MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL

REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING

Wednesday, December 8, 1999

Council Chamber

Chair Washington called the meeting to order at 1:35 PM.

1.  CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF November 17, 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 is attached to the meeting record.) Items included the following:

•  The DEQ recently established a statewide advisory committee.

Councilor McLain asked that she be sent a copy of the committee’s agendas.

Chair Washington asked about the composition of the committee. Mr. Petersen said about half the members were from the solid waste industry. He said businesses were also well represented, and at least one member was from a group that promotes sustainable business practices.

•  A committee made up of Metro employees recommended to the Metro Cabinet that Metro adopt expanded sustainable business practices that go beyond recycling. The Cabinet supported the recommendation.

Councilor McLain said she had expected a report back from the committee on the Natural Step program. Mr. Petersen said the Natural Step had been considered, but the team had not selected a particular program. He promised to get her the committee’s report.

•  The Oregon Soil Corp, a facility that used worms to process organic waste, recently closed. Although the closure does not represent a large loss in terms of tonnage processed, it does in terms of potential technology.

•  A citizen complained of rats he thought had come from the now-closed Tualatin Valley Waste Recovery facility. An investigation by a pest-control company indicated the rats were not from that facility.

•  Ray Brower started in November as the new REM Regulatory Affairs Administrator.

3.  RESOLUTION NO. 99-2875, FOR THE PURPOSE OF AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TO EXECUTIVE A CONTRACT WITH URS CORPORATION FOR THE DESIGN OF A PUBLIC UNLOADING AREA AT METRO SOUTH STATION

Mr. Petersen introduced the resolution, approval of which would allow money to be expended on designing a public unloading area at Metro South. (The information he presented can be found in the staff report to the resolution, included in the meeting record.) He explained an unfortunate oversight on the part of the department, whereby this contract, which originally did not require Council approval, ran over into another fiscal year and did trigger the requirement. However, the department mistakenly issued the RFP without Council approval. Mr. Petersen said he had taken steps to assure that kind of oversight would never happen again.

Councilor McLain asked about the new contracting rules by which contracts that require Council approval had been increased from $25 thousand to $50 thousand. She wanted to make certain that the multi-year aspect had not been changed at the same time. She said she had voted to increase the dollar limit but not to change the multi-year requirement.

Marvin Fjordbeck said only the dollar amount had been changed in the code, not the multi-year aspect.

Councilor Washington asked about the difference between the costs in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and the proposed design cost.

Mr. Petersen said the increase was due to construction management work and the value engineering, which were added after the CIP had been finished.

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

4.  COMMITTEE DISCUSSION OF TRANSFER STATION SERVICE PLAN

Mr. Petersen distributed a bound copy of the RSWMP to the committee members. He said chapter five has information he thought might be of particular interest to the committee—i.e., general policy goals. Also, chapter 7 has recommended practices and information on how the policies would be implemented.

He called the committee’s attention to page 725, which presents recommended practices for transfer stations. This introduces the question of whether the Council would prefer a different direction from the current one regarding the number and types of transfer stations. He said the Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC) had been studying the issue. A subcommittee of SWAC, which had been formed to study the question, saw a need for additional transfer stations to address transportation cost issues. In addition, it also saw a need for more public services, specifically regarding self-haul and hazardous waste. The subcommittee felt that if new stations were not added, then the existing ones would need to be used more fully. For example, tonnage caps might need to be lifted on existing facilities. However, Mr. Petersen said all aspects of different scenarios needed to be studied. He said SWAC would be discussing this issue at a meeting on December 15.

Councilor McLain suggested imposing a minimum recovery rate if new facilities replace the current materials recovery facilities (MRFs), if construction debris were required to go out the front end, and if caps were removed. She asked if approaches like that had been discussed.

Mr. Petersen said there had been discussion of what the minimum might be if there were to be one. He said Metro Central’s recovery rate of 25% had been pointed out.

Council McLain said the industry had been meeting outside of SWAC to address this from its point of view. She suggested Metro develop its position outside of SWAC, also. She said it needed to be discussed what removing caps would do to the facility and what its responsibilities would be. She said the effect on the system as a whole also needed to be considered. She said more was at stake than simply lifting caps—it involved the future of the entire system and Metro’s role in it. She offered a list of items she thought ought to be discussed at the SWAC meeting.

Mr. Petersen said he would do his best to make sure those items were discussed. He said there had been some discussion at the subcommittee of lifting the cap now and dealing with the complexities later. He said Chair Washington had made it clear to the committee that that would not be the way things would happen.

Chair Washington said he had made it clear to SWAC that the Council would be looking at any changes as part of a whole package and that changes would not be made piecemeal.

Councilor McLain said she thought it was crucial to discuss who would take on the responsibility for recycling if the private recycling facilities were to go under. She said changes in the system might cause that to happen. She said that although the industry might be operating in a market economy, it is also operating in a society that values recycling. In her view, Metro must make sure recycling happens in this public/private environment.

She also thought it would be important to ask whether regional transfer stations would be needed in a system of many, smaller stations. She said Metro now owns large regional stations on which public dollars are still owed. Metro has a responsibility to protect the public’s interest. She said Metro provides more for the public than a private facility would, particularly with regard to handling public self-haul and household hazardous waste.

Mr. Petersen said he was not certain which approach would be best to take. One approach would be for all the facilities to be required to provide comparable services. Another would be to concentrate full service in a few facilities, with other types of facilities serving just commercial haulers. He said if the latter is chosen, the public costs associated with full service would need to be borne region-wide. He said he thought the industry understood that.

Councilor McLain gave some examples of services private stations do not currently provide, such as weekend hours. She said Metro could not control their choices. She said that removing the caps and addressing the complexities later would not work. She said Metro was making a big commitment by investing $2 million in Metro South to provide better public access. She expected Metro South to assume that responsibility, and she thought the facility and its services should be protected.

Chair Washington said the discussions at the committee had not yet been in that depth. He said that those issues would be kept in mind when the discussions do go to that depth.

Councilor McLain said she thought it would be important for Metro to be prepared to address the complexities of the issues, as the industry would come prepared with a clear and unified position of its own.

5.  POTENTIAL CHANGES IN HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Mr. Petersen noted that existing practices regarding hazardous waste could be found on page 729 of the RSWMP. He introduced Scott Klag and Jim Quinn who would be giving a presentation on that topic. Mr. Klag would give an overview of the plan, and Mr. Quinn would discuss implications for next year’s budget.

Scott Klag, Senior Planner, REM, gave an overview of the existing program, the recommended direction emerging from the planning process, and what this might entail in revising the RSWMP and planning the budget. (Mr. Klag’s presentation can be found summarized in a PowerPoint presentation, hardcopies of which are attached to the meeting record).

Councilor Park asked about Goal 13 of the RSWMP, which calls for “reducing the risks of use…” of household hazardous waste. He asked how that would fit with Metro’s mission.

Mr. Klag said it would fall under the education process, and would include doing things like providing instruction on proper use of a product. He said many products are overapplied. Reducing the risks of use would fall under waste reduction efforts.

Councilor Park said the language did not imply that concept. He suggested changing the wording to reflect “reducing the use of…” hazardous waste rather than “reducing the risks of use…” Mr. Klag agreed. He said the wording would be changed.

Jim Quinn, Supervisor, REM Hazardous Waste Collection Program, presented information on the cost implications of implementing the new, expanded hazardous waste program. (In addition to PowerPoint hard copies, see also the table titled “Metro’s Hazardous Waste Program, Waste Volume, and Cost,” attached to meeting record.) Mr. Quinn made the following key points:

•  Hazardous waste disposal has grown dramatically since FY ‘92-’93, from 13,000 customers with 1 million pounds of waste to 35,000 customers with 2.9 million pounds of waste. That is projected to increase in FY ‘01-‘02 to 45,000 customers with 3.8 million pounds of waste.

•  Simultaneously, revenue has risen and the cost per pound dropped. The increased revenue has been due primarily to the sales of reprocessed latex paint; decreased cost has been due to more efficient processes. While growth has increased 210%, net costs have gone up only 27%.

•  Growth is projected even if the new “roundups” are not initiated.

•  More money will be needed to implement the new program to pay for staff and to modify facilities.

Councilor McLain said that in her view, the number of customers served was more important than the amount of waste collected. The cost per customer with the roundups looks to be less. She asked if studies had been done on where customers have come from in the past and whom the roundups would serve.

Mr. Klag said studies of who uses the permanent hazardous waste facilities and who goes to the collection events suggests that those who use the permanent facilities tend to be those who take the trouble to make the trip, and they tend to be repeat customers.

Mr. Quinn said the program would be making personnel requests, among them converting some temporary employees to permanent status. In addition, they would be requesting four new FTEs, beginning in March of 2001, to implement the roundups. In addition, resources will be needed to increase the educational efforts. Also, the permanent facilities would need to have the hazardous waste part expanded to handle the increased waste from the roundups. That would be in the CIP.

Chair Washington asked about business customer use. Mr. Quinn said that segment of the public has remained small and its growth, flat. He said the focus of the department’s outreach has been households.

Councilor McLain said she understood small businesses were allowed to use the collection events if they had under a certain level of waste.

Mr. Quinn said business customers were expected to pay the cost of processing the materials they bring.

Councilor McLain asked for an example of those costs.

Mr. Quinn said disposing of latex paint would cost about $3/gallon and oil-based about $7/gallon.

Mr. Petersen said this new approach would represent a significant change in the way the hazardous waste collection events have been done. It would probably collect more waste, but it would also cost more. He said more details would be prepared so budget decisions can be made when the time comes.

Councilor Park asked about the prior policy development. He asked what the rationale was for having those who do not generate a lot of hazardous waste subsidizing those who do.

Mr. Petersen said the decision not to charge the full cost of the hazardous waste program to the customers was made because if the full costs were charged—about $80/household—people would not use the program. This would most likely put more hazardous waste into the environment. Product fees—i.e., advanced disposal fees—have been investigated but the idea never went anywhere.

6.  COUNCILOR COMMUNICATIONS

Councilor Park asked Paul Ehinger, REM, to present some figures he had requested at the previous REM committee meeting regarding the effect on the tipping fee of various tonnage scenarios. (A memo from Mr. Ehinger to Councilor Park, with charts attached, summarizes Mr. Ehinger’s presentation.) Mr. Ehinger explained the assumptions that underlay the analyses of four different scenarios. He said everything had been held constant with no assumptions about borrowing money to pay for programs, so that the changes in the tipping fees shown reflect only the costs of doing business.

Councilor McLain asked how different the numbers would be if the rate-stabilization account were used. Mr. Ehinger said he did not have the information to provide those numbers.

Councilor McLain said that would be important to know, to do the budget for the next fiscal year.

Councilor Park said he had left that piece of information out of the calculations on purpose. He wanted to see only the effect of the recycling rate on the tipping fee, without confounding variables. He said what this shows is that recycling costs money. The more you recycle, the higher the tipping fee must go.

Councilor McLain said she thought the rate-stabilization fund was a good idea. She would still like to see how much the rate-stabilization fund could help offset the increase in the tipping fee.

Councilor Park thanked the staff for its work. He said he did not realize the extent of the work his request had generated. He said he did appreciate the outcome, however, as it provided figures upon which much better policies for the region could be made. He thought the goal—i.e., increased recycling—was good. It was just a question of how much people would be willing to pay for it.

Mr. Petersen suggested that as the policy discussion proceeds, the committee keep in mind that the total amount the region pays for solid waste disposal services is different from the per-ton rate. Mr. Ehinger’s figures were based on the per-ton rate. Fewer tons going to the land fill would change that.

Chair Washington said these discussions show how complicated the issue is.

There being no further business before the committee, Chair Washington adjourned the meeting at 3:07 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

Pat Emmerson

Council Assistant

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

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