HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial Council March 21 19951
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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Special Council Meeting
March 21, 1995
The meeting was called to order at 11 :35 a.m. by Chair Robert Imhof in the
Committee Room of the Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue.
Also Present:
Ward Nelson
Ken Henderson
Alvin Starkenburg
Marlene Dawson
Barbara Brenner (late)
Absent:
Larry Harris
1. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSAL BY BROWNING - FERRIS INDUSTRIES'
PROPOSAL TO OPERATE POINT ROBERTS SOLID WASTE DROP
OFF CENTER WITH MOTION DIRECTING STAFF IN HOW TO
PROCEED (AB95 -149)
Henderson asked if there has been any changes from the last work session
regarding this issue.
Jeff Monsen, Public Works, stated that staff has adequate information to work on
Browning- Ferris and County Construction Recyclers (Items 1 & 2).
2. DISCUSSION WITH JEFF MONSEN AND DAN GIBSON
REGARDING COUNTY CONSTRUCTION RECYCLERS (CCR)
(AB95 -154)
3. DISCUSSION REGARDING FLOW CONTROL (AB95 -132)
33 Imhof wondered why the Council was discussing a different proposal from the one
34 discussed in November. He noted he is satisfied with the original agreement.
35 Starkenburg stated he concurs with Imhof and is ready to move on with the decision
36 made at the last discussion. Henderson noted a missing element; namely, how to put out
37 to bid proposals with competing companies. Dawson agreed with Henderson and
38 thought the last discussion left off with the mechanics of "the whole thing ". Nelson
39 stated he is not comfortable doing this on a contract -by- contract basis. Rules and
40 procedures need to be established up front in order to be fair and equitable.
41
42 Monsen spoke next as to the direction of this process. He stated that Flow
43 Control will remain unchanged. There are four basic alternatives:
44
Work Session Minutes, 3/21/95, Page 1
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
1. Leave the Flow Control Ordinance as is;
2. Make significant amendments to the Flow Control Ordinance
maintaining significant County involvement;
3. Make significant amendments to the Flow Control Ordinance
substantially reducing County involvement; and
4. Repeal the Flow Control Ordinance.
He noted if the Council wished significant changes made to one of these four
concepts, then the current version undermines the Flow Control Ordinance. His first
step is to confirm the agenda and the work the Council wishes to be done.
Nelson and Imhof noted their concerns regarding the present Flow Control.
Brenner spoke to lack of enforcement of mandatory pick up. Henderson wished to leave
Flow Control as it is. Nelson said that all was well and good, but the rates can be
changed in the future. Brenner had a question for Dan Gibson, Council's counsel,
regarding liability of the ordinance if it was declared illegal. Gibson reported there are
too many variables to this question to reply immediately. Also, he noted this is a
potential executive session discussion item.
A lengthy discussion followed regarding new technology. Imhof thought it needs
to be defined and put into the hierarchy; Nelson was of the opinion it needs to be broad
and not too specific.
The next discussion topic was the length of the contract and whether or not this
Flow Control will work long term.
Imhof stated his preference would be to go with the first option (Flow Control to
remain substantially as it is with only "fine tuning" to take place). He also requested the
Council members write their concerns to Jeff Monsen to ensure those elements being
examined. After the Agreement is given to the Council, the "fine tuning" can then be
worked on. More discussion followed.
Monsen inquired of the Council if regulatory control was wanted. What about
rates? What does the Council want to accomplish? Brenner wants a "number 5" added
to the list of options. Number 5 would mean to repeal Flow Control and provide for
emergency backup only.
Imhof moved as a straw vote to move forward with option number 1 (keep Flow
Control and then fine tune it).
Motion carried 5 -1 with Brenner opposed.
Brenner wanted a clause in the agreement stating that any part of the agreement
that is found to be invalid does not force the County to pay.
Work Session Minutes, 3/21/95, Page 2
I Starkenburg inquired of Monsen if the items under option #1 were issues Monsen
2 saw as issues that need to be addressed or were they questions from Council members.
3 Monsen stated they are unclear issues in the present Flow Control. Then began a
4 lengthy discussion of the five issues under option #1.
5
6 Brenner was concerned about the rates and clean up.
7
8 A lengthy discussion ensued regarding a hierarchy. Disposal rates, unified fee
9 schedule, landfill, etc. were mentioned. The question was how to identify the relative
10 value of each hierarchy item in the Flow Control. Dawson asked if it were appropriate
11 to have a discussion reassessing the values every two years.
12
13 Brenner thought questions needed to be answered about the present tipping fee
14 and the composter before an agreement could be discussed. Henderson and Monsen
15 attempted to answer.
16
17 Nelson brought up the enforcement procedures; namely, enforcing the direction of
18 the flow. Henderson requested a record - keeping mechanism allowing the County to
19 track to ensure appropriate disposal based on the Council's hierarchy.
20
21 Monsen pointed out to Henderson that if the Council wished to get more
22 restrictive on quantities and materials and where they go, they would then be increasing
23 the regulations of the industry beyond the current aspect of Flow Control. A discussion
24 of this item followed.
25
26 4. COUNCIL APPROVAL OF DESIGNATION OF SITE, IF CONSISTENT
27 WITH THE FLOW CONTROL ORDINANCE AND DIRECTION TO STAFF
28 TO BEGIN NEGOTIATIONS WITH RDS FOR A DISPOSAL SITE
29 AGREEMENT (AB95 -144)
30
31 Monsen stated he can begin work next week on these matters for discussion.
32 What he really needs to discuss next relates to the questions and issues that need to be
33 answered with option number 1. The site designation is only as good as an agreement
34 that is signed in the end because a facility cannot operate without a signed agreement.
35
36 Henderson thought RDS has met all the requirements as far as designation.
37 Monsen replied they have not done so, and he cannot inform them of such until this
38 discussion has been completed.
39
40 Larry McCarter, RDS, clarified he must have a designation site in order to obtain
41 a building permit.
42
43 Brenner moved for a straw vote of RDS designation.
44
Work Session Minutes, 3/21/95, Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Dan Gibson, counsel for the Council, noted it is appropriate to discuss site
designation in executive session.
Imhof moved to go into executive session to discuss this matter.
Motion carried 5 -1 with Brenner opposed.
Imhof announced that the vote on RDS designation will be held on Tuesday,
March 28, 1995 at the regular Council meeting.
5. RECOMP AGREEMENT WORK SESSION. (AB94 -223D)
F l
As it was time to adjourn, it was decided to have another work session at a later
date to be determined.
The meeting was adjourned at 1:30 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Recording Secretary
These minutes were approved by the Council on June 6 , 1995.
ATTEST:
r'
Dana rown -Davis
Acting Clerk of the Council
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Work Session Minutes, 3/21/95, Page 4