BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS'
October 16, 2002
Commissionersí Conference Room
Commissioner Bill Dwyer presided with Commissioners Bobby Green, Sr., Anna Morrison and Peter Sorenson present.† Cindy Weeldreyer was present via telephone. County Administrator Bill Van Vactor, County Counsel Teresa Wilson and Recording Secretary Melissa Zimmer were also present.
14.† PUBLIC HEARINGS
a.† SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/Ordinance PA 1179/In the Matter of Amending the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan to Adopt a New Lane County Solid Waste Management Plan; and Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses. (NBA & PM 9/17/02)
Amanda Ferguson, Waste Management, explained Ordinance PA 1179 amends the Comprehensive Plan adopting the Solid Waste Management and Ordinance No. 10-02 amends Lane Code Chapter 16 to add a reference adopting the Solid Waste Management Plan.
Ferguson noted the adoption of the plan would amend the Rural Comprehensive Plan and Lane Code 16.400 to adopt the new Lane County Solid Waste Management Plan as a special purpose plan component of the Rural Comprehensive Plan.† She noted this would replace the current Solid Waste Management Plan update that was adopted in 1980.† She explained this plan was originally initiated in 1994 by the Board of Commissioners but was never adopted.† She worked with the Resource Recovery Advisory Committee developing the document.† She noted they had a public hearing in June and no one was present.† She added two days later the Resource Recovery Advisory Committee passed a motion sending this on to the Planning Commission and the Board of Commissioners for adoption.
Ferguson commented the revision is to provide a guidance document for the Waste Management Division.† She noted it did not include funding projections or an implementation plan.† She added it incorporated all of the new federal and state laws that have been passed since 1980 and incorporates the current system benefit fees into how Waste Management operates.† She said it incorporates the Lane County 2001 Strategic Plan and all of the core strategies.† She stated it also contains the Board of Commissionersí findings from May 31, 2000 that stated that continued landfill operation was the most economically viable solid waste disposable alternative for Lane County residences.† She said they developed the plan with the base goals of providing an integrated solid waste management system that balances waste prevention, reuse, recycling, and land disposal.† She added it reduces long-term waste generation and increased recovery, provides long-term local solid waste disposal capacity and provides a high level of customer service.† She noted the key issues throughout the plan are an emphasis on waste prevention, the reduction of toxic materials in the landfill and the availability of local long-term solid waste disposal.
Ferguson noted the Planning Commission had approved the draft after their public hearing on August 6.† She added there was one requested amendment, to incorporate a stronger reference to the encouragement of rural curbside recycling that was incorporated into the document.
Commissioner Dwyer opened the Public Hearing.
Alex Cuyler, 411 Perry St., Springfield, stated he is a member of the Resource Recovery Advisory Committee but his comments were as an individual.† He urged the Board to reconsider Chapter 7: Disposal.† He said that Lane County should not as stated in the planís recommendation 7.4.2(1) "continue to operate the Short Mountain Landfill for disposal of solid waste for the duration of this planning period."† He said Lane County would not explore alternative disposal methods unless there is a failure of the existing system.† He noted the commitment of the plan looks at the Short Mountain Landfill as the only disposal option and it is inappropriate and too constricting.† He said that the Short Mountain Landfill generates thousands of gallons of leachate annually and its long-term expansion plans move it closer to Interstate 5. He added that due to site constraints, it could not be permitted to add additional garbage on top of the existing footprint.† He said it represents a long-term liability for Lane County residents.† He noted because the division is funded through disposal fees, the incentive for the division to focus on the recovery and recycling of discards is structurally incongruent.† He preferred the Board recommend to the division that it review on an annual basis alternative disposal sites.† He added this review should include an analysis of regional tipping fees, transportation costs, environmental considerations and long-term ramifications for limiting landfill in Lane County and its effect on increasing recycling.† He said the Short Mountain Landfill should not be committed to in the way the draft prescribes.
Joshua Proudfant, 2875 Harris, Eugene, stated he was advocating for electronics recycling.† He said he did a study and there are 275 tons of electronics in the landfill this year and by 2010 it could be up to 500 tons.† He said that was just for computers and up to 30% of that is lead.† He wanted something equivalent to the hazardous material shed, where there is an ongoing collection.† He added they should make it convenient to the public and businesses. He suggested a convenience incentive.
Julie Daniel, 2875 Harris, spoke on behalf of the plan.† She noted that the landfill is not the most cost effective way to handle waste. She supported the plan, but there is a conflict in the system, where they are funding the system by dumping trash.† She said that Lane County does well in comparison with the rest of the nation, but she believed that waste was preventable.† She encouraged the County to study the modifying use of fees with system benefit fees, a tipping fee or franchise fee that could be used to create a sustainable development fund.† She said that fund could develop new markets and find new ways to use waste.† She believed people should be taxed for wasting and not rewarded with low tip fees and putting things into the landfill.
Morrison submitted a letter that came in from Karen Kaplan, the recycling program manager at the University of Oregon, who was in support.
Dwyer read the letter into the record.
There being no one else further signed up to speak, he closed the Public Hearing.
MOTION:† to approve Ordinance PA 1179.
Morrison MOVED, Green SECONDED.
Sorenson asked what the report back would be on this matter.
Ferguson responded the plan was unspecific about an actual review time period.† She noted it stated in 1.1 Purpose of the Plan, as specific recommendations are implemented, a more detailed study and analysis needs to be done to ensure the Countyís goals are met and the plan should be re-evaluated. She noted there are no planners on staff.† She said it could be updated every five years to re-evaluate whether or not the goals are being met.† She didnít recommend an annual review as it takes three to six months. She recommended a five-year timeline.
Morrison noted the Resource Advisory Committee could review this with the recommendations coming back to the Board.
ROLL CALL VOTE: 5-0.
b.† SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/Ordinance No. 10-02/In the Matter of Modifying Chapter 16 of Lane Code to Update the Amending Ordinances Pertaining to the Solid Waste Management Plan (LC 16.400(4)(b)(iv)). (NBA & PM 9/17/02)
Ferguson explained this was for the wording to make sure that Lane Code reflects the adoption of the new document.
Commissioner Dwyer opened up the Public Hearing.† There being no one signed up to speak, he closed the Public Hearing.
MOTION: to adopt Ordinance No.10-02.
Green MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.
ROLL CALL:† 5-0.
15.† COMMISSIONERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS
16.† CORRESPONDENCE TO THE BOARD
17.† OTHER BUSINESS
There being no further business, Commissioner Dwyer adjourned the meeting at 2:45 p.m.