MEETING: Untitled Meeting at Tue, Apr 29, 01:00 PM

County Sources

Packet Contents

AI Information

Jefferson County Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC) Special Meeting Summary

Meeting Introduction, Roll Call, and Staff Presentation

Metadata

  • Time Range: 00:00:03–00:10:09
  • Agenda Item: Meeting Call to Order, Roll Call, Introductions, Staff Presentation on Solid Waste Financials
  • Categories: operations, budgeting, other

Topic Summary

The special meeting of the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners and the Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC) was called to order. Roll call established a quorum for the SWAC with six initial members present, later joined by one additional member. Following introductions of SWAC members and county staff, the Public Works staff began a presentation outlining the critical financial challenges facing the Solid Waste Division and the need for immediate, drastic action based on deferred capital needs and an unsustainable level of service compared to regional counterparts.

Key Discussion Points

  • The meeting was called to order by Commissioner Heidi Eisenhower, and the SWAC quorum was confirmed by Tracy Grisman.
  • SWAC Members Present: Heidi Eisenhower (County Commissioner/SWAC member), Joey D (Waste Connections Site Manager), Pete Hankees (sitting in for an unnamed member), Susan Rep (District 2 Rep), Phil Slami (At-Large), Tracy Grisman (Chair, District 1 Rep), Sierra Young (Conservation Planner), and later joined by Steve King.
  • Staff/Other Attendees: Laura Tucker (County Staff), Chris Spall (Minutes), Heather Dudley-Nowled (County Commissioner, District 1), Mark McCauley (County Administrator), and Al King (Solid Waste Manager).

Public Comments

  • No public comment on this topic.

Supporting Materials Referenced

  • No supporting materials referenced.

Financials

  • No specific financial figures were discussed in this initial segment.

Alternatives & Amendments

  • No alternatives discussed.

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: Meeting was organized for decision-making regarding capital funding and recycling privatization.
  • Vote: N/A
  • Next Steps: Staff presentation continued on financials and recommendations.

Solid Waste Financial Crisis and Level of Service Comparison

Metadata

  • Time Range: 00:10:09–00:18:14
  • Agenda Item: Staff Presentation: Solid Waste Financial Predicament
  • Categories: infrastructure, budgeting, operations

Topic Summary

Al King, Solid Waste Manager, presented Stein's Law ("If something cannot go on forever, it will stop") as the basis for the Solid Waste Division's urgent need for "radical course change." He compared Jefferson County's current level of service (LoS) to King County, noting that Jefferson County offers the same or better disposal options and manages materials (like construction debris and various hazardous wastes) that King County routes to the private sector or specialized facilities. Despite this high LoS, Jefferson County operates with vastly fewer resources, leading to a critical $3.7 million deferred capital maintenance loan value, which must be addressed to prevent facility closures.

Key Discussion Points

  • Unsustainable Factors: The current level of service and deferred transfer station capital repair/replacement cannot continue indefinitely (00:10:49).
  • Service Comparison to King County: JC offers disposal for construction/demolition debris and free environmental centers for hazardous materials (antifreeze, mercury lights, rechargeable batteries, used motor oil, automotive batteries), which King County does not offer at its transfer stations (00:11:15–00:12:39).
  • Service Metrics: JC serves 47 times fewer households than King County per facility and has 9.5 times fewer residents sharing facilities overall (00:13:30–00:13:43).
  • Cost Differential: The per-ton fee in King County is $32 per ton more than Jefferson County (00:13:43–00:13:50).
  • Staffing Differential: JC operates with 13 employees (including administrative staff, actual facility staff closer to nine), compared to King County Solid Waste's 517 employees (00:14:28–00:14:47).
  • Capital Deficiency: End of year 2025 capital fund is predicted to be $453,000, significantly short of the needed $4.1 million, creating a $3.7 million shortfall (00:15:53–00:16:06).
  • Staff Recommendation 1: Increase the pre-tax per-ton tipping fee from $165.23 to $180.23 (a $15 increase), resulting in a taxed rate increase from $171 to $187 per ton (00:16:29–00:16:45).
  • Staff Recommendation 2: Privatize public recycling and eliminate the approximately $326,000 annual subsidy from the tipping fee (00:16:45–00:17:01).

Public Comments

  • No public comment on this specific staff presentation.

Supporting Materials Referenced

  • No supporting materials referenced, but presentation data provided the factual basis for the discussion.

Financials

  • Current Pre-Tax Fee: $165.23 per ton.
  • Proposed Pre-Tax Fee: $180.23 per ton (a $15 increase).
  • Current Taxed Fee: $171 per ton.
  • Proposed Taxed Fee: $187 per ton.
  • Capital Needs Shortfall: $3.7 million (4.1 million needed vs. $453,000 projected on hand) (00:15:53-00:16:06).
  • Recycling Subsidy Cost: Approximately $326,000 per year (00:16:55).

Alternatives & Amendments

  • No alternatives discussed.

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • No formal action taken in this segment; item was informational and led to the following discussion and motions.

Capital Surcharge on Tipping Fee

Metadata

  • Time Range: 00:18:14–00:39:51
  • Agenda Item: Resolution to Increase Tipping Fee/Capital Funding Needs
  • Categories: budgeting, infrastructure, operations

Topic Summary

The committee discussed the staff recommendation for a $15 per-ton increase in the tipping fee to fund critical capital maintenance needs, moving the earliest effective date from July 1 to August 1, 2025. Commissioner Eisenhower proposed that the SWAC recommend adoption of a resolution for a capital surcharge. Public comment criticized the misleading nature of the special meeting agenda, claiming it did not explicitly mention a general fee increase resolution. Despite this concern, the motion to recommend the surcharge passed unanimously by the SWAC members present.

Key Discussion Points

  • Capital Needs Update: The estimated capital needs have increased from $3.6 million (discussed previously) to $4.1 million (00:21:00–00:21:20).
  • Commissioner Eisenhower (SWAC): Supported the tipping fee increase as a "total no-brainer" to avoid service interruptions due to deferred maintenance (00:22:20).
  • Recycling Delay Consideration: Commissioner Eisenhower questioned if adding the full cost of recycling to the tipping fee (making it closer to King County's rate of $203) could delay the privatization decision for two years (00:22:57–00:23:44).
  • Staff Response (Al King): Extending current recycling service post-April 1 could be difficult, potentially requiring a long contract extension to 2030, and the abruptness of the change means it is likely "on or off" (00:25:31).
  • Tipping Fee Impact on Low-Income/Curbside: Increased tipping fees serve as an incentive for curbside collection, which is already cheap relative to the cost of driving to the transfer station (Joey D, 00:26:58; 00:28:41).
  • Implementation Timeline: The earliest effective date for the surcharge changed from July 1, 2025, to August 1, 2025, due to processing timelines (00:29:28).
  • Public Comment - Tom Tears: Expressed serious concern that the agenda listed "Capital funding needs" but the motion was a "general fee increase resolution," which he argued was inappropriate for a special meeting and misleading to the public (00:33:04–00:33:53).
  • Staff Clarification (Al King): The fee resolution is intended to put money directly into the capital fund (00:34:32).
  • Minimum Weight Threshold: The increase does not change the minimum committed vehicle threshold weight (currently 240 lbs) (00:37:44).

Public Comments

  • Tom Tears: Challenged the SWAC's authority to take action on a general fee resolution when the agenda only listed "Capital funding needs," calling the agenda "completely misleading to the public" (00:33:04).

Supporting Materials Referenced

  • Resolution amending the fee schedule for the Department of Public Works Solid Racing Division (00:38:44).

Financials

  • The motion targets an increased pre-tax per ton fee from $165.23 to $180.23 (00:38:36).

Alternatives & Amendments

  • Discussion of delaying recycling privatization by raising the tipping fee further was raised but not formally proposed as an amendment due to contractual/feasibility concerns (00:22:57).

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: SWAC recommended to the Board of County Commissioners the adoption of a resolution for a capital surcharge on the per-ton tipping fee rate.
  • Vote: Unanimous (7-0).
  • Next Steps: The recommendation will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). Staff must finalize the precise verbiage of the fee resolution.

Privatization of the Recycling Program

Metadata

  • Time Range: 00:39:56–01:25:07
  • Agenda Item: Discussion and Potential Action on Recycling Privatization
  • Categories: operations, contracts, services

Topic Summary

The committee discussed the staff recommendation to privatize the recycling program effective April 1, 2026, which would eliminate the $326,000 annual subsidy funded by tipping fees. Joey D of Waste Connections provided details on how their privatized single-stream system works (similar to Clallam County), including curbside pickup, separation at a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) like Pioneer in Tacoma, and discounted rates for low-income residents coordinated through the PUD's vetting process. The SWAC motioned to recommend the privatization, acknowledging that this represented a "drastic change" necessitating an extensive public education campaign.

Key Discussion Points

  • Waste Connections Model (Joey D): Currently, only 17% of county residents subscribe to curbside recycling. Privatization would be single-stream (mixed recyclables in one bin, sorted at the MRF). Waste Connections would bid and operate the JC facility or use its Port Angeles/Tacoma facilities (00:40:30–00:41:58).
  • EPR (Extended Producer Responsibility): New legislation is expected to require producers to pay for 90% of collection costs, which would significantly reduce customer fees when the law takes full effect (projected around 2030) (01:00:33). Privatizing now allows JC to get "five years ahead of the curve" (Al King, 00:19:19).
  • Low-Income Discount: Waste Connections would use the PUD's list and vetting process to offer discounted curbside rates for low-income residents, replacing the current "free" (subsidized) drop-off system (00:51:56).
  • Accessibility: Waste Connections offers alternative pickup locations (e.g., end of driveway) for residents on difficult-to-access roads (00:53:57).
  • Contract Complication: Solid Waste Manager Al King stated that extending the current drop-box system beyond April 1, 2026, would likely require a long-term RFP (00:46:18).
  • City of Port Townsend Impact (Commissioner Dudley-Nowled): The city has a mandatory garbage and inclusive recycling service. This change would require deploying new carts citywide and potentially extending Waste Connections' contract by five years to recoup cart costs (01:06:03).
  • Glass Recycling: Glass disposal is currently cheaper in the garbage than hauling to a cost-effective glass recycler. A bottle bill at the state level is seen as the only long-term, perpetual solution (01:08:47–01:10:44).
  • Education Campaign: Multiple members stressed the need for a "committed social marketing approach" to educate the community about the drastic change, using multi-modal approaches (email lists, PUD bills, social media, community meetings, quirky local campaigns, and one-to-one communication like Clallam County's "oops tags" generated via AI) (00:57:56–01:04:03).
  • Draft Ordinance Clarification: SWAC members sought clarification on a "whereas" clause in the draft ordinance, which listed several cut programs (Quilcene drop-box, education, HHW events, low-income discount) as not being enough to offset the recycling deficit, emphasizing the need for public clarity on alternatives (01:12:11–01:13:30).

Public Comments

  • Tom Tears: Reiterated concern over no background documents being provided for the privatization item for this special meeting. Mentioned there are "zero recycling bins" at the Port Townsend High School wearable art show, suggesting a need to talk to the school district (01:21:30–01:22:14). (Note: A SWAC member countered that paper bins are definitely present in classrooms).

Supporting Materials Referenced

  • Draft ordinance/resolution text was referenced to clarify the rationale for privatization (01:11:54).

Financials

  • Privatization would de-obligate the county of the $326,000 annual recycling program subsidy (00:16:45; 00:19:00).
  • Curbside recycling rate is currently $11 per month (00:56:03).
  • EPR is expected to reduce customer fees by up to 90% once fully effective (01:00:10-01:00:33).

Alternatives & Amendments

  • Discussed possibility of securing a contract extension for the current provider (Skookum) to delay privatization for two years, but rejected due to the difficulty of running an RFP for a short, two-year contract (00:46:38).

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: SWAC recommended to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) that the county privatize the recycling program.
  • Vote: Passed (6 Ayes, 1 Abstention (Commissioner Dudley-Nowled, abstained for lack of City Council consultation). Steve King also abstained [01:24:13]).
  • Next Steps:
  • - Solid Waste Manager/SWAC Subcommittee: Develop a focused social marketing and public education campaign for the transition (01:26:14).
  • - Commissioner Dudley-Nowled: Introduce the privatization concept and potential contract extension to the Port Townsend City Council (01:24:55).

Adjournment

Metadata

  • Time Range: 01:27:46–01:28:17
  • Agenda Item: Adjournment
  • Categories: other

Topic Summary

The meeting concluded after no further agenda items or discussion were required.

Key Discussion Points

  • No substantive discussion.

Public Comments

  • No public comment on this topic.

Supporting Materials Referenced

  • No supporting materials referenced.

Financials

  • No financial information discussed.

Alternatives & Amendments

  • No alternatives discussed.

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: SWAC meeting was adjourned.
  • Vote: N/A
  • Next Steps: No next steps specified.