Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCommittee of the Whole May 2 1989WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE May 2, 1989 Council Chairman Don Hansey called the meeting to order at 7 :06 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Other Council Members Present: Absent: Emily Jackson Tom Burton Corky Johnson Will Roehl Dan Warner Mary Vanderpol Hansey explained that all three items on the agenda related to solid waste. 1. DISCUSSION ON AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO INTERLOCAL AGREEMENTS WITH CITIES (SOLID WASTE PLANNING; ATTORNEY DiCK FORD WILL MAKE THE PRESENTATION) Van Zanten noted that some city representatives had attended the April 6 Public Services and Solid Waste Committee meeting, saying that they understood why the County wants to implement this ordinance, but they still would like more discussion. The ordinance suggests that the County approach the cities and ask them to sign an interlocal agreement that would cause them to make a commitment up front that the county's solid waste management plan includes the cities. There are various mechanisms to make sure city issues are addressed. Whatcom County's cities will be asked to analyze their waste streams and decide what portions of the waste they expect to go to county facilities. Any waste not designated for county facilities will not be allowed into county facilities. The county will have flow control over any waste that is designated for county facilities. The ordinance also calls for a solid waste disposal district, Van Zanten said. In order to site and operate a new landfill the county needs to know where waste will be coming from, how much will be going to the new landfill, plus the county needs to be assured that finances exist to pay for the new landfill, Van Zanten said. She went through the ordinance section by section: SECTION 1: The Executive will prepare the plan, send it to the County Council, and make sure the appropriate State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) actions are taken. SECTION 2: The Executive will contact each city and ask if it plans to (a) be a part of the county's solid waste management plan, (b) go it alone, or (c) include only a part of its waste stream in the county's plan. SECTiON 3: If it agrees to be included in the plan, the city will be asked to sign interlocal agreement much like the one attached to the ordinance as an exhibit. ( Vanderpol arrived at this point). 7; COTW Minutes, 5/2/89, Page 2 SECTION 4: Each involved city will define its waste stream. The County will have flow control ONLY over the part going to county facilities. SECTION 6: Haulers within cities will be bound by what the city decides to do. SECTION 7: Executive is authorized to activate mandatory garbage collection in unincorporated areas. This Is something the cities wanted to see included because it is only fair to include unincorporated areas in this plan, Van Zanten said. In order to activate the collection the Executive must follow four steps, outlined in the ordinance. SECTION 8: Even though the cities are committed to a course of action, the mayor of each city will be able to review the plan before it is finalized. The city will not be able to withdraw from its agreement with the county, but it can suggest changes within the plan's content. SECTION 9: Housekeeping /administrative clarification items. Dick Ford, a Seattle attorney working for the County, drafted the ordinance. He noted that the SEPA review noted above is for the comprehensive plan itself, and that the impact of various means of disposal still will need to be addressed. He also talked about the possible need for an excise tax on solid waste hauling fees. In some areas the tax is 22 percent, but it probably would not be so large here. There was discussion. Johnson asked how a person could be excluded from mandatory pickup in the unincorporated areas. Ford said the law allows people to dispose of their own garbage if they have a disposal site within health department standards on their own property. Warner asked what would happen if a city's estimated flow of garbage increased more sharply than had been planned for. Ford said the plan probably would have to be amended. He noted that it is better to underestimate the amount of garbage than to overestimate, so the County doesn't get stuck paying for more space than it needs at a new landfill. Jackson asked if a disposal district or excise tax could be placed on the ballot. Ford said it doesn't need to, although Council could ask for an advisory vote. There was more discussion. Bob Jurica, County Solid Waste Manager, said this item could go before the Solid Waste Advisory Committee at its May 9 meeting. Hansey asked if a public hearing should be scheduled so the small cities would have more input. Van Zanten said she planned to meet with small cities in the coming week. Jackson said the public should have input into a proposal such as mandatory pickup in the unincorporated areas. Warner noted that the mandatory pickup could >14± take place before a number of steps had been completed. Van Zanten said one of the steps is that the County Council would have to create a solid waste collection district, which requires a separate ordinance and a public hearing. COTW Minutes, 5/2/89, Page 3 It was agreed that SWAC would review this ordinance prior to the County Council taking any action on it. 2. DISCUSSION OF AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A SURCHARGE ON LARGE AMOUNTS OF SOLID WASTE BEING HAULED TO CEDARVILLE ADA 3. DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE INCREASES TO TIPPING FEES AT CEDARVILLE (ORAL PRESENTATION; NO PAPER) Van Zanten said items 2 and 3 go together. Warner said he had proposed such an ordinance a number of years ago, but at the administration's request it had been tabled. Van Zanten said the purpose of putting this on the agenda (an ordinance has not yet been introduced) is to find out if the Council thinks it is an appropriate policy direction to take. She handed out a copy of garbage rate projections for the coming years (on file). Because incinerators are increasing rates (Olivine is jumping from $36 to $75 per ton as of July 1, TRC is expected to increase from $75 to $90 per ton), Van Zanten said it may be wise for the County to increase Cedarville's rates from $36 per ton; otherwise, everyone will want to dump garbage there. A rate increase won't make the county "filthy rich," she said, because any additional money would go back into the solid waste program. There was much discussion of the proposal. Consensus seemed to be that the Council would favor increasing rates at Cedarville. However, as Vanderpol pointed out, establishing a surcharge at this time may throw a wrench into interlocal agreement negotiations with small cities. Jackson noted that charging more money for people bringing in large loads of waste seemed to be punitive; it is not a hauler's fault that its customers generate a lot of trash. Warner asked why the administration felt that it was advisable to head in this direction when at one time it was opposed to such a move. Van Zanten said people keep asking why the administration doesn't do something to stop incinerators from turning garbage haulers away, which means they dump more garbage at Cedarville. This would help that situation, she said. WARNER MOVED THAT THE COUNCIL REQUEST THE ADMINISTRATION TO GENERATE AN ORDINANCE THAT WOULD INCREASE FEES AT COUNTY LANDFILLS TO A LEVEL GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO THE HIGHEST INCINERATOR RATES. Jackson said she would like to see extra money generated from such an endeavor put into a special recycling fund. Dan Liedecker of Nooksack Valley Disposal said the County may have some trouble enforcing such a rate increase, and that people will be angry when the new rate first takes effect. Johnson acknowledged that it certainly will be a jolt to some people. Liedecker said the County's intentions may be good, but the result will be that raising the rates to such extremes will "create chaos." People will dump at the sides of roads, in their back yards, etc. /0 . NV COTW Minutes, 5/2/89, Page 4 Motion carried unanimously. Warner noted that garbage dumping costs $120 to $130 per ton on the East Coast, and that area still has garbage problems. The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. ATTEST: Ramona Reeves, Council Clerk 0 WHATCnM COUNTY COUNCIL