HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Works October 7 2008WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Public Works and Safety Committee
October 7, 2008
Committee Chair Barbara Brenner called the meeting to order at 1 :30 p.m. in the
Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Absent:
L. Ward Nelson None
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber
Also Present:
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
1. DISCUSSION REGARDING AN APPLICATION FILED BY FREEDOM 2000, LLC,
TO PROVIDE CURBSIDE RECYCLING IN POINT ROBERTS (THE UTC HAS
REQUESTED THAT THE COUNCIL COMMENT ON THE APPLICATION) (AB2008-
210A)
There is a substitute page.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission
(WUTC) approves this. She asked if they are to offer support for or deny.
Brenner stated the Council's role is unclear. Even the Solid Waste Advisory
Committee (SWAC) had trouble defining their role in this process. The SWAC supports
curbside recycling in Point Roberts. She's not sure what the Council is supposed to say or
not say.
Frank Abart, Public Works Department, stated this is a standard WUTC request to
make sure the local government entity has notice and can comment or choose not to
comment.
Brenner stated that if the WUTC doesn't receive a comment from the County, it won't
do this. She suggests that the County Council have no opposition to this moving forward.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she is fine with that.
David Gellatly, Point Roberts, Freedom 2000 LLC Principal, discussed the history of
curbside recycling in Point Roberts. The current service provider indicated he will not
continue curbside recycling service in Point Roberts. The County Council has an obligation
to uphold the County Code, which requires curbside recycling. His company is prepared to
provide the service. That would meet Code requirements. Moving forward would support
the County Code. The County Council received a letter from Mr. Wilkowski.
Brenner stated it was a letter from the current operator accusing this company of
things. That will come out in the WUTC investigation. It isn't her business. Gellatly stated
he is prepared to answer questions. The alternative is to have the County enter into a
contract with Freedom 2000, LLC for curbside recycling. A separate application process
Public Works and Safety Committee, 10/7/2008, Page 1
would be for his company to enter into a contract with the County, and take the application
and contract to the WUTC. The WUTC would rubberstamp the application.
Abart stated the County has to have a contract with a company that has WUTC
approval for curbside pickup.
Gellatly stated residential curbside recycling requires a WUTC certificate. However, if
the County doesn't get satisfaction From the current provider, the County can approach
another provider and enter into a contract, which has an end period.
Brenner asked if that contract has to be with a WUTC- certified provider. Abart
stated to provide curbside pickup services, a contractor has to be certified by the WUTC.
IVelson stated Freedom 2000, LLC is applying to provide a service that isn't being
provided, and is required by the Code. He asked the current recycling charge. Gellatly
stated the present carrier has a tariff, which he withdrew. The tariff for just curbside
recycling, without garbage collection, was $7. The tariff included with garbage collection
was $5.71. He would mirror that tariff. The price is the same.
Brenner stated it would still allow the provider to do what he's doing. This item
would provide residents with an option. She went to Point Roberts for a meeting. Many
people seem interested in having the option. They don't seem to want to get rid of curbside
recycling. Drop -off service would still be available.
Abart stated Mr. Gellatly has requested use of the existing transfer station. It would
impact the current carrier because they'd have to divide up that property.
Brenner stated that's a separate lease. Abart stated he wanted to make sure they
were aware there would be an impact to the current carrier.
Brenner stated it's a separate issue. This is about whether or not the County wants
to continue curbside service in Point Roberts. She didn't hear anyone say they wanted to
get rid of the service. People did say they still wanted the service.
Gellatly stated this is a very small operation. The service would occur one day per
week. It's simple and straightforward.
Brenner asked if this is still something they'd want to do if they didn't get the
transfer station. Gellatly stated it is. They can negotiate with other properties.
Nelson stated curbside is part of the requirements on waste handling in Point
Roberts. Saying whether or not they want it would require an ordinance change. He.
moved to forward the application forward to the WUTC without comment. The WUTC asked
for County comment. The letter would come from the Council. Abart stated the Public
Works Department may or may not comment, and he may comment on the location.
Brenner suggested a friendly amendment that the letter say that the Council
moves this forward to the WUTC with no opposition.
Nelson accepted the friendly amendment.
Public Works and Safety Committee, 10/7/2008, Page 2
Crawford stated he supports the motion. He asked if Freedom 2000, LLC considering
zoning issues when looking at other properties. Gellatly stated he has. One property he's
considering is right next door to the existing transfer station.
Crawford stated keep in mind that the current operation is operating under a
conditional use permit. He's not aware of any zone that permits a recycling center outright
in Point Roberts, including the existing location.
Whatcom County Code (WCC) section 8.10.050(k) says at the end that all single
family residences in Point Roberts that are weekend vacation homes as defined in the Code
are exempt from curbside recycling collection. He didn't know that until someone pointed it
out to him. He asked if people get that exemption and if it's commonly used. He asked if
that exemption addresses the issue of curbside recycling for weekenders. He asked if
people get the exemption. Abart stated he didn't know.
Brenner stated weekend homes are automatically exempted. People don't have to
apply to be exempted.
Crawford stated he has garbage service in the county, outside the bounds of a city
limit. His recycling charge is mandatory if he has any garbage service.
Brenner stated that Point Roberts residents have the option for service. The hauler
set up his own rules for providing service.
Crawford asked if he has to pay for a recycling service if he does not get an
exemption and gets garbage service. Abart stated he doesn't know.
Brenner stated the hauler decides how the service is set up. The exemption process
is for all service, not just curbside garbage pickup.
Gellatly stated that if someone signs up for garbage service, one has to get curbside
recycling, whether or not one recycles. The tariff breaks down the cost per service.
Curbside recycling is offered as a standalone service.
Crawford asked if Mr. Gellatly can run this very part-time business. Gellatly stated
he can. His firm's objective is to expand that under commercial recycling, which isn't
regulated by the WUTC and isn't available in Point Roberts.
Shannon Tomsen, 2125 Whalen Drive, Point Roberts, submitted information (on file)
and read information on driver wages and benefits, recycling revenues and commodity
revenues, and officer salary. The current hauler has taken her recycling and thrown it into
the garbage truck on at least two occasions. The owner is the only officer. The spreadsheet
shows that his claim that he isn't making any money is ludicrous. The owner is making a lot
of money as an employee. He makes part of his revenue as office and administration. The
annual WUTC reports can be made -up numbers. The numbers on her spreadsheet are low,
if anything. He is making money and claims to make a lot of money off of recycling. He
claims to offer free recycling right now. How he offers free recycling, while losing $20,000
in revenue, is absurd. He can't take in recycling when he's already losing money on
commodities.
A lot of the support he has on the Point now is based on fear and intimidation. The
owner sent a letter to residents in July 2008. She read from the letter. She and others will
file a complaint with the WUTC, which manages the relationship between the hauler and its
Public Works and Safety Committee, 10/7/2008, Page 3
customers. When there is intimidation, only the WUTC can make it stop. Hopefully the
WUTC will pull his G certificate after they look at the letters. The County can regulate and
manage what happens by controlling the lease. Beef up the County's control of the transfer
station. Without that transfer station, Mr. Wilkowski can't operate.
Remember that anyone taking over any part of this job can indicate today's fee for
the service, but that fee can change tomorrow. A hauler can raise rates any time. If there
is an increase in the transfer station lease, that cost automatically increases the customer's
rates. It's very important to remember that they shouldn't rely solely on Mr. Wilkowski.
Mr. Wilkowski has made it clear in a letter that he will not provide curbside recycling
and that the existing site won't meet minimal standards required for solid waste when he
vacates it.
Brenner asked if the County is obligated to pay for Mr. Wilkowski's improvements.
Abart stated it is not, but the County may want to enter into negotiations if the
improvements are of value to the County. Otherwise, they are his improvements and he
has the legal authority to remove him.
Brenner asked if there would be a Department of Health problem if the site
improvements were gone, but the site was cleaned up. Abart stated he didn't know, but he
doesn't think so.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she supports Councilmember Brenner's letter idea. She
suggested a friendly amendment to send a letter with language that says the County
Council doesn't object to that application going forward for curbside recycling.
Nelson accepted the friendly amendment.
Motion carried unanimously.
(Clerk's Note: Discussion continued, below.)
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. DISCUSSION OF A PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY
CODE 2.78, SOLID WASTE ADVISORY COMMITTEE (AB2008 -343)
Brenner stated the changes to the code are more in keeping with the original intent
of the Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC). When they first created SWAC, they
intended to balance the interests of the people in the industry with outside perspectives
from a citizen and from other businesses that might use the service. In recent years,
industry people have taken the place of the citizen representative position. The
amendments would make the intent clearer.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she understands the modification to the citizen
representative, but not the business interest that is not from the solid waste industry.
Brenner stated they already have those representatives. There are three slots
already for the industry.
Public Works and Safety Committee, 10/7/2008, Page 4
Caskey- Schreiber stated the change would always make those in the industry a
minority. Industry representatives should at least be equal.
Brenner stated make sure that citizen positions are occupied by people who aren't a
part of the industry. That's her concern. They want input from the experts, but they don't
want it heavily weighted.
Caskey- Schreiber asked why people have been resigning from the SWAC.
Brenner stated one of the problems is that the SWAC and Solid Waste Executive
Committee don't communicate well. The Solid Waste Executive Committee brings
recommendations to the Council, not SWAC.
Frank Abart, Public Works Department Director, stated the Solid Waste Executive
Committee has the authority over the budget. The Solid Waste Advisory Committee doesn't
report or advise to the Executive Committee, but to the Council and Executive.
Brenner stated they don't seem to be getting things done.
Nelson stated he understands the change regarding the citizens, but not the other
change. Remove the added language in WCC 2.78.020, "...one business /industry
representative met frem the selid waste industry, one representative from...."
Crawford stated in the past, the SWAC was filled with people in the solid waste
industry. It appears that there is an effort to change the committee so it's not mostly made
up of industry representatives. These changes limit representatives to three from the
industry out of eleven. That is very different from the membership historically. If that's the
intent, leave the language as proposed. What they ought to be considering is whether three
representatives from the,industry is enough.
Nelson stated that if that's the intent, he can't support it. It would be the same as
not including mineral resource industry members on the Surface Mining Advisory Committee
or the mental health board not including people who have anything to do with mental
health. An advisory board should have an affiliation to the industry.
Brenner stated these guys in the industry are all monopolies with the same goals, in
different jurisdictions.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she doesn't know the point of micro - managing the
representation because they have a limited role anyway.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Caskey- Schreiber stated she agrees with Councilmember Nelson's proposed
amendment. It's okay to have four industry representatives on a board of 11. They've got
to be able to implement the policies.
Brenner stated the goal of the committee is about trying to eliminate as much solid
waste as possible, and do as much recycling as possible. The Comprehensive Plan says that
recycling is a high priority. It's about more than solid waste, which is why other
representatives are on the committee.
Public Works and Safety Committee, 10/7/2008, Page 5
1 Caskey- Schreiber moved to amend WCC 2.78.020, "...one business /industry
2 representative , one representative from...."
3
4 Motion to amend carried unanimously.
5
6
7 COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
8
9 1. DISCUSSION REGARDING AN APPLICATION FILED BY FREEDOM 2000, LLC,
10 TO PROVIDE CURBSIDE RECYCLING IN POINT ROBERTS (THE UTC HAS
11 REQUESTED THAT THE COUNCIL COMMENT ON THE APPLICATION) (AB2008-
12 210A)
13
14 (Clerk's Note: Discussion continued from above.)
15
16 Shelly Damewood, 119 Kilarney Place, Point Roberts, stated she sent an email last
17 night about the history of this issue. They've done a lot of research to figure out how this
18 works. The more they find out, they more they see how things work and can be controlled.
19 The County's site is key to the issue. It is important to the lease. It makes sense to keep it
20 in that quarter.' Approve the request from Freedom 2000, LLC. The residents can provide
21 good community oversight.
22
23 Brenner asked if the County has to approve the application. Damewood stated it
24 does, according to communication between Penny Ingram and Carl Weimer.
25
26 Abart stated he doesn't have that information from the WUTC. County staff said the
27 WUTC requests comment from the County.
28
29
30 OTHER BUSINESS
31
32 There was no other business.
33
34
35 ADJOURN
36
37 The meeting adjourned at 2:25 p.m.
r
40
41 Jill Nixon, Mir}t�Ae�ls Transc iption
42 `\���11 /1/,/
44 ATT S�1�� N A f C
45 - •• `.
O
46 1 o coUNT`� •
r
47 = •
48 —
49
50 Dail Brd1a N ��ounrpClerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
&-�S --
Barbara Brenner, Committee Chair
Public Works and Safety Committee, 10/7/2008, Page 6