MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING

Wednesday, February 9, 2000

Council Chamber

Members Present:  Ed Washington (Chair), Susan McLain (Vice Chair), Rod Park

Others Present:    David Bradgon (Presiding Officer)

Chair Washington called the meeting to order at 1:30 PM.

2.  CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 19, 2000

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:

•  Metro Central Enhancement Committee has awarded $250,000 in grants for this year. The largest grant went to the Linnton Neighborhood Association, which required matching federal funds. This is an example of how Metro’s money can be used to leveraged more money.

•  Metro has made an agreement with the City of Portland to use $14,000 worth of its disposal vouchers, which total about $100,000, to waive disposal fees for 14 bulky waste collection events planned throughout the city.

Mr. Petersen noted that almost all of the money to fund vouchers would be going to the City of Portland. He would like to set up a system for distributing that money more equitably around the region.

Chair Washington asked why Portland would get most of the voucher funds.

Mr. Petersen said it was because the vouchers have been available on a first-come, first-served basis. The City of Portland’s neighborhood associations, being among the best organized in the region, have been efficient about submitting their applications early. He said he would like the Council to help the department get the word out to the rest of the region that Metro has this program in place to address needy situations and hardships.

Chair Washington suggested putting in place a more equitable method of distributing the money, perhaps based on tonnage or population.

Mr. Petersen said that could be addressed during the upcoming budget process.

•  A public hearing will be held tonight at 7 PM here, on the work Metro is doing at the site of the old St. Johns Landfill.

Chair Washington asked how citizens were being notified about these hearings, other than through required notices in the newspaper.

Mr. Petersen said notification had been left up to the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), as it is its hearing on Metro’s application. He asked Jan O’Dell, REM Public Affairs Specialist, to find out about the DEQ’s outreach effort and report back.

•  Metro would be working with the Rebuilding Center and the Multnomah Athletic Club on a program to deconstruct buildings in Goose Hollow, board by board, so salvageable materials can be re-used.

•  The residential recycling campaign is underway. Chair Washington participated in one event during halftime at a recent Winterhawks game.

Councilor McLain thanked Vicky Kolberg, Education Supervisor, REM, for bringing the ads up so she could see and hear them. She noted she had been in Cuba when the ads had been brought to the REM Committee. She said that the artwork in the print ads was good enough to be used again. She thought the campaign might need more exposure in the near future, and re-using the artwork might reduce the costs on that.

•  Metro has been working with the DEQ to address a problem landfill operated by River City Disposal. The landfill appeared to be accepting mixed waste without proper DEQ or Metro authority. Both the DEQ and Metro have taken action to request compliance.

In addition to those updates, Mr. Petersen called the committee’s attention to the required, annual public review of the performance of STS, the transport company that hauls waste for Metro through the Columbia Gorge. The meeting will be held on February 22 at 7 PM here at Metro. (A flyer about the meeting is attached to the meeting record.)

3.  RESOLUTION NO. 00-2893, FOR THE PURPOSE OF APPOINTING JERRY POWELL, JAMES STRATHMAN, AND BERNARD DEAZLEY TO THE SOLID WASTE REATE REVIEW COMMITTEE

Mr. Petersen introduced the resolution and gave a brief description of the composition of the committee and each candidate’s qualifications and background. (This information can be found in the Executive Summary and Staff Report associated with this resolution and included in the meeting record.)

Councilor Park asked how many individuals had applied for these positions.

Mr. Petersen said an ad had been placed in the Oregonian soliciting applications for the citizen ratepayer’s position on this committee. It resulted in 17 inquiries and 11 completed applications.

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

4.  TRANSFER STATION SERVICE PLAN WORK SESSION

Mr. Petersen said the Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC) and a subcommittee of SWAC have been working for the past six months on this service plan. That effort has brought up a number of policy issues the REM committee should know about before it was faces with having to make those policy decisions. He introduced Mr. Doug Anderson to explain those issues.

Doug Anderson, Waste Reduction Manager, REM, distributed hard copies of PowerPoint slides that summarize his presentation (attached to the meeting record). Mr. Anderson said the question of whether the region needs more transfer stations would soon be coming before the committee and the Council.

The Regional Solid Waste Management Plan (RSWMP) and the Metro Code, Chapter 501, cover current policy on transfer facilities. The RSWMP as adopted in 1995 had a clear policy against building new transfer stations except under very strict conditions. The reasoning behind restricting new stations was to encourage waste-reduction by not making disposal too convenient and in response to concerns about public financing. The conditions for allowing new stations included running out of capacity after all alternatives had been exhausted. Capacity meant throughput in tons per day.

Since 1995 the issue of accessibility to the disposal capacity has arisen. The existing transfer stations have adequate capacity by the existing definition, but accessing them has become more difficult. The current RSWMP addresses accessibility by allowing for reload stations. Those are small-scale, low-tech facilities located far from the transfer stations where loads can be consolidated before being transported to a regional transfer station.

Small, reload stations have problems. One is the matter of efficiency, in that waste must be handled twice; another is that they require specialized equipment; and finally, siting those stations is as difficult as siting full-service facilities. Since 1995 curbside rates have risen, primarily due to the increased cost of transporting waste across the region. Thus, industry and local jurisdictions have requested that Metro relax the transfer station limitations in the RSWMP.

In 1998 the code was revised to address the problem, but the problem was not solved completely. The code drew a line at 50,000 tons to distinguish between large and small facilities. Large facilities must provide all services to all customers, even those that do not support themselves. For a small facility to become large, it must demonstrate that such a change would be consistent with the RSWMP. That precludes allowing any more large facilities unless they meet the strict criteria of inadequate capacity as defined by throughput.

Three applications to become large have been received, and three franchises have been granted—to PRIDE, Recycle America, and WRI. Small stations still exist under the code, but because of their small size they cannot address the need for more access to capacity for all types of waste.

These issues lead to the purpose of the service plan, and that is to determine whether more transfer capacity is needed, if so where, how they should be regulated, and whether entry should be limited.

Chair Washington asked about the controlled-entry requirements.

Mr. Anderson explained that in a regulated environment, controlled entry means limiting competition in the interest of system efficiency. He said analysis so far indicates that more transfer stations might be needed from the standpoint of customer convenience and from the standpoint of hauler efficiency. To do that, the code would need to be revised to address the regulatory criteria.

Councilor McLain questioned the assumption that more capacity is needed. She said need was not evenly distributed across the region. She said if they determined more capacity was needed, that need should be categorized according to type of need. She said the current regulatory system is fragmented among cities doing the franchising and siting, Metro, the state, and DEQ imposing requirements. She suggested that some of the definitions for capacity be reexamined before concluding that more capacity is needed. She thought that if capacity were better defined, then conversations about need could be more specific as to what kind of need and for what kind of capacity.

Mr. Petersen said the two existing transfer stations have enough capacity—as defined by throughput—to handle projected growth for the next 10 years. It is the question of system efficiency and access that led to that conclusion that more capacity would be needed.

Councilor McLain suggested that access and efficiency needed to be approached by asking whose efficiency would be improved—the public’s, the businessperson, or the industry’s. She said the RTP would need to be taken into consideration in discussing whether to add more transfer stations. She noted that truck travel adds another consideration to the review of the transportation system.

Mr. Anderson said the questions Councilor McLain had raised were part of questions that had been targeted for future discussion. He said the discussion today was designed to focus on three key issues: minimum recovery rates, fee policies, and cost analyses.

Chair Washington asked under which of these heading Councilor McLain’s concerns would fall.

Mr. Anderson said her questions had sharpened up the considerations that would go into the cost analyses. Regarding minimum recovery rates, he said it was important to ask whether setting minimums would accomplish the goals of preserve recovery capacity and increase recycling rates. He noted that minimums have been tried in the past. Some facilities met or exceeded those rates. Others met the rates, but sometimes by methods that did not serve the goals. For example, for a vertically integrated company, it might not serve its best interest to recover more if the recovery rate were measured load by load. A hauler might take a load directly to the landfill if the load did not contain the right percentage of recoverable materials. On the other hand, if a particular rate were required, it might discourage source separation in favor of hauling that same waste in a mixed load. Mr. Anderson emphasized that the problems arise mostly in relation to vertically integrated companies.

Mr. Anderson suggested that unless policies were put in place to minimize those problems, a “waste shed” recovery rate might be more effective than a facility-by-facility or load-by-load rate structure.

Councilor McLain said it sounded to her as though the systems so far devised had not accomplished the ultimate goal of encouraging recycling of the entire stream without creating unintended consequences and incentives for industry to try to get around requirements to maximize their profits. Waste stream recovery overall still needed to be addressed.

Mr. Anderson said he understood Councilor McLain to say that none of the programs he had proposed would accomplish what she wanted.

Councilor McLain said that was correct; she needed to be convinced that one of the three plans would encourage more recycling overall before she would be ready to support it.

Mr. Petersen said that perhaps the requirements should be placed on the type of load rather than the percentage of waste recovered—that is, require that certain types of loads be disposed of in certain types of ways.

Councilor Park suggested that only an economic model would be likely to achieve the goals in the long-term. He said the private sector would figure out a way to get around any requirements that hurt the bottom line—i.e., profitability. He said only a solution that helped the industry be profitable would work in the long term.

Chair Washington reiterated his desire to see the philosophical part left behind in favor of establishing good policy. He said a good fix for everybody on all issues would be impossible to design. He requested that the department move beyond wrestling with the philosophical questions and begin addressing hard questions about how to achieve reasonable goals.

Councilor Park suggested Mr. Anderson run some economic models that examine the extremes--e.g., a tip fee of $100—to establish the outside parameters. He also requested that behavioral tradeoffs be included, such as the temptation to dump loads directly into the landfill that do not meet minimum recovery standards.

Councilor McLain expressed her support for Chair Washington’s desire to look at hard questions and for Councilor Park’s notion of looking at economic models that look at extremes. She saw no conflict with those suggestions and her goal of improving recovery; she thought they would work together. With regard to cost analysis, she recommended that efficiency be defined according to whose interests were being served—the public’s, businesses’, or the industry’s. To describe the efficiency of the whole system, the economic model would need to contain all three. She reminded the committee that until and unless Metro sells its transfer stations, Metro has its own interests to serve.

Chair Washington said he appreciated Mr. Anderson’s contribution today, but he felt the time was ripe for the department to start proposing solutions.

Councilor McLain said she understood the objectives were to preserve recovery capacity and achieve more recycling. Those objectives were part of the RSWMP proposal previously approved by the Council. She suggested starting with that. She would like to see capacity and efficiency defined to match the RSWMP. If the department proposed to develop new definitions for those ideas, she would like to know about it.

Mr. Anderson said Councilor McLain’s suggestions were exactly the type of feedback he had hoped for in making this presentation. He said he was ready to begin devising solutions. He said the purpose of his presentation today was to make certain the Councilors understood the consequences of different approaches and would be on board with the principles the department was trying to achieve.

Mr. Petersen said the department was close to bringing forward its recommendation, and SWAC was getting close to bringing forward its. He did not know how close the two sets of recommendations would be, but they would both be available for discussion soon.

Councilor Park asked if the recommendations had been developed under the current system of two transfer stations or whether it included more stations.

Mr. Petersen said all the analyses include the current system as a base case, with options for comparison.

Councilor Park asked whether the department was working with the Transportation Department to determine where the choke points might be in the next 10 years.

Mr. Anderson said yes, that REM was using the Transportation Department’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and models.

Mr. Anderson summarized what he understood the committee was asking him to do. He said he understood that the committee wanted him to design an economic model to predict likely outcomes in the extremes as well as in more realistic scenarios. He understood the committee wanted a complete articulation of any rules needed to support the model, but one of the decisions the committee would make would be how to balance the economic factors against the rules. The committee would like a matrix that will help it weigh the softer issues against the economic analyses. It would like the outcomes illustrated with real-life examples that draw a picture for people.

5.  FINALIZATION OF REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE’S WORK PLAN FOR YEAR 2000

Chair Washington said the work plan in front of them (attached to the meeting record) was the same as that considered at the last REM meeting. He said he had received additional information from Councilor Monroe, and he then asked for input from the other members of the committee.

Councilor Park asked that the work plan summary chart be reformatted to better illustrate when various elements would begin and end. He said it would be particularly important to Councilors, who needed to be able to assess their workloads.

Chair Washington asked Mr. Houser, Council Analyst, to reformat the work plan.

Councilor McLain asked at which work session the new waste-reduction initiatives would be discussed.

Mr. Petersen said those would not be part of this committee’s work sessions; rather, they would be discussed at length during the budget process.

Councilor McLain said she did not object to the initiatives being addressed through the budget process, but she would like to have an opportunity for this committee to discuss the content of the initiatives.

Chair Washington asked that the reformatting include adding at what type of meeting the issue would be addressed.

Councilor McLain asked when the Year 11 program would be discussed.

Mr. Houser said that item had not been included on the work plan, but that a resolution requesting adoption of the plan would be coming before the committee in the next month or two. He said it could be added to the work plan.

Chair Washington asked that it be added.

Mr. Petersen asked for clarification of his responsibilities. He said he understood he should come back to the REM committee with a discussion and presentation of the Executive’s budget proposals on waste-reduction initiatives—not on the entire budget.

Chair Washington said that was correct. He asked that discussion of those initiatives be put on the next REM meeting agenda.

6.  COUNCILOR COMMUNICATIONS

None.

There being no further business before the committee, Chair Washington adjourned the meeting at 3:00 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

Pat Emmerson

Council Assistant

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 8, 2000