Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 09/08/1992UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE Port Angeles, Washington September 8, 1992 Call to Order: Chairman Hallett called the meeting to order at 4:51 p.m. II. Roll Call: Members Present: Jim Hallett, Thomas Hunt, Gary Braun, Joe Michalczik, and Richard Wight. Members Absent: None Staff Present: J. Pomeranz, C. Knutson, B. Titus, J. Pittis, K. Ridout, B. Upton, B. Jones, G. Kenworthy, and S. Kenyon. III. Approval of Minutes: Councilman Braun moved to approve the minutes of the Augus~, 1992 meeting as written. The motion was seconded by Thomas Hunt and carried unanimously. IV. Discussion Items: Community Action Council's Possible Involvement in Voluntary Program to Assist Low Income Citizens Representatives of the Community Action Council were invited to this meeting for the purpose of discussing the implementation of a voluntary energy assistance program for low income citizens. Customer Service Manager Kenyon reviewed a possible scenario of such an endeavor where the City could collect donated funds and an outside agency, such as the Community Action Council, could administer the program. Mark Meador and Emie Reed of the Community Action Council indicated there is an ongoing and demonstrated need for such assistance. At the present time, the Community Action Council is only able to meet the needs of approximately 30% of its clients. Mr. Reed reported the Community Action Council is capable of administering such a program and would welcome the opportunity. He distributed information pertinent to similar programs for Puget Power and Clark County PUD, noting the success of such programs in other communities. Screening for the program is done by the outside agency, and funds are disseminated to the utility (vendor), not the utility customer. Funding can be accomplished by any criteria established by the City or by already established Federal guidelines. Mr. Meador -1- Utility Advisory Committee September 8, 1992 suggested the City establish guidelines based on specific community needs. The question was raised as to how much of the funding would be directed to administrative costs, and Mr. Meador indicated the figure generally ranges from 7 - 15%. However, he noted this issue is typically negotiated as part of a contractual agreement. Further, Mr. Meador indicated it may be advisable for the City to seek proposals from other similar agencies who also have the ability to administer the program. Discussion ensued concerning the City's capability of collecting and accounting for donated funds for this purpose. Customer Service Manager Kenyon briefly summarized the City's new utility billing system and the ability to add a line item for this purpose. After further discussion, the members of the Utility Advisory Committee were in agreement that staff should seek proposals for the administration of an energy assistance program for low income citizens. Manager Kenyon was of the opinion that proposals could be gathered within thirty days and a program could be implemented by December. Councilraan Wight moved to have this matter placed on the September 15 City Council agenda for consideration. The motion was seconded by Councilman Braun and carried unanimously. B. Composting Alternatives Public Works Director Pittis made introductory comments pertinent to a study conducted by Brown & Caldwell on composting alternatives. He indicated that, with the new secondary treatment plant, biosolids could increase ten-fold and could be an integral part of a composting program. Messrs. Dennis Eckhardt and Almon Shen, Brown & Caldwell, were present to submit a draft report on the alternatives. Mr. Shen reviewed the organic composition of composting and discussed the factors which affect composting. In addition, he reviewed the different methods which can be implemented, as well as sites available for such a project, as referenced in the report. Brown & Caldwell's recommendation to the City is that consideration be given to co-composting (yard debris and biosolids) in a confined static pile, as it was their preliminary opinion that this method would prove to be the most cost effective. This report is preliminary to a great deal of additional work which must take place: feasibility study, EIR/permits, decision phase, bidding phase, construction phase, start-up phase, and marketing. Lengthy discussion followed, and the question was raised as to legal requirements. Director Pittis and Solid Waste Superintendent Jones explained the City is required to reduce solid waste by 50% (a State goal). Legally, composting is not required; however, it was pointed out that the 50% goal cannot be reached without removal of yard debris from the solid waste stream. Composting is an acceptable means of disposing of biosolids and yard debris. It was pointed out that DOE has established a pattern of changing requirements pertinent to methods of disposal, and in that regard, a request has been submitted for a written interpretation of the statute relative -2- Utility Advisory Committee September 8, 1992 to those requirements. In the ensuing discussion, committee members expressed concern with the associated costs and the suggestion was made to conduct a cost benefit analysis. Discussion also centered around other options previously investigated, the fact that biosolids cannot be taken to the landfill but must be incorporated in a beneficial use, and the fact that many municipalities are disallowing yard debris in landfills. City Engineer Kenworthy added the City is required to adopt a sludge management plan. Application has been submitted for a Centennial Grant. It was agreed the committee should be as inquisitive as possible in reviewing the proposal, as well as other possible cost effective methods. Director Pittis suggested staff return with facility plans for review before any further action is taken. Councilman Wight noted consideration must be given to equalizing the costs between City ratepayers and those in the County. Additionally, costs must be shared between the landfill and the secondary treatment plant. It was agreed the committee will review the facility plans before proceeding, as a realistic solution is sought for biosolids and yard waste. C. Solid Waste Rate Review Chairman Hallett reviewed the information submitted concerning the solid waste rates, and Director Godbey indicated this is submitted for informational purposes at this time. It is intended to submit this information to the users in order to commence a notification process on a proposed rate increase for January 1, 1993. A policy decision to be made relates to the imposition of a surcharge for County residents using the landfill. The members of the UAC were asked to give this matter some thought in preparation for a recommendation to be forwarded to the City Council. It was pointed out that certain recommendations of the Recycle Committee might be coordinated with the recommendation concerning rate increases, as the rates might be helpful in attaining some of the goals of the Recycle Committee. Attorney Knutson has drafted an ordinance which would mandate Olympic Disposal to recycle. Additionally, another ordinance would disallow yard debris in the City's trash containers. It was suggested that all of these issues be presented in preliminary meetings with the County Commissioners to advise them of this consideration. Director Godbey pointed out that the financial advisers have suggested a flow control ordinance specifically related to Olympic Disposal whose business is not necessarily guaranteed. However, Superintendent Jones noted Olympic Disposal is not likely to utilize another facility because of transportation costs. Attorney Knutson suggested bond counsel be given the opportunity to express a legal opinion on the matter of instituting a surcharge. -3- Utility Advisory Committee September 8, 1992 Lengthy discussion was held concerning bond issue payments over a period of eleven years on a landfill which will have no value after five years. Mr. Michalczik took exception to subsidizing the landfill with future payments. However, Finance Director Godbey noted payments are also being made on past debt. Rate increases in excess of forty percent would be considered prohibitive to the public. Mr. Michalczik felt the public might appreciate being made aware of the true costs involved in the landfill which have come about by virtue of governmental regulations. He asked that staff provide the committee with the true costs associated so that consideration can appropriately be given to an acceptable and realistic level for a rate increase. V. Next Meeting: The next meeting of the Utility Advisory Committee will be held on Monday, October 12, 1992, at 4:30 p.m. VI. Adjournment: The meeting was adjoumed at 6:30 p.m. Chairman City Clerk -4-