Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Works October 26 19991 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Public Works and Capital Projects Committee October 26, 1999 The meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. by Committee Chair Barbara Brenner in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. Also Present: Absent: Ward Nelson None Tom Brown COMMITTEE DISCUSSION 1. DISCUSSION REGARDING SHERIFF RESPONSE TIME TO THE ACME AREA (AB99 -374) Brenner stated this is the second time the Sheriff's office has been notified about this meeting, and they are not present. She moved that the committee send a letter to the Sheriff regarding the concerns and request a response in writing. Brown stated he understood the concern, but the Sheriff is an elected official and people need to realize the Council can't tell the Sheriff what to do. The Council has approved the funding for the Nooksack deputies and the Peaceful Valley deputies, which is six people. Nelson questioned whether there was some confusion between the Sheriff and the State Patrol about who was responding. He asked that it be clarified in the Sheriff's response. Brenner stated they would send a copy of the concerns and a letter requesting clarification of whether that area is County or State jurisdiction and why the response was so long. Motion carried unanimously. 2. DISCUSSION REGARDING REQUESTS MADE BY POINT RECYCLING AND REFUSE, POINT ROBERTS' SOLID WASTE FACILITY, IN THEIR SEPTEMBER 12, 1999, LETTER TO THE WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL (AB99 -398) Bruce Mills, Public Works Deputy Administrator, stated the owner of the company, Arthur Wilkowski, is also present to answer questions. There are three issues regarding fencing for security and safety reasons. That is something that is allowed in the current contract and the Public Works Department will work with him. The second issue is the hours of operation. He is fulfilling the contract and there is no problem. The third issue is the change to the fees. The Unified Fee Schedule sets certain rates. He is proposing to take away some incentive for some Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 10/26/99, Page 1 1 people to self -haul to the facility in order to encourage roadside pickup. Normally 2 in the fee schedule, they look at the justified cost. The owner is proposing to raise 3 the fee for self - hauling as incentive to get people to use roadside service. 4 5 Arthur Wilkowski, Point Recycling and Refuse, stated they are also talking 6 about some other things. There has been communication from Point Roberts 7 residents regarding solis waste questions. 8 9 Mills stated there have been some citizen complaints, but the complaints are 10 ones that are between the facility and the citizens. 11 12 Brenner stated she wasn't interested in addressing the complaints unless the 13 citizens were there to express their concerns. 14 15 Wilkowski stated Point Roberts is a challenging area. It is four square miles 16 and has 51 miles of road. To dispose of the garbage, it is transported 120 miles 17 roundtrip and through four border crossings. They collect curbside about 600 tons 18 of garbage per year, and 300 tons per year from the transfer station. That is about 19 one and a half percent of the garbage collected in the County. He provided his 20 background. Two owners ago, they were only charging the commercial customers 21 for picking up from the residential customers. They were not operating within 22 tariff. They got into severe financial problems and were in financial default to the 23 County. The County foreclosed and forced a sale of the company to the previous 24 owner. When the previous owner took over, they tried to explain to people that 25 they had to pay for the garbage picked up at their houses. They also had to 26 convince people that the County has a universal collection ordinance that requires 27 that all households to be on garbage service, throughout the county, unless they 28 file for an exemption. In the past, Point Roberts got a blanket exemption. When 29 he took the company over, they found a couple of problems that generated 30 customer complaints. One problem was the County's requirement that everyone 31 with residential garbage service must also pay for recycling service. Those rates 32 are set by the Washington State Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC) 33 and are determined to be fair and justifiable. There were about 100 households 34 that were not being charged for the recycling. That created several problems. One 35 is that it violates a County ordinance. The other is that, as a regulated garbage 36 company, they must obey all County ordinances and treat all customers fairly and 37 equally, without exception. They went through a process of charging the recycling 38 fee and encouraging people to use their recycling. The cost for someone to have 39 one can per month picked up, plus the cost of recycling and taxes, is $10.08. At 40 the transfer station, current rates are $4.00 for a garbage can, and there is not a 41 recycling requirement. Therefore, people who don't want to recycle take two cans 42 worth of garbage for $8.00. They don't pay the County excise tax and there is no 43 incentive to recycle. They want to support recycling, but there is an economic 44 disincentive to recycle. The theory behind the recycling curbside program was that, 45 if everyone participated, it would be fair and affordable to everyone. Also, because 46 people recycle, they can reduce the number of garbage cans they set out and 47 decrease the garbage portion of their bill. The theory is what he wants to 48 implement at the station. Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 10/26/99, Page 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Brown stated he self -hauls because he does a lot of recycling. The recycling bins provided to him don't serve his needs, and the garbage company wanted him to haul it down the road before they would pick it up. Most people generate more than one can per month. Wilkowski is raising the rates to support the business. He didn't like eliminating the ability for people to haul their own garbage. Self- hauling is a valuable part of the County program. It also looks like, when limiting the amount of recycling that comes in, they are not promoting recycling. A good recycling program has more recyclables than garbage. Nelson asked how much they are proposing to charge for self - hauling. Wilkowski stated that if someone self -hauls one can of garbage, the cost would be $7.50. That is about the same cost as the curbside service. With that one can, people can bring in their recycling free of charge. Currently it is $4.00 for a self - hauled garbage can and $3.00 for self - hauled recycling. He is embedding the recycling fee in the first can. If a person brings in a second can of garbage, then the second can is $4.75, which is about what a second curbside can costs. Nelson stated he was concerned about limiting the ability to self -haul. If one is doing his or her own program, the cost would still be cheaper because less waste is generated. One generates less waste if there is a good recycling program. According to the proposal, the cost of self - hauling would still be cheaper if one was doing a good recycling program. Wilkowski stated it would be close. He wasn't trying to financially penalize people from self - hauling. He was trying to find a variety of service options for curbside service. He wants to create a prepaid tag, so someone can buy prepaid tags for garbage service if they are in the area only a short time. A person wouldn't have to go through the bother of signing up for service. Self- hauling should be an option, but it is a lifestyle choice. It a small solid waste system, it is cheaper for him to pick up garbage curbside. Brenner stated it is more profitable for him to do that. Wilkowski stated that it is more profitable, but solid waste is a regulated industry. If he increases his customer base and his profits, he is required to file to lower his rates. That is the course he wants to do. Garbage is not too expensive in Point Roberts. Rates are comparable to rates on other areas of the county. Brenner stated she also self -hauls and recycles. She was not comfortable with raising self - hauling rates. She wouldn't mind raising the rates to cover the cost of self -haul, but she wasn't comfortable with spreading the cost out so those who are willing to self -haul subsidize the people who want to use the curbside service. The rates don't inspire more recycling efforts. She suggested he charge a fee per can and not allow a fee reduction on the second can. If there is a problem with the business not being able to survive, the County needs to be able to review the rate structure. However, the company shouldn't shift the burden from one group to another so he can make a profit. They need to make sure the garbage gets picked up. They should also review the hours of operation. They should work to make it cost - effective, but the burden should not be shifted to the people who self -haul. Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 10/26/99, Page 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 Nelson stated that is what Wilkowski is proposing. Brenner stated that isn't what they are getting. People who self -haul their garbage should pay less than people who use curbside pickup. If the costs are too much, she would rather the company raise the can rate. Mills stated he couldn't change his rates for roadside pickup because it is regulated by the WUTC. Brenner stated the rates could be changed. He would have to request the change and demonstrate that he is not able to survive with the current fee. Wilkowski stated a garbage company could be viable in Point Roberts. His goal is to restructure how the system works to expand services without significantly raising the rates. Hopefully, he can get away with not raising rates. As a regulated company, the transfer station isn't allowed to subsidize the collection companies. The transfer station collects about 300 tons per year. That is not a lot from the standpoint of cost. Brown asked if he looked at the finances before he bought the company. Wilkowski stated he did. Brown questioned whether he figured he would have to raise the rates to make it work. This is what he is proposing. He will be charging much higher rates to self - haulers to get them to use the company and to eliminate the costs associated with the transfer station. When they bought the company, they had to have this in mind or they didn't do the research. A lot of times, people will self - haul because they can't afford the rates. Wilkowski stated the pickup rates are not inordinately expensive. He was trying to reverse an economic incentive to use the station that was created by a County ordinance requiring mandatory recycling as part as his garbage service. The self - haulers aren't recycling. Brenner stated that if he wanted to restructure the fees, they should be restructured without giving people a discount on their second can of garbage. That is not an incentive to recycle. It is an incentive to make more garbage. She didn't support the way he restructured the fee schedule. Wilkowski stated the price of the first can has the recycling fees embedded into it. Brenner suggested they separate out the can fee and the recycling fee. The way it is proposed, people are not encouraged to do more recycling. Wilkowski stated the current rates are structured the way Brenner suggests, but people are not making the effort to recycle. Brenner stated that if people are not doing that anyway, they are not going to recycle anyway, they are not going to recycle if the rates are changed. They will just pay more. She wanted Wilkowski to take out the embedded rate. Taking it out Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 10/26/99, Page 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 and charging it separately would help customers understand. They don't have to give people a discount on the second can. Wilkowski stated another way to restructure is to charge $4.75 per can and a mandatory $3.00 recycling charge whenever someone comes into the station. He tried to simplify it and make it similar to what the fees on the garbage bill look like, which separates the garbage fee from the recycling fee. If people come into the station and don't have any recycling, they can separate the recycling at that time, or pay it and be encouraged to recycle next time. Nelson stated that someone with an exemption doesn't pay anything for pickup. He asked about the household hazardous waste disposal. Wilkowski stated he provides that service once per year. He will propose to begin the service on a regular basis. (Handout on file.) Brenner stated it should be done more than once per year. She wanted Wilkowski to work with the administration and the committee to figure out another structure that doesn't penalize the self - haulers. Brown stated he wasn't sure the people in Point Roberts knew this was before the committee. Before the committee does anything, they need to make sure the information gets to the residents. Brenner moved to send a letter to the Point Roberts Chamber of Commerce, the Point Roberts Voters' Association, and the Point Roberts Property Owners' Association letting them know this proposal has been made, provide them a copy, and asking for their input. (Clerk's Note: This motion was not voted on.) Mills stated they could create an alternate proposal before sending the letter. Brenner moved to hold in committee pending development of another proposal. Nelson asked if there was a time crunch. Wilkowski stated there wasn't. It needs to be dealt with right. Brenner stated they would hold it in committee for two weeks. Motion to hold in committee carried unanimously. (Clerk's Note: Brown left the meeting at 2 :00 p.m.) OTHER BUSINESS Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 10/26/99, Page 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Brenner stated she received a letter regarding a lot adjacent to the ferry stop on Lummi Island. The Council voted to purchase the lot. She's heard that it is now on hold. A letter from the neighbors says they are opposed. She asked about the status of the lot. Bruce Mills, Public Works Deputy Administrator, stated there has been opposition from a neighbor that is not adjacent to the lot. It is on hold. Brenner questioned whether there was opposition when the County bought the lot. She was opposed to buying the lot at the time because she was concerned about some of the issues. She questioned whether there was any public notice when the County purchased the lot and why it was on hold. Nelson asked if there was a question about how much of the lot was County - owned. Brenner stated that was a different lot. Mills stated most of the opposition came after the sale, not before. Brenner stated the point is that the County purchased the lot to create more parking. She asked for an update at the next committee meeting. Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated the development costs of the lot is in the budget for the year 2000. There is an intention to move forward. They are sensitive to the concerns with the neighbors and want to deal with it in a way that minimizes the impacts. Desler also apologized for not having anyone from the Sheriff's office present to speak on the Acme issue. He believed someone would be there. Brenner stated she wanted an update to decide to either move ahead with the lot development or sell the lot. Desler stated they anticipate not expending the money this year and rolling it over into the year 2000. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 2:05 p.m. Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription ATTEST: Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Barbara Brenner, Committee Chair Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 10/26/99, Page 6