MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL

REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING

Wednesday, March 17, 1999

Council Chamber

Chair Washington called the meeting to order at 1:36 PM.

1.  CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF MARCH 3, 1999

2.  REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR’S UPDATE

Bruce Warner, Director of Metro’s Regional Environmental Management (REM) Department, gave a summary update from his department. (The summary is attached to the meeting record.) He covered the following items.

• The REM Department’s successfully negotiated contract with Waste Management, Inc., will come before the REM committee for approval on April 7, and before Council on April 15. The new contract will reduce disposal rates to among the lowest in the Northwest.
• Portland’s bulky waste collection events, the first of which was held on February 27, has been temporarily suspended pending refinement of procedures. The event was so successful it overwhelmed the haulers. It is also badly needed, so work is underway on the logistics of the program.
• Spring composting and gardening workshops will begin soon. Metro has five composting demonstration sites around the region. New this year is a tour of gardens whose owners use natural methods. With the recent listing of salmon and steelhead, these techniques will be increasingly important.
• The winners of this year’s annual Earth Day Billboard Art contest have been selected. One is just a kindergarten student. The unveiling will be on Wednesday, March 31, at AK Media.

3.  RESOLUTION NO. 99-2765, FOR THE PURPOSE OF AUTHORIZING AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO CONTRACT NO. 920197 WITH URS GREINER, INC.

Mr. Warner said this contract was designed to deal with the design of the latex paint processing building at Metro South, the truck wash, the commercial tip floor expansion, and the maintenance building at the St. Johns Landfill. He explained that adoption of this resolution would increase the total amount of the contract by $25,000. He said he did not like bringing items like this before the Council. It represents the settlement of a contract dispute. He said the department accepts responsibility for inadequate management of this project. Had the project been more aptly managed, a contract change order would have been brought before this committee much sooner to accommodate changed conditions.

Mr. Warner said after this contract for $80,000 was awarded in November of 1997, contracting staff advised breaking it into smaller contracts to allow emerging, women-, and minority-owned businesses to bid. That added some cost to this project. Further, once the building had been designed, staff discovered it had been considerably over-estimated. The contractor was then asked to reduce the size and scope of the building. More cost was accrued there. At that time, an administrative change-order authorizing $25,000 was approved. Mr. Warner said, however, that the additional work had been mistakenly authorized and completed without coming first before the REM committee and Council.

The contractor made a claim, which Mr. Warner said he denied. The claim went to Metro’s legal counsel, and it was again denied. Mr. Warner then reviewed the claim again, and determined that $25,000 represents the true cost of the work done. That brings the total amendments to $130,900 (the original $80,000 amendment, plus the $25,000 amended by the REM department plus this $25,900.) Mr. Warner said this was about half what the contractor had originally claimed necessary to deal with the additional work.

Mr. Warner apologized for the necessity of doing business this way. He said the consultant and staff are doing a much better job of managing personal services contracts as a result of this.

Councilor McLain asked if all the work on this contract had now been completed.

Mr. Warner said no. He said this change order, however, covers the remaining work.

Chair Washington thanked Mr. Warner for being forthright about presenting this change-order to the committee.

Councilor Park will carry the motion to a meeting of the full Council.

4.  PROGRAM REVIEW OF THE HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE RECYCLING AND DISPOSAL PROGRAM

Chair Washington said he had been present when the Rebuilding and Recycling Center sent a load of recovered paint to Honduras to help the people there rebuild after Hurricane Mitch. It occurred to him then that the other committee members might benefit from hearing more about Metro’s hazardous waste recovery and reuse programs.

Terry Peterson, Manager of Metro’s Environmental Services division, introduced a group of hazardous waste employees who were in the audience.

Jim Quinn, Hazardous Waste Supervisor, gave a short slide presentation summarizing Metro’s hazardous waste recovery and reuse programs. (Copies of Mr. Quinn’s slides are attached to the meeting record.) The slide presentation covered the following items:

• Programs that have been offered
  • Permanent collection sites at Metro Central and Metro South
  • Collection events that are held around the region. There is a new program at the Forest Grove transfer station that, if successful, might serve as a model for small transfer stations if more small stations are established in the future
  • “Paint smart” collection of unused paint at paint stores
  • Collection for small businesses (called “Conditionally Exempt Generators,” or “CEGs”); Metro provides a cost-effective option to other disposal programs in attempt to discourage improper disposal (there is room for growth in this program).
  • Removal of hazardous waste from trash (paint, acids, pesticides, etc.).
  • Emergency Response Team (in-house response capability increases speed of response, prevents hazardous events from becoming emergencies, and decreases costs).
• New programs
  • New latex-paint processing building that just opened at Metro South is expected to eventually be self-supporting. Paint will be repackaged into smaller sizes for resale at a nominal price.
  • Re-use program, wherein usable materials (pesticides, chemicals, etc.) are salvaged and passed on to non-profit organizations.
  • Plans to provide collection of paint for Clark County, Washington.
• Emerging policy issues
  • Explore possible ban on disposal of substances such as chlorine (require instead they be taken to hazardous waste facility or collection event). Ban would apply to commercial and self-haulers and possibly be statewide.
  • Decide how to handle the increasing demand for hazardous waste services.
  • Address salmon-recovery issues--storm runoff that contains toxic substances.
  • Increase education efforts to reduce use of toxic materials.

Mr. Quinn offered to give a tour to the Councilors of the hazardous waste facilities.

Councilor McLain asked whether only certain CEGs could use the facilities or whether they were open to all. Mr. Quinn said any business in Oregon that meets the definition of conditionally exempt can use the facilities. A conditionally exempt company is one that generates less than 220 pounds of hazardous waste in a month.

Chair Washington asked if the facilities were still having a problem with chlorine being disposed of in the trash. Mr. Quinn said no. Recent problems have been with acid.

Chair Washington asked how the paint in the Paint Smart program was packaged. Mr. Quinn said homeowners bring their leftover paint to the store. Store staff collects the paint in drums and Metro collects the drums.

Chair Washington asked if paint from Clark County would be returned for use in Clark County. Mr. Quinn said some of the paint would be sent back for non-profit use in Clark County, but most would be recycled and sold here.

Councilor McLain said she had heard many compliments on the professionalism of the hazardous waste staff members have been at satellite collection events. She asked Mr. Quinn for copies of any brochures the department has available on any parts of its programs.

Councilor Park asked why fertilizers had not been included in the list of hazardous waste. Mr. Quinn said those fertilizers that contain pesticides are part of the program. Ordinary fertilizers are less of a priority, but they are accepted. In many cases, they are redistributed through the reuse program. Mr. Quinn said the fertilizers are only a small part of what is received.

Councilor Park noted that given that a great deal of fertilizer is sold and not much disposed of, most must be applied. He said that is bound to be producing problems for the salmon. Mr. Quinn agreed.

Chair Washington asked how reused substances are distributed. Mr. Quinn said material slated for reuse must first be checked for quality and legality. Recipients of products must also be qualified to use them. Examples of products that are commonly reused are cleaning products, automotive fluids, household maintenance products and construction products, and some lab chemicals. Good material with intact labels is given away free to qualified users.

Chair Washington asked about the Forest Grove collection program. Mr. Quinn said that if more, smaller transfer stations are established, this program might serve as a model.

5.  STAFF REPORT ON SENATE BILL 85

Meg Lynch, Waste Reduction Supervisor, called the committee’s attention to the packet of materials prepared on this subject. She summarized the information contained in this packet. (The packet is attached to the meeting record.) She said the Council/Executive work session group had requested this issue be discussed before this committee.

Briefly, this bill proposes to allow organic composting facilities on high-value farmland. Those who support the bill include groups that encourage recycling and composting. They argue that this would allow location of facilities closer to urban areas. Those who oppose the bill include land-use protection groups. They argue that the bill would further weaken land-use laws that protect farmland. Governor Kitzhaber opposes the bill and has promised a veto if it is passed in without key compromises.

Ms. Lynch said the Waste Reduction and Planning Staff has not yet taken a formal position on the bill.

Councilor Park said this bill proposes the sitings of these facilities be permanent, not conditional. It would be the 36th permitted use in EFU zones. In 1973, there were only five permitted uses. He said if this bill were to be signed into law, that even if St. Mary’s could be saved from development at this time, a composting facility could be sited there. He said the Board of Agriculture opposes this as does the Department of Agriculture He said they do not object to using land of lower priority. It is use of prime agriculture land that they object to. He asked why the department had recommended a neutral stance on this bill.

Ms. Lynch said the department is divided on this. In order for Metro to reach its recycling goal, it needs to recycle more organic waste. There are very few places to site a large composting facility within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB).

Councilor Park asked why land of lesser quality could not be specified. Ms. Lynch said she did not believe lesser quality land was readily available.

Mr. Peterson said Metro has stakeholders on opposite sides of this issue. Mr. Warner has suggested waiting to see whether this bill goes anywhere before taking a formal stand.

Chair Washington asked if the committee wished to take a formal stand.

Councilor Park said he supports recycling and would like to facilitate Metro’s reaching its goals. He also recognizes the need to increase organics recycling. He would like to find creative ways of doing that. He said he would prefer an amended bill that does not permit use of high-value farmland. Then he would like to vote to support it.

Councilor McLain said she had problems with the bill where it stated these facilities could be located on any land zoned EFU. She did not think Metro ought to simply monitor the bill. Rather she asked if Metro could direct its lobbyist to suggest changes to the bill to resolve elements in it that present conflicts between Metro’s own goals--land use and farm protection versus increased recycling of organics.

Chair Washington asked Mr. Peterson to summarize what he understood the committee was asking him to do.

Mr. Peterson said he understood he was to do three things: 1) make certain Metro’s lobbyist, Mr. Ray Phelps, is aware of the Council’s concerns and that it wants to be kept up to speed; 2) notify the sponsors of the Council’s concerns, which might involve staff getting together with Councilor Park and others to clarify those concerns; and 3) make certain REM staff is present at hearings to testify as to Metro’s concerns and perhaps offer alternatives.

Councilor Park said he thought the request was stronger than that; he thought the committee had said it would not support the bill in its current form. He thought the message was that for Metro to remain consistent with the current land-use laws, the bill would need to be amended to be acceptable to this committee.

Councilor McLain said the part of the bill she thought should be changed was the use of EFU lands and the language, “urban use.” She thought those two concepts were incompatible.

Chair Washington reminded Mr. Peterson that the full Council had not yet had an opportunity to hear the arguments on this issue. He asked Mr. Peterson to bring this item up for discussion at the next Council/Executive Informal session to obtain the direction of the full Council. He noted that Councilor Kvistad would be out of town when that meeting takes place, so he urged Mr. Peterson to provide him with the information separately to make certain everyone in the Council has been informed.

6.  COUNCILOR COMMUNICATIONS

None.

There being no further business before the committee, Chair Washington adjourned the meeting at 3:44 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

Pat Emmerson

Council Assistant

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

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