MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL

SOLID WASTE & RECYCLING COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING

Wednesday, February 20, 2002

Council Chamber

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

Also present:    

Absent:      David Bragdon

Due to the lateness of the previous committee meeting, Chair Atherton called the meeting to order at 3:43 p.m.

2.  REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR’S BRIEFING

Terry Petersen, Director, Regional Environmental Management, reported on an $18,000 DEQ grant for Metro to work with the Oregon Environmental Council (OEC) to increase recycling of fluorescent lights from businesses, talked about a Hazard Assistance Pilot Program for folks who are unable to bring their hazardous waste to a collection center, announced the results of the 2002 Billboard Art judging, explained recent improvements to the Illegal Dumping Program, and informed the committee about an upcoming meeting of recycling industry representatives who will be in Salem to discuss options for dealing with issues of collecting and recycling glass. (For more detail, see the copy of the Regional Environmental Management Director’s Updates attached to the permanent record of this meeting).

3.  ORDINANCE NO. 02-937, For The Purpose of Amending Metro Code Chapter 5.04

 Related to Supporting Markets for Recyclable Materials and Making Related Changes to

 Metro Code Chapter 2.19 to Establish a Recycling Business Assistance Advisory

 Committee.

Chair Atherton held the ordinance over to the next meeting for clerical and drafting revisions.

Councilor McLain said she would have some amendments and would share them with whoever wanted to see them before the meeting.

4.  ORDINANCE NO. 02-933 For the Purpose of Amending Metro Code Chapter 5.01 to

 Provide for the Regulation of Chipping or Grinding of Wood Waste at a Facility that is

 Otherwise Regulated by Metro

John Houser, Senior Council Analyst, explained the history of the ordinance.

Councilor Park asked if there were similar problems at other facilities.

Roy Brower said there were about a dozen similar operations but this was the only one located so closely to residential neighborhoods that it caused dust problems.

Councilor Park said if it was within designated agricultural land, the complaints would have to be handled differently that if they were in a residential area, where they have a valid complaint.

Mr. Brower responded that the housing in the area was built up after the operation was sited there in 1974 as a firewood yard.

Chair Atherton opened a public hearing on Ordinance No. 02-933. No one came forward to testify so he closed the public hearing.

Councilor Monroe felt it was a logical step to have some control over all of the activities at a facility that was regulated by Metro. He was supportive of the ordinance.

Councilor Park wondered if there were other facilities that Metro only regulated part of the activities.

Dr. Petersen said there were others. For instance East County Recycling had a retail operation to sell rock and gravel that was not regulated by Metro.

Chair Atherton will carry the resolution to the council.

5.  Update on Strategic Plan Implementation

Dr. Petersen reported on the progress of implementing the Strategic Plan which was adopted by Council in August 2001. He said the department was very committed to implementing the plan and had been working on developing specific dates and staff assignments to get the work done, as well as how to measure completion. He summarized that some things were ongoing, a few things had already been accomplished, primarily the policy package work that was done last fall, and that they had made good progress on the remainder, developing implementation plans. (See copy of How We Plan to Get There included with permanent record of this meeting.)

6.  Update on SWAC Regional System Fee Credit Workgroup

Tom Chaimov, REM Planner, updated the committee on the work that the SWAC Regional System Fee Credit Workgroup had accomplished. The workgroup reaffirmed its belief that the best way to improve recovery is to conduct recovery of loads that are currently being landfilled. They desired incentives only for materials that go towards improving the region’s recovery rate. They were clear that they did not want to provide incentive for source separated recyclables. They voted 5-4 to move ahead with studying a simple per ton incentive for recovered tons approach to redesign the regional system fee credit program. That would be a dollar amount for every ton of material recovered from mixed waste.

Councilor Monroe asked if that would eliminate the 35% threshold.

Mr. Chaimov said it would. The vote was to study this option and some analysis has been done by REM and facility representatives. He said the work group would have a discussion regarding the sensitivity of the program to mis-classifying source separated loads as mixed.

Councilor McLain clarified that they had wanted a program that was not just an entitlement. Something that would help the system go forward in a real way with hard to recycle items being captured.

Mr. Chaimov responded that the work group had had many discussion regarding many innovative approaches and tried to capture why certain approaches were not desirable.

Councilor McLain commented that the work group was starting to target mixed use loads as being the appropriate vehicle to get better recycling results. She asked what the work group liked about that approach.

Dr. Petersen responded that the committee had stayed within the boundary of their charge to look at how Metro could create economic incentives for recovery from mixed waste. He said the market and the facility operators on the committee had expressed their concern that if you lower the incentive for some materials, it may reduce the recovery on that end.

Councilor McLain did not want to raise the tipping fee back up. They were looking for a different way to encourage recycling.

Councilor Park asked how the work group’s suggestions would increase recycling.

Mr. Chaimov reiterated that the group felt the real improvement in recovery will be going after those loads that currently are not delivered to material recovery facilities (MRFs)

Councilor Park said there may be limits to the system depending on the tools available. He said he would have a hard time supporting it unless they were showing ways to improve the current system.

Mr. Houser observed that if we did not pay for material that currently did not count against the recycling rate, it would free up a fair amount of money that could be dedicated to a tiered approach.

Dr. Petersen said they had studied that question but the committee was skeptical about whether that would be enough to have as significant an impact as they all wanted to have happen.

Councilor Park asked what would make it self sufficient so they did not have to worry about the amount that was budgeted and the process could feed itself and automatically reward recycling.

Dr. Petersen said there was not a cap in the code. The council had chosen quarterly reporting on the pay out of the credits so they could make a decision to scale back the credits or appropriate more money. He said they could increase the regional system fee if they wanted to increase the credit.

Councilor McLain wondered where more recycling would come from. She felt the work group still did not have agreement on the direction to go.

7.  Staff Report Concerning Tip Fees at Transfer Stations

Doug Anderson, Finance Manager, REM, responded to questions the committee had raised last fall about what happened if local transfer stations raised the tip fees beyond a reasonable amount and what would Metro’s response be. He gave a history of the regulatory code in 1998. He said the issue came up again when the cap was raised last fall. He explained the table he handed out to the committee (see Disposal Fees for Putrescible Waste included in the permanent record of this meeting) showing different rates and the effective rate per ton.

Chair Atherton asked if rates of homeowner and commercial ratepayers had been tracked in this scheme and how were they affected.

Mr. Anderson said it depended on the policy of the local rate-setting jurisdiction. Some of them looked at the whole package, what would travel and disposal cost be if a hauler went off-route and across the region. That would be allowed if it were reasonable. Other jurisdictions looked more at components and only allowed the Metro rate in their rate model. He added that the residential customer disposes of about ¾ ton per year so if the rate went up $4 a ton per year, their impact would be three quarters of that. He said commercial disposal is all over the map so their impact depended directly on how much tonnage they disposed of.

Councilor Monroe noted he had been told of haulers picking up in Raleigh Hills and traveling to Forest Grove which was more expensive and much farther away.

Mr. Anderson said he would check into it but if the area of Raleigh Hills he was thinking about was in the City of Portland, even though they were driving that way they would not be allowed that cost because the City of Portland set the rates based on the average over everybody so any difference would have to be eaten by the hauler.

Councilor Park commented that he would like to see multiple approaches developed to have as many tools as possible available to ensure fairness of the market to haulers and disposers as well as the ratepayers.

8.  Councilor Communications

None.

1.  CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 6, 2002, SOLID WASTE

 & RECYCLING COMMITTEE MEETING

ADJOURN

There being no further business to come before the committee, Chair Atherton adjourned the meeting at 4:51 p.m.

Prepared by

Cheryl Grant

Council Assistant

Attachments to the Public Record for the

Solid Waste & Recycling Committee Meeting of February 20, 2002:

Testimony Cards:

None.