Solid Waste Policy Advisory Committee (SWPAC) Collection

Finding Aid

March 2016

Acknowledgements

We wish to acknowledge the support and contributions of the following individuals who helped to organize, preserve and enrich the Solid Waste Policy Advisory Committee (SWPAC) collection. Through their efforts, the collection is now accessible to the public at large:

•  Chuck Geyer, Principle Solid Waste Planner

•  Merle Irvine, former MSD staff

•  Pam Welch, Records and Information Analyst

•  Becky Shoemaker, Metro Records Officer/Archivist

Summary Information

Preferred Citation

Metro Archives and Special Collections: Solid Waste Policy Advisory Committee (SWPAC) Collection, 1971 - 1987

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contents

Introduction: A History of SWPAC  1

Technical Advisory Committee and Citizen’s Advisory Committees 1971-1974  1

Solid Waste Committee 1974-1978  3

Solid Waste Policy Alternatives/Advisory Committee 1979-1987  4

Chronology of SWPAC  9

Summary Collection Description  12

Box Numbers and Descriptions  13

Collection Divisions and Subdivisions  14

Collection Division 1: Meeting Records  14

Appendix A: Glossary of Acronyms  19

Appendix B: Related Records  20

Introduction: A History of SWPAC

Technical Advisory Committee and Citizen’s Advisory Committees 1971-1974

In 1970, The Metropolitan Service District (MSD) was formed with the intent of granting the agency authority over the management of solid waste, storm drainage, and transportation management in the Portland metropolitan region. Within the first few months of the MSD’s founding, local and regional agencies began voicing their opinions regarding how the agency should proceed with the development of a solid waste system. However, the newly formed MSD Board (made up of seven local elected official) was still considering its role in the region, its organizational makeup, and if board members should be appointed or elected. These discussions also included the role of advisory committees and how they would serve the specific needs of the MSD.

In November 1970, voters rejected Ballot Measure 12, depriving the agency of needed funding. Recognizing the need to create its own committees the MSD relied on the support of other regional partners’ committees, such as the Columbia Region Association of Governments (CRAG), to provide it with technical expertise. By the end of the year, the MSD was advised by both the Decisions and Directions Committee and CRAG to form a Technical Advisory Committee that reported directly to the MSD Board. The proposed composition of the committee included¹:

•  an engineer from the City of Portland

•  county public works directors

•  a representative from the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)

•  an engineer from CRAG, and

•  other technical professionals on an as needed basis

In February 1971, the MSD Board followed this advice and formed the MSD Technical Advisory Committee (MSD TAC).

During the first quarter of 1971, the newly formed MSD TAC was charged with finding a consultant to identify key solid waste issues in the metropolitan region and prepare a study to advise the MSD Board on those issues. The committee was also responsible for reporting to the Board on:

•  upgrading existing disposal sites

•  ways to finance the proposed solid waste system, and

•  giving support to the City of Portland’s plan to expand the St. Johns Landfill

By August, the MSD TAC reported back to the MSD Board on the evaluation of potential consultants and made recommendations on how to proceed with the solid waste study. The final recommendation given by MSD TAC was to dissolve the committee and appoint the CRAG Public Works Technical Committee to serve as a technical advisor to the MSD Board. Because the work performed by the MSD in the area of solid waste management promised to impact the region, MSD TAC members believed the CRAG Public Works Technical Committee would be better suited to provide the MSD with a regional perspective. The MSD Board accepted MSD TAC’s recommendations and discharged the committee, requesting that the CRAG Public Works Technical Committee (CRAG TAC) serve as its technical advisory committee by continuing work started by the MSD TAC.

During the summer of 1971, Barbara Lucas, a representative from the League of Women Voters, questioned the MSD Board about its intention to appoint a Citizen’s Advisory Committee that would be involved in the development of the solid waste management program. The Board confirmed that it would provide opportunities for citizen participation but emphasized that a citizen’s committee would not rubber stamp the Board’s decisions. In the absence of action by the MSD, Ms. Lucas again raised the issue of establishing a Citizen’s Advisory Committee at the December 1971 Board meeting. By this time, the League had received additional support for its proposal from representatives from the solid waste industry. The MSD Board relented and requested that nominations for the committee be submitted to Board members. The following week, Cliff Schiel from Metropolitan Disposal Commission, submitted an outline for the groups that should make up the committee, and one month later, thirteen people accepted appointmenta to the Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC)².

In May 1972, after reading DEQ’s proposal for a regional solid waste plan, the MSD Board voiced concerns that plan was too general and lacked clear lines of authority and responsibility. The Board was also concerned at the plan’s approval of landfills as an acceptable disposal method; a complete reversal of DEQ’s previous statements that landfills would not be allowed in the Portland metropolitan area. In response to these concerns, the Board decided to recall³ CRAG TAC to develop an outline for an agreement between DEQ and MSD. This agreement was meant to provide further clarity on authority, roles and responsibilities, and on the content of a regional solid waste management plan for the Portland metropolitan area. CRAG TAC recommended that MSD call on CRAG, CRAG TAC, and CAC to jointly develop a proposed agreement. By the end of the year, the MSD submitted the proposed agreement to DEQ for review.

In addition to providing clarification on the process of creating a regional solid waste plan, the proposal further defined the roles of the technical and citizen committees. CRAG had provided the MSD access to its staff and committee resources, but the proposed agreement revised the relationship between the CRAG Public Works Technical Committee and the MSD. The committee was renamed the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and actively advised both the MSD and CRAG on solid waste matters. By December, the newly named TAC assumed a more active role when the MSD Board requested that CRAG staff and TAC proceed with the solid waste study and serve as the coordinator until a project director could be hired. The Board also requested that TAC advise on the hiring of the project director.

The proposed agreement also altered the membership structure and responsibilities of the Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC). The committee would now consist of representatives from the solid waste industry, users of the system, environmentalists, labor, local governments, voluntary civic organizations, education, and the general business community. Since its inception earlier in the year, the committee which had little to no responsibility was now given several significant responsibilities. The MSD Board charged the committee with evaluating reports and making recommendations on the concepts, financial methods, and implementation plan for the regional solid waste plan. The committee was also expected to coordinate with the State Solid Waste Committee to provide recommendations regarding the plan and its adoption. There was also an agreement between the MSD Board and CAC that the committee would serve only through the planning process. Once the plan was completed, the committee would be dissolved with the caveat that the MSD Board could reactivate the committee if needed.

The changes to both committees were fully implemented by the end of January 1973. By March, the committees began fulfilling their new responsibilities. Both committees reviewed the monthly reports submitted by COR-MET⁴ and made recommendations to the MSD Board. TAC created news releases and organized public meetings to inform the public about the solid waste study. In November, when the MSD went before the State Emergency Board for approval of the Phase I engineering report and to request funding to finance and implement the Solid Waste Action Plan, members of both committees showed up in force to show their support.

As the creation of the Solid Waste Action Plan neared completion, the MSD Board considered the future role of its committees. The Board voted to allow the CAC to continue if money for implementation of the solid waste plan was granted by the State Emergency Board and considered expanding the role of the TAC beyond the implementation of the solid waste plan. TAC was asked to review and comment on the report for the implementation of improvements for Johnson Creek and on the City of Portland’s proposal for the expansion of the St. Johns Landfill.

Solid Waste Committee 1974-1978

As the date to adopt the regional solid waste plan drew closer, the MSD Board again change its vision for the future of CAC and TAC. With the growing need to devote resources to implementing the solid waste plan and improvements to Johnson Creek drainage, the MSD Board agreed with TAC’s recommendation to form two specialized committees. In April of 1974, the MSD Board adopted Resolution 8 authorizing the formation of a Solid Waste Commission, and Resolution 9 authorizing the formation of a Drainage Commission. The newly formed Solid Waste Commission (aka Solid Waste Committee) was comprised of members from the now defunct technical and citizens committees chosen by the MSD Board⁵. The committee was charged with overseeing the implementation of the MSD solid waste plan adopted on May 10^th, 1974 by Ordinance 9 and approved by DEQ on May 24, 1974.

Over the next four years, the Solid Waste Committee (SWC) advised the MSD Board on a variety of solid waste issues. Committee members reviewed and made recommendations on franchise applications for landfills and recycling facilities, an application for a bottle washing facility, and scrap tire facility permits. They advised the Board on modifying existing landfill permits relating to changes to the types of waste accepted and to the types of daily cover allowed; reviewed and made recommendations and amendments to MSD ordinances regarding solid waste issues; reviewed and provided feedback on several staff reports, including Regional Sanitary Landfills, Landfill Operation Guidelines, and Disposal Siting Alternative; and reviewed procedures for the operation of the St. Johns Landfill. The committee also oversaw the development of the proposed Washington County Transfer Station by reviewing the engineering report and budget.

Additionally, SWC counseled the MSD Board on solid waste policy and roles and responsibilities. The committee promoted policies on source separation; recommended the Board adopt long-range goals for resource recovery; and advised on updates to the MSD’s non-processible program. When it came to defining roles and responsibilities, SWC helped the MSD differentiate its authority over solid waste from the State’s and to distinguish between private and public involvement in the new solid waste system. Finally SWC helped clarify that the MSD had the authority to determine policy, enforce the policy, and was the owner of the land and facilities that would run the transfer stations.

Even though SWC was charged with assisting the MSD with implementation of the solid waste plan and advising the Board on a variety of solid waste issues, the committee felt that its input was not reaching the Board; hence the request that MSD Board members attend SWC meetings as joint meetings to help develop a better understanding between the committee and Board. The Board questioned the effectiveness of this request but sent Commissioner Ray Miller to the November 1976 meeting. Based on Commissioner Miller’s observations, Board members suggested a change in SWC’s organizational structure during a Board meeting on December 1976. They suggested SWC look at the Zoo Advisory Committee’s structure for guidance. SWC took the Board’s advice and in January 1977 the MSD Board approved updates to the committee. The modifications included changes to terms of service; schedule twice-yearly joint meetings with the MSD Board; reducing the duration of meetings; and meeting on a monthly basis. Additionally, it was agreed that members who did not attend on a regular basis or who did not contribute to the committee would be replaced.

Solid Waste Policy Alternatives/Advisory Committee 1979-1987

With the merger of MSD and CRAG, the newly formed Metro Council adopted Resolution 79-5 postponing the review of the old MSD and CRAG committees until a decision was made on how advisory committees would function into the future. One month later Ordinance 79-65 was adopted, outlining how the Council would conduct the agency’s business, including the creation of advisory committees. This action lead to a formal review of the nine committees identified in Resolution 79-5. In March, the Council passed three resolutions that further defined the structure and membership of advisory committees:

•  Resolution 79-32, reorganizing the existing nine committees (including combining several committees)

•  Resolution 79-34, stating that advisory committee membership would include representatives of local governments and the public, and

•  Resolution 79-36, which formally appointed Council members to serve on the committees

Resolution 79-32 officially recognized the need to continue the work of the former MSD Solid Waste Committee; however, the above mentioned ordinance and resolutions significantly altered the committee. The committee’s scope of influence expanded beyond waste management to include drainage, flood control and water quality⁶. Another change was to the membership. Resolution 79-36 appointed Councilors Gene Peterson, Cindy Banzer, Corky Kirpatrick, and Jane Rhodes to the committee⁷, and Resolution 79-34 appointed voting members from the public and local governments. In addition to members of the public who were aligned with a particular county, representatives from local landfills, waste collectors, recycling companies, and the construction industry also joined the committee. Washington, Multnomah, and Clackamas Counties appointed a representative as did the City of Portland. Membership was rounded out with staff from Metro’s Solid Waste Department.

Resolutions involved with the changes to the MSD Solid Waste Committee only refer to the committee as the Solid Waste/Public Facilities Committee, but Ordinance 80-100 (adopted August 19, 1980) and the official meeting minutes from December 22, 1980⁸ show that the committee had adopted the name Solid Waste Policy Alternatives Committee (SWPAC)⁹.

During the 1980s, SWPAC expanded on the body of work started a decade earlier. Much like its predecessor committees, SWPAC advised the agency’s governing body on solid waste issues. The committee reviewed and endorsed Metro ordinances and resolutions, made recommendations on the solid waste budget, and advised the Metro Council and staff on State legislation related to solid waste management impacting Metro. SWPAC also oversaw continuing efforts to implement the MSD Solid Waste Action Plan through landfill management, development of transfer stations, promoting recycling efforts, and continuing the development of the regional waste facility franchise program.

Landfill management included advising on the creation of landfill siting and landfill operation manuals that would define acceptable waste, requirements for landfill closure, and the process for siting a new landfill. The committee also advised on the purchase of Rossman Landfill and the management of the St. Johns Landfill which included strategies to extend the life of the landfill including the diversion of waste to other landfills, recycling initiatives, and expanding the landfill. The effort to minimize the waste delivered to the St. Johns Landfill elevated the political profile of the committee when members raised the issue of haulers from Washington State crossing the border to dump waste at St. Johns. The committee encouraged staff to work with the president of Vancouver Sanitary Service; discuss the problem with members of the media; and to apply pressure to the Washington Legislature to prohibit Washington haulers from bringing waste into Oregon.

In addressing the development of transfer stations, SWPAC oversaw the siting and development of the Clackamas County Transfer and Recycling Center (CTRC) (aka Metro South) and the Washington County Transfer and Recycling Center (WTRC). This work included interacting with the public by attending open houses to assist Metro staff with fielding questions about the new transfer stations from the public.

In addition, the committee considered ways to encourage recycling in the community through education and citizen participation programs. Members advised staff and the Council on funding and how to encourage resource recovery, waste reduction, energy recovery, and yard debris composting as methods to divert waste from landfills. To meet the requirements set under Senate Bill 622 Section 8, the Metro Council adopted Ordinance 86-199, creating a Solid Waste Reduction program. A major component of the program was a recycling certification program which gave Metro the authority to provide additional incentives for local governments and the waste collection industry to participate in recycling programs. The program allowed companies with proper certification to utilize disposal rate incentives designed to improve curbside collection effectiveness and increase the amount of recyclable materials sent to recovery centers and keep them out of landfills. SWPAC was designated as the party responsible for developing the certification program and granting certifications. This responsibility was formally recognized through the adoption of Resolution 86-644, updating the committee’s by-laws.

SWPAC also helped with the development of the waste facility franchise program by encouraging staff and the Metro Council to address issues of non-compliance with franchise contracting. The committee made recommendations to amend Ordinance 81-112 by granting Metro enforcement rights. SWPAC also continued the work of its predecessor committee by reviewing applications and awarding franchise contracts.

In 1984, SWPAC expanded beyond the framework of the solid waste plan by addressing issues relating to hazardous waste. Initial interest in the management of hazardous waste resulted in a change to Oregon State law requiring the identification of all waste sites as hazardous waste sites if waste dumped on the sites was not separated. The committee expressed concern that any hazardous waste dumped at a Metro area landfill would initiate an enforcement process by the State of Oregon and put Metro under investigation. The committee’s fears were realized when concerns were raised that PCBs had been inadvertently dumped at the St. Johns Landfill after a worker broke out with a severe rash. Test results cleared the matter, but the potential costs related to a cleanup and the damage to public relations, if the results had been positive, further highlighted the importance of proactively addressing the region’s hazardous waste needs. In recognizing there was nowhere in the region for people to properly dispose of hazardous waste, committee members voiced their concern that a solution needed to be found. SWPAC emphasized the public didn’t know what to do with hazardous waste, haulers were told to not touch it, and landfill workers were told to not accept it. The feared remained that the public would either dump the waste illegally or hide it in their regular garbage. The committee’s initial discussions led to the creation of a Hazardous Waste Taskforce which eventually led to the development of a Hazardous Waste Management Plan, two successful household hazardous waste collection events, and additional hazardous waste planning.

By the end of 1984, the Metro Council once again questioned the role of advisory committees and asked staff for a study to determine which advisory committees were still needed and which ones could be combined. At the same time, the members of SWPAC were wondering about the future of their own committee as fewer solid waste policy questions were being raised. When the report on advisory committees was presented to Council the in January 1985, SWPAC was recognized as providing useful guidance on solid waste issues, but the report also included criticisms of the committee. It was noted that due to low attendance at regular committee meetings, SWPAC was limited on what it could vote on. The report also noted that committee members rarely attended Council meetings, even though they were encouraged to do so, leaving the Council to heavily rely on SWPAC meeting minutes to keep them advised on the committee’s decisions. These findings led to changes in the committee. SWPAC members pushed for regular attendance and also reinstituted a rule that any member with low attendance would be removed from the committee. The Metro Council also instituted changes with the adoption of Resolution 85-578, updating the committee’s by-laws; changing the committee’s name to Solid Waste Policy Advisory Committee (SWPAC); adding two additional members of the public; and eliminating one member from the landfill and construction industry.

Following these changes to membership, SWPAC continued its solid waste policy work and advised the Council with little interruption until the beginning of 1987. During the first few months of 1987 the members noticed a significant drop in their workload. Concerns also mounted after a discussion with members of the Council Solid Waste meeting on June 9, 1987. SWPAC members attended the meeting to present a proposal on diverting waste from the St. Johns Landfill. Following the presentation, the Council Solid Waste Committee discussed a potential update of the Solid Waste Management Plan and the creation of solid waste technical and policy committees. Councilor Jim Gardner pointed out that the work of the two proposed committees would duplicate the work done by SWPAC. Staff responded that there was a need for the technical expertise provided by engineers and land use planners. Expertise that was beyond the skill of the SWPAC members.

At the next joint meeting between the Council Solid Waste Committee and SWPAC, Kathy Cancilla, the Acting Chair of SWPAC, expressed concern that the committee’s work had come to a halt, leaving committee members to wonder if they were still considered a valued resource. In the absence of work, members didn’t see the value in attending regular meetings. The Council Solid Waste Committee responded that the Executive Officer, Rena Cusma, had been instructed to appoint members of SWPAC to the technical committee and that invitations had been sent out. The Council Solid Waste Committee members felt that SWPAC had a lot to offer and encouraged the committee members to accept positions on the new technical committee. Because the technical and policy committees would only be in effect during the Solid Waste Management Plan update process, some members of the Council Solid Waste Committee suggested SWPAC go on hiatus until the new Solid Waste Management Plan was adopted, at which time the role of SWPAC would be revisited. The rationale being that once the Solid Waste Management Plan was done, a committee would need to oversee the implementation a role that SWPAC could play. Other members of the Council Solid Waste Committee believed that SWPAC would either need to be dissolved entirely or undergo a significant degree of change, due in part to the “conflict in the separation of powers” between the Metro Council and the Executive Officer, Rena Cusma.

Rena Cusma became Metro’s Executive Officer (EO) in 1987. Shortly after starting, she began making policy and contract decisions without the Council’s input or approval. This went against the existing process and put the EO at odds with the Council. During Council Solid Waste Committee meeting in August 1987, Councilor Gardner explained that part of the reason SWPAC got “caught in the middle” was because the new EO had a different way of operating and felt she could not work with the SWPAC committee because it was the creation of the Council and part of the old business structure. As a consequence, Ms. Cusma believed SWPAC was no longer fitting in with the new business structure, making it difficult to get work done. However, the structure of the new Solid Waste Technical and Policy Committees was seen as a bridge between staff, the EO, the Council, and other cities and counties in the region. Under the new structure, the Council would set the policy direction; staff would start the work; the work would go to the Technical Committee for review; on to the Policy Committee (chaired by the EO) for regional consensus; and then on to Council for final approval.

By the end of August 1987, SWPAC voluntarily dissolved itself by unanimous vote. Several of the former members were appointed to the new Solid Waste Technical Committee. The following month, the Metro Council adopted Resolution 87-804 formally disbanding SWPAC.

The Evolution of the Solid Waste Policy Advisory Committee (SWPAC)

1971 to 1987

*Committee name changed by Metro Council with the adoption of Resolution 85-578 on June 27, 1985

Chronology of SWPAC

Summary Collection Description

This collection documents the work of the Metro Solid Waste Policy Alternatives Committee (SWPAC) and the Metro Solid Waste Policy Advisory Committee (SWPAC) during the 1980s.

The collection of SWPAC meeting records existed, in part, in paper and in microfilm. The paper records were found in the basement of the Metro building in a box mislabeled as Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC) records. A previous Metro staff member had started preparing the records for permanent storage but never completed the task.

In the fall of 2012, Pam Welch, Records and Information Analyst, conducted research on the SWPAC meeting records and how they related to the SWAC meeting records. Review of the Metro legislative record revealed that SWPAC advised the Council on solid waste issues. Further research confirmed that the committee had been one of several committees that carried over from Metro’s predecessor agencies, the Columbia Region Association of Governments (CRAG) and the Metropolitan Service District (MSD). With the help of Metro staff, Pam was able to contact Merle Irvine, a former Metro employee who had worked at the MSD. Mr. Irvine provided information that tied SWPAC to the early days of the MSD. Unfortunately, he was unable to confirm the existence of meeting records prior to 1980. To research the committee during the 1970s, secondary sources were used to compile the committee’s history.

After reviewing three rolls of microfilm and one box of paper records, Pam was able to reconstruct the meeting records of SWPAC from December of 1980 to its dissolution in 1987. Once the inventory was complete, she began the process of preparing the records for permanent storage and microfilming. In order to increase accessibility to the collection, Pam verified the hard copy record was complete, after which the collection was converted to an electronic format (PDF/A). The SWPAC collection is accessible via Metro’s records and information management system.

Box Numbers and Descriptions

Below is a list of numbers and descriptions for the box in which the SWPAC collection is contained.

Collection Divisions and Subdivisions

Collection Division 1: Meeting Records

This collection consists of meeting records from the Solid Waste Policy Alternatives Committee (SWPAC) and Solid Waste Policy Advisory Committee (SWPAC). The following lists collection microfilm and folders in chronological order sorted by date. An asterisk (*) denotes a missing record.

(1981)

(1982)

(1983)

(1984)

(1985)

(1986)

(1987)

Appendix A: Glossary of Acronyms

Below is a list of acronyms that appear in the Solid Waste Policy Advisory Committee (SWPAC) Collection with the corresponding terms:

Appendix B: Related Records

The following is a list of other special collections that are related by content or topic to the SWPAC collection:

•  Regional Solid Waste Management Plan Collection

•  Metropolitan Service District (MSD) Collection

•  Columbia Region Association of Governments (CRAG) Collection

•  Solid Waste Alternatives Advisory Committee (SWAAC) Collection

•  Metro Council Solid Waste Committee

•  Metro Councilor Oral Histories

◦  Gene Peterson (District 10) 1979 – 1980

◦  Cindy Banzer (District 9) 1979 – 1984

◦  Corky Kirpatrick (District 4) 1979 - 1988

◦  Jane Rhodes (District 6) 1979 - 1982

◦  Caroline Miller (District 8) Oct 1979 – Jan 1980

◦  Tanya Collier (District 9) Oct 1986 – Jan 1993

◦  Jim Gardner (District 3) Oct 1987 – Jan 1995

◦  Sharron Kelley (District 7) Oct 1987 – July 1989

•  St. Johns Landfill Collection

•  Metro South Collection

•  Historic Regional Landfills Collection