVIEW COMMITTEE Thursday, June 12, 2024 City Hall Conference Room 301B Committee Members Present: Committee Members Absent: Commissioner Carol Myers, Chair Commissioner Allison Wright Commissioner John Culpepper Commissioner Jesse Houle Commissioner Ovita Thornton 1 Staff: Niki Jones, Deputy Manager Suki Janssen, Solid Waste Sherrie Hines, Deputy Chief Attorney Sarah George, Recorder Courtney Davis, Senior Attorney Stephen Bailey, Transportation & Public Works Commissioner Myers called the meeting to order at 1:08 p.m. A. Approval of Minutes: Commissioner Houle made a motion to approve the May 2, 2024 minutes. Commissioner Culpepper seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously. B. Public Input: There was none. Commission Identified Items of Interest: C. Review and update Neighborhood Traffic Management Program- Voluntary Residential Traffic Management Process Deputy Manager Jones introduced the topic and summarized past discussion. Stephen Bailey reviewed changes made to the draft Voluntary Residential Traffic Management policy based on discussions from the last meeting. He explained the new version of the policy was modified to have 65% of support required for moving the request forward; previously this had been listed as requiring 100% support; however, the Committee discussed that having a majority voting in support of the request would be sufficient, and Stephen Bailey noted that this is also consistent with other policies for Transportation & Public Works. Stephen Bailey also explained that the policy makes it clear that it would require a direct contract between the residents and a private contractor. He noted that staff will be available to explain how to find a private contractor to do the work. Staff is also exploring whether or not a pre- approved vendor list can be provided. Commissioner Culpepper requested clarification on what would happen if property owners whose properties may be impacted by the work did not agree or support the request. Stephen Bailey explained that the policy includes in section 4(C) a requirement that, if right-of-way donation is required from properties for the traffic calming device, signatures of support from the specific property owners whose properties would be donating right-of-way must be gathered. 1 Arrived at 1:28 p.m.  Commissioner Houle requested clarification on how signatures for support would be calculated if the same property owner owns multiple properties in a residential area. Stephen Bailey explained that there are other policies that provide one vote per parcel, but he explained he could confirm. Commissioner Myers agreed that a vote should be counted for each property owned in the affected area. Commissioner Culpepper requested clarification on how the private contractor would be hired by a neighborhood that does not have a homeowner’s association. Stephen Bailey shared that staff spoke with the Finance Department to discuss this question, and they noted that the construction companies handle this more often than we may think; as long as the property owners reach out to those companies, they will work out with the residents on how best to coordinate the work. Deputy Manager Niki Jones inquired about how ACCGov would assure that the private contractors are building to our specifications and that the contractors have past experience performing similar work. Stephen Bailey explained that section 6(A) requires the issuance of a right-of-way encroachment permit. The right-of-way encroachment permit includes the option to hold a performance bond; he explained that they will absolutely require a performance bond on these right-of-way encroachment permits to ensure the work is completed according to our standard. He also explained that the pre-approved vendor list would assist with ensuring that the private contractors have past experience performing similar work, but, until a list is created, he shared that staff could assist in vetting companies by talking to them. As ACCGov is not building or managing the projects, ACCGov’s role is really just inspecting the work and making sure it is consistent with our process, which is similar to private development. Commissioner Culpepper requested clarification on whether or not ACCGov had to approve the design before installation. Stephen Bailey confirmed that the design would have to be approved, and it would have to meet our technical standards. He explained that, by the time Mayor and Commission considers the agenda report to approve the request, the concept would have already been vetted by Traffic Engineering staff. Commissioner Houle inquired about how the process would approach absentee property owners. They requested clarification on whether, if a good faith effort is made to contact the property owner but no response is received, the vote for the absentee property owner be counted as an abstention or a no. Stephen Bailey explained that those might be the type of exceptions that the Mayor and Commission would need to approve; staff would be beholden to the policy, but, if a resident is unable to reach a property owner, they would need to reach out to their commissioner to explain the situation. Commissioner Houle explained that there are some parcels owned by a landholding corporation. Stephen Bailey explained that, in that type of situation, he would assume that the parcels are not being lived in; the people that request speed management could request speed tables for the portion of the roadway that is lived in and not even include the non- lived-in section of the roadway. Commissioner Houle noted that they remain concerned about moving away from one person – one vote process and moving toward one property-one vote method; however, they understand why the Committee is doing that. Commissioner Houle made a motion to recommend the policy as drafted for consideration of the full Mayor and Commission. Deputy Manager Jones requested the motion include a request of staff to make the one property- one vote process explicit in the policy through clarifying language. Commissioner Houle agreed to amend the motion to include the requested language. Commissioner Culpepper seconded the motion. The motion passed by unanimous vote. Legislative Review Committee Meeting Minutes Page 2 061224  D. Solid Waste Residential Collection Zone or Franchise Approach Deputy Manager Jones introduced the topic and the Mayor’s assigned scope of the topic. Suki Janssen shared a presentation to provide an overview of the topic and considerations for further Committee discussion. She explained that Athens-Clarke County (ACC) is divided into the Urban Service District and the General Service District; she noted that ACC is actually structured for Solid Waste how it was prior to unification. In the Urban Service District, residents are required to have residential trash service and use ACCGov as their provider. The General Service District is not required to have residential trash service, and those residents can select one of five permitted haulers for residential trash collection. She explained that the reason why this structure has remained the same is that trash service was not expanded during unification; General Service District residents had approximately fifteen different haulers at the time and wanted to retain the right to choose between the haulers. Many of these haulers were what is referred to as “foot packers”; “foot packers” use a pickup truck and will push the trash down in the back of the truck. Commissioner Myers inquired as to whether there was anything in the unification charter that indicated that we were going to expand this service countywide. Suki Janssen shared that, to the best of her knowledge, she was not aware of anything being included that indicated it. She noted that she was not present at unification; however, her understanding is that residents in the General Service District were very vocal about not wanting to be required to have trash service, and many wanted to maintain their smaller “foot packer” haulers as their servicer. She did note, however, that some residents that have been in Athens prior to unification call the Solid Waste Department and often get angry with staff about not expanding service or requiring consistency between servicers. Suki Janssen explained that she has worked for Solid Waste for about 19 years, and franchising has been discussed multiple times but has never risen for formal Mayor and Commission consideration. She shared an overview of the Solid Waste Collection history. The Pay-As-You- Throw volume-based fee system was approved by the Mayor and Commission in 1994. Solid Waste staff in 2000 recommended to remain at the same service level and have non-exclusive franchises. Suki Janssen explained that, while calling the service level at that time “non-exclusive franchises” would have been acceptable, it really was non-exclusive permitting; the haulers were given a permit, not a franchise. There is now a cap on the number of residential haulers at five haulers. She shared that some residents did not want an additional truck in their neighborhoods so frequently, which is one of the many issues that led to the cap in 2012. She further explained that, in 2019, one private hauler in Athens had a significant amount of customer service complaints either for trash not being picked up or for having fees that they were not transparent about when service was started. Due to the large volume of complaints, the Mayor and Commission requested Solid Waste present at a work session to discuss options for expanding Solid Waste collection service or create zones for private collection. The Mayor and Commission requested Solid Waste host community input meetings. Three community input meetings were held and a survey was also done to obtain input on customer service. She noted that the private hauler that had a large volume of complaints also was noted many times in the survey with various complaints from residents. Staff reached out to the Attorney’s Office at the time to determine if the hauler could be removed as a permitted hauler, but it was determined that there were not sufficient “teeth” in the ordinance to remove them as a permitted hauler. Commissioner Culpepper inquired as to whether or not there was a requirement on which private hauler serviced an area. Suki Janssen shared that there was not a zone for the private haulers; Legislative Review Committee Meeting Minutes Page 3 061224  residents in the General Service District can choose any of the five permitted private haulers. Commissioner Culpepper inquired as to why residents could not simply choose a different hauler if they were upset with the level of customer service from a private hauler. Suki Janssen shared that they can, and staff does mention that as an option when they receive complaints from residents. Sherrie Hines also explained that one of the biggest challenges was that the hauler would lock people into extraordinarily high expenses to terminate; residents who could not or did not want to pay the large amount of money to end service felt trapped. Suki Janssen explained that the Mayor assigned franchising to the Solid Waste Advisory Commission (SWAC) in September 2022. The SWAC does have one private hauler on the commission. She explained that she brought in a consultant that is the Southeast’s region expert on franchising to present, at no cost, to the SWAC. The SWAC recommended to move forward with franchising and zones. The Mayor subsequently assigned consideration of franchising to the Legislative Review Committee. Commissioner Thornton requested the survey results from the 2019 survey. Suki Janssen explained that she would check with the Chief Data Officer to obtain the results from the survey. Deputy Manager Jones noted that one of the next steps for the Committee to consider is if an additional survey is of interest for community engagement on this topic. Suki Janssen shared that the Urban Service District has around 10,000 customers. About 600 of the 10,000 customers have backyard service. All residents in the Urban Service District are required to have ACCGov Solid Waste as their residential service provider. The General Service District has around 19,000 residential customers, and these customers can choose between one of the five permitted private haulers. Suki Janssen also noted that there are also self-haulers in the General Service District without a hauler. She shared that there is a problem with self-haulers dumping their trash in dumpsters at apartment complexes. Commissioner Myers requested clarification on how the requirements apply to multi-family. Suki Janssen said it does not apply to multi-family generally, but the definition does include requirements for quadruplexes. Multi-family residences of five or more units are considered commercial under the ordinance. Suki Janssen also shared an overview of rates for each of the permitted private haulers. She explained that the haulers self-report the number of accounts/customers they have to Solid Waste on a quarterly basis. Suki Janssen explained that we have historically called the approach to residential collection in the General Service District non-exclusive franchising, but it is not franchising. Rather, we are permitting the five private haulers. These five private haulers pay a fee to renew their permit annually, and staff must review their insurance and inspect their vehicle. They are required to meet certain Solid Waste criteria/policies. An exclusive franchise is typically when one or more haulers has exclusive operating rights per area/zone; often with exclusive franchises, the municipality acts as their customer service or billing agent. The municipality would specify the services they want and the frequency of the services in a Request for Proposals (RFP) to solicit proposals and prices from haulers for the franchises. She explained that, if a hauler misses a pickup one week, they could get fined. Under this model, the municipality is trying to get the best service at the best value for residents through the RFP. She explained that the reasons franchising for residential collection is being recommended includes: - Consistent service and messaging in both the Urban Service District and General Service District; - Environmental benefits, like reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, litter, leakage, road wear, traffic; - Waste reduction goals and higher landfill diversion rates; and Legislative Review Committee Meeting Minutes Page 4 061224  - Accountability measures that can be dictated through RFPs/contracts. She also outlined potential reasons to not move forward with franchising, including: - Not an open market; - Residents have relationships with their current private haulers; and - Difficult to do when self-hauling is allowed, and mandatory trash and recycling service from single-family homes has to be required. Suki Janssen explained that mandatory trash and recycling service from single-family homes may be the most difficult aspect of this approach; however, it is needed to obtain a competitive servicer. Servicers would not be interested in a contract with ACCGov when there is not a solid customer base. She noted that the Solid Waste Advisory Commission has recommended a modified-franchise approach, as they would like to have zoned franchises to protect the existing five private haulers; however, she explained that more discussion would need to occur to determine if there any legal concerns with this approach. Commissioner Myers requested clarification on how large the private haulers’ companies are and the percentage Athens customers are to their overall business. Suki Janssen explained that AAA Sanitation and Curbside Services are mid-sized haulers. Curbside Services is out of Oconee County, and AAA Sanitation is out of Madison County. She also shared that she could ask the haulers for the percentage of Athens customers within their business. Commissioner Culpepper inquired as to whether or not Solid Waste staff would need to hire more staff to act as an agent to the haulers under the exclusive franchise model. Suki Janssen said, potentially, they may need more staff; however, if Solid Waste was able to continue using the water bill as their method of billing, they would not have to hire more agents. They will likely have to hire one more person for billing, but she does not anticipate needing more staff as a customer service agent. She shared that she could do an analysis to determine if more staff would be needed if the Committee recommends Solid Waste acting as the agent for the haulers. Commissioner Houle suggested adding the fee to recover the cost for an additional position to the RFP, so there is not an additional cost required from the General Fund or the Enterprise Fund. Suki Janssen agreed that the administration fee could be added to the collection fee. Commissioner Myers explained that she would like to also understand the long-term impact this would have on the life of the landfill and the cost to the community. She also shared that she does believe there is resident engagement needed on this topic. Commissioner Thornton requested a sample policy from other jurisdictions to understand how people are wording their franchising program. Commissioner Culpepper inquired as to whether or not there was an option to put more “teeth” in the existing ordinance, which would include language to address the end of service cost. He also explained that he believed that we should pursue the customer survey before getting too far into the topic. Commissioner Myers inquired as to whether or not excluding the very rural portions of the county would be an option to allow for self-hauling given how far apart it is. Suki Janssen explained that, from her perspective, nothing is too far apart for residential collection in Athens-Clarke County based on her experience. She also advised that, if we start to exclude, it would defeat the purpose of the franchise, as it would further limit the customer base; the attractive piece of a franchise model to haulers is having a guaranteed customer base in a dense area, as it would help with efficiency and routing. Deputy Manager Jones summarized the next steps for discussion. He inquired as to whether or not the Committee had specific questions they would like to have on the survey. Commissioner Legislative Review Committee Meeting Minutes Page 5 061224  Thornton requested the original survey results. Staff shared they would bring that to the next meeting, and Deputy Manager Jones shared that there could be discussion on the survey questions at the next meeting. He also explained that staff would provide a comparative analysis. Commissioner Myers also requested that staff send links to the unification documents to review as well in advance of the next meeting. Schedule/Agenda Changes The next LRC meeting is scheduled for August 8, 2024 at 1:00 p.m. Commissioner Thornton made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Culpepper seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 2:32 p.m. Legislative Review Committee Meeting Minutes Page 6 061224