Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial County Council September 28 1990WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Special Meeting September 28, 1990 The meeting was called to order at 4:03 p.m. by Chairman Don Hansey Present: Dan Warner Bob Imhof Emily Jackson Marge Laidlaw Mary Vanderpol Absent: Dennis Vander Yacht 1. PETITION TO VACATE LINDSAY AVENUE, DUART AVENUE AND JEFFERSON AVENUE, FILED BY JUNE ELDER, ET AL (AB90 -260) Vanderpol reported the vacation had been changed to read Jefferson Avenue between Lindsay Avenue and Duart Avenue so as not to deny access to property of an opponent; Public Service recommended to Council this item now be passed. VANDERPOL SO MOVED. Henken said this is satisfactory to his department; it is legal to reduce a vacation request once in progress according to Randy Watts. Motion carried unanimously. 2. FINAL RECOMMENDATION TO COUNTY EXECUTIVE FOR FUNDING SOLID WASTE PROGRAMS FOR 1991. Warner read his letter (attached) and asked that Shirley Van Zanten report back on all the options. WARNER MOVED TO ASK THE EXECUTIVE TO REPORT BACK ON THE EIGHT OPTIONS IN HIS LETTER OF 9- 27 -90. Warner mentioned that even if we chose one of these options there would not be adequate funding by January 1. Jackson referred to the attached letters from Carol Rondello and Jeff Brown as well as the letter from Corky Smith, Jr. She asked if these could be investigated at the same time as the others and would like this added as a friendly amendment. Warner wanted to know if Jackson meant the cost of setting Cedarville or others up as a transfer station and know if Jackson meant the cost of setting Cedarville or others up as a transfer station and what the request for proposals would say. She agreed it was, as well as an analysis of bidding out either in whole or in parts; Jackson also stated she does not support a legal challenge of the referendum. Warner said the administration could not have this completed until June. Warner said he would add these three options to the motion as 9, 10 and 11. Jackson said the Council should get to work on this issue in committee so it has its priorities determined and narrowed down; the Council should not give the administration work sake of work, she said. Motion carried unanimously. WARNER MOVED TO ACKNOWLEDGE MARGE LAIDLAW'S APPOINTMENT TO THE ECONOMIC TASK FORCE BY THE WASHINGTON ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 4:16 p.m. ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Cionald' GBar ara Maher, Council Clerk G. ans ,Chairman Minutes, September 28, 1990, Page 2 Phone 206 -676 -6690 206 - 384-1403 SCAN 206 - 769 -6690 FAX 206-676.7727 4,elf �r � COUNTY COUNCIL 311 Grand Avenue Bellingham, Washington 98225 Memo To: CM, Exec Fr: Dan Warner Re: Solid Waste Da: September 27, 1990 Donald G. Hansey Robert A. Imhof Emily Jackson Margaret M. Laidlaw Marvin G. Vanderpol Dennis J. Vander Yacht Daniel M. Warner I have been giving this solid waste issue considerable thought as you know, and have several suggestions. I talked to a couple of Council Members about this, and the reaction seems generally favorable. 1. Funding for 1991. I suggest we direct the Administration to develop the budget for 1991 so as to provide for a $1 million contribution from Current Expense into the Solid Waste Fund, with notations indicating what has been cut to achieve such savings. During budget deliberations we can consider more fully how money can be generated to re -fund deleted programs. 2. Funding for 1991, continued. I suggest we direct the Administration to investigate and report to us on every one of the options listed on the September 20 orange cover sheet. Specifically: 1. On what possible bases and with what liklihood of success could the Referendum be challenged. 2. Under what circumstances and how (physically) can Cedarville be re- opened, how much life is there, and how much would it gen- erate in income. 3. Levy a surcharge on haulers charges (this is in the packet). 4. Voter approved property tax. How would this work? Would it be a one -time levy increase, and how would that help us over a long run? 5. Surcharge on tipping fee (is in packet). 6. License or permit fee for disposal facilities. How could the County's solid waste programs be re- configured to fit administrative- ly into the Health Department, and how much of a fee could then be properly ascribed to the new Health functions? 7. Charge for availability of Cedarville (is in packet). 8. Support from Current Expense (see the first item). 3. Amend the Collection District Ordiance to create a "Solid Waste Recycling and Collection District," and at every place in the Ordinance where reference is made to the "Solid Waste Collection District," change the language to read "Solid Waste Recycling and Collection District." Every reference to "Solid waste" should include recyling as appropriate. 4. Delete Section 3 regard Exemptions entirely, and replace it with the following: A. [Same] B. Any person who wishes an exemption from the provision or application of this Ordiance may file an affidavit with the Solid Waste Manager which states substantively as follows: I swear or affirm that I should be exempt from the requirements of universal recycling and solid waste collection because I am disposing of my solid waste in an environmentally sound way. This affidavit is subject to verification by the Solid Waste Manager or his/her designee. C. [Use the present "D ".] The Solid Waste Division should generate instructions on approved, environ- mentally sound disposal methods which would be subject to this verification. 5. Request the Administration to present for our adoption a Flow Control Ordin- ance directing that solid waste should be deposited in properly licenses fac- ilities. end Whatcom County Council Courthouse annex 1000 N_ Forest Bellingham, WA 98225 Dear Council member, �f September 2'4, 3 9D 1 While attending last Thursday's council meeting on Solid Waste financing, it was apparent that the County is facing three major problems %,eith respect to waste; • the County has little ability to generate the funds necessary to meet statutory and programming budget requirements. • the Countu has little control over waste flow, hoar it's handled and ultimately disposed of, and what rates are charged. the public perception that the existing system is non - competitive, with resultant concern over high disposal charges. Most of these problems derive from the fact that'�r'hatcom County does not operate the solid waste system as a utility. Despite the fact that essentiellu all counties in Washington manage solid waste, recent public sentiment of some in our county has been in favor of complete privatization of the disposal systern. While privatization of some elements of disposal operations may make sense, the County's non - involvement has resulted in budgetary, tipping fee rate, and management problems. We propose that the County thoroughly investigate the following two options, and regain control over what we feel should be a County - controlled utility_ OPTION 1: Set up a County -owned transfer/recycling facility on the CederYille site. Harding, final disposal, and possibly transfer site operation could be bid out. The County would control the tipping fees, final disposal location and method, level of on -site recycling, as well as getting whatever revenue it needs. While there are difficulties to using the Cedarville site, it is County - owned, centrally located, and would require the least time to make operational_ Flow control would be desireable. OPTION 2: The County could bid out disposal. The RFP could specify that comp. plan priorities be met, compensation and surcharge formulas, bonding requirements, etc. The lowest responsible bidder would be chosen. Under this scenario the Countu would be able to foster competitive rates as well as having access to a surcharge. Flow control would be necessary. Both of these options .,,ould generate income for the Count, although they differ in the amount of control offered. Eoth of these options 5,,,ould also allow the County to specify Strict cornpliance with en vironmental standurd.- in all phases of Operations. Neither- option could be implemented in time to meet the immediate financial needs of the 1991 budget, although the revenue problem would be solved for the future. We hope that the solution chosen to raise the revenue necessany for 199 i w4111 not preclude the County from pursuing either of these options. Even though these options do not solve the immediate financial crunch, they do offer hope for the future. Unless e utility structure is considered, the County and ratepauers wiil always be at the mercy of private companies with no contractual right to review rates and profits. This is a dangerous situation, and hss resulted in some of the highest dispose] rates in the Countni, with little public benefit. We would appreciate the Council's consideration of these proposed options. Furt. ",e:^, we would like to express our appreciation for the considerable work the Council has already accomplished to develop an environmentally sound solid taste management sustem for our community. Sincere►u, Jeff Brown Carol Rondeilo 3315 Hillside Road 1 109 13th Street Deming, WA 90244 Bellingham, WA 90225 MEMO OLIVINE CORPORATION BELLINGHAM, WASHINGTON DATE: SEPTEMBER 28, 1990 TO: SHIRLEY VAN ZANTEN, WHATCON,_CUNTY EXECUTIVE FROM: CORKY SMITH, JR.��� `2 SUBJECT: FUNDING FOR SOLID WASTE PROGRAMS Dear Ms. Van Zanten, At the meeting of the Committee of the Whole on September 20, 1990, the subject of how the County would fund its solid waste programs came to the spotlight. The local referendum has put the proposed collection tax on hold for at least a year. I have a unique proposal that should be of benefit to the programs. Olivine Corporation has a disposal facility that is currently idled. It is a low cost producer. The company has claimed it could save the County about a million dollars per year in disposal costs. Here is the funding for your programs that include recycling and waste reduction. There are about 80,000 tons per year of waste. If Olivine disposed of 401000 tons, a $25 per ton voluntary payment to the County would result in $1,000,000. OR, to keep the savings direct to the citizens of Whatcom County, a lesser amount could be given to the County with the remainder as a savings to the citizens, i.e. of the $25 difference, $10 to help fund the County programs and $15 savings to the citizens. Olivine can voluntarily do this for one year. Longer term arrangements can be made. This is a conceptual proposal for further discussion. THANK YOU.