MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL

SOLID WASTE & RECYCLING COMMITTEE MEETING

Wednesday, April 18, 2001

Council Chamber

Members Present:  Bill Atherton (Chair), Susan McLain (Vice Chair), Rod Monroe

Also present:    Rod Park

Absent:    

Chair Atherton called the meeting to order at 3:35 p.m.

1.  CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 4, 2001 SOLID WASTE & RECYCLING COMMITTEE MEETING

2.  REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR’S BRIEFING

Terry Peterson, Director, Regional Environmental Management Department, updated the committee on the scrap tire legislation, discussed persistent herbicide contaminates found recently in finished compost in Washington state, reported on the National Wildlife Federation’s Certificate of Achievement awarded to Metro’s Natural Techniques Garden, and talked about the upcoming SOLV cleanup event. (For more detail, see the copy of the Director’s Update attached to the permanent record of this meeting).

3.  STRATEGIC PLAN DISCUSSION

Janet Matthews, REM Policy and Program Manager, distributed a matrix to the committee to begin to get more specific regarding the strategic direction. (See copy of the Strategic Options for Metro’s Role in Service Provision/Regulation matrix attached to the permanent record of this meeting). She commented that some primary goals of the plan that had already been agreed on were reducing toxicity of the waste stream, increasing waste reduction and recycling, and developing an efficient, economical and environmentally sound system. She said her department had also discussed how the majority of the RSWMP goals (accessibility, adaptability, revenue, equity and stability, among others) fit in with those primary goals. She noted that the committee had given direction previously, and the RSWMP also dictated, that Metro’s role would at least insure disposal services for the region. She explained the chart and the 5 options listed. She said there were a lot of details to consider in all of the options and asked for direction from the committee on how they wanted to proceed.

Chair Atherton asked Mr. Petersen if the option in the Arlington landfill contract was to renew the contract or review the rate.

Mr. Petersen recalled that the last negotiation with Waste Management had extended the contract out to 2015 with an option for Metro to extend it further if they still held market prices. He said there were market checks for that, but the bottom line was that there were still quite a few years to go on the contract.

Marv Fjordbeck commented that the first of the market check provisions in Change Order #8 would go into affect with the market review in 2005, and thereafter the contract could be extended as long as the contractor was within the market range provisions.

Councilor McLain found, as she reviewed the two worksheets, that an element missing from the flowchart was how each of the options met the primary goals. She noted that there were certain minimum services required through the RSWMP to be given at the curbside. She suggested the options scale should include a note that minimum public services and DEQ regulations would be met with any of the options. She did not feel their responsibilities were fully expressed in either of the charts.

Councilor Monroe commented that completely privatizing and allowing the free market economy to take care of the solid waste industry would not be acceptable to him. He believed financial incentives were needed to increase and reach recycling goals. He added that the incentives needed to be even more effective than they were currently if the regional 55-60% recycling goal was to be reached. He was especially interested in increasing the percentage of toxic substances that were disposed of appropriately. He added that they were only impacting about 20% of the toxic waste problem with recycled paint and toxic pickups. He would like to see a free service, perhaps, subsidized by other aspects within the system. He felt they should continue to assist in the development of markets for recycled materials through grants or whatever means, and continue to give financial incentives to those MRFs doing the best job possible to recycle as much as possible. He said his constituents wanted more recycling, not less. He thought the system fees needed to be reviewed. He added that his constituents would be pleased to get the garbage out of trucks and onto trains and barges instead for the trip to the landfill.

Councilor McLain added that the options crossed over each other, and did not have to be all one way or the other. She said the options did not reflect solutions to particular goals or performance measures in the RSWMP. In response to a question from Chair Atherton, she said the different drafts needed to be drawn together better. She wanted to further review the matrix to be sure it had all the elements of the major goals before she felt comfortable with it.

Chair Atherton said his matrix was to set the stage and focused more on rate and credit, and not so much on facilities for this year. He wanted some of Ms. Matthews’ goals incorporated into his matrix and felt the result would be a good tool to work with.

Ms. Matthews said the chart was far from perfect and was meant to outline a range of items for discussion. She said it was just a beginning of finding out which way to go. She asked if, by inference, talking about other options for service provisions meant there were some problems with what they had now.

Councilor McLain thought they had dealt with industry requests without looking at the big picture impact on the RSWMP or Metro’s ownership of transfer stations and/or regulation of disposal. She thought it was partly due to being a player in market. She said they had to be very careful about when they were being a regulator and when they were being a service provider. She felt this was the opportunity to stand back and look at the goals to make sure any weakness was fixed, i.e. the recycling goal that had not been met or the DEQ recycling responsibility that they were not yet on top of. She felt the general weakness was that it had been put together piecemeal. She wanted an overall plan.

Councilor Monroe said he had never heard people gripe about their garbage bills, but he had heard them complain about the high charges for self-hauling a load. He thought those fees should be looked at as well as his previous concern about toxics.

Chair Atherton noted that he had talked to Mr. Petersen about an auditor to see if they were getting their money’s worth with the system fee program. He had heard people in the industry say maybe it was time for the fee to go away and find better options. He said they were now burning off the undesignated fund balances in solid waste, yet they were realizing they had growing liabilities they had to be able to fund. He wanted to look at that as well as the stability of agency funding and enforcement. He explained the nature of his matrix. (See a copy of the matrix included with the permanent record of this meeting.)

Councilor Monroe applauded Chair Atherton’s 9-point program for discussion. He said there were a lot of items on the list that he had been advocating for and wanted to discuss. He brought up the issue of flow control. He said they needed to insulate themselves from court decisions on flow control as much as they could, and some of the items listed would help to move in that direction.

Chair Atherton said he would add flow control to his chart.

Councilor McLain said the Atherton Package Option A was appropriate and she liked listing the items out as a reminder of what needed to be done. She wondered where Atherton Package Option A would fit into Ms. Matthews’ chart. She said she thought staff’s work had been more on general philosophy prior to getting into specific issues. She felt making the decisions in a package vs. individually would not make for better decisions if they did not have a foundation strategic plan to support those decisions. She added that this was good work that would be integrated and used as they completed their conversations about the options. She wanted to have the reports on transfer station ownership and tonnage cap issues for next meeting so they could discuss the issues and then get back to discussing the package issues.

Chair Atherton said his option package would fit with a combination of “c” and “d” on Ms. Matthews’ matrix. He asked the department to make a study of service areas and just what tonnage would be expected in that service area and going to various facilities and use that as a benchmark for tracking. He said they needed to have an explanation if there were inefficiencies in the system.

Councilor McLain said they thought in different patterns, and to make her feel like they were going somewhere, she wanted to get done with the first job. She said when she got the study reports back and knew more about why the caps were put on the first time, and she could see the pros and cons of ownership of transfer stations, she could more clearly delineate in her own mind where any package would go. She said she would be uncomfortable reviewing the package without those support systems and a philosophical discussion about how to deal with rate setting.

4.  ORDINANCE NO. 01-897, For the Purpose of Amending Metro Code Chapter 5.02 to Extend the Sunset Date for the Regional System Fee Credit Program to June 30, 2002.

Mr. Petersen explained the ordinance, which pertains to dry waste residual. He said, if approved, this would be the third extension for the fee. For details, see materials included in the agenda packet, which can be found with the permanent record of this meeting).

In response to committee discussion and questions, John Houser, Senior Council Analyst, recalled that there was to be some effort to evaluate the program, as Councilor Monroe had suggested. He asked Mr. Petersen if there had been evaluation done or if they intended to do it this fiscal year.

Mr. Petersen said he was working under the assumption that they would complete the strategic planning process this summer and then get into the evaluation in the summer and fall. He recalled that was what the committee work plan had directed him to do.

Councilor Monroe thought the council needed to give a clear message whether they were going to end the program or make it permanent. He thought at least 6 months notice was essential, and extending it one year at a time as they had been doing was not giving a clear message of the council’s intent.

Chair Atherton had some proposed amendments to this resolution that would provide the soft landing, and was primarily targeted at saving money.

Councilor McLain said she could not support amendments today either. She did not feel they had the information they needed to go ahead with amendments without a hearing.

Chair Atherton agreed to let his amendments go for now. He added that they could have a solid discussion after the evaluations were done. He reiterated that his intention was to save money and bolster funds.

Councilor Monroe said he liked saving money as well. He felt it was important to give the industry a time period when they knew it was going to end. He and Councilor McLain were not yet convinced that the program needed to end. He thought they would be ready to make that call at the end of this year when they had seen additional evidence. He felt they were all on the same track.

Chair Atherton opened a public hearing on Ordinance No. 01-897. Nobody came forward to testify and Chair Atherton closed the public hearing.

Chair Atherton assigned Councilor Monroe to carry Ordinance No. 01-897 to the full Council.

5.  ORDINANCE NO. 01-898, For the Purpose of Amending Metro Code Chapter 5.02 to Replace the Litter Control Surcharge at Metro Transfer Stations with a Surcharge at Metro Transfer Stations with a Surcharge Based on Weight of the Unsecured Load.

James Watkins, REM Operations Manager, explained the ordinance. (For more detail, see information included in the agenda packet with the permanent record of this meeting.)

Chair Atherton opened a public hearing on Ordinance No. 01-898. Nobody came forward to testify and Chair Atherton closed the public hearing.

Chair Atherton assigned Councilor McLain to carry Ordinance No. 01-898 to the full Council.

6.  RESOLUTION NO. 01-3058, For the Purpose of Approving the Year 12 Partnership Plan for Waste Reduction (Fiscal Year 2001-02).

Meg Lynch, REM Waste Reduction and Planning, presented the Year 12 Partnership Plan. (For more detail, see Partnership Plan for Waste Reduction (Year 12, 2001-2002) attached to the permanent record of this meeting.) She requested that the committee send the resolution to the full Council with a “do pass” recommendation.

Councilor McLain felt staff was on the right track for better monitoring of these funds.

Chair Atherton assigned Councilor McLain to carry Resolution No. 01-3058 to the full Council.

7.  RESOLUTION NO.01-3062, For the Purpose of Authorizing Release of RFB#01B-20-REM for Installation of a Cutoff Wall at the St. Johns Landfill..

Mr. Petersen said this cutoff wall was an effort to clean up a major contaminated site. He introduced Mr. O’Neil.

Dennis O’Neil, Landfill Management Supervisor, presented PowerPoint slides from other similar projects and explained the need for the cutoff wall project at the St. Johns site. (For more detail, see hard copy of the presentation included with the permanent record of this meeting.)

Chair Atherton will carry Resolution No. 01-3062 to the full Council.

ADJOURN

There being no further business to come before the committee, Chair Atherton adjourned the meeting at 5:06 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Cheryl Grant

Council Assistant

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE

SOLID WASTE & RECYCLING COMMITTEE

MEETING OF APRIL 18, 2001

Testimony Cards: None.