MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL

REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING

Wednesday, February 17, 1999

Council Chamber

Chair Washington called the meeting to order at 1:35 PM. He welcomed Councilor McLain back to this committee, noting she has served on this committee in the past. He welcomed Councilor Rod Park, who was new to the Metro Council in January.

1.  CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 17, 1999

Chair Washington asked that the minutes be accepted into the record, as he was the only returning member from last year’s Regional Environmental Management Committee.

2.  REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR’S UPDATE

Bruce Warner, Director, Metro Regional Environmental Management, distributed a written summary of his update. (The summary is attached to the meeting record.) Highlights from this summary are as follows.

• Enhancement grants totaling $217,500 were granted to 21 projects by the Metro Central Enhancement Committee on January 28, 1999. Each of the five neighborhoods within the enhancement grant area received, as did Forest Park. The projects listed in there were time-sensitive, so the committee awarded the money during this grant cycle. Among the recipients were the St. Johns lighting project for the historic bridge; the St. Johns theater; the I-405/I-5 triangle landscaping project at the end of the Fremont Bridge; music in the Cathedral Park for the summer Bike Projects; reading and tutoring projects at the James John School; and the Lenton Neighborhood Association to continue their land-use planning process. This program has been going on for some time. Over the six funding cycles of the program, $1.414 million has been put into 111 community projects to help the community address the impacts of the transfer station being put in their neighborhood. A briefing on these will be presented in more detail at the March 4 Council meeting. Those enhancement dollars are collected at the Metro Central transfer station.
• Uncovered loads at the Metro South Transfer station continues to be a problem. Customers are required to cover loads taken to the station to prevent litter from blowing onto the roads while customer are en route. Some customers do not cover their loads. The Oregon City Planning Commission was concerned enough about this to include a requirement in last year’s conditional use approval for Metro to do more to make sure all loads are covered. Metro agrees. As part of this effort, the transfer station will be distributing information flyers to customers this spring, commercial as well as self-haul. Signs will be posted at the station and warnings will be issued. After several months of education and warnings, citations will be issued.
• The new latex pain processing building will be finished at the end of March. It has been under construction for some time at the north corner, near the intersection of 213 and I-205. It has cost over $600,000 and will greatly enhance the station’s ability to process latex paint. Clark county is currently working with Metro on an intergovernmental agreement to allow the facility to process its paint for a fee.

Councilor McLain said she had received a call recently from someone expressing appreciation for the service of accepting latex paint at the transfer station as well as at satellite stations. The person had asked how long it had been since Metro had reviewed from whom paint is accepted.

Mr. Warner said all paint is accepted at the household hazardous waste facility, but those facilities are geared toward residential customers and small businesses. He said he was aware they had dealt with larger quantities of paint from some commercial enterprises, but he did not know how much effort had been made to attract commercial customers. He said no one who brings paint would be turned away, but large commercial enterprises had not been courted. Generally those large contractors can use any leftover paint on some other project.

Councilor McLain suggested the department develop a flyer that explains exactly what the paint recovery/recycling program is and what is done at the Metro Central and Metro South transfer stations and what is done at the satellite events. She suggested that the difference between what is accepted at permanent sites and what is accepted at satellite events be clarified on that flyer.

Mr. Warner agreed that would be a good idea.

Chair Washington asked Mr. Peterson from Environmental Services whether the transfer station has been overwhelmed with paint.

Terry Peterson, Manager, Metro Environmental Services Division, said the facility has been able to process all the paint received so far. He said the new building would provide the space to recycle more of the paint received. The new building will also allow the station to solidify the paint and dispose of it more cheaply as solid waste rather than as liquid hazardous waste.

Chair Washington asked how much of the paint received was recovered. Mr. Peterson said about 70%.

Mr. Warner continued with his update.

• Merger mania in the waste management industry is continuing. Waste Management recently signed an agreement with Miller Sanitary to acquire its collection and recovery facility in Beaverton. Metro is working to facilitate the transfer. The formal change of ownership will be presented to the committee soon.
• Columbia Resources Co. will sell transfer stations and the Finley Buttes landfill to a Waste Connections firm. Presumably, Columbia Resources will continue barging the waste to Finley Buttes, but that is not certain. This is contingent on the government’s approval of the change of control.

Councilor McLain said she understood that a few years ago Metro had granted this particular landfill a special designation for particular wastes.

Warner said yes, Finley Buttes does have a designated facility agreement with Metro, which allows it to accept dry waste from the region.

Mr. Warner recognized outstanding effort on behalf of his engineering and analysis staff who work at the St. John’s Landfill. Janell Davis, Michael Bechtel, Robert Pilkington, and Robin Wilson were recognized as outstanding employees of the Regional Environmental Management Department. During the cold weather in late December, the condensate in the gas-collection pipes and valves froze. That gas provides Ash Grove Cement with its primary source of energy for their kilns, and Metro has an agreement to keep the system working. These employees worked over the Christmas and New Year’s holidays around the clock to keep the system working.

Mr. Warner said that the REM department volunteered to serve as a test case for the rest of Metro in implementing performance-based budgeting. This should produce a budget that allocates resources based more closely on projected outcomes and results rather than individual line items. Performance measures for effectiveness, efficiency, and customer satisfaction are identified for each of the division’s operations. He said the hazardous waste program is a leader in this, and that program has set aggressive goals in that area. He said this would be discussed in greater detail when the department’s budget comes under review.

Mr. Warner announced that Jane Rosenstein has been hired as the department’s new recycling hotline employee. She has been involved in Metro programs, she has been a Master Recycler instructor, she has been involved with Habitat for Humanity, and she is fluent in Spanish.

Mr. Warner recalled that last year the Council adopted the code changes last year to allow at least three firms to do direct-haul of waste to the Arlington landfill. Those three firms, Pride Recycling in Sherwood, Recycle America in Troutdale, and Willamette Resources, Inc., in Wilsonville have received direct-haul franchises. Recycle America and Willamette Resources have begun operation. Pride expects to begin in March. He said so far, everything is working well. Tonnage is down at the transfer stations as a result, but this was anticipated when the decision was made..

Councilor Park asked Mr. Warner whether the uncovered load problem comes from commercial haulers or private individuals. Mr. Warner said the efforts are mainly aimed at individuals. Commercial haulers have the same requirements, but most of them know the rules and follow them. The self-haul customers are the main problem.

Councilor Park asked about the frozen water at the St. Johns landfill efforts. He wondered if the problem occurred in the valves or the pipes. Mr. Warner said the valves. Councilor Park asked how dealt with the problem. Mr. Warner said a combination of applying heat tape and disassembling the valves and taking them in where it was warm.

Councilor McLain asked if the three candidates who had received direct-haul permits were the same three that Metro had anticipated when the decision was made. Mr. Warner said yet. Councilor McLain noted that the Pride group would be using a different trucking agency. She asked about that trucking firm. Mr. Warner said the trucking firm was based in the Dalles that used to haul from here to the North Wasco County landfill. He believed that firm sold that landfill to USA Waste.

Councilor McLain asked how close the tonnage that has been diverted is to that which was originally expected. Mr. Warner said the numbers he has are limited, but from what he has the tonnage is very close to what was predicted.

Chair Washington asked Mr. Warner if Metro keeps a list of people who speak languages other than English. Jan O’Dell, Senior Public Affairs Specialist, said yes.

Councilor McLain requested that Mr. Warner give an update on how problems among the Forest Grove transfer station, the surrounding neighborhood, and the city of Forest Grove had been addressed. She said this situation might provide valuable information about the expectations communities have of Metro when they host transfer stations.

Chair Washington said he would put that item on an agenda in the near future.

3.  INTRODUCTION TO REM STAFF

Chair Washington asked Mr. Warner to introduce the REM staff that were present.

Mr. Warner introduced Terry Peterson, Leann Linson, Aaron Brondyke, Dennis Strachota,

Jan O’Dell, Jim Watkins, Jane Rosenstein, Doug Anderson, Bill Metzler, Scott Klag, Penny Ericksen; Sarah Lien; and Steve Kraten. He said he would introduce other members of his staff at a future meeting.

4.  STATE OF THE PLAN REPORT

Mr. Warner introduced Doug Anderson, who would present a summary of the State of the Plan Report. He said this plan assesses where Metro is in its efforts to reach its recycling and material recovery goals. He said this plan was now being reviewed and contained such important information that Chair Washington had suggested that all of the next Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC) meeting be devoted to it.

Doug Anderson, Waste-Reduction Planning and Outreach Manager, presented highlights from this plan in a PowerPoint presentation. He said the report opens the public discussion on the state of the regional solid-waste management plan. A draft of the report is issued to Metro’s Executive Officer, to the Department of Environmental Quality, to SWAC, and to the Metro Council. If issues need minor adjustment, corrective action would be recommended. This would go to SWAC for their approval and then on to Council and through the budget process. More major issues that might require a revision to the plan would ultimately come to the Council for a revision through ordinance.

Mr. Anderson said he would summarize the waste-reduction chapter today. He said this is where most of the challenges lie. (A hard copy of this presentation is attached to the meeting record.)

The main conclusion is that disposal rates are outstripping recycling and recovery rates, primarily due to a large amount of commercial waste, and the year 2000 goals are not on track. To reach that goal would require recovery of more than 80,000 tons over what is currently being recovered.

Councilor McLain noted that the categories that need improvement--commercial wastes --have been the same for the past nine years. She suggested this be considered when allocated resources for challenge grants during the budget process.

Mr. Anderson said technical material related to the plan will be available in about a week and a half. Comments will be solicited on the report. The recommendations in the report will be refined and redrafted, perhaps using focused subcommittees. He thought the plan might go back to SWAC as early as March 17, 1999.

Councilor Park asked if achieving the goal of 52% would take more effort that it was worth. Mr. Anderson said no, that there are still low marginal costs per tons to recover. Councilor Park thanked Mr. Anderson for doing an excellent job.

5.  REGIONAL TRANSFER STATION SERVICE PLAN PROJECT

Mr. Warner said this work will likely result in amendments to the Regional Solid Waste Management Plan. He noted that as the code was updated last year, questions arose on the future of the regional transfer stations’ capacities, how to deal with the increase in household hazardous waste customers, how to deal with double-digit increases in self-haul customers, and how to deal with the increase in travel time and traffic congestion across the region. The existing solid waste plan calls for constructing no new regional transfer station, but more focus on materials recovery and recycling. He thought that discussion last year was the first attempt to ask longer-term questions regarding the capacity of regional transfer stations. He said Metro had given local stations the capacity to haul up to 50,000 out of those stations, but they would not be allowed to grow to the size of a regional station without a complete analysis of the need and the best way to meet that need. He introduced Bill Metzler, who would provide an overview of the study the department will be doing, its timeline, and the stakeholders who will be involved in this effort, to make sure there is broad consensus on whatever they come up with.

Mr. Metzler said this would be a quick overview, as more details would be discussed at future meetings. The purpose of the project is to determine the optimum number of regional transfer stations for the Metro area, their locations, and the services they should provide.

The reason for the project is the recent code update, which contains explicit provisions for regional transfer stations and for the ability to dispose of more that 50,000 tons of solid waste a year. It requires applicants be franchised and show consistency with the Regional Solid Waste Management Plan.

The Regional recommends that no new regional transfer stations be established, but leaves that possibility open. It lists scenarios under which that possibility might be pursued. One of most important scenarios relates to benchmark in the State of the Plan Report that indicates a need to recycle more waste. The scenario also directs that Metro review service levels. Service level review is what lie beneath this project. Some user groups and customers have suggested that regional growth has increased travel time for haulers, thus increasing costs. They have also suggested that some areas of the region are under-served.

Councilor McLain said siting transfer stations is similar to siting prisons and landfills. People understand the need for them but don’t want the facilities nearby. She wondered if the project would include a study as to the practicality of siting those resources.

Mr. Metzler said yes, land use siting and transportation issues would both be addressed.

Councilor McLain noted that two of the regional transfer stations are publicly owned and one is private. The study should also address the implications of public and private ownership. Mr. Metzler agreed.

Mr. Metzler said the deliverable from the project would be a recommended implementation plan based on the project questions, supported by a report describing the project’s processes, the options that have been considered, an analysis of those options, and justifications for any recommendations that are made. A user’s guide would also be included, as well as recommended changes to the Metro code and to the Regional Solid Waste Management Plan. Also included would be criteria for evaluating applications, service standards, and performance standards for these facilities.

Councilor McLain asked about the process for developing the criteria for evaluating applications. She said they are enormously important.

Mr. Metzler said he could not provide details on the criteria today as there would be a detailed process for fleshing those out. He said the process would include extensive input from various stakeholders, decision makers, and this committee.

Mr. Warner added that he appreciated Councilor McLain’s concerns. He reiterated that no plan would be developed without extensive stakeholder input. He said everything possible would be done to assure than everyone understands and agrees on the alternatives, their evaluation, and the outcomes of the study. He said the schedule for doing this is ambitious. He said Mr. Metzler and his team are aiming to bring a finished product back to the committee by July 1, 1999.

Chair Washington noted that Councilor McLain had concerns about the transfer station in Forest Grove. He requested that she provide that information to Mr. Warner, so his staff could address those concerns.

6.  1999-2000 BUDGET: OCTOBER TONNAGE FORECAST

Mr. Warner said that tonnage projection are an important factor in developing not only the REM department’s budget, but also that for the entire agency because the large amount of revenues generated out of the excise tax on solid waste services. He said Jim Watkins would present a quick summary of the latest tonnage projections.

Jim Watkins, Engineering Services Manager, said a new tonnage forecast is done each year as the budget and rate-setting process begins. That normally begins in August and is finalized in October or November, when the rate-setting process is completed. During that process, each facility is contacted for a tonnage update and for information on any anticipated changes, such as increased direct haul. For the October 1998 forecast, which he would be summarizing, the department contacted eight Materials Recovery and Recycling or reload facilities, nine landfills, and nine transfer stations.

Mr. Watkins distinguished between “delivered tonnage” and “revenue tonnage.” Delivered tons is the gross weight actually delivered to a facility. Revenue tons are those Metro can collect an excise tax on. Delivered tonnage is used as the base because it they do not vary much. A five-year tonnage forecast, then, is made by combining the historical trend for base tonnage with economic predictions and employment trends, and That provides the base tonnage. The revenue tons are then calculated from that.

In October, the predicted the growth in delivery tons was at a little over 3%, which was used at the five-year projection. Mr. Watkins showed a PowerPoint chart of the actual revenue tonnage from 1996 to 1998 with the five-year projection. (A hard copy of this chart has been attached to the meeting record.) He pointed out that in 1998, the actual revenue tonnage did not meet forecast revenue tonnage. Therefore, the 1999-2000 forecast was lowered, beginning in November 1998.

Mr. Watkins said that with a couple of minor variations, the projections have been on track. He noted that revenue tonnage has dropped as a result of the direct haul agreement from other than Metro facilities. He said that had been anticipated.

Mr. Watkins stressed the importance of achieving accurate predictions, noting that both the REM budget and the budget of the entire agency depends on it. October’s forecast will not be updated until after the current budget is approved.

Councilor McLain said although Metro agreed to allow the direct hauls, it still pays Arlington. She said that one of the benefits of that is that it provides a double-check on the tonnage that is delivered. She asked if the department had used that as a double-check.

Mr. Watkins said it is a double-check of sorts, but it really does is encourage the facilities to recycle more. Whenever the facilities pull a ton out for recycle, the tonnage changes from a revenue ton to a delivered ton. Tonnage can be affected that way or by a facility drying out its waste so it can be taken to a limited-purpose landfill. Thus, although the tonnage delivered to Arlington might change, the total delivered tonnage might be the same.

Mr. Warner said as a result of the direct hauls and the incentive program, we know a lot more now about how much waste is received and where it goes. He said that produces much better data for predicting trends.

Councilor Park asked if his understanding of revenue tons was correct in that it was the total tonnage minus recycled tonnage.

Mr. Watkins said yes. But in addition, there was something called “beneficial” tonnage. That is material the DEQ designates as suitable for using to cover the landfill. No revenue is collected on beneficial tonnage. Also, no revenue is collected on material that comes from out of the region into a non-Metro facility--for example, into the Forest Grove transfer station..

Councilor Park whether the department had discussed with DEQ a bill it has sponsored that is currently moving through the legislature, which gives DEQ the authority to check all landfills in Oregon as to the actual tonnage moving through.

Marvin Fjordbeck, Senior Assistant Counsel, said his office was aware of the legislation and has recommended Metro support it.

Mr. Warner added that when there is a drop in tonnage at the transfer station, there is an almost one-to-one drop in expenses. Metro loses a little, but that was anticipated. He wanted to make it clear that they had changed the way they collected the excise tax on the waste that goes through private facility directly to the Columbia Ridge landfill. The excise tax that goes to the agency was held harmless in lieu of a flat fee on anything disposed of at Columbia Ridge by direct haul. That protects the general fund revenue again negative impacts..

7.  COUNCILOR COMMUNICATIONS

None.

There being no further business before the committee, Chair Washington adjourned the meeting at 2:47 PM

Respectfully submitted,

Pat Emmerson

Council Assistant

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 17, 1999

The following have been included as part of the official public record.