Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02/28/1991UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE Port Angeles, Washington February 28, 1991 Call to Order: Chairman Hallett called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. II. Roll Call: Members Present: Jim Hallett, Mike Lemon, Richard Wight and Thomas Hunt. Members Absent: Jeff Rosbach Staff Present: J. Pittis, K. Ridout, B. Jones, J. Pomeranz and C. Knutson. Guests Present: Tom Gould, Economic and Engineering Services, Inc. III. Approval of Minutes of February 12. 1991 MeetinG: The minutes of February 12, 1991 were approved as written. IV. Discussion Items: A. Solid Waste Cost of Service Rate Analysis: Tom Gould, EES, indicated the suggestions of the Utility Advisory Committee, as discussed at the meeting of February 12, were implemented in determining the final rates recommended. Minor changes had been made in the revenue projections for the Landfill; figures were projected based on an assumption the recycling contract would be renewed through 1994. In addition, tax increases were factored in the rates incrementally due to the increase in revenues because of new rates. Due to recycling, the previous tonnage projections for city residential landfill use (formerly free landfill use) were reduced somewhat. Discussion was held concerning the options presented; Option 3 was reviewed in detail as being the most reasonable and equitable. Part of Option 3 includes the elimination of free use of the Landfill by City residents, the acceptance of yard waste free of charge if the material can be turned into chips, a charge on a per ton basis would be implemented for tires and appliances, the continuation of handicap and special door collection service at no extra charge, the continuation of Christmas tree collection at no extra charge, the continuation of spring clean-up and beach clean-up support programs at no extra charge, and the continuation of support of household hazardous waste collection. The committee discussed the need to revisit, at some future date, the subject of recyclable yard waste, chipping and the ability to compost this waste. It was reiterated there will be no charge at the Landfill for yard waste. Mr. Gould continued by discussing the design of the rates and the fact the UAC input goes beyond "cost-based" rates in that it was agreed the residential rate should equate to the commercial 90 rate. Further, it had been discussed to set a rate differential between the commercial 90 and the 300 at a 3.3 times greater, charging the average. The implementation date is a consideration and, with the date of April 1 being the earliest possible date, the rate was established upward somewhat in order to collect the total amount of revenue needed. In the following discussion, it was agreed the 420 container should be eliminated from consideration in that the City presently has no such container. However, in the future, if any containers larger than the 300's are added, it was agreed an ordinance would be introduced which would establish a rate in conjunction with the container size. Discussion followed with consideration being given to the proposed charge to be implemented for City residents at the Landfill. It is hoped the City's recycling efforts will result in fewer residents needing the Landfill to the extent previously experienced. Public Works Director Pittis reviewed the plans in terms of conducting a public hearing on curbside recycling at the city Council meeting of March 5, discussing proposed rates in conjunction with curbside recycling at the same meeting, and returning to Council at the following meeting with the proposed ordinance. Discussion ensued concerning the possibility of receiving more yard waste debris at the Landfill than anticipated and the consideration of manpower in dealing with the volume generated. Also discussed were some of the details to be attended to by the contractor in terms of yard waste debris and grass clippings. Concern was expressed about residents dumping trash in hidden areas throughout the City in order to avoid paying at the Landfill. In addition, discussion was held concerning County residents using City dumpsters and the difficulties involved in trying to police these actions. Mr. Gould indicated it must be remembered that even the proposed rates for landfill tonnage are relatively low in comparison to other Ve municipalities. Further, the amount of volume brought in by residents will be low in weight due to inability to load a pickup truck with heavy volume. Mr. Jones reminded the group that the recycling contract calls for the city to receive 75% of the funds generated by the recyclable sales. The anticipated income from this source has been factored into the rates being considered at this time. Lengthy discussion followed concerning the presentation to Council on March 5. Councilman Lemon moved to accept the Solid Waste Cost of Service Rate Analysis and to forward to City Council the recommendation for adoption of the rates set forth in option 3 which includes curbside recycling as presented. Councilman Wight seconded the motion which carried unanimously. B. Rate Review for Wastewater STP: Public Works Director Pittis requested direction in updating wastewater fees after a review of the history and the fee structure and annual step rate increases. Rates for 1991 and 1992 are the same as previous years essentially being a $3.00 increase. In 1993, a cost of service study would be performed to more clearly reflect operational charges. Discussion ensued on comparison of rate structures with other communities. Chairman Hallett reiterated that, when the City first looked at this issue, we set out stepped rate increases as designed and we are staying on course as previously established. Discussion continued on rate structure in the City and other communities. It was agreed to call for a public hearing at the first Council meeting in April with the public hearing on a rate increase to be conducted at the second Council meeting in April. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:40 p.m.