MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL

REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING

Wednesday, September 8, 1999

Council Chamber

Chair Washington called the meeting to order at 1:39 PM.

1.  CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF JULY 21, 1999

2.  REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR’S UPDATE

Terry Petersen, Acting Director of the Regional Environmental Management Department, gave a summary of the department’s recent activities. (The summary has been attached to the meeting record.) Items included the following:

•  The new latex-recycling facility opened August 13th. Staff has proposed charging the general public $4.50/gallon and non-profits $2.50/gallon. The price would help pay for the capital cost of the building and operating costs for processing the paint.

Councilor McLain asked whether charging for the paint would hurt demand. Mr. Petersen said demand currently exceeds supply, so the nominal charge is not expected to hurt it.

Councilor McLain requested that records be kept for a year to see who buys the paint and how much. Mr. Petersen agreed. He said the facility wanted to avoid having paint pile up.

Chair Washington expressed concern that the price of the paint might increase. He asked what the charge was intended to cover. Mr. Petersen said the price was calculated based on the capital cost of the new building plus the direct operating cost of only the paint recycling part of the hazardous-waste program. That yielded a charge of $4.50/gallon. The $2.50 represents a discount for non-profits and governments.

Chair Washington suggested that the policy for pricing the paint be put in writing to clearly explain any future increases. He did not want future Councils or staff members to be tempted to use this program to make money rather than just cover costs.

Councilor Park asked Mr. Petersen what percentage overhead constituted of the proposed charge. Mr. Petersen said he did not believe any paperwork charges had been included, only direct operating costs.

Councilor Park asked who the customers in the past have been and how much they have purchased. He wanted to know if the cost of the paperwork exceeded the price, which would depend partly on the quantity purchased at one time.

James Watkins, REM Engineering and Analysis Division, said the calculations assumed the sales paperwork would be handled by those already working at the facility. No additional paperwork was anticipated.

•  The Rate Review Committee, which met on August 4, recommended reducing the solid waste portion of the tipping fee--not including the excise tax--from $57.74 to $51.21, to reflect the reduced contract price in the transport and disposal contracts. That would leave $6.21/ton for the Council to allocate to either rate reduction, excise tax increases, or solid waste system fees. Those discussions will continue at a meeting on September 15.

•  An incident at Metro South hazardous waste committee involved a Portland chemical company attempting to pass off regulated hazardous waste as household hazardous waste. A technician reported it. The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and Metro investigated and subsequently assessed a civil penalty of $5,400.

•  Metro’s effort to regulate disposal of pool chlorine regulation attracted the attention of the industry. A group consisting of representatives from regulatory agencies, the pool and spa industry, the hotel and motel industry, and Metro have begun cooperating to develop an education campaign to address the problem.

•  Revisions to Metro’s code are being developed to allow Metro to inspect facilities that claim to accept only recyclables. Those facilities are currently exempt from regulation.

Councilor Park asked if the code change would be generic enough to include more than just recycling sites, to avoid the need for future code changes as technology and the industry changes. Mr. Petersen said the staff is working with the legal department to come up with broad language.

3.  RESOLUTION NO. 99-2832, FOR THE PURPOSE OF APPROVING A FY 99-00 RESIDENTIAL WASTE REDUCTION CAMPAIGN WORK PLAN, AUTHORIZING RELEASE OF A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS, AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT

Vicky Kolberg, REM Public Outreach and Education, said this resolution relates to a proposed residential ad campaign. She said funds for this had been included in the adopted FY 99-00 budget, with a budget note attached by Council requesting a more fully developed work plan for review and approval. She called attention to the work plan and the Request for Proposal, included in the agenda packet that is part of the public record. Approval would release funds to proceed. (More details on the rationale for the ad campaign can be found in the staff report attached to the resolution.)

Councilor McLain noted that Metro has a new communications team that has been working to deliver a coordinated message for the agency. She said that protecting the nature of the region was one of the themes the team had been working on. She asked how this ad campaign would fit into that communication effort.

Ms. Kolberg said the advertising firm would be provided with the background material on the results of the survey and the focus groups done in the region. Beyond that, the campaign would reflect why Metro is important to the people of the region. Councilor McLain said people recycle for many reasons, and she wanted to be certain that environmental responsibility would be part of the message. Ms. Kolberg agreed.

Councilor McLain also noted that regional partners were to review the message before it goes out. She asked to be part of that review, either as a member of the committee or as an elected official. Ms. Kolberg agreed.

Councilor Park asked whether commingling would be the same region-wide. Ms. Kolberg said most of the region would participate, but the specifics vary slightly from city to city. She said the wording would need to be customized, but the basic brochure design and photographs would be generic.

Councilor Park asked what the variations were expected to be. Ms. Kolberg said, for example, Gresham does not accept milk cartons whereas Portland does. Different cities might have different rules for sorting glass.

Councilor McLain asked about the proposal evaluation criteria on page 5 of Exhibit B to the resolution. She asked for clarification of the term “agency team.” Ms. Kolberg said that referred to the individuals who would be proposed to be members of the team. Councilor McLain said in her view, the agency team was weighted too heavily compared with approach. She suggested making approach 30% and agency team 15%.

Chair Washington asked Ms. Kolberg to specify where Councilor McLain’s suggested change would be incorporated into the proposal, then insert it before it comes before the full Council. He wanted to make certain the change did not get overlooked.

Councilor McLain said she wanted a sentence or two added that would make it clear the ad campaign coordinated with the communication’s team overall message on protecting the environment. She suggested putting it under the campaign message section. Ms. Kolberg agreed. She said the language would also be included in the request for proposal (RFP) itself.

Councilor McLain also asked to review the ad campaign before it goes out. Ms. Kolberg agreed.

Councilor McLain will carry the motion to a meeting of the full Council.

4.  PUBLIC HEARING CONCERNING ALLOCATION OF PROJECTED SAVINGS FROM METRO’S SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SYSTEM

Chair Washington opened a public hearing at 2:05 PM. No one came forward to testified, so he closed the public hearing and called a five-minute recess. He called the meeting back to order at 2:18 PM.

Chair Washington reopened a public hearing at 2:19 PM, in response to a request from testifiers who had missed the call to testify the first time.

Diana Godwin, Allied Waste, Rabanco, said Allied was just completing negotiations on its merger with Browning-Ferris, Incorporated (BFI), the current operator of Metro’s transfer stations. She said there was an opportunity to invest in ways to greatly increase recycling and recovery of waste passing through Metro’s transfer stations. She said 750,000 tons move through Metro’s two transfer stations every year. She said there are opportunities to do new recycling programs; however, they will require an investment of innovative thinking, capital, and employees. She urged the Council to use some of the savings to do that. Among Allied’s ideas was a proposal for a considerably expanded, source-separated organics/food-waste project. Allied has experience in these operations and could bring that expertise to the stations. However, new equipment would be needed and an investment to address expected challenges. One idea that might be considered is having several drop-off facilities around the region for source-separated organics that could then be transported to a main processing facility at Metro Central. She said Metro also needs to reinvest in existing line equipment. She also urged Metro to take another look at a tiered rate structure at the gate to encourage new loads to be source-separated for recycling. She said she understands how a lower rate for source-separated loads might merely shift existing recycling loads that would otherwise to other facilities. She said the goal would be to have a rate structure that increases net recycling.

Tom Wyatt, Browning Ferris, Inc., said BFI has recycled as much as 400 tons a month. Currently, 100% of the self-hauls at Metro Central have been recycled. Next year the same would be done at the Oregon City station. He said currently the loads are chosen by the haulers, who know their routes.

Councilor McLain said she had received a briefing on the food waste idea. She said she understood that was still being discussed informally; but that formal discussions of how it would affect Allied’s relationship with Metro had not yet been initiated. Ms. Godwin said she thought that was correct. She said was certain there had not yet been a formal proposal.

Councilor McLain asked if Allied had an idea of what the timeline might be.

Ms. Godwin said she did not know. She said the company was ready to start anytime, however.

Chair Washington asked what the cost of new equipment might be.

Mr. Wyatt said an estimate of the investment in capital equipment to handle organics would be from $500,000 to $1 million.

Aleta Woodruff, 2143 NE 45th Place, Portland, OR 97220, said Oregon has a quality environment because of its recycling efforts. She encouraged Metro to focus more on its recycling successes rather than on how much it has fallen short. She said she had not seen Metro’s favorable accomplishments compared with those in other areas, either in the media or in Metro’s literature. On another point, she said she has friends who live in senior residences and apartment complexes. She said several new large residences offer no recycling opportunities--only disposal. She thought some of the savings might be spent to promote recycling for senior residences and large apartment complexes..

Chair Washington closed the public hearing at 2:30 PM.

5.  COMMITTEE DISCUSSION OF EXPENDITURE AND REVENUE ISSUES RELATED TO SAVINGS FROM METRO’S SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SYSTEM

Chair Washington asked Mr. Petersen and Doug Anderson, Manager, REM Waste Reduction, Planning, and Outreach Division, to come to the testimony table to make any final comments on the suggested split of the savings. He called attention to the hand-out titled, “Expected Council Decisions,” (attached to the public record) and explained that the discussion today would be confined to the first item--a discussion of the split of the savings. He emphasized that nothing had been decided. He said the discussion today would be the first one on the topic. He asked Mr. Petersen and Mr. Andersen if they had anything further to say on this subject before the committee began its discussion.

Mr. Petersen said it would be helpful if the committee could provide some direction on the split-whether the committee favored a reduction of the tip fee and what the split should be between solid waste and non-solid waste purposes. That would allow staff to go back and prepare rate ordinances and excise tax ordinances to implement that direction. Mr. Petersen said the second page of the handout listed objectives and policy priorities to consider. He said it would be helpful for the committee to review those and indicate priorities from that list or add to that list.

Councilor Park asked about how the host fee was calculated at Metro’s transfer station in Forest Grove versus that at other transfer stations. He asked where the host fee came from.

Mr. Petersen said the $0.50/ton host fee that goes to the cities is included in the $62.50 fee charged at the gate. Metro transfers the host fee back to the communities out of that charge.

Councilor Park asked if Wilsonville and Woodburn had a $0.50/ton advantage in that regard.

Mr. Petersen said he was aware of host fees only at Forest Grove and Metro’s stations in Oregon City and Portland, so they do have that advantage.

Chair Washington asked for suggestions on the Potential Excise Tax Change Objectives.

Councilor McLain said her concern was to maintain the efficiency and wholeness of the system in light of the major changes that have taken place in the past year. She thought the words “revenue certainty” did not quite express the scope and importance of that mission. She said waste reduction, the second item on the list, was important to her as it carries out the vision of the Regional Solid Waste Management Plan (RSWMP) document. She thought the five items listed were all appropriate. She thought the third item was important for public education and public acceptance. She said in considering the items on the first page, she weighed the benefits to the public and the industry. She said with regard to objectives of any tax change, she thought in terms of the payback. Payback and benefits can take many forms. They might be in the form of more flexibility for the industry or in the form of a new service for the public. She thought those kinds of paybacks would be more valuable than a $0.25 savings “at the can.”

She suggested reconfiguring the page and changing the title, “Potential Excise Tax Change Objectives.” She said the concept of an excise tax is not well understood. She thought it would be important to talk in terms of providing a service and charging a fee for that service. She suggested calling it a “service fee” rather than an “excise tax.”

Councilor Park said he agreed with Councilor McLain. He added that his concern was for a level playing field. He said Mr. Petersen had presented a chart at the last Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC) meeting showing the various excise taxes different facilities pay, based upon the cost of disposal at a particular facility. He said he had asked then if it was fair to charge a different rate. He had been told that it cost more to dispose of, for example, hazardous waste. He said from the standpoint of public policy, it charging more might make it more difficult for people to responsibly dispose of hazardous. He suggested there be further discussions on whether tonnage should all be treated the same and whether the disposal fee should be different depending on the location within the region. He thought that might fall under the “playing field” objective.

Chair Washington said his main concern was for revenue certainty. He said a level playing field was also important. He emphasized that the changes suggested on the list were only potential excise tax changes and represented talking points only. He said he expected more when the Councilors who are not on this committee enter the discussion.

Chair Washington asked for comments on #1, reduction of the tip fee, of “Expected Council Decisions” on the first page of the handout.

Councilor McLain said the tip fee had been reduced a number of times. She said giving back to the public did not mean giving money back at the gate, necessarily. She thought the public might benefit more from doing more creative programs with the savings. She said her emphasis was on increasing recycling. She said the public should receive something, but perhaps it would be in new or more service. She did not think a reduction at the can would be the way to go. She noted that a reduction in the tip fee might not even result in a reduction at the can, as that reduction must pass through several jurisdictions.

Councilor Park said he supported keeping the current tip fee. He noted there was a buy down rate at about $1.00/ton right now. He said he would prefer to keep the fee at the current level for the next three years, to see what effect the changes in the system will have. He said the tiered rate idea, suggested by Ms. Godwin, sounded like an idea worth investigating. He said that is currently used at the materials recovery facilities (MRFs) to provide incentives in the form of the regional system credit fee. He said he would like to investigate options of extending that to the haulers as an incentive for seeking out loads that increase opportunities for recycling.

Councilor McLain added that under the bullets “general fund,” and “solid waste fund,” she had put the buy down to maintain a steady rate and called it “solid waste accounts are solid.” She would like to keep the buy down rate at its current level and keep the contingency fund healthy. She said that would be one of her top goals--keeping the system functioning well for the next decade.

Chair Washington said that with regard to reducing the tip fee, he would need to be convinced that it would not reduce recycling. He said that if the recovery rate is currently at 42% and the goal was to reach 50%, a lot remains to be done. He asked staff to be creative in looking for new ideas. He would like to re-examine tiered pricing. He urged an open-minded investigation of potential reductions in the tip fee and how that might hurt recycling. He urged looking at ways of using the savings to benefit the public that did not involve returning money directly.

Councilor Park addressed the solid waste fund. He wanted to make sure that all the solid waste funds, such as that for the St. John’s landfill, were in good shape. He would make that his second priority and put the general fund third.

Councilor McLain said she had some very specific program ideas on the solid waste fund. She was interested in furthering discussions of the problem of organic waste. She said organic waste has been on the list of things to do for years, but she did not believe it was far enough along. She also said construction debris and commercial waste were also problems. She said a couple of programs had made some headway, but they had not been adequately funded and developed after that. She urged concentrating on the same plan for a period of time. She also thought the suggestion brought up by Ms. Woodruff concerning promoting recycling in multi-family and senior citizen residential centers should be addressed. The few pilot programs that had been started had not been developed. She would like the fund to focus on specific, strategic programs that increase recycling and thereby support the public and its needs. She thought that programs that address recycling also serve the industry by helping it define its role. Regarding the tiered rate, she said it had been very controversial when it was discussed last. She said with in the configuration in the sites and the services they provide would further complicate the discussion. She said she would be willing to take this on again, but she would like to hear from the mixed facilities on how they would structure a tiered rate.

Chair Washington asked Councilor McLain if her remarks related more to the solid waste fund or to solid waste programs. She said she had avoided talking about percentages in favor of and concentrating on themes. Chair Washington asked Mr. Petersen to explain the difference. Mr. Petersen said the bullet was intended to refer to solid waste uses in the broadest sense, both funds and programs. He said the Council might want to consider not only the programs, but also the reserve accounts and contingency funds in the department.

Chair Washington said he would be interested in the funds themselves and the impact that any actions would have on those funds. He said he would like to have the history of the funds over the past five years and a projection of what to expect in the next five years.

Councilor McLain said had already discussed how the solid waste funds needed to be solid. She said she had intended to suggest to staff which programs to develop. She wanted to take this opportunity to let staff know her preferences on that.

Chair Park addressed the general fund question. He said it was the most difficult to address. He said this would be third priority in his view. Within that, he thought specific allocations should be prioritized. He did not favor using any of these funds for paving projects or other projects like that, as has been mentioned in the newspaper. He would confine use of those funds moneys to planning and to taking care of Metro’s other facilities. He would like to discuss the excise tax at the zoo and MERC facilities. He said neither he nor the other Councilors wanted to squander the money that REM staff and former Councils had worked so hard to save.

Councilor McLain said she agreed with Councilor Park that great care should be exercised in deciding how to use the money left over after Metro took care of its own solid waste needs. She said there was not enough money to meet all the requests. She said three areas had been mentioned repeatedly. One is that people did not want the savings to be returned to them as a $0.30 savings at the can. They wanted the money pooled for bigger programs that would provide a greater public good. She said her three priorities for use of money after Metro’s own needs were met were 1) helping local jurisdictions planning in the region for 2040 and land use issues; 2) helping the parks and greenspaces program; and 3) taking care of Metro’s other facilities--e.g., the Convention Center and the zoo--by allowing them to keep as much of their fee with them as possible. She said it could not all be done, but Metro had a responsibility to do what it could to balance those responsibilities.

Chair Washington said his preference was to look to obligations within the agency first. If anything is left over after than, then it would be time to look elsewhere. He also would like to examine the excise tax on Metro’s own facilities. He said $5 million is not a lot of money in the face of regional needs. He felt Metro would have an obligation to take care of its own needs first. He reiterated that he was not offering any percentages at this early point.

Councilor McLain said she heard all three committee members recommend putting the majority of the savings toward taking care of all solid waste functions first, both existing programs and new ones. She also heard all three Councilors recommend taking care of in-house planning needs after that.

Chair Washington thought all three Councilors had indicated a preference for not reducing the tip fee. He said the industry had asked for Metro to consider putting another transfer station somewhere in the region. He thought that should be investigated as a possibility.

Councilor McLain commented that the last time a new transfer station had been discussed, it had been quite controversial. The idea lost by a seven-to-six vote of the then-13 member Council. She asked if he had a particular location in mind.

Chair Washington said no. He simply had been asked by members of the industry to consider the possibility.

6.  COUNCILOR COMMUNICATIONS

None.

There being no further business before the committee, Chair Washington adjourned the meeting at 3:15 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

Pat Emmerson

Council Assistant

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 8, 1999

The following have been included as part of the official public record.

Testimony Cards

Diana Godwin and Tom Wyatt, Allied Waste and BFI

Aleta Woodruff