Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Works July 10 2007WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Public Works and Safety Committee July 10, 2007 Committee Chair Barbara Brenner called the meeting to order at 1:35 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. Present: Absent: L. Ward Nelson None Laurie Caskey- Schreiber Also Present: Carl Weimer Dan McShane COMMITTEE DISCUSSION 1. PRESENTATION FROM WENDY SCHERRER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR NOOKSACK SALMON ENHANCEMENT ASSOCIATION, REGARDING A REQUEST FOR WASHINGTON CONSERVATION CORPS MATCH FUNDING (AB2007 -299) Wendy Scherrer, Nooksack Salmon Enhancement Association (NSEA) Executive Director, stated she's leaving NSEA soon. They've chosen a new Executive Director. The South Fork inner - tubing issue is coming forward again with the good weather. They've produced flyers (on file) for people about the issue. The response to this program has been great. NSEA works cooperatively with the Nooksack Tribe and State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and the County. Nelson stated locals feel the use has diminished and there is less of an impact, but people still do it. Scherrer stated federal and State enforcement staff are still enforcing problems that do occur. Brenner stated they should give information to the local newspapers in the area. Scherrer stated they sent forward a proposal to the County Public Works Department. The County has funded a Conservation Corps crew since 1999. It is a cooperative partnership among the County, NSEA, the State, and the federal government. They have to raise one dollar for every dollar received from a federal or state grant. They can get a lot of money into Whatcom County to fix and restore degraded streams. They can use the Conservation Corps crew time as part of the match. The State Department of Ecology offered another crew this year. The County provides the crew. NSEA provides the training and equipment. The crew works for 11 months. Every year, they have 30,000 volunteer hours contributing to salmon recovery. Darrell Gray, NSEA, described the Conservation Corps crew. This year, the crew will work for 12 months. If the crew members complete all 12 months of work, they get a contribution to their education. The volunteer program benefits NSEA's projects greatly. The crew is worth $150,000 per year in State or local funding. Most grants are federal and require a certain match. The $150,000 will bring in an additional $450,000 to the county. Most of the funding goes to local contractors and suppliers. They also employ supervisory staff. The State provides fuel, mileage, insurance, accounting services, and training. The Public Works and Safety Committee, 7/10/2007, Page 1 I crew is also trained in emergency response. The application is for a three -year 2 commitment. He manages all the landowner contacts, project permitting, organizing the 3 materials, monitoring, and quality control. 4 5 Justin Lamb, NSEA, stated his experience with the Corps and NSEA has been great. 6 He worked with different sites and people. It's a great education program. It's an 7 opportunity for young people to get experience and job skills for their resumes. It brings 8 together many diverse people. They are doing a lot for the environment. He hopes to 9 continue in this field doing the same work. 10 11 Rose Woofenden, NSEA Board of Directors Member, stated she served in the 12 Conservation Corps last year. It was a wonderful experience. The program started her on a 13 path of community involvement. She learned teamwork and restoration skills. She gained 14 a lot of experience. She is impressed with NSEA and serves on its Board. She described 15 the education and training she received while on the crew. It's a very valuable program. 16 17 Weimer stated there is nothing the Council can do about funding without approval 18 from the administration. He asked if the administration supports this project. Scherrer 19 stated she sent this letter to the County Council, County Executive, and Public Works 20 administrative staff. She got no response. Frank Abart is not supportive of the program. 21 She hasn't heard from the Executive's Office. They would like to start the crew on October 22 1. They need a commitment from the County by the end of this month. There are only 25 23 crews in the state. 24 25 Brenner stated the Council does have an ability to do an amendment to budget 26 items. A budget amendment is coming forward this evening. 27 28 Weimer stated they need clarity about that. 29 30 Caskey- Schreiber stated it was funded in the past for one year. She asked if NSEA 31 asked for funding for two years. Scherrer stated they always ask for two -year funding, but 32 have been approved for one year. 33 34 Caskey- Schreiber explained the budget process. NSEA really has to work with 35 Executive Kremen. The Council's hands are tied unless it comes from the administration. 36 37 Brenner stated she doesn't agree that's accurate. The County Council has in the 38 past made budget requests that are added to administrative budget amendments. NSEA 39 has done a lot of work that has saved the County a lot of money. The crew does a lot of 40 work. 41 42 Brenner moved to support this request. 43 44 Nelson asked the contributions from the different partners. Scherrer stated the City 45 has a crew. They work collaboratively on projects. There is no exchange of money among 46 the partnerships. From Whatcom County, they request a $95,000 contribution. Then the 47 crew will work with the County on projects. They've done that before with County staff 48 John Thompson. In the past, the contribution has gone from $55,000 to $75,000. This 49 amount is for the next three years. 50 51 Nelson asked if there is a bid process. Scherrer stated the County contracts with a 52 crew and assigns them to NSEA. The crew now is employed until the end of the summer. 53 The current contract ends at the end of August. Public Works and Safety Committee, 7/10/2007, Page 2 1 2 Nelson stated this is a finance issue. It should be before the Finance Committee. 3 4 Brenner stated it has to do with Public Works projects. It's appropriate to talk about 5 it in this committee. 6 7 Caskey- Schreiber stated she would like to talk to the Council's legal counsel. She 8 asked about the request. Scherrer stated the whole crew costs $95,000 for the federal 9 fiscal year. They need to contract with the County for the last three months of 2007 and 10 the first nine months of 2008. 11 12 Caskey - Schreiber asked if the County would pay $56,000, and the State Department 13 , of Ecology would provide a match for next year. Scherrer stated the State Department of 14 Ecology provides a certain match. The local match has to be $95,000. 15 16 Caskey - Schreiber stated NSEA can't ask for money beyond 2008, when it has to go 17 through the next budget cycle. NSEA must sit down with the administration and work this 18 out. Even if the Council allocates the money, the administration may not distribute the 19 funds. 20 21 Brenner stated they don't need a legal opinion for the Council to ask the 22 administration to fund this. 23 24 Nelson suggested a friendly amendment for the motion to recommend that the 25 full Council request from the administration allocation of funds for the NSEA program for 26 2008. 27 28 Brenner accepted the friendly amendment. 29 30 Weimer asked how the work of this crew is integrated with shorelines and other 31 plans. Gray stated they follow the water resource inventory area (WRIA) 1 Salmon 32 Recovery Plan to prioritize their projects. He's been working with John Thompson in the 33 Public Works Department. 34 35 McShane read from the Charter regarding adopting budget amendments. It may 36 require a public hearing. At the earliest, this will be done at the first meeting in August. 37 38 Brenner stated they have budget supplemental requests every month to tweak the 39 current budget. 40 41 Brenner amended and restated the motion to recommend that the full Council 42 request from the administration allocation of funds for NSEA program for the last three 43 months of 2007 and the first nine months of 2008. 44 45 Motion carried unanimously. 46 47 48 COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL 49 50 1. RESOLUTION DECLARING WHATCOM COUNTY'S INTENT TO REQUIRE THE 51 RECYCLING OF ALL ELECTRONICS AND MERCURY - CONTAINING PRODUCTS 52 IN THE COMMUNITY WASTE STREAM (AB2007 -300) 53 Public Works and Safety Committee, 7/10/2007, Page 3 Brenner stated the Council should make sure that they know where the materials go and what is done with them. She asked to hear what will happen in 2009 when the federal or State law goes into effect for companies who sell electronics having to accept spent electronics. Fred Miller, Ryzex, Bellingham, stated talk about recycling, electronics, the State law, what private sector initiative is, how the County can start the leadership process, and how to create the best environment for the private sector to pickup and make this happen. It's already working. Now they want to take it to the next level. The environmental and economic benefits of recycling are a given. There are issues with recycling electronics, including toxics. They must be properly handled. It's important for the civic leadership to address this concern. They must make sure companies address these environmental challenges properly. Washington State has started a state program. It's the fourth or fifth in the country, and the first to require product stewardship. If people plan to sell electronic equipment as covered under the law, as of January 1, 2007, they must register with the State. The State will start tracking all the manufacturers. Each manufacturers pay based on their overall market share. Manufacturers can pay into the State system or create their own system. The manufacturers would pay the collectors, processors, and transporters. It will take a long time to get the program going fully. In 2009, citizens will be able to take covered electronic products such as televisions and computers to recycling centers and recycle them for no charge. The cost will be borne elsewhere. The cost won't be assessed at the time of retail. The cost will be built into the price of the electronic. Those manufacturers who build longer - lasting products will eventually pay less in recycling fees. Locally, Ryzex set up a system to accept and collect electronics. The ReStore also has a program. Other businesses are now taking material in for proper recycling and disposal. Now they're trying to take the next step. Sanitary Service Company is announcing curbside recycling of certain electronics, which will be voluntary, beginning this September. Rodd Pemble, Sanitary Service Company (SSC), stated the curbside collection program will be a cost per item, based on size. The incentive is for people who want to recycle the products conveniently from home. It is a community efficiency setup, similar to the composting program. The same recycling trucks already go down every alley, so they can start collecting those smaller items. The size limit is 20" x 20" x 20 ". (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) Miller stated another option is a community collection day. People are willing to pay $20 or $25 to do that. Robyn du Pre, ReSources, stated their electronics program is a volunteer -based electronics recycling program. They have been very surprised by the community response. They charge people $19 for a monitor and a per pound fee for CPU's and peripherals. Many people want to do the right thing. ReSources can provide a better infrastructure for those folks. This is a major source of toxics to the waste stream. She's glad the Council added compact fluorescent lights to the resolution. That will soon become a problem if they don't get ahead of it. Pemble stated the State program only addresses televisions, computer monitors, and computers. Anything with a circuit board and a plug will be included in Bellingham's Public Works and Safety Committee, 7/10/2007, Page 4 curbside program. Even when the State program kicks in, people will still have a need for the local program for the other electronic equipment. They all have the same kinds of heavy materials in them. Nelson asked about the State fee. Miller stated the fee is to the manufacturers. The consumer won't see a separate fee, but it will be built into the cost of the item. Brenner moved to recommend approval to the full Council.. Arthur Wilkowski, Point Recycling and Refuse Company, stated this can work. The County can implement it effectively. There are very knowledgeable people in the county in the solid waste and recycling field. If they all work together, they can have a comprehensive, integrated program that will work. The program will fail if there is no follow- through by the County Council. Trust the County staff and give them the support to put together an effective program, and then make sure it's implemented. Brenner stated this will go through the Solid Waste Advisory Committee and Solid Waste Executive Committee. Wilkowski stated support the staff. The advisory committees generate ideas and opinions, not detailed program design. That is what the staff does. Motion carried unanimously. COMMITTEE DISCUSSION 2. DISCUSSION REGARDING PT. ROBERTS GARBAGE AND RECYCLING ISSUES (AB2007 -301) Brenner asked for staff's comments on Councilmember Weimer's letter. Penni Lemperes, Public Works Department, stated she sent her information to Councilmember Weimer. Brenner stated she would like a copy of the information. Weimer stated the Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC) requested that the Council hold a hearing in Point Roberts. The Council sent the issue to this committee to get a better understanding of on what the Council would have a hearing. He asked a number of questions about what Point Recycling wants to do, how it matches with the Solid Waste Comprehensive Plan, whether the SWAC had made any recommendations, and if the Council is premature in having a hearing in Point Roberts before a lot of the groundwork is done. Nelson asked if they are discussing the recommendation from the SWAC chair. Weimer stated they are. Brenner stated the three points in the letter from the SWAC chair are the focal points for the meeting or hearing in Point Roberts. Weimer stated his questions were follow -up questions to make sure the Council has enough background before going to Point Roberts. Ms. Lemperes sent him a packet of information that answers a lot of his questions. This proposal from Point Recycling doesn't match the current or proposed Solid Waste Comprehensive Plan. The Washington Public Works and Safety Committee, 7/10/2007, Page 5 Transportation and Utility Commission (WUTC) sent a letter about how they would look at a company that can't pay for the system. The SWAC didn't want to make any decisions on this. The SWAC wanted input from the citizens at Point Roberts regarding the requested change in service. The meeting in Point Roberts went well. People voiced their opinions and councilmembers got their questions answered. The SWAC wants the Council to make a decision because it's an ordinance change. The Council has the information on what Point Recycling wants the change to be. The SWAC wanted to make sure everyone was involved and heard, so they can make a definitive decision on a change in service. According to the WUTC and State Department of Ecology, Point Roberts is like no place else in Washington State. They have to haul garbage into Canada and back into the United States. The WUTC will not allow them to make an exception and haul garbage to Canada because there is a treaty. Canada will not accept garbage from the U.S. It can be very difficult to get in and out of Canada at times. The cost to provide the service is high. Many of the homes are vacation homes, so there isn't the necessary infrastructure. The community is unique and needs to be handled accordingly. Brenner asked if the County has something in writing from the Canadians. Lemperes stated they do. There is a letter from the Canadian government that deals with a specific landfill in Canada. They will accept recyclables, but not garbage. Brenner asked for a copy of the letter from the Canadian government. Lemperes stated the WUTC and Department of Ecology are meeting now to determine the definition of recycling. The two agencies don't agree, which puts the County in the middle of the situation. Nelson stated the federal government has a treaty with Canada. Lemperes stated it is a treaty issue. They cannot break the treaty. They're not willing to amend the treaty. The City of Vancouver has a contract with a certain landfill. The garbage must come within that territory. Arthur Wilkowski, Point Recycling and Refuse, stated hauling to the Canadian landfill would have made things a lot easier. British Columbia has a regional solid waste system. The Province has a certain planning authority. The City operates the facility. They have an agreement. When they designed the system, they excluded many things. Brenner asked how often Point Recycling goes from Point Roberts to the facility in Whatcom County. Wilkowski stated he goes to RDS. He does about 1,300 tons of garbage per year. He hauls about two or three 40 -yard boxes per week in the winter. In the summer, he hauls five or six boxes. His trucks will sit at the border for hours, which imposes an operational cost and a logistical challenge. This system must never stop. It can't break down. However, if the border shuts down for any reason, he is not able to move the material. One problem is that a Canadian garbage company is coming to Point Roberts to illegally poach garbage. The WUTC is slow to respond. It took him eight months to get any enforcement action from the WUTC. He had to get aggressive with the residents. If people do business with this illegal hauler, he will not do business with the resident. That's a hard stance. However, he is a utility, not a monopoly. He is bound and obligated to provide the service, no matter what happens to his facility and equipment. The organizations that bind him to service, which are the County and the State, are responsible for protecting the company. By protecting the company, they protect the citizens and consumers. Public Works and Safety Committee, 7/10/2007, Page 6 1 Brenner asked the difference between a utility and a monopoly. Wilkowski stated 2 monopolies dominate the marketplace, but have freedom of choice to set rates and services 3 and decide with whom they do business. They can use that power to influence their 4 business. He does not set rates. He does not set services. He has no freedom of choice in 5 his obligation to serve. That is why the State set up regulating utilities. 6 7 Brenner asked from where this definition of monopoly comes. A utility is a 8 monopoly. 9 10 Caskey - Schreiber stated that doesn't matter to the issue today. 11 12 Wilkowski stated that rates are based on an economic model. When waste leaves 13 the system, whether burned, buried, or illegally hauled out of the system, it drives up the 14 rates for other consumers. He's been trying for years to get the WUTC or border to stop 15 this illegal hauler. If this hauler takes 30 or 40 percent of the tonnage out of the system, it 16 drives up the rates for everyone. 17 18 Caskey- Schreiber asked why less garbage would increase the rate of operation. 19 Wilkowski stated he must maintain equipment and basic overhead operating costs. Rates 20 are based on the cost of service. He applies for rates from the WUTC, after showing all his 21 services provided and expenses the past year. The WUTC verifies the expenses. The 22 information is plugged into a formula to determine the rates. Everyone who uses the 23 system is paying for the operating costs. He can earn five percent revenue over expenses. 24 The foreign company is using the excuse of recycling to cross the border with garbage. He 25 is trying to protect his consumers, but the government agencies aren't helping to protect 26 the consumers by stopping the illegal hauler. That's why he's been trying to get a recycling 27 definition out of the Solid Waste Advisory Committee. He has to go nuts to get anyone's 28 attention. Now, all of a sudden, the WUTC is paying attention. The system must be 29 designed for certain outcomes and effects. Now, the County must generate a reasonable 30 research proposal for the public to comment on. They have input from SWAC and the 31 councilmembers. Send it back to staff to look at the details of implementing his proposal 32 for universal service, which benefits the consumers, and for having a reasonable self -haul 33 program. Explain to the residents the program, which needs to be put together in a tighter, 34 clearer package. 35 36 Caskey- Schreiber asked if these people who elect to use a Canadian provider get an 37 exemption. Wilkowski stated they do not. They just do it. 38 39 Caskey- Schreiber stated she needs to see what Mr. Wilkowski is asking for, and then 40 staff's perspective on the proposal. 41 42 Brenner stated that she wants to see a financial analysis of Point Recycling before 43 she does anything. The WUTC said they will do a financial analysis if Mr. Wilkowski asks for 44 it. Wilkowski stated that if staff works to put together an organized, documented proposal 45 for the public, he will file a rate case. 46 47 Weimer stated there is more than one issue. One issue is economics. Mr. Wilkowski 48 could ask for higher rates, but fewer people will use the service, and then the rates will go 49 higher again. The County doesn't enforce collection in Point Roberts. The other issue is 50 enforcement of what's going across the border and the definition of recycling. He would like 51 enough clarity so the councilmembers know what they're talking about if they go to Point 52 Roberts for a meeting. 53 Public Works and Safety Committee, 7/10/2007, Page 7 1 Wilkowski stated he is trying to change the economic model. 2 3 Caskey - Schreiber stated she wants to know from what economic model to what 4 other economic model Mr. Wilkowski wants to change. She wants to know what exactly 5 would change. 6 7 Brenner stated she wants a financial analysis of what exists now, including the 8 problems with the current system. Wilkowski stated the way to do that is to file a rate case. 9 10 Brenner stated the first step is a WUTC financial analysis. She would like to know 11 how much time Mr. Wilkowski and his staff works. She needs the information from a third 12 party, not from Mr. Wilkowski. Wilkowski stated he works 80 hours per week. 13 14 Weimer stated he would like information from staff about what it means to go to 15 universal service. He would like to know about the issue with the definition of recycling. He 16 would like to know why the Council should believe it when Mr. Wi[kowski says he can't make 17 it economically and they should stop picking up recycling curbside. Wilkowski stated the 18 WUTC says they should file a rate case. The WUTC will not issue an opinion. 19 20 Weimer stated one question is whether closing the loophole for material going to 21 Canada would affect the economic issue, and whether they would be able to continue 22 curbside recycling. There are many variables. Wilkowski stated the County staff can 23 answer those questions from the Council. 24 25 Brenner stated it's not fair to have staff and Mr. Wilkowski work on a proposal. A 26 proposal should be broad, and not include just the input from the affected party. The other 27 affected parties are all the rate payers. The Council must decide on going to Point Roberts 28 for a meeting before asking staff to do anything. 29 30 Caskey- Schreiber stated she wants to know what Mr. Wilkowski proposes, the status 31 of the proposal, the exact changes in the proposal, the current budget, reasons why the 32 current budget doesn't work, and how the proposal would change the situation. Lemperes 33 stated she has much of that information. 34 35 Caskey- Schreiber stated all she wants is a memo with that information. 36 37 Brenner stated she needs the financial analysis from the WUTC. Wilkowski stated he 38 will work with the WUTC. He will start bringing things forward to counciimembers and staff. 39 40 Brenner stated the County must do this, not Mr. Wilkowski. Staff needs to give their 41 information and answers to the questions. Mr. Wilkowski only needs to request a financial 42 analysis from the WUTC and bring it to the Council. Lemperes stated that is the only 43 information she needs. She has answers to everything else. 44 45 Nelson asked where residents can legally take their garbage if they can't take it into 46 Canada. Wilkowski stated residents can take garbage to the transfer station or he can pick 47 it up. That's the only choice. It's a closed system. Only 33 percent of the households are 48 using this system at all. 49 50 51 OTHER BUSINESS 52 53 There was no other business. Public Works and Safety Committee, 7/10/2007, Page 8 1 2 3 ADJOURN 4 5 Tie meeting adjourned at 3:05 p.m. 7 8 _ 9 Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription 10 11 ,,�����u 144 12 ATTE;e: . y 13 ., �. . �H�r�� � • f• i 14 O; ° •� 15 16 • 17 r 18 Dark Bre a Os : 6ehcil perk •.HN'.0 c 0011, , 10 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Barbara Brenner, Committee Chair Public Works and Safety Committee, 7/10/2007, Page 9