MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL

SOLID WASTE & RECYCLING COMMITTEE MEETING

Wednesday, October 3, 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 3:31 p.m.

1.  CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2001, SOLID WASTE &

 RECYCLING COMMITTEE MEETING

2.  ORDINANCE NO. 01-916, FOR THE PURPOSE OF AMENDING METRO CODE CHAPTER 5.01 RELATED TO LOCAL TRANSFER STATIONS, AND REVISING EXISTING LOCAL TRANSFER STATION FRANCHISES TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE CODE AMENDMENTS.

Chair Atherton noted this would be a work session and discussion of all four ordinances included in today’s agenda.

Terry Petersen, Regional Environmental Management Director, addressed some of the key policy objectives the committee wanted to accomplish regarding solid waste. He presented the objectives of all four ordinances and pointed out key elements of each that addressed those objectives.

He noted the primary objective was waste reduction and identified five items in the package of ordinances that would further waste reduction goals.

•  Ordinance No. 01-916 would remove the cap on dry waste at the local transfer stations.

•  Ordinance No. 01-919 would eliminate the sunset date for the regional system fee credit, making it permanent.

•  That Ordinance also establishes policy direction for the credit program to focus more on high priority materials.

•  The Ordinances increase the minimum recycling level from 25% to 35%, as a franchise requirement and as a qualification for the regional system fee credit.

•  By raising the caps on wet and dry waste, tonnage would be diverted away from Metro facilities. That would allow Metro to process our waste more effectively and do more recovery.

Another main policy objective was to provide local access to haulers and reduce the vehicle miles traveled (VMT).

•  The ordinances establish policy guidelines basing wet waste caps on service areas around each facility as defined by distance, and requiring the facility to serve local haulers.

•  Ordinance No. 01-916 modified the existing local transfer station franchises to make them consistent with the new policy guidelines. He noted the current franchisees had excellent compliance records.

Regarding the policy objective of maintaining the efficiency of the Metro operations:

•  Ordinance No. 01-918 would allocate regional costs to the regional system fee.

•  The ordinances phase in the tonnage in the East Multnomah County wasteshed.

•  A wet waste cap makes sure the tonnage at Metro facilities would not drop below 500,000 tons per year over the next couple of years.

The fourth major policy objective, financial benefit to the ratepayer:

•  Ordinance No. 01-918 would result in a tip fee increase to $65.50 assuming the excise tax remained at the same rate. He pointed out that this would be the first rate increase in more than 10 years and that the policy objective was to benefit the ratepayers.

He believed there was general consensus among the stakeholders that the general direction this package was going was a good direction.

Chair Atherton called a worksession to consider amendments and a public hearing on all of the ordinances. He noted the committee had received new information regarding two of the ordinances, Nos. 01-916 and 01-918, which would be held over to the October 17^th meeting for additional discussion, public hearing, and amendments or refinements.

Councilor McLain said one of the reasons for this action was so they could take the amendments to the Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC) for comment at their October 15^th meeting. She described the intent of McLain Amendment #2 to Ordinance No. 01-916 (See copy of McLain Amendments to REM Legislative Package Ordinances included with the permanent record of this meeting) She believed the amendment was more economically conservative and that it took into consideration all of the goals of the council.

Tim Raphael, Waste Management, felt the question regarding the cost to Metro related to these actions had nothing to do with the tonnage cap at Recycle America. He said it was a policy decision to allocate 260,000 wet waste tons among three or more private facilities in the region, and not related to a timeline on the ramping up of a tonnage cap at that facility or even whether to have a tonnage cap. He said the decision should address the service needs and a more efficient flow of wet waste tons in the East County area. He added that the concept of variable caps had been important throughout Metro’s analysis, whether looking at reducing VMT, reducing time to facility, improving access, or financial benefit to the region. He did not feel the amendment was necessary, and that Metro ought to act quickly to take advantage of the regional benefit available by servicing those tons in the East County area.

Vince Gilbert, East County Recycling, felt the ordinances were tilted toward vertically integrated companies. He supported the amendment because he felt it would be a good watchdog on those companies. He commented that they talked about system savings all the time, but he had never heard a number. He wondered what the savings would be if these ordinances were enacted.

Chair Atherton asked Dr. Petersen what determined efficiency at Metro transfer stations and how would the public benefit financially from this package of ordinances.

Dr Petersen responded that in determining efficiency, they looked at unit cost and the service provided and the proper operating level at a particular facility. He said they always looked at efficiency in terms of waste reduction. He said the customers would benefit from shorter queue times.

Councilor Monroe restated that if the tonnage dropped below 200,000 tons there would not be subsequent additional gains, but because of fixed overhead costs, a dramatic inefficiency would occur.

Dr. Petersen responded that the right or minimum tonnage was a balancing act between queuing, customer service, waste reduction and per ton price. He was of the opinion that this package would lead them to a good operating level.

Councilor Monroe asked if there was any likelihood that the flow at Metro South and Central might drop below 200,000 tons if they immediately went to a 130,000 ton cap at Troutdale.

Dr. Petersen said they had estimated that, as written, the ordinances would make the 2002-03 tonnages at Metro South 255,000 tons, and 278,000 tons at Metro Central. He added that if the cap in 2002 increased to 130,000 tons at Troutdale, it would mean 233,000 tons at Metro South and 268,000 tons at Metro Central.

Chair Atherton asked about inefficiencies at Recycle America.

Adam Winston, Waste Management, responded that the facility had plenty of room to handle any proposed increased tonnage in wet waste. He said their recovery rate for recycling is approaching 35%. He added they had plenty of floor space to improve the rate and handle more tonnage.

Councilor McLain asked for clarification of whether the rate was specific to mixed loads going to Recycle America. She asked what was being counted in the recovery rate.

Mr. Winston said they use a floor sorting method and clarified that the sort line was moved to Waste Tech for additional efficiencies.

Chair Atherton asked Dr. Petersen to review the tonnage cap numbers.

Dr. Petersen responded that the caps were assumed at 65,000 tons at WRI and Pride and 100,000 tons at Recycle America in 2002-03, which is consistent with the original ordinance, and 255,000 tons at Metro South and 278,000 tons at Metro Central. He said if the cap went to 130,000 tons at Recycle America in 2002-03, it would mean caps of 232,000 tons at Metro South and 268,000 tons at Metro Central.

Councilor McLain said the reason for her amendment was the need to be more conservative about ramping up tonnage to any facility. She said the amendment was not about efficiencies, it was about changing the caps in a conservative way that would allow meeting all four goals. She said there was more capacity than was needed at this time and they should be conservative in their approach to caps.

Chair Atherton mentioned that Mayor Thalhofer of Troutdale had sent a letter strongly expressing his feelings that there were efficiencies in raising the cap at the Troutdale facility.

Brian Engleson, Columbia Environmental, stated that they a regional transfer station application before Metro at this time. He added they were currently working through some issues regarding land use with the City and doing the traffic and environmental studies they required. He said they were in general agreement with the amendment. He said whatever came of this, they wanted to encourage the council to leave it open as they continued their process and tried to meet the requests made of them. He felt raising the limits on the other transfer stations would expand the dry waste capacity so local independents would have access. He also urged looking at how the organics programs would be impacted, and exclude them from the cap limitations that come in the front end.

Chair Atherton noted that there was plenty of capacity in the system already and asked the basis for his recommendation to support the amendment.

Mr. Engleson responded that local independents were at a competitive disadvantage without a transfer or a landfill, especially in the commercial marketplace. He said they were not trying to stop anybody, but wanted to have the same competitive advantage.

Councilor Monroe supported McLain Amendment #2. He felt because of the uncertainty of the region’s economic future they should proceed carefully. He agreed the committee should take their final action after the amendment had gone to SWAC for their recommendations.

Chair Atherton said this 30% was a good compromise approach.

Mr. Gilbert supported the amendment but also felt the recovery rates should be open ended for review and adjustment.

Councilor McLain said staff when reviewed the wastesheds every two years, the recovery rates would be looked at along with the rest. She added that she felt the tonnage issue needed more committee review and she would not be in favor of adding tons now because of the different focuses and conditions at the facilities

Councilor Monroe asked Mr. Gilbert about his recycling rate.

Mr. Gilbert responded that they currently achieved 51%

Merle Irvine, Willamette Resource, 10295 SW Ridder Road, Wilsonville, supported the proposed amendment. He said if the recovery rate was too high, the hauling industry may have a tendency not to encourage source separated loads. He felt even more important to the region than the recovery rate was how many tons were pulled from the landfill.

Councilor Monroe asked Dr. Petersen to explain why he and the Executive Officer were proposing the jump from 25% to 35% instead of stepping to 30% with a later review.

Dr. Petersen said his concern was that he did not want to see dry waste going from a facility at the upper end of recovery rate scale and going to a facility that may be doing the minimum. He thought it was prudent to be aggressive on the recovery rates. He said the 35% represented a lower than average rate for all the facilities.

Councilor Monroe asked if he thought Chair Atherton’s proposed 30% compromise was reasonable.

Dr. Petersen said it was a strong consensus. He felt they should listen to the stakeholders on this issue. He said he liked the compromise.

Mike Burton, Executive Officer, said there were facilities making 35% recovery so they knew it could be done. He said if SWAC and the stakeholders had valid reasons why they could not do that, he would like to hear them. He did feel the credit should not kick in until 35%.

Councilor Monroe said if he was convinced to vote for this today, he hoped nobody would think he had backed away from his strong commitment to improve the recycling rate.

Councilor McLain said her comfort level came from the fact that the compromise made it 35% to get the credit. She said her second compromise was that they agreed to commit to having a committee to further discuss the issues. She said there were still some differences of opinion on why some could get the percentage and some could not.

5.  ORDINANCE NO. 01-919, FOR THE PURPOSE OF AMENDING METRO CODE

 CHAPTER 5.02 TO IMPROVE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE REGIONAL SYSTEM

 FEE CREDIT PROGRAM AND TO REMOVE THE PROGRAM SUNSET DATE.

Councilor McLain explained the intent of the amendment and the work group. (See copy of McLain Amendments to REM Legislative Package Ordinances included with the permanent record of this meeting.)

Councilor Atherton explained the intent of the amendment. (See copy of Atherton Amendments to REM Legislative Package Ordinances included with the permanent record of this meeting.)

Councilor McLain supported the amendment as a complement and support of what staff had asked for regarding a cap on the amount spent on recycling credits. She supported it but did not want anyone to think it meant they would amend the budget midyear, they could choose to do so after the report.

Councilor Monroe said it would provide additional information to make good decisions on the future of waste management in the region. He supported the amendment.

3.  ORDINANCE NO. 01-917, FOR THE PURPOSE OF AMENDING METRO CODE

 CHAPTER 5.05 CONCERNING SOLID WASTE FLOW CONTROL.

4.  ORDINANCE NO. 01-918, FOR THE PURPOSE OF AMENDING METRO CODE

 CHAPTER 5.02 TO REVISE THE TONNAGE CHARGE FOR DISPOSAL AT METRO

 TRANSFER STATIONS AND TO MAKE OTHER RELATED CHANGES.

Chair Atherton opened a public hearing on Ordinances No. 01-916A, 01-917, 01-918, and 01-919A.

Ray Phelps, Willamette Resources, Inc., commented that the adjustments on the system fee credit schedule of Ordinance No. 01-919A reflected the system use fees at the current rate. He recommended the rate schedule be adjusted to show 93% of $15.00, or $13.95.

Chair Atherton said some amendments would be written for the committee and SWAC to look at.

Dr. Petersen said the minimum recovery rate would boost the total payments made to facilities without increasing the per ton rate. He added this was an issue that should be looked at in the advisory committee being set up.

Mr. Houser observed that the rate ordinance, as currently worded, would result in a $2.50 increase in Metro’s tip fee, which had historically been matched by the private facilities in the region. He said the Regional System Fee, under the schedule being considered, would go up about $2.10 and if the private facilities chose to raise their tip fees to match, they would end up paying out $2.10 in addition to the System Fee, but would be getting back up to $2.50 by raising their tip fee.

Councilor McLain thanked the Chair for his leadership of the committee and his willingness to work with the committee and SWAC to be sure the package was delivered to Council in a timely manner. She added that timeliness was not the only issue, that they had to be sure they had a sound package and good advice as well as a final product that reflected the overall goals.

Chair Atherton closed the public hearing.

Chair Atherton announced that Ordinances No. 01-916A and 01-918 would be held for further consideration at the October 17^th committee meeting.

Councilor Monroe said he would not physically be at that meeting, but would phone in for the consideration and the vote on those ordinances.

ADJOURN

There being no further business to come before the committee, Chair Atherton continued the hearing on Ordinances No. 01-916A and 01-918 to the next meeting and adjourned at 5:12 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Cheryl Grant

Council Assistant

Attachments to the Public Record for the

Solid Waste & Recycling Committee Meeting of October 3, 2001:

Testimony Cards:

None.