Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout930RESOLUTION NO. 2-Z/) A RESOLUTION of support authorizing and directing the Mayor to submit a proposal through King County to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for funding of the imple- mentation phase of a solid waste source separa- tion pilot program and authorizing the Mayor to execute necessary Interlocal Agreements. WHEREAS, the City of Kent expressed interest and was selected as one of two King County cities to participate in a community source separation feasibility study funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and WHEREAS, a Kent Recycling Steering Committee was form- ed to help design a source separation program, and WHEREAS, after much work and diligence by the Kent Recycling Steering Committee a report and recommendation has been presented to the Council, and WHEREAS, the recommendation sets forth a list of ac- tions to implement a recycling program, and WHEREAS, the Kent City Council wishes to express its support for the implementation of a recycling program: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT: The Council of the City of Kent approves and sup- ports the report and recommendations of the Kent Recycling Steering Committee as set forth in the proposal to the Kent City Council from the Kent Recycling Steering Committee dated April 27, 1981. 2. The Council of the City of Kent desires that the City move to implementation of recycling as out- lined in the above mentioned report. 3. The Council of the City of Kent desires that the City seek any available EPA funding to help imple- ment a recycling program. 4. The Mayor is authorized to enter into and execute such contracts and Interlocal Agreements as are necessary to implement a recycling program. PASSED at a Regular Meeting of the Kent City Council this lJ(th day of June, 1981. ATTEST: I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Resolution No. :T~ , passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, the 15th day of June, 1981. (SEAL) - 2 - (":'::;::-) ... ,/ [<-·.:::.ycc/-z;-(...-hr. ,.._ J.t"'" .• ;5 ~ GENERAL DISPOSAL CORPORATION CORPORATE OFFICE AND SEATTLE DIVISION 1415 N.W. BALLARD WAY • SEATTLE, WA 98107 (206) 782·3535 '' ,~ Mr. Richard Cushing City Administrator City of Kent P.o. Box 310 Kent, Washington 98031 Dear Mr. Cushing& 17 KENT DIVISION 22010. 761h AVE. S. • KENT, WA 98031 (206) 228-4720 April 23, 1981 Please be advised that the Kent Recycling Steering Committee has completed its task of studying what level of involvement the City of Kent should have in recycling. Attached is a copy of the commit~ee's conclusions and recom- mendations. This committee was formed by City of Kent council action under a EPA grant through King County. Phase I has been completed with the submittal of this report. ·The committee has been meeting for the past six months, and a public workshop was held on March 12, 1981. A copy of the discussions and outcome of this workshop is attached. The committee reached a consensus on the following ideass first, the City of Kent should publicly support recycling; second, the citizens of Kent do not wish to pay any extra for recycling; third, the groups who now use recycling as a fund raiser must be protected and encouraged; fourth, the City should stay out of the recycling business, but should publicly support the general act of recycling and encourage recycling efforts by individuals, organizations and businesses. The nine recommenda~ions of the committee are enclosed along with the benefits and rough cost estimates to promote recycling in the City of Kent. We recommend that the Council adopt all or part of these recommendations as a matter of policy. The Council may, at its discretion, receive some moneys from EPA through King County on a 75 -25% basis with a .maximum from EPA of $3,735.00. I look forward to presenting to the Council at its workshop of April 27, 1981, these documents and to answer any questions either you or the Councilperson may have. _., ~Mr• Richard Cushing - 2 - April 2), 1981 It has been a sincere pleasure working with the City Staff, concerned citizens and representatives from business on this project. If I can be of any assistance to you on any of these matters, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. MLTcde Encl. Sincerely, KENT R.EI:YCLING STEERING COMMITTEE ~~~: ~-·~~~J Michael L. Torre, Co-chairperson HISTORY PROPOSAL TO KENT CITY COUNCIL by the Kent Recycling Steering Committee April 27, 1981 Michael Torre, Chairman In the summer of 1980 the cities of Kent and Redmond were selected by King County to participate in a recycling study program. The County had a federal grant to pay for technical assistance from its Solid Waste Division. The City of Kent had several reasons supporting its interest in recycling. 1. We are rapidly running out of landfill space. By mid- 1981 Kent Highlands and Midway Landfills will reach capacity and all solid waste, including that from Seattle, will go to the County's only landfill at Cedar Hills. CedaT Hills has a projected lifetime of 19 years.-Landfill sites are very difficult to establish due to citizen reaction and environmental restrictions. For these and other reasons the development of other means of disposal of solid wastes is imperative. 2. Disposal rates have been increasing steadily.. Projections show King County rates rising from $12 per ton in 1979 to $16 per ton in 1982. Kent's rates will rise from $10 to $12. These costs are some of the cheapest in the country. 3. Disposal costs are reflected in increasing collection costs which are then transferred to householder garbage bills. Reducing the amount of waste that needs to be disposed of will help reduce garbage bills as well. Kent's garbage service bills have increased dramatically and are expected to escalate even more in the next 10-20 years. Customer rates for one can have risen from $2.30 in 1975 to $4.60 in 1981 and for two cans from $2.60 in 1975 to $5.85 in 1981 . . 4. The use of recycled materials instead of virgin materials saves energy and helps conserve limited natural resource supplies. P 0 BD>-310 I 220 SO 4:~ AVE. /KENT. WASHING TON 98031 ; TELEPHONE \:;>()6: 877-3300 ~ r . , Page,2 Suzette Allen Cooke, Kent Parks Senior Center Supervisor, was ap- pointed by the City Administrator to supervise Kent's feasibility study. Bill Hibler, Utilities Supervisor and Will Wolfert from the Planning Department assisted as the staff team. A citizens'/ technical committee was recruited from recycling businesses, com- munity organizations and the general public. (See enclosed list.) Michael Torre and Tim Leahy volunteered as co-chairs. The 14 members have been meeting at least monthly since Octobe~. The enclosed re- cycling program alternatives were generated from the steering com- mittee at its January 8 public meeting an~ discussed at the March 12 public workshop. Thirteen citizens and ten steering committee members attended the public workshop. The attendees were given the following question to discuss: What level of involvement do you wish the City· of Kent to have in recycling? Each program alternative was to be evaluated according to its impact, costs, and potential implementing _entities. The group reached consensus on the following ideas: -the City ~hould support recycling, -citizens will not accept paying an extra direct cost for recycling, -fund raising through recycling should be protected and encouraged, -the City should stay out of recycling as a business. When the group divided into two discussion groups, one group selected neighborhood coordination as its first choce of alternatives, with comprehensive education a strong second. The other discussion group wanted less City involvement, but wanted the City to publicize the general act of recycling and to encourage recycling efforts by individ- uals, organizations, and businesses. B?sed on six months of study and public input, the Recycling Steering Committee recommends the following action be taken by the Kent City Council: 1. Proclaim one week a year as Recycling Week. This·week could serve as a focus for generating interest and projects among recycling businesses, schools, and organizations. 2. Assist in printing a Kent map designating all the permanent recycling centers and drop boxes. (The Kent Chamber of Commerce may be responsive to such a project.) 3. Publicize recycling information (such as 1-800-RECYCLE for recycling center locations) on City brochures or in utility bills. : (JS .. , <> ., . . ~' \_ .. ?age' 3 4. Encourage the development and advertising of recycling locations for items not now easily recycled, such as oil, garden waste, wood and plastics. The City can look to successful projects developed in Bellevue and Seattle. 5. Encourage businesses to separate their profitable re- cyclable items (such as aluminum, returnable bottles, cardboard) from their garbage so individual recyclers could pick them up without going through the dumpsters. 6. Encourage single mateTial recycling centers to expand and take in other items. 7. Support Kent Meridian High School's plans for a recycling center through zoning amendments or other acts which do not require financial or management obligations by the City. 8. Establish someone within the City staff to receive, channel, and disseminate recycling information pertinent to the City administration, businesses, and residents. 9. Establish a recycling board representing the interests of businesses and citizens to the City government. BENEFITS 1. Extended life of landfill due to decreased garbage. 2. 3. 4. COSTS: 1. 2. Reduced collection costs. Energy savings through increased amount of recycled goods. Increased business for commercial recyclers. Minimal costs for printing materials or taking up space in existing printed matter. Staff time to establish and coordinate the proposal. King County Solid Waste Division has requested $5,000 fron1 the Environ- mental Protection Agency grant for the City to apply towards the first year of implementing this proposal. The money could be used to support ~ ~ time position, or applied to a full time position with the employee's JOb expanding to include recycling. An employee in the Utility Depart- ment would be a logical placement. The program should require min1mal staff time to maintain after the system has been established in the first year (approximately one to two hours a week).