Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03.26.2025 SWAC Specilal Mtg Minutes APPROVEDJefferson County, Washington State Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC) Meeting Minutes Joint Special Meeting with Jefferson County Board of Commissioners Wednesday, March 26, 2025, 9:00 a.m. Jefferson County Courthouse – Commissioners’ Chambers 1820 Jefferson Street, Port Townsend, WA Hybrid Meeting Audio and video recordings posted under Meeting Recordings on this website https://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/483/Solid-Waste-Advisory-Committee Opening Business Meeting agenda posted on website on March 18, 2025. 9:00 a.m. Call to Order and Roll Call – Tracy Grisman, Chair SWAC Members Present for Roll Call: Heidi Eisenhour, County Commissioner Alysa Thomas, Skookum Site Manager Tracy Grisman, Chair & District #1 Bliss Morris, City of Port Townsend Don Rhoden, District #2 Steve Chappuis, District #2 Phil Sonne, Citizen-at-Large Rebecca Jewell, Citizen-at-Large Joey Deese, Waste Connections Sierra Young, Conservation District SWAC Members Absent Pete Hanke, Port of Port Townsend Public Works Staff Present Al Cairns, Public Works Solid Waste Manager Chris Spall, Public Works Support Staff Justin Miskell, Public Works Solid Waste Coordinator Guests/Visitors included: Commissioners Greg Brotherton and Heather Dudley-Nollette, Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners; and Lacy Kooiman, WA State Dept. of Ecology There is a quorum of both SWAC and BoCC. 1.Public Comment included: The continued need and demand for the Quilcene Drop Box facility for rural residents and curbside service does not really work for the rural residents. 2.Meeting Introduction – Heidi Eisenhour. The purpose of the meeting is to dig into some fairly large issues from Solid Waste, to entertain questions and ideas on these issues, and for the SWAC and BoCC to give direction on what path Solid Waste staff should take on these issues. Al Cairns gave a slide presentation on the three discussion and potential action items on the meeting agenda. There are three pressing issues Public Works staff want direction on how to resolve: 1. Should a capital surcharge be added to the current tipping fee to pay for much needed facility improvements? 2.When the current recycling contract ends (March 31, 2026) should residential recycling services be privatized and offered as curbside collection with payment made directly to the service provider? 3. Should $6 be added to the current tipping fee to fund transport of glass to Oregon for recycling? 3.Discussion and Potential Action re: Capital funding needs. Slides and discussion on this topic included: •Solid Waste an enterprise fund operation. 99.6% of revenue from garbage disposal fees. 0% comes from taxes. •Triple bottom line: Financial Health, Social Responsibility, and Environmental Stewardship •Financial health mentioned once in the Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP) in Chapter 1 Goals. •Doing well on Social responsibility: Maintained fee at CPI; Self-financed with no debt; Employment for individuals with IDD; Low-income discount. •Doing well on Environmental Stewardship: Over 50% recycling rate, Close to state organics diversion goal; Financial support of Public Health’s illegal dumping program; HHW collection events and Kitsap County ILA; Grazing goats instead of herbicides at closed landfill site. •Not doing well on Financial Health: Equipment Reserve (Capital) fund balance should be 25% of current capital (equipment and buildings) replacement value, and Operations fund balance should be 25% of projected annual solid waste operation expenditures. •For 2025, operation expenditures projected to exceed revenues, and Capital Fund $1.8 million under target fund balance and estimated to grow to $3.6 M under if considering all capital needs. •Capital needs include: Replace failing scales (critical), tarping rack, asphalt on upper and lower lots, tipping floor building roof, tipping floor leachate drain tank, and knuckle-boom crane replacement. •How to pay for it all and who pays it? Staff recommends adding a capital surcharge to the tipping fee that would go directly to the capital fund. •Building new facility realistically 10 years out. $3.6 million would make current facility work until new facility is built. 4.Discussion and Potential Action re: Recycling program. Slides and discussion on this topic included: •Why is it subsidized? Starting in 1971 recycling ad campaigns began using messaging that consumers are responsible for proper disposal of single use packaging. Municipalities and Counties ended up bearing burden for recycling, not manufacturers. •How much are we subsidizing it? $13.89 is the per ton Tipping Fee Subsidy. •Should it be subsidized? EPR or bottle bills may not pass this year but it is the future. •SWMP goals in order of priority: reduce waste, promote reuse, and recycle. •2024 spending allocations, as a measure of reaching these goals, show $326,000 was spent on recycling, whereas only $108,000 was spent on first two goals combined. •Contamination rates higher despite spending more on contamination reduction •Continue with tipping fee subsidized recycling or move to privatization? •Continuing with the status quo means discontinuing: Food waste diversion, low income discount, IDD employment, illegal dumping subsidy, Quilcene Drop Box facility, HHW events, Solid Waste education. •Privatizing recycling starts with a DRAFT minimum level of service ordinance or resolution outlining the service the UTC hauler would offer. The hauler takes the ordinance or resolution to the UTC for rates to be set. •Estimate that percentage of customers in the county subscribing to curbside collection would double. Clallam switched from sort separated to single stream and participation rate went from 23% to over 50% and volumes increased significantly. Curbside recycling would cut the queue in the line at the Transfer Station. Propose offering recycling option past the scales for customers who can’t get curbside service. •Do we want to privatize at end of current contract on 4/1/2026? Will hold a workshop to discuss what SWAC and BoCC want to do. 5.Discussion and Potential Action re: Glass to Portland •Portland only outlet accepting glass now. Seattle markets are gone. •Looking at a $6 tipping fee increase to send glass to Portland. •Staff recommends waiting for a bottle bill instead of burdening customers with increase in tipping fee. Glass is inert and doesn’t harm environment when landfilled. •Tipping fee increase doesn’t make sense, it masks the fact that recycling is not free. •Grind glass into sand? Real sand is cheap so pulverizing glass doesn’t compete cost-wise with sand. •AT WSAC •Heidi called for a joint vote of the SWAC and BoCC in favor of accepting the staff recommendation which reads “Public Works recommends against increasing the tipping fee to fund glass recycling and for continued advocacy from the BoCC WSAC Legislative Steering Committee representative for a bottle bill such as the current HB 1607 to gain a long-term viable regional market for glass.” Greg seconded the motion, and all voted in favor of the motion. It passed unanimously. SWAC and BoCC agreed that they would like to hold an additional meeting to further discuss capital funding needs and privatizing recycling. Al Cairns will work with Carolyn on possible meeting dates for another joint special meeting of the SWAC and BoCC. Meeting adjourned at 11 a.m.