MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL

SOLID WASTE & RECYCLING COMMITTEE MEETING

Wednesday, August 8, 2001

Council Chamber

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

Also present:    

Absent:    

Chair Atherton called the meeting to order at 3:32 p.m.

1.  CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE JULY 18, 2001 SOLID WASTE & RECYCLING COMMITTEE MEETING

2.  REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR’S BRIEFING

Terry Peterson, Director, Regional Environmental Management Department, reported on the wastewater refund from the city that was the result of REM engineer Joanna Karl’s research into capturing stormwater for reuse at Metro Regional Center and distributed the Regulatory Affairs and Enforcement annual report on illegal dumping and enforcement for 2000 to the committee. (For more detail, see the copy of the Regional Environmental Management Director’s Updates and the copy of the Metro Solid Waste Regulatory Affairs 2000 Annual Report attached to the permanent record of this meeting).

3.  ORDINANCE NO. 01-914, For the Purpose of Amending Metro Code Chapter 5.01

 to Change the Accounting Period for Disposal Limits on Local Transfer Stations

 from a Calendar Year to a Fiscal Year Basis and Declaring an Emergency

Dr. Petersen explained the ordinance which would be retroactive to July 1. He said it would make financial and accounting work more consistent. He added that it would only change the accounting period, not the tonnage caps.

Councilor Monroe said if the transfer stations were exceeding 1/12 of the 50,000 ton cap per month right now, they could either hope Metro would raise the cap by next July or that the waste stream during the winter months would be low enough they would not exceed the cap by then.

Dr. Petersen said that was correct. He added that if neither one of those things happened, and if the 50,000 ton cap was exceeded during the fiscal year, the department’s intent was to enforce the franchise as it stands.

Councilor Monroe clarified that if the caps were exceeded for 2001, such enforcement would not take place in January, but next July if they were exceeded for the 2001-2002 fiscal year.

Dr. Petersen said it could be earlier than that, depending on when the 50,000 ton cap was exceeded.

Chair Atherton opened public hearing on Ordinance No. 01-914. No one came forward to testify so he closed public hearing.

Chair Atherton will carry the ordinance to the full council.

4.  RESOLUTION NO. 01-3090, For the Purpose of Adopting the Regional

 Environmental Management Department’s Strategic Plan for 2001-2002

Dr. Petersen thanked the committee for their time and effort on the plan. He said it was one of the primary things the department had wanted to accomplish this year. He pointed out that some changes the committee had recommended had been incorporated into the plan.

Councilor Monroe questioned the success of the credits in terms and how they had impacted recycling rates.

Dr. Petersen responded that the plan identified that as an issue that needed to be evaluated. He said he would like to wait until after they had gone through the feedback from the advisory committee to recommend what to do with the system fee credit program.

Councilor Monroe said he wanted to see significant evidence about the impact on the recycling rates before any changes were made.

Chair Atherton asked about a budget item regarding auditing of the system fee credit program.

Dr. Petersen said the budget included general audits of the private facilities that Metro regulates but it was not necessarily tied to the credit program. He said he would share the audit information with the committee along with the feedback from the advisory committee.

Councilor McLain said the format of the strategic plan was quite useable and she liked the way the recommendations were laid out for discussion at committee and at SWAC. She was supportive of plan.

Chair Atherton said he had learned a lot from the process. He asked about the graphic that Councilor McLain had previously noticed was difficult to understand. He thought the description of the graph could be fixed to help with clarity.

Councilor McLain said she thought it was going to be cleaned up if it was possible after her comment from last meeting.

Dr. Petersen said that change was inadvertently missed in the editing and would be made before printing.

Chair Atherton wanted to be sure it was clear that the 62% prevention/recovery rate mentioned in the plan is a state mandate. He suggested clarifying that on page 3 in the Current Issues of Concern to Metro paragraph and in the Key Conclusions paragraph. He asked if the plan contained any guidance on whether to focus the money on percentages or on reducing toxicity.

Dr. Petersen said they had heard loud and clear from the committee and others that it is not simply about weight, that there are other environmental impacts should be considered when they allocate their efforts to reducing different kinds of waste. He said the plan had been revised to try to get that message across.

Janet Matthews said there were state mandates to provide collection facilities for toxics which she took to mean they should reduce hazards in the waste stream as much as possible. She noted there was also a recovery goal requirement and that the goals were not mutually exclusive. She felt the plan reflected that they were doing as much as they could to meet both requirements.

Chair Atherton asked about Objective 5.6.

Dr. Petersen said that item referred to Chapter 5.5 of the Metro Code, regarding flow control. He said it was an element of the package of issues they were putting together as interrelated issues that will be back to the committee in October. He said legal counsel had developed some draft recommendations on those revisions which were being reviewed by outside bond counsel at this time. He said they have made progress on the assessment.

Chair Atherton asked about the IGAs referred to in Goal 8.1. He wondered if they had considered moving the jurisdictional boundary to include some of those facilities that were escaping the efforts.

Dr. Petersen said the option had been discussed, but it seemed the more likely route was an IGA.

Vince Gilbert, East County Recycling, commented that phasing out or modifying recovery requirements as the tip fee went up were just two solutions to the problem. He felt there could be other solutions as well. He suggested it could say “evaluate the recovery efforts as the Metro tip fee increases” without the qualifiers to open it up to other options.

Councilor Monroe felt that the word “evaluate” meant “consider” in this instance, and did not mean it should or should not be changed or phased out.

Mr. V. Gilbert said he was happy with that interpretation. He firmly believed in the IGAs and noted he had a facility he would love to have Metro involved in. He commented that toxicity is a huge issue, beyond recycling, into pollution and other DEQ issues. He felt the plan covered that extremely well. He thought recycling credits were very effective. He suggested raising the credits and putting bounties on hard to get items.

Councilor Monroe commented that about month ago, the council took action to eliminate the fees for self-haulers of toxic materials as way of encouraging citizens to clean out their garages and get rid of it.

Chair Atherton said the plan also included things like old computers

Mr. V. Gilbert said they recycle those because of the system credit fee program.

Ralph Gilbert, East County Recycling, said, although he did not have the solution, he was willing to work on some kind of committee to come up with ways to accommodate vehicle miles traveled and so the public could take advantage of having a transfer station close by. He said better recycling increased the cap in an indirect way.

Chair Atherton assigned Councilor Monroe to carry the resolution.

4.  UPDATE ON AUGUST 1, 2001 RATE REVIEW COMMITTEE

Dr. Petersen updated the committee on the August 1, 2001 Rate Review committee meeting. (See copy of the minutes from that meeting included with the permanent record of this meeting.)

Chair Atherton commented that he was very impressed with the participation of the advisory committee members. He said they had done good work and the expectation was that the system fee would be increased next year.

Dr. Petersen added that the amount of the increase would depend on the final policy decisions from the council.

6.  COMMITTEE DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL SYSTEM CHANGES

Dr. Petersen asked for direction on tonnage cap regulations of local transfer stations and the regional system fee credit program.

Doug Anderson, Waste Reduction and Outreach Manager, presented white papers providing background on local transfer stations and the regional system fee credit program to the committee. (See copy of the white papers included in agenda packet with permanent record of this meeting.)

Councilor McLain said the local transfer station concept was designed to maintain a low impact on the area in which the facility was sited. She felt that should be included in the slide as a bullet item.

Mr. Anderson said it would be added.

Chair Atherton said one goal of the plan was to simplify and reduce the regulatory burden. He questioned why it was necessary to have a cap on wet waste if the local jurisdictions were being assisted to reduce their costs, and if their franchise agreements specified how much they would pay.

Mr. Anderson responded said that it is an open question. He guessed from the question that they could see if the market would mediate it more.

Councilor McLain said they had to assume waste sheds or travel time that made sense. Her concern was about the lines on the map and how they were drawn. She commented that the bullet she had asked to be added to the slide came directly from the language in previous historical perspectives, to maintain a low impact on the areas where the transfer station facilities were sited. She said you could not get to that point by saying go to the lowest cost facility because there are other impacts.

Councilor Monroe understood, because of the level of vertical integration they had seen, that without the wet waste cap, haulers would be crossing over the boundaries and traveling longer distances to use their own facilities rather than access the closest facility. He asked about the impact of eliminating the dry waste cap and whether there would be similar problems with the movement of dry waste.

Mr. Anderson said in principle, the answer was yes, but the policy trade off was not putting any artificial constraints on recovery capacity. For instance, if a facility was full and turned away dry waste, the next logical facility might be a landfill. He emphasized they wanted to test the ideas, but the current thinking was that they would like to have more opportunities for dry waste recovery. He added it was bumping up against policy trade-offs.

Chair Atherton commented that a longer haul costs more money.

Councilor McLain said the reason for going longer distances was because they felt they were saving money in other areas. She said there are variables of cost, not just transportation. In response to Councilor Monroe’s comment, she said the issue was their dry waste recovery. She said there is a trade off of the value of the recovery with the transportation and the possible miles being added to the system. She thought Mr. Petersen should know whether they wanted the wet waste caps to go to the advisory committees as part of the recommendations for the system. She was convinced that the trade-off on dry waste was worth trying, and that the local transfer station goals would not be met without the caps.

Councilor Monroe reemphasized his previous support of the caps. He noted that in a perfect world where all of the haulers were separate companies from the owners of the facilities, they would go to the closest facility because it would be the cheapest. But when you have a mix of ownerships, they might very well want to haul much farther rather than give their competitor the business. He feels they need to maintain some kind of appropriate caps, at least on wet waste. He said the dry waste issue is still open with him.

Chair Atherton asked why local jurisdictions could not enforce this with their franchising authority and power of setting the rate base.

Dr. Petersen responded that it was not a question of local jurisdictions reviewing the rates, it was more a technical and economic issue of whether or not the economic benefits of cross region hauling for a vertically integrated company outweighs the revenue that they might forego by not having their haul cost allowed in a collection rate. He believed the local governments could not solve that by themselves. He felt the economics of allowing only a certain haul distance within the collection rate more than outweighed by the financial benefits of a vertically integrated company getting the waste to their own facility. He added that the burden on him is to provide the committee with the technical information to back it up .

Easton Cross, BFI, felt that if the caps on wet waste were removed, it would make the regional transfer stations very expensive to operate and still provide the range of services both in times and services to the public. Keeping the transfer stations financially viable was a goal he heard at a previous meeting. He did not think that could happen if the caps on both wet and dry waste were removed. Local jurisdictions can’t solve the problem of disposal.

Tim Raphael, Waste Management, said Metro may have reason to consider caps, but he failed to see how vertical integration had anything to do with it. whether that waste went to one facility or another, it all ends up in the same place. he said transportation does matter in the region and there are any number of instances to show that. He reiterated the importance of recognizing that, in terms of wet waste, it all goes to the same place.

Ray Phelps, WRI, clarified Councilor McLain’s point about the size of the facility. He said the size of the facility is a land use decision and the local jurisdiction, in his case, the city of Wilsonville, designated the acceptable size of the facility. He said the decision on volume and its impact was made by the city of Wilsonville.

Councilor McLain said she was talking about facilities already sited. Wilsonville and Forest Grove and others had certain assumptions about the footprint of those facilities and what kind of regulation they wanted. There are some issues within the system we already have where certain jurisdictions thought were the case have not proved to be the case after all. We are not talking about just new facilities, we are talking about new or changed facilities as they fit in with the rest of the system. And some future land use decisions, which are local, and some future franchises, which are Metro’s. It is a combination of both.

Mr. Phelps agreed and said devil would be in the detail.

Mr. R. Gilbert asked the committee to consider, when taking caps off dry waste, how it would help recycling. He did not see that it would help in any way. He said normally, they try to recycle more so they can take in more. He felt taking the caps off of dry waste would be a very bad situation. He said they had to be very careful about how they handled the dry waste. There are many things to be considered.

Councilor McLain said there timing issues because of SWAC meetings, and at least two of the committee members felt there should be some type of caps to protect the public and to meet the goals of local transfer station function. She wanted the committee to give direction to staff before the upcoming SWAC meetings.

Chair Atherton wanted to give questions to SWAC to consider rather than stating a position.

Councilor McLain said it was difficult for staff to make recommendations when they did not know where their council stood. She felt they could call them preliminary questions with an understanding that the committee had discussion with some favorable conversation about caps being necessary.

Chair Atherton said he could agree that caps are important. He just wanted to know how important and how they were going to be used. He said he looked forward to the debate and discussion at SWAC on the subject.

Dr. Petersen hoped he could take a sense that this is an issue that the committee wanted the advisory committee to address and that there are some members of the committee that believe that caps are tied to the waste in the local area coupled with the requirement to serve the local area is an option you want feedback on. He also sensed that they wanted advice on the regional system fee, whether to change it or keep it as it is.

Chair Atherton said to ask the advisory committee about the effectiveness of local franchise agreements in this system.

ADJOURN

There being no further business to come before the committee, Chair Atherton adjourned the meeting at 4:56 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Cheryl Grant

Council Assistant

Attachments to the Public Record for the

Solid Waste & Recycling Committee Meeting of August 8, 2001:

Testimony Cards:

None.