Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Public Works/Planning - 03/08/1988{ i iM PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE March 8, 1988 PRESENT: Jon Johnson Gary Gill Berne Biteman Jim Harris Judy Woods Mike Ledbetter Don Wickstrom Jerry L. Graham Brent McFall Gary Ewing Sandra Driscoll Tom Sharp Burlington Northern Easement Wickstrom explained that Council has previous passed a resolution requiring that permanent rights be obtained when seeking utility crossings of railroad rights of way. In conjunction with our 1987 Sanitary Sewer Rebuild project, a sewer crossing of the Burlington Northern tracks at James Street is required. Burlington Northern had originally proposed a permit and after much negotiating they now propose an easement similar to what they have granted to Metro. The City Attorney has reviewed the proposal. Wickstrom requested authorization from the Committee to accept the easement. The Committee unanimously approved the request. Solid Waste Issues Jon Johnson stated there are two issues to be discussed under this topic. The first deals with the recycling proposals we requested. The purpose today is to discuss whether awarding the bid or to take some other action . The second item deals with making recommendation to the Council on a decision whether to commit Kent ' s waste stream to the County or to develop an alternative program. Johnson proposed that, based on the RFPs submitted, staff be directed to negotiate an agreement with Kent Disposal for curbside recycling program for a maximum of 18 months. In concurrence with that, Kent Disposal should petition the WUTC to include the cost of the recycling program into the tariff structure. That way there would be a definite period where Kent would no longer be subsidizing the recycling program. Johnson continued that if WUTC determined another carrier(s) were to be the exclusive hauler(s) we would then have to negotiate a similar type of agreement with those haulers. Johnson added the agreement should also include language to the fact that it is a voluntary program for the customers. g7 w Public Works Committee March 8, 1988 Page 2 Jerry Graham commented that Kent Disposal 's proposal included a recommendation that Kent give each customer a $1 incentive on their utility bill. Graham observed that if that $1 were: added to their bid it would make their bid higher than Tri-rStar ' s. It was determined that the RFP did not include a specific request to include an incentive program. Biteman suggested that if a break point be included in the agreement whereby if a high degree of participation took place the City would benefit. Additionally, Biteman suggested the agreement include 'the provision that if the company changes ownership, the City would be able to renegotiate the agreement. Johnson asked if the City's ordinance would have to be changed defining recyclables. Driscoll stated they are not defined in the ordinance now. The ordinance would have to be changed to redefine garbage to exclude recyclables. Woods asked why this was being proposed when the determination had been made at the last Committee meeting and at the last Council meeting to delay action until a decision from WUTC had been received. Johnson clarified it seemed that regardless of the WUTC ruling, nothing would be changed for the City ,, regarding his proposal . If another hauler is determined to be the exclusive hauler we would then have to negotiate with that hauler. Woods asked if any decision made by Kent would prejudice the WUTC ruling. McFall indicated he didn't think so. Jerry Graham noted that their program did propose using a local recycling company keeping an economic advantage in Kent. Johnson suggested this be brought before the full Council at their meeting on March 15. Gary Ewing added that his firm is local with three companies and they do also buy from other buyback centers in Kent. Johnson stated he should also make the full Council aware of this at the meeting on the 15th. Biteman referred to the survey sent by the Utility Billing Department that approximately 89% of the returned; questionnaires indicated they would like to participate in a recycling program. Biteman made a motion that Johnson's proposal be accepted. Woods seconded and the Committee approved. Public Works Committee March 8, 1988 Page 3 The second item under this topic deals with whether or not waste stream is going to be committed to the County or whether Kent will develop a system on its own. McFall stated he has pent a letter to the County requesting an extension of the existing agreement until September. No response has been received as yet.: The Committee reviewed a checklist of actions the City would have to take if they were to develop their own system (copy attached) . It was clarified for Biteman that the City would have to develop their own Comprehensive Solid Waste Plan if they implemented , their own solid waste disposal system. Driscoll added that once a 'plan is adopted it would require the approval of the Health Department and DOE. Driscoll stated the County is still waiting for approval of their 1982 plan so DOE approval is not a given. Johnson asked what would happen if the Council made no decision on this. Driscoll commented that if no decision is reached we would continue under, our existing agreement. That would preclude us from participating in the forum composed of representatives of the suburban citiesr Seattle and King County on development of the new comprehenalve solid waste management plan. The new agreement would allow us to participate while the existing agreement does not. Biteman suggested this item be tabled until a reply is received from the County. Driscoll informed the Committee there is only one Council meeting remaining in March. If a negative or no reply is received from the County, the March 31 deadline would still apply and a special meeting would need to be held. . The Committee determined they would prefer to hold a special , ti;ng if needed. Biteman moved this item be tabled until the next Public Works Committee meeting on March 22. The Committee unaniu.sly agreed. The Committee unanimously agreed the public hearing ,scheduled for March 15 should be on Recycling. Improvements to 256th Street Tom Sharp asked about any planned improvements for 256th Street between 104th Avenue S.E. and 116th Avenue S.E. He is planning on improvements to the driveway to Stratford Arms Apartments and would like to know if there are any scheduled improvements. It was determined that there are no improvements to 256th-'i,included in the 6-year TIP. Johnson added that the property ownerp could initiate an L.I.D. for improvements. Sharp inquired about the number of L. I . D. covenants that have been signed by property owners along this street. Gill indicated this information a uld be readily obtained from the Property Management section. 44 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL OPTION Contract Provision 6.2.2 Terminate this agreement and , remove the City from the County System. In order to implement this option, the following items must be accomplished prior thereto. o Develop an interim revenue source to finance the planning/study efforts o Develop a Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan for the City in accordance with RCW 70.95 o Obtain DOE and Seattle King County Health Department approval of the Plan o Prepare a detailed analysis of the various disposal options including the respective BIB o Select the disposal option o Develop a financing plan o Reinstate Solid Waste Utility in order to get control of the waste stream o Develop an interim means for disposal of the solid wastes until a facility is built *Because the County has the only DOE approve id landfill in King County and County ordinance prohibits the transporting of garbage outside the County, the City's only option is to interim contract with County. Possibility of County concurrence therewith is estimated at minimal. o Prepare detailed site selection report with EIS *Any facility whether it is recycling to incineration needs a landfill to deposit residuals in. Because the County has the only DOE approved landfill in the County and their ordinance prohibits the transporting of garbage out of the County, the City has to either develop its own landfill (within City limits) or contract with County. Probability of County concurrence therewith is estimated at minimal. o Build facility o Estimated time to accomplish above - 3 years or more. Conclusion: This was never a realistic option.