PACKET: BOCC Special Meeting with SWFTF at Fri, Jul 28, 09:00 AM

County Sources

AVCapture Page

Documents

AI Information

Solid Waste Facility Replacement and Design Alternatives Analysis

Topic Summary

Jefferson County's Solid Waste Facilities Task Force (SWFTF) is holding a special meeting to review the initial condition assessment of the existing Port Townsend facility, evaluate four draft design alternatives, and conduct an initial screening of potential replacement sites. The existing facility is operating above its design capacity and faces numerous functional, safety, and compliance challenges. The goal of the workshop is to narrow down the potential facility design alternatives and sites for more detailed future assessment toward a comprehensive facility replacement plan that meets projected 20-year needs.

Key Points

  • The existing Port Townsend solid waste facility (SWF) is operating at over its design capacity of 50 tons per day, having exceeded this capacity in 12 out of the last 17 years.
  • The developable area at the existing 152.97-acre site is less than 1.5 acres due to a closed landfill, a wastewater lagoon, a leased gun club area, and wetlands.
  • Key functional and safety deficiencies at the current site include difficult intersections, single lane queuing, suboptimal vehicle scale length (approx. 35 ft), non-ADA compliant scalehouse, inadequate mixed traffic flow in recycling areas, and lack of backup tipping capacity.
  • Operation and Maintenance (O&M) costs increased by 44% from 2014 to 2022, indicating the facility is in overall fair condition when compared to replacement cost.
  • Four facility design alternatives are defined based on levels of service (LOS): Basic, Medium, High, and Current LOS + upgrades.
  • The screening process will use "Pass/Fail," "Functional," and "Community" criteria to select 2-3 alternatives and sites that will satisfy defined improvement objectives for detailed evaluation.
  • The existing facility's current level of recycling service is considered "High" when measured by drive time between facilities and materials accepted, compared to King County and Seattle (per 2022 Public Works staff comparison shared with SWAC).

Financials

  • Operations and Maintenance (O&M) costs at the existing facility increased by 44% between 2014 and 2022.
  • Considering increased recycling service levels requires careful deliberation regarding the necessary increase to the tipping fee to offset revenue loss and the cost of additional material diversion.
  • Tipping fees must be balanced with Level of Service to ensure lower-income residents can access the core garbage disposal service equitably.
  • Alternative 4 (Current LOS + Upgrades) includes only those upgrades necessary to continue current operations for 20 years, while Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 project new buildings with minimum design lives of 30, 30, and 40 years, respectively.
  • Alternative 1, 2, and 3 all require new knuckle-boom cranes with tracked excavators of the same capacity; Alternative 4 requires replacement only if equipment has reached the end of life.
  • If none specified: None specified.

Alternatives

Four facility design alternatives were defined: 1. Alternative 1 (Basic Level of Service): Minimum 20-year capacity, expandable to 30 years. Basic recycling LOS, two site entrances to scales (self-haulers, commercial), 1 in/1 out scales, minimum 30-year building life, 10-year equipment life. 2. Alternative 2 (Medium Level of Service): Minimum 20-year capacity, expandable to 40 years. Medium recycling LOS, two site entrances to scales with bypass lanes, 1 in/1 out scales with space for future 2nd set, minimum 30-year building life. Includes supplementary solar power and/or heat recovery systems (Medium LOS). 3. Alternative 3 (High Level of Service): Medium LOS plus expandability for new services. High recycling LOS, two site entrances to scales with bypass lanes and separate entrance/exit for no-charge services, 2 in/2 out scales, minimum 40-year building life. High LOS for solar/heat recovery and targets USGBC LEED Certification. 4. Alternative 4 (Current Level of Service + upgrades + operations management changes): The status quo scenario, requiring only necessary upgrades (building structure, site, equipment, operating procedures) for 20 years. Would require administrative changes like limiting access by user groups/hours, mandatory curbside service, eliminating recyclables drop-off, and demand pricing. Limited expandability due to site constraints.

Community Input

A Community Survey (May 26 – July 11, 2023) received 319 responses (287 used Port Townsend facility most frequently).

Top Concerns/Themes (Question #3): - Wait Times: Noted as long by 25 people, especially post-holidays, and on Tuesdays or near opening/closing. - Ingress/Egress Issues: Most frequent concern, including safety at Jacob Miller/Discovery Road intersection, vehicles driving in the oncoming lane, single lane bottlenecks, and scale length being too short for large trailers. - Hours of Operation: Requests to extend hours/days; clear lack of understanding/appreciation for the Monday closure. Landscapers need Mon-Sat access to green waste recycling. - Staff: 54 positive comments and gratitude toward staff (friendly, helpful, superb). Some requested more staff at the toll booth and tipping floor. - Location: Mixed opinions, with 9 noting the current location's convenience, but 5 requesting a more centrally located facility for county equity/growth. - Affordability: Concern over raising rates (4 respondents), which some believe would encourage roadside dumping (4 respondents). Opposition to proposed minimum charge increases, especially for yard waste.

Top Planning Priorities (Question #4): 1. Plan for at least the next 20 years (230 votes) 2. Add more recycling options (195 votes) 3. Make the facility bigger to handle more growth and additional materials (176 votes) 4. Be as economical as possible (146 votes) 5. Make the facility safer to use (119 votes) 6. Reduce the waiting time in line (117 votes)

Level of Interest in Additional Services (Questions #5 & #6): - Limited household hazardous waste disposal: 132 rated "I Really Want It"; 144 "It Would Be Nice." - Space for recycling for specialty items such as polystyrene (ex: Styrofoam™): 151 rated "I Really Want It." - Drop and take spot for reusable/unwanted items: 103 rated "I Really Want It." - Food waste / organics composting: 98 rated "I Really Want It"; 114 rated "Happy to Live Without It." - Construction and demolition debris recycling: 81 rated "I Really Want It"; 157 "It Would Be Nice." - Community meeting / use space: 254 rated "Happy to Live Without It." - Artists’ exhibit space or Space for the artist in residence program: Highest number of "Happy to Live Without It" responses (237 and 230, respectively).

Advice Themes (Question #7): - Scope of Project: Most frequent advice was to avoid "mission creep" and focus on core waste and recycling services; noted that many respondents did not want amenities like classrooms or artist spaces. - Affordability/Rates: Keep rates low; oppose proposed doubling of the minimum charge and increasing yard waste fees to $20. - Operation Improvements: Increase days and hours open; separate yard waste from garbage lines; and separate commercial and residential traffic.

Timeline

  • 2023-07-21: Document Issue Date (Handouts 1, 2, 3, and 4)
  • 2023-07-28: Workshop #5 Date
  • 2023-05-26 to 2023-07-11: Community Survey #1 was live
  • End of 2022 (Original Goal): Recommendations slated to be submitted to the Board of Commissioners

Next Steps

The SWFTF members are expected to: - Review updated screening methods, initial facility design alternatives, existing facility assessment results, and initial community survey results. - Use the screening method in the workshop to select facility design alternative(s) for detailed assessment. - Review the potential sites, the sites screening method, and initial screening results, and provide feedback. - The immediate action at Workshop #5 is to agree by modified consensus on which alternative(s) to move forward for detailed evaluation.

Sources

  • Kate Dean - District 1 Board of Commissioners
  • Heidi Eisenhour - District 2 Board of Commissioners
  • Greg Brotherton - District 3 Chair Board of Commissioners
  • Penny Mabie - (Role not specified, facilitator of agenda items)
  • Victor O. Okereke - (Affiliated with VIKEK Environmental Engineers, LLC)
  • Al Cairns - (Role not specified, contact for pre-workshop questions, affiliated with consultant team)
  • Sarah Fischer - (Role not specified, presented agenda items)
  • Peter Battuello - (Role not specified, presented agenda items)
  • Jefferson County Solid Waste Department (SWD)
  • VIKEK Environmental Engineers, LLC - Report preparer/Consultant Team
  • definitely Mabie CONSULTING - Survey preparation
  • Washington State Department of Ecology (WDOE) - Guidelines for Solid Waste Management Plans (WDOE 99-502)
  • Washington State Legislature - State Environmental Policy Act (RCW 43.21C); Solid Waste Management Reduction and Recycling Act (RCW 70.95)
  • Washington Administrative Code (WAC) - Solid Waste Handling Standards (WAC 173-350)
  • Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan Policies - CF-7.7 and CF-P-9
  • Jefferson County Resolution - 112-94
  • Jefferson County Code - 18.15.1 - Siting of essential public facilities

Site Screening Criteria and Initial Results

Topic Summary

The consultant team developed a five-step process for site screening to identify 2-3 short-listed sites for the new solid waste facility, guided by state and county policies. The process uses three categories of criteria: Pass/Fail (Exclusionary), Functional, and Community. Initial GIS screening applied the exclusionary criteria (E1.1-E1.10) to select sites in the study area. This initial screening resulted in a very small number of parcels that meet all mandatory requirements, with zero parcels meeting the final criteria regarding proximity to commercial functions outside preserved lands.

Key Points

  • The site screening process moves from Potential Site Identification through Broad Area and Focused Screening to Comparative Analysis, reducing the number of sites while increasing the level of detail.
  • Policy review informing the criteria included the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, Resolution 112-94, WDOE guidelines (99-502), SEPA (RCW 43.21C), RCW 70.95, WAC 173-350, and Jefferson County Code 18.15.1.
  • Mandatory Pass/Fail Criteria defined by Jefferson County Solid Waste Department (SWD) requires the site to be:
    • East of the north/south axis of the current facility (E1.1)
    • North of or immediately South of Highway 104 (E1.1)
    • Within approximately ½-mile of a major arterial or freeway/state highway (E1.10)
  • Other Exclusionary Criteria include that the site must be a minimum of 20 acres, zoned industrial or equivalent, outside 100-year floodplains/Shoreline Zones, free of historical/archaeological designations, and located at least 1,000 feet from sensitive land uses.
  • Initial GIS screening using Pass/Fail criteria yielded the following results:
    • Non-Residential Zoning: 2,420 parcels selected (initial universe high-level screen)
    • Parcels 20-Acres or Larger: 213 parcels selected
    • Parcels within half-mile of highways and major roadways: 61 parcels selected
    • Parcels with critical areas encumbering less than 20%: 15 parcels selected
    • Parcels with geologic hazards encumbering less than 20%: 17 parcels selected
    • Parcels within 1,000 feet of commercial function outside preserved lands: 0 parcels selected (This is noted under the final "Screened Parcel Results" section, which may be an error in the naming of the criteria/selection process.)
  • The initial screened area of interest contained 9,598 parcels before applying specific exclusionary criteria.
  • Functional Criteria (FN1.1-FN1.18) are used to evaluate geotechnical setting, trip distance, road capacity, site acquisition (owner willingness to sell), impact equity, operational functionality, utility availability, and cost.
  • Community Criteria (C1-C3) focus on equitable distribution of environmental impacts, minimal air quality impacts, and ensuring no single community absorbs an inequitable share of public facility impacts.

Financials

  • Functional Criteria FN1.17 specifies that Site cost must be "within budget."
  • Functional Criteria FN1.15 mentions minimizing lost opportunity cost if tenant or business relocation is needed.
  • Functional Criteria FN1.18 includes evaluating whether impacts to commercial haulers (traveled miles, hauling time, GHG emissions) can be cost-effectively mitigated.

Alternatives

  • Alternative sites will be determined by applying the screening criteria. Three specific sites (SR 19/SR 104 Site, Port Hadlock Site, Cape George Site) and the Existing Transfer Facility are identified visually on the reference maps as part of the study area review.

Community Input

  • Community criteria are based on requirements provided by the SWFTF, the Stakeholder Needs Assessment Memorandum, the adopted Integrated Project Team Charter, and feedback received from Public Surveys.
  • The process states that all criteria will be updated after feedback is received from the Task Force and community.

Timeline

  • 2023-07-21: Document Issue Date (Handout #3)
  • 2023-07-28: Workshop #5 Date (Focused Sites Screening activity)
  • Future Step: A preferred SWF Alternative and financing plan is recommended by the County to the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC).

Next Steps

  • Broad Area Site Screening (Step 3): County Public Works staff and consultants use Exclusionary Criteria and community input to screen down to a smaller number of sites (less than 10).
  • Focused Sites Screening (Step 4): SWFTF will collaborate to review the initial short-listed sites, apply functional and community-specific criteria, and evaluate basic feasibility, resulting in a Site Alternative List of at most three potential sites.
  • Comparative Site Analysis (Step 5): Short-listed sites and design alternatives (from prior evaluation) are integrated and assessed to determine the preferred Solid Waste Facility Alternative.

Sources

  • VIKEK Environmental Engineers, LLC - Report Preparer
  • PERTEET - Consulting association
  • Jefferson County SWD
  • Jefferson County GIS group

Generated On: 2025-11-06 17:17:59.478317-08:00 By: google/gemini-2.5-flash-preview-09-2025 running on https://openrouter.ai/api/v1/