AN ORDINANCE relating to construction and demolition waste; authorizing the executive to enter into agreements for the disposition of construction and demolition waste generated within the county's jurisdiction; amending Ordinance 8891, Section 3, as amended, and K.C.C. 10.04.020, Ordinance 10916, Section 1, as amended, and K.C.C. 10.30.010, Ordinance 10916, Section 4, as amended, and K.C.C. 10.30.020, Ordinance 10916, Section 6, as amended, and K.C.C. 10.30.040 and Ordinance 10916, Section 7, as amended, and K.C.C. 10.30.050 and prescribing penalties.
Great. Thank you very much. Thank you. This takes us to item six, an ordinance that would make changes to the county's construction and demolition, or C and D code, as well as authorize the executive to enter into agreements with C and D receiving facilities using an updated agreement template. As I think she will present the I have asked for some amendments to be drafted. I'm going to strike an amendment as one can be prepared. Ms.. Rose You can do your full briefing and you and I can take team on speaking to the striking amendment as you wrap up or however you want to proceed. Sounds good. I will follow your lead. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Terra Rose, Council staff. The materials for this item begin on page nine of your packet, but I'm actually going to start from page then. If you're following along just some brief background. Construction and demolition waste or Sandy waste results from construction, remodeling, repair, or the demolition of buildings, roads or other structures. Examples of Sandy waste include cleaned, painted or treated wood, dimensional lumber, concrete, asphalt, and other aggregates, among other materials. Sandy Waste loads under Kane County Co can be characterized as non-recyclable, recyclable or mixed, which means the load is comprised of kiddy waste containing both recyclable and non-recyclable elements that have not been separated since 1993. The county has banned Sandy Waste at most of its facilities, except for in incidental amounts or in limited circumstances. And those are where the county owned transfer stations comply with the recycling requirements in the Sandy code, or collect and transfer the materials to Sandy receiving facilities that have agreements with the county. I am now moving on to page 12. King County Code outlines requirements for Sandy Waste Processing and disposal states that the purpose of the Sandy Waste chapter is to assure that there will be Sandy disposal facilities to serve King County in accordance with the Comprehensive Salt Waste Management Plan. Sandy is recycled to the maximum extent feasible that the Cedar Hills Regional Landfill may continue to be dedicated to receiving municipal solid waste and that Sandy disposal is subject to King County's environmental controls and quote, So the way the system is set up, you have different responsibilities for different parts of the system. You have the generators, handlers and collectors of the sea and waste. In other words, those either making it or transporting it. And then also the facilities that accept the waste by agreement. So similar to a typical curbside service where garbage goes one place and your recyclable materials go to another. The different types of sandy loads are to go to different types of facilities. And I'll first start with the generators, handlers, collectors. Current King County Code requires all generators, handlers and collectors of mixed and non-recyclable sandy waste generated within the county's jurisdiction to deliver or ensure delivery to a designated Sandy receiving facility. Recycling recyclable sandy materials, on the other hand, may be transported to any sandy recycling facility or to a recycling market in or outside of King County. Next requirements for the Sandy Receiving Facilities Ordinance 18166, which was adopted in 2015, allowed the county to enter into a uniform agreement referred to as the designated facility agreement or DFA with any qualified transfer facility, material recovery facility or Merv. Sorry, there will be a lot of abbreviations today or combination Murphy and Transfer Facility and the DFA between the facilities and the county set forth the terms and conditions under which it may be received, processed, recycled and disposed. And so for if you are interested in more specific information about the terms, some of the terms and the existing DFA that was approved by Ordinance 18166, I will refer you to Attachment six to the staff report, which can be found on page 145. Additionally, I'd note that King County Code requires the Solid Waste Division Director to develop, publish and update on the division's website a list of recyclable sandy materials that are banned from landfill disposal by the Sandy receiving facilities. And that list is found on pages 12 and 13 in your pocket. I'm now going to move on to how enforcement works with the existing system. Enforcement of Sandy rules is handled by a Sandy enforcement lead within the Solid Waste Division, who initiates enforcement activities on both generators, handlers and collectors of Sandy Waste as well as the Sandy receiving facilities that accepted executive staff, indicate that enforcement activities for generators , handlers and collectors include outreach and education in the field, monitoring new construction permits and reaching out to contractors, as well as monitoring shipments of Sandy on the highways or Sandy receiving facilities. The specifics of conducting enforcement depend on the type of facility. In other words, it's slightly different. For a. Murph compared to a transfer facility, but both involve on site inspections. And I'm now moving ahead to page 14 in your pocket. King County code allows for the Salt Waste Division director to determine when a facility is not in compliance and may suspend the owners rate to accept mixed and non-recyclable Sandy waste during the period of noncompliance and executive staff indicate that since 2015. Facilities have had temporary suspensions. Civil penalties may also be involved in the enforcement of safety regulations under King County Code and Title 23. The civil fine for a violator with no previous similar code violations is $100, and for a violator with two or more previous violations of King County Code Title ten, which is a sideways title within the past 12 months, the civil fine is double the rate of the previous penalty. Moving ahead in the staff report, I'll note two other relevant features of the Sante system before moving on to the proposed ordinance. The adopted 2020 Strategic Climate Action Plan, or ESCAP, included targets and a series of priority actions related to Sandy Waste Management. And specifically, I'll point you to performance measure GHG 20, which states by 2025 achieve an 8480 5% Sandy materials diversion rate for building development sites across King County, excluding Seattle and Walton County service area, and by 2030 achieve zero waste of sandy materials resources with economic value. And according to the 2020 US cap, the county wide recycling diversion rate of the material in 2017 was 80%. And then the second feature I'll point out is that the county imposes a $4 and 25 cent per ton fee on the disposal of Sandy waste generated in the county's jurisdiction. And that's for the purposes of funding additional costs to manage the Sandy recycling and disposal program. So I'm going to now move ahead to the analysis section on page 15 of those audits, 2020 0243 would primarily make changes that can be categorized in three areas. And the transmittal letter indicates that the Department of Natural Resources and Parks engage with stakeholders in the sandy industry, including contractors, haulers and landfill operators of recycling facilities. An input from all parties was incorporated into the proposed legislation. So I'll start with the first area. The proposed ordinance would add language to the Sandy Code, placing explicit responsibility on the generators, handlers and collectors of sandy waste to send Sandy loads to the proper facilities and including in code conditions upon which generators, handlers and collectors may deliver loans to transportation specifically as well as intermodal facilities and landfills. And the latter two of which I will discuss more in a moment. As noted previously, current code language requires all generators, handlers and collectors of mixed and non-recyclable Sandy waste to be delivered to designated Sandy receiving facilities. However, code does not specify any other obligations of generators, handlers and collectors. Executive staff indicate that mixed sandy waste loads are intended to go to a material recovery facility or murf or a transfer facility with recycling capabilities so that the recyclable materials may be sorted out. And so the proposed ordinance would add language to the Sandy Code that a generator handler or collector of mixed sandy waste generated within the county's jurisdiction may not deliver or cause delivery of a load of mixed sandy waste to a transfer facility unless certain criteria are met. And those criteria are for the generator handler or collector to ensure that the load contains no more than 20% of the readily recyclable Sandy material banned from landfill disposal. Or. Confirms before upon delivery that the transfer facility shall transfer the load to or otherwise manage the materials appropriately belong to the second area of the proposed changes. The proposed ordinance would expand the definition of Sandy receiving facilities to also include intermodal facilities and landfills. And I'd like to clarify a statement made in the staff report. The staff report says that in current code, only Murphy and transferred transfer stations or a combination facility can become a Sandy receiving facility. It would be perhaps more accurate to say that the current definition of Sandy receiving facility and code only specifically calls out Murphy and transfer stations for a combination facility, but that there is some ambiguity on whether other facilities can be designated by the division director. So apologies for that inaccuracy. The proposed ordinance would then explicitly allow intermodal facilities and landfills to receive Sandy waste under certain circumstances. And so under the proposed ordinance, only an eligible Sandy demolition project may use intermodal facilities and landfills for the disposal of non-recyclable Sandy waste and only in accordance with the waste diversion plan approved by the division and the proposed ordinance with limit eligible Sandy demolition projects, projects where buildings and other structures are demolished within a contained contiguous property, or the plan of consolidation and the square footage of building and structure space that will be demolished exceeds 6000 feet. Additionally, executive staff have confirmed that this legislation would not change what is allowed to be delivered to county. Facilities and that the division has no intention of allowing Sandy Waste to be directly disposed half of Israel's landfill and then moving ahead to enforcement of the use of intermodal facilities and landfills. The proposed ordinance would allow the division director and their sole discretion to prohibit any processing violates the requirements for direct, direct delivery of non-recyclable sandy waste to intermodal facilities or landfills from using those facilities for a period not to exceed six months. The staff report identifies two enforcement issues that potentially may occur with the legislation as transmitted. The first concerns potential use of intermodal facilities in landfills by unauthorized or suspended users. The transmitted DFA would not explicitly require an intermodal facility or landfill to check that they were accepting waste from an eligible Sandy demolition project. With an approved waste diversion plan, they would be required to submit to the division a monthly report that provides information about each direct shipment received from demolition projects within the county's jurisdiction. And additionally, the transmitted DFA would require the division to notify the facilities on suspensions of generators, handlers or collectors. And the facilities would then be responsible with comparing their customer lists on a monthly basis and alerting the division if any suspended users are using the facility. So thus, in either case, enforcement against the generator handler or collector could occur only after disposal has already happened. And then the second potential issue concerns the potential disposal of recyclable or mixed Sandy waste. As noted previously, the proposed ordinance would only allow non-recyclable Sandy waste to be delivered directly to an intermodal facility or landfill. However, once waste containers are taken from a job site to the intermodal facility or landfill, the containers are typically not opened until the final disposal destination. Therefore, if a container included recyclables and waste, it was not only limited to non recyclables anyways in the contents it may be difficult to know it was disposed. Executive staff indicate that while they do not have jurisdiction to enter job sites Inc. Cities Site access to view container contents does not been an issue in enforcement efforts to date. Additionally, executive staff note that they expect many of the eligible Sandy demolition projects to be owned by public agencies or public companies, which are typically cooperatives in working with the division to ensure compliance. And then finally, the third area of proposed changes that would be made by the ordinance. The proposed ordinance would authorize the executive to enter into agreements with Sandy receiving facilities substantially in the form of attachment a to this ordinance, which is an updated DFA template containing provisions for intermodal facilities and landfills. And I would again refer you to Attachment six to the staff report, which provides additional details about how the terms of the transmitted GFA differ from the existing GFA terms. And Mr. Chair, that concludes my remarks on the proposed ordinance. Would you like me now to brief the amendments? Yes. And I'm going to be Councilmember Caldwell's will have sympathy for me. I just got a note from a fossilized brain that Windows was going to try to close in 10 minutes. I will address that in a moment myself. So if I'm absent for a moment, my apologies and I'll be right back. And meanwhile, am indeed, as Ms.. Rose is about to discuss, we identified some inconsistencies in both the and the code as well as the transport ordinance. I'm agreement to use the facilities that receive C and D waste. And so I've asked for an amendment as one to address some of those macros. If you would, please address that and I will address my Windows issue. Got it. Understood. Striking amendment S-1, which is included in the packet and can be found beginning on page 76 with me clarifying edits to both the existing C and D code, and the proposed ordinance that were developed in collaboration with executive staff. S-1 would replace the transmitted DFA, which was dated May 22nd, 2020, with an updated GFA date of June 14th, 2021, and that was also developed in conjunction with executive staff. And additionally, as I noted in my earlier remarks, the transmitted DFA did not explicitly require an intermodal facility or landfill to check that they were accepting waste from an eligible Sandy demolition project with an approved waste diversion plan. And so Streicher, as one would add clarifying, would also add clarifying language that intermodal facilities are approved to accept Sandy waste only from eligible Sandy demolition projects. And if that facility has confirmation of an approved waste diversion plan either from the division. Or upon. Receipt of a copy prior to accepting waste. As one would also require the executive to file a report with the Council that describes the C and D enforcement activities undertaken by the division in the first year after the ordinance is effective. And additionally, it would change the effective date of the audience to January 1st, 2022. Attachment six is a summary matrix and compares the existing Sandy system with the changes proposed by proposed ordinance 2020 0243 as well as striking the amendment. S1 And I will note that there's also a title amendment, one that would not conform the title to the changes made by striking amendment. S1 And that concludes my remarks on the amendments. We also have a solid waste division director Pat McLaughlin and environmental programs managing supervisor Jim Neely here from executive staff, in case there are questions . Thank you. Questions. Question. Lambert Council Member. Lambert Thank you, Mr. Chair. So where are the mayors? I know there's one in Woodinville. I think there's one in Bellevue. Where are the other mayors? Customarily referring to the construction and demolition works. Yes. So there was a list on page 12 of your packet that lists all of the client designated facilities for C and D waste . And I would defer to the executive staff if they want to call out specifically which are persons transport facilities, because that's going to be important that we differentiate between the two in the murf and wooden boat, which is the only one that by me. I don't know how Sandy would go through that because the machinery is more for papers and bottles and newspapers and cardboard and glass, not for cement. And in our transfer stations, how much work do we have allocated for this? Because some of them we don't have enough floor space, so that kind of thing. And to come in, they'll have one more question after that. So my name is Pat McLaughlin for the record service. You're always division director. And I want to just thank council. Member and staff. Carol Rose did a tremendous job in terms of both your staff report and identifying some improvements to recommended changes. I'm accompanied by Jim Neely. Jim has been with the division. For over 20 years and for the better architect of this program. I'm somewhat sad to say he's also approaching retirement. I'm happy for him, sad for us. This is a pretty big milestone and we're grateful for his leadership that got us this far. Councilmember Lambert, Jim, could could speak directly to your interests in terms of the nature of the facilities that actually processes waste. It's not the King County facilities that process this waste. It is the private facilities which are more properly designed for a girl like Jim. Expand on that. Sure. Thank you. I'm Jim Neely as commissioners. Me so the facility Councilmember Lambert. That you're speaking of in Woodinville is a MSW that. Collects recyclable materials. From the curbside and processes. Those. It does take seemed, but it only. Transfers it to disposal. So it is not a material recovery facility. However, we have eight. Of those throughout the region. There's three up in Snohomish County nearby. One of them's an unincorporated, well known fact and that. The sole purpose of those facilities is to recycle C and D. They have the sorting lines. They have the people that pick materials off of them, magnets, those sort of things. And that's that's all they do, basically. So as I said. There's three up north there. There's one, two in Seattle, one in Renton, and one down in Tacoma. Two in writing. Excuse me. So. Obviously Sonoma County is out of our county. And I know that they in the past have also been interested in their capacity being able to keep up with their county's needs. And same with the. So it seems like there would be added costs to the Sandy distributions because these are big trucks that need to go far distances which adds to greenhouse gases and hurts the roads. So am interested in that and then your appeal process. Is there an appeal process for somebody being told that they're in noncompliance? Six months is a really long time, and I know many of the job sites have had to do a triple waste facilities outside their construction so that they can sort. And the business have been very careful about making sure which bin is which because they don't want to get in trouble. But is there an appeal process? Should that contractor believe that they actually did try to get them well separated into the various streams of garbage? During the summer. I was just as a council member. So the six months suspension process is just for the contractor to use direct delivery to intermodal facilities and landfills. There's always division, I can confirm, but my understanding is that they would still be permitted to use other facilities, but they would just lose the benefit of the direct delivery during that period, which then adds how many miles to the issue of how far they have to take it. Well, they would still be permitted to use some of the other facilities that are listed on table one within the county and Squamish County. And what motivated this massive change for the necessity for this change for the addition of intermodal facilities and landfills? Yeah. And the total costs incurred because they don't think that same cost is put on non unincorporated area in the projects. Or is it? I know from division staff that this the request to be able to use intermodal facilities and landfills came as a result of the the input from contractors and other entities in the candy sector is not answer your question. I'm not quite following. So the agencies themselves, the private sector is is happy with this or not happy with this. I haven't gotten any calls from any of them telling me they're happy or not happy. I do what I can to stop on their outreach process. Thank you. Cast Member. In developing this legislation, we engage a. Wide variety of stakeholders across the industry. That included contractors, haulers, landfill operators who are also operating the recycling facilities through their work. We were able to influence the direction of this legislation and as Terry mentioned, this specific element of being able to divert right from the job site was a specific interest of both of those stakeholders. So there's been a really being responsive to the interest that has was expressed during her outreach. Thank you. Appreciate all that information. Thank you. I believe that our council member, McDermott, has been kicked off the call. Okay. Well, he asked me to take over if he and Vice Chair Dunn were both unavailable, so I will do so. Are there any other questions on this item? Okay. I'm not hearing any. If we are prepared to move this out today, I understand that it could move out, but it doesn't have to move out. But if we're prepared to move this out, we could entertain a motion. A move adoption. Okay it's bound to do pass recommendation. Moves the striking amendment. S1 has been it has been moved. Are there any questions? Uh, any questions on S1? All those in favor of us. One Please signify by saying i, i. I, i. And any oppose. Please say nay. The striking amendment one carries. There's a title amendment. Councilwoman Nebraska. Sure. Move to one, Madam Chair. Thank you. Two, one is before us. All those in favor of the title amendment. Please signify by saying I. Any opposing nay. Nay. I really mean to say. May I say I. Title amendment carries and I see that Charlie Kaufman is back on. So I'm going to hand the virtual gavel back. Thank you, Councilmember Balducci. But I may need your help because I'm working only from an iPhone screen at the moment. So that said, with the we have the ordinance before us as amended. Is there further discussion? Hearing? None. Madam Kirk, would you please call the Royal? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Councilmember Carlucci, I. Councilmember DEMBOSKY, I. Council Member Dun. I. Council Member Coal Wales Council Member Member I. Councilmember October I. Councilmember one right now. I. Councilmember Zelaya. Order. Mr. Chair. I. Mr. Chair, the vote is 9.0 notes. By your vote, we've given a do pass recommendation to market. Would you please help me out? Ordinance 2021 is 2020 0243. Mr. Chair. Thank you. And we will send it to full council on regular schedule. That takes us to our next item on the agenda, a motion sponsored by Councilmember Caldwell's address in City Hall Park. And given that I don't have my electronic notes before me, I will ask the central staffer who was going to present on it to begin