AN ORDINANCE related to solid waste management; adopting the 2019 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan as a revision of the 2001 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan; amending Ordinance 14236, Section 3, and K.C.C. 10.25.010 and Ordinance 14236, Section 12, and K.C.C. 10.25.100, adding a new section to K.C.C. chapter 10.25, adding a new section to K.C.C. chapter 10.08 and repealing Ordinance 14236, Section 4, and K.C.C. 10.25.020, Ordinance 14236, Section 5, as amended, and K.C.C. 10.25.030, Ordinance 14236, Section 6, as amended, and K.C.C. 10.25.040, Ordinance 14236, Section 7, as amended, and K.C.C. 10.25.050, Ordinance 14236, Section 8, as amended, and K.C.C. 10.25.060, Ordinance 14236, Section 9, as amended, and K.C.C. 10.25.070, Ordinance 14236, Section 10, as amended, and K.C.C. 10.25.080 and Ordinance 14236, Section 11, and K.C.C. 10.25.090.
And with that, we'll move to item 21, which is the adoption of the 2019 Solid Waste Comprehensive Plan. This plan has had a lot of regional and council discussion over the last several years and was passed out of the Regional Policy Committee last week when he sue, who is here to present the staff report on behalf of herself and Tara Rose Mr. Who. Good afternoon. Thank you, Wendy. To who council staff. Tara Rose is the primary author of this document and she did really an awesome job. So I just like to only take credit for any errors that you might find in the staff report, so. That can be arranged. Thank you. So proposed ordinance 2018 0375 would adopt the 2019 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan as amended by the Regional Policy Committee. This is the first update of the plan since the 21 comprehensive plan, and it sets the strategies for managing solid waste in King County for the next six year planning period with consideration of the next 20 years. So turning to page 63 of your packet. I'll just talk very briefly about the comprehensive plan development process. The development and approval process for the comprehensive plan is governed by state law, county code and interlocal agreements with the partner cities. Developing this plan has involved coordination with the Solid Waste Advisory Committee and the Metropolitan Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee. Its work, the Solid Waste Advisory Committee, includes representation by interested citizens. Waste Management Recycling Group or excuse me. And Waste Management and recycling groups in this work is made up of partner city representatives. Both of these groups are charged with advising the county on solid waste planning and policy setting, and both of the advisory committees have issued advisory notes expressing support of the plan. The plan also requires a public comment period and CPA review as well as Department of Ecology review. Turning to page 64 of your materials, just to highlight briefly the approval process, the per the into local agreements with the partner cities. The plan is adopted when it's approved by the King County Council and also by cities representing 75% of the population of jurisdictions that are party to the ALA. So after the council approves the plan, it would then need to be approved by some number of of the cities that are participants in the system. Then after that, the final plan would be submitted to the Department of Ecology for formal approval. And if there's no questions, I'll actually move to the analysis of the plan on page 70 of your staff report. So at the bottom of pick 70 and on to page 71, there's a very high level summary of the contents of the plan. There's an introductory chapter. This chapter doesn't contain any goals or policies or actions, and so it's not further discussed in the analysis portion of the staff report. Chapter two focuses on the existing solid waste system. Chapter three covers forecasting and data. Chapter four is focused on sustainable materials management, and this chapter focuses on waste prevention and recycling. Chapter five talks about the solid, solid waste transfer and processing system with some discussion of the transfer network planning in Northeast King County, which I know is a topic of interest. And then Chapter six focuses on landfill management, solid waste disposal with consideration towards the long term disposal of the county's waste. And then Chapter seven focuses on solid waste system finance policies. So turning to page 72 of your packet, I'll start with chapter two. As I mentioned, this chapter focuses on the processes, infrastructure and programs that comprise the existing solid waste system in King County. And it sets four policies related to the existing system policy. Yes, one recommends that the existing combination of public and private facilities remain in the future. As you're all aware, the solid waste system is a mix of public and private facilities and partners. There's an inner local agreement with 37 partner cities. Under that agreement, King County is responsible for the transfer and disposal of solid waste. The cities are responsible for managing solid waste handling within their jurisdictions. And generally speaking, the city's contract with the private sector for curbside pickup and transportation, and then for recyclables and construction and demolition waste. Those portions are operated entirely by private companies. So again, yes, one recommends maintaining this existing combination of public and private partnerships. And this policy is consistent with previous policy, including the 2007 Solid Waste Transfer and Waste Management Plan. Turning to page 73, the next policy in this chapter is S2, which recommends continuing and working with the division's advisory committees. The Cities in the Solid Waste in our local forum, which under the I L.A. it's the Regional Policy Committee policy is three identifies incorporating principles of equity and social justice and a solid waste system planning, which is consistent with other county policies such as the Equity and Social Justice Strategic Plan, is for considers climate change impacts on sustainability when planning for facilities, operations and programs, and that is consistent with the county's Strategic Climate Action Plan. And I'll talk more about some of those elements as I go through the through some of the other chapters. So turning to page 17 for the next chapters, Chapter three, which focuses on forecasting and data. This chapter addresses policies and recommended actions focused around monitoring and reporting largely related to collecting, reviewing, standardizing and reporting data to support future planning and decision making for the solid waste system. These policies and recommended actions are consistent with other adopted policies related to solid waste. And I would just note that all of the policies and recommended actions in this chapter broadly address gaps within the current data collection processes, and so relate to standardization and and other actions to try to try to ensure that the data and forecasting methodologies are able to inform and support that policy making work. So at the bottom of page 75, this portion of the staff report talks about Chapter four, Sustainable Materials Management, the policies and recommended actions in Chapter four to support a goal of zero waste of resources by 2030, with an interim goal to achieve a 70% recycling rate through a combination of efforts in priority order that includes waste prevention and reuse, product stewardship, recycling and composting in beneficial use. And so some of the key policy themes in this chapter are around planning, implementation and infrastructure improvements. Mr.. Who if we can interrupt. Councilmember Lambert. Thank you. I have two questions. I want to make sure I heard what you said a minute ago about the gaps in in the data. What is that, chapter three? Yes, that's in part three. So how long have we known that there were gaps in this data? I'd like to defer to the division and happily answer that. Question when they come up. I would like to know if there's gaps in our data. I would prefer that they not wait for a plan to do that, but they bring it to us separately and say, you know, this is what we want to do for our data because we shouldn't be having gaps. And then on page 75, a goal of zero waste resources by 2030. And we can't even keep up with our goal of 50% right now. And the agency put out a report in the Normandy report about a year and a half ago that they intended to have a no not intended, that the the calculated calculation would be that we would have a 50% recycling rate by the year 2040. So I don't understand why we're looking at a 70% recycling rate, which is what we've been saying all along. But we've only been getting to 50 and I think it's 53 or 56. And then in the Normandy report, the calculation was put at 50. So it's really hard to get data that makes any sense if every time, which just gets. The problem in chapter three. So can you tell me why they're saying that they're going to achieve a 70% rate by 2030 when that's not what they wrote in the Normandy report? Well, so actually, council member, it does say that they would support a goal of zero waste of resources by 2030 with an interim goal to achieve a 70% recycling rate. And I will note that I was going to get to this later. But the Strategic Climate Action Plan, which the council has previously adopted, actually sets a deadline of 2020 to achieve that rate. And so there is a little bit of a difference here in that this plan doesn't actually repeat that they're going to make that deadline and instead specifies that it's an interim goal. But I would defer to solid waste to talk more about what their plan is in terms of that longer term goal of zero zero waste of resources. Was just confusing when the Normandy report says that it's going to be 50% all the way out to 2040. But one report says that to 2040, we're going to get 50. And that's what you can calculate on. And in this report to 2030, we're going to get 70. So I agree with what you said earlier, that the calculations are issues. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Would you like a solid waste staff to come to the table at this time in order to answer questions as we're going through? Mr. Mclauchlan, we can invite you forward now. Good afternoon and welcome. Thank you. For the record. My name is Pat McGlothlin. It's my honor to serve as your director of Solid Waste. And with respect to the questions on recycling, we have for some time had goals of reaching a 70% recycling rate and have made good progress over the years but have stalled. So we have looked, with the help of our cities and our regional partners and identified a roadmap that we believe could restart our recycling engines, if you will. But it will take very certain policy actions, not just by the county, but by individual cities who define the service levels and the recycling programs across our region. And if, as a unified body, we adopt those policy actions and these are outlined in the comprehensive plan, then we can obtain a much higher recycling rate. But for the purposes of planning, we've not assumed that to be a default planning factor. We've used a more modest recycling rate. Our current recycling rates about 54% in our region, which is good. And we're not assuming that we're going to hit to 70%. We're going to keep it as an aspirational goal and again, promote certain actions that are outlined in the plan, working with the cities to take a more harmonized approach . And and if we're successful, I'd like to believe that we will be successful. That will reduce the amount of waste that we have to put through any of our disposal options in the future. Thank you, Mr. Hill. Sure. And I think just speaking or writing. Councilmember Goss, did you have a question? Yeah. Councilmember Gossett. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My question is for Mr. McLoughlin. On the 57% aspiration. But we had 54. Okay. Why would 70% be aspirational if we know or we think we're not going to achieve it? It's just something that worked for we did the same thing for, you know, affordable housing. We have an aspirational goal. We hope that we get close to achieving it, but we don't know yet. But I wanted to ask how when we set goals for 70% and someone raised questions that we'd never gone above 50, why would we just say that's the aspirational goal? Is that not an intent to achieve it? No, we are intent on achieving a 70% recycling goal. We've taken off a date specific buy, which is going to happen because it is reliant upon both you as a council taking certain action to effect the service levels in the unincorporated areas. And each of our 37 member cities also have to take independent action to change their service level approach for recycling. And so it's it's a complicated task ahead of us. We have laid out multiple strategies that will get us there. And we believe that these strategies will work. And in fact, we know they will work because various municipalities in our region have deployed these recycling strategies with success. So we see that they work, but they haven't been deployed across the county consistently. And again, it's going to take independent action by each of the municipalities in order for us to achieve a 70% goal. And that's going to be challenging. And so we took a date off of the plan and left it as an aspirational goal. And we will continue to to push ourselves as a regional Solway system to get better and better. Okay. Thank you. Council member. Lambert Thank you so. Yeah. I think you were at the meeting in Mercer Island where we had all of the waste haulers there, and we were talking about chain of sawed and they said the purity level of the current recycling rate is a 10% impurity level. And in order to be sold in China, it has to have a 0.5. So half a percent, and we're at 10%. Every single person there said unless there's a change in the bin sorting system, that is not possible to happen. And when we asked about the bin sorting system, which is what we used to have, they said it would make a difference in all the bins in the entire county. How many truck loads there had to be and their trucks. So when you say that there would have to be some independent action. Oh, my goodness. It would have to be a total revamp. So tell me, what city has done a 70% recycling and what they're doing? That isn't part of what I just said. You raise some very good points and I don't have the city listing in front of me to to share with you, but I will certainly after this meeting, provide you with a city by city account. But I can express cities who have taken action, such as the city of Renton, who have changed their garbage service to every other week and kept recycling and organics collection that every week. And it has driven increases in their total recycling. That's an example of a strategy that has successfully been deployed to achieve higher recycling rates. The challenges brought forth by China's import policies are real. But I think what's important to realize is that 86%. Of our recycling tonnage is not affected by the China sword. 86% is not affected. It's really the mixed paper and mixed plastics, which is about 14% of our recycling stream which have been impacted. And we've been fortunate that our private haulers and processors have found alternative markets for those materials. But it has certainly been difficult for them, and they have reported significantly lower commodity prices for those items. And I think that's something we have to keep in mind in our recycling programs going forward. But again, 86% of our recycling tonnage is being processed and here domestically and being put back in to our local economy. At what purity level? The the contamination rates that you cited are approximately accurate. Thank you. All right, Mr. Hill, I'm going to ask you to continue in and with an eye toward that in you present the staff report asking members to limit questions until you're done to clarifying questions about the staff report you were giving and then open it up for more dialog with Mr. Mclauchlan. Okay. Sure. So on page 76, I won't get into too much detail here, but there's a detail in each of these paragraphs about the types of specific actions that are recommended related to planning. For example, Mr. Mclauchlan referred to on policy work that might need to be done, such as regulations for green building in construction waste, or policies to make recycling convenient for mixed use and visitor facilities. Those are just some examples, as well as policies specifically related to implementation, such as improving public operations and sponsored events, developing a process to amend the designated recyclables list and so forth. Various infrastructure improvements. Just as an example, developing infrastructure to increase food, scrap recycling, or considering service improvements in unincorporated areas, and then education programs such as programs in schools, providing technical assistance to external agencies and so forth. So just to give an idea of the range of recommendations related to improving recycling. And then as I briefly noted in response to Councilmember Lambert's question, the policies here are consistent with the county code provisions, including the Strategic Climate Action Plan. Although, as I noted, the Strategic Climate Action Plan establishes a deadline for 2020 in terms of achieving the 70% recycling rate, whereas Mr. McLaughlin has spoken to the rationale for why this plan doesn't include that particular date. So I'm going to actually move you to page 80 of your staff report and move to Chapter five. This is the chapter that addresses the county solid waste transfer and processing system, and it does so focused around two themes infrastructure, which the current infrastructure includes eight transfer stations and two rural drop boxes and then environmental sustainability. There are policies in this chapter that essentially call for recommending building and operating transfer facilities using green building and sustainable development practices. I would note that the policies, most of the policies here reflect past decisions around modernizing the county system. The most notable policy in this chapter is the recommended action one Dashti, which calls for siting and building a new Northeast transfer station and then closing the station. And with that, I'll turn you to page 84 of the staff report, which talks about the fiscal implications of of this particular recommendation. So as you're all familiar, the transfer station network is supported through the solid waste rates because most of this network is already built out or is in the process of development. The only transfer station policy recommendation that's incorporated into this plan that has an impact on rates is the decision about how to proceed with capacity in Northeast King County. The draft plan analyzed three options for the northeast area and estimated a total cost per ton, including both operating and capital cost in 2029. And those three options are shown in the middle of page 84, as is the total station would have a $2 and 39 cent cost per ton, whereas the northeast station would have a $13 cost per ton. And then a combination approach would be a little under $10 per ton. The plan does note that only the new Northeast Station option would meet all six key level of serious criteria which our time on site cycling services offered vehicle. Average daily handling capacity space for three day storage and the ability to compact waste ensued. That is the rationale that is discussed in the plan for moving forward with that recommendation. So turning to page 85, Chapter six focuses on landfill management practices and solid waste disposal. This chapter includes policies around operating theater, hills and the closed landfills to meet or exceed relevant laws and standards, and also for updating the debris management plan in coordination with state and regional authorities. So those are focused around the current disposal practices. And then there are also policies for long term disposal policies, D2 and D4 and these direct the county to maximize the capacity and lifespan of the Cedar Hills landfill through further development and also to plan for disposal after its ultimate closure. In order to ensure that there's no gap in service, recommended action. 1-d proposes not specifying the next disposable disposal method in this plan and recommended action. 2-d provides for continuing to evaluate disposal technologies and to regularly update the county's advisory committees. I would note that the two alternative disposal options that were considered were waste, export and waste and building a waste to energy facility. And then I would actually turn you to page 86, which focuses on consistent consistency with adopted policies and plans. So policies D1 and D3 which call for operating questions. Councilmember Dombroski Thank you, Mr.. The Solid Waste Division pays rent for Cedar Hills to the General Fund, and that issue was litigated and the county prevailed. Does that rent obligation cease once we can stop using it for filling, or is it go on in perpetuity given the presence of the landfill on the general funds land and and if that's a legal lead, debatable thing that you want to answer here, that's okay. But I'm kind of curious to understand the fiscal impacts of these issues around Cedar Hills to our general fund, because I don't think it's an insignificant rent check. Meg Moorhead, strategy communications and performance manager for King. County Solid Waste. I believe. That the rent would no longer be paid if we. Stopped using it as an act of landfill. And what do we pay in rent annually to the general fund? We've been the solid waste. I would have to get back to you about that. Yeah. Yeah. We don't have that number with me. Okay, that's important. It seems to me, for not only decision making today, but planning, because our general fund is quite constrained. I mean, we hunt and peck around for $25,000, sometimes or less. Right. So it's I believe the rent check is in the multiples of millions per year. Mr. Hu. Okay. So on page 86, again, the first set of policies call for operating theater hills and the closed landfills to meet or exceed laws and standards related to public health and environmental protection. And so that is consistent with adopted policy around the plans for long term disposal policy. D-2 and part of Recommended Action one D Support Maximizing the capacity and lifespan of the Cedar Hills landfill through further development. Policy decisions over the last decade have been based on analysis indicating that keeping the landfill open for as long as possible is the most economic alternative for waste disposal. And there's a policy draft for I'm now on page 87, which supports not siting replacement and landfill in King County, and that is consistent with the previously adopted policy in the 2001 comp plan and then recommended actions one D and 2D support not specifying the next disposal method after Cedar Hills reaches capacity and closes in order to be able to account for technological advances. And instead, these recommended actions call for tracking and evaluating other disposal technologies for future feasibility. And this represents a departure from adopted county policy, which currently expresses an intent to initiate waste export into the next disposal method. So the policies today would say waste export is the next disposal method. And this plan essentially leaves leaves open what the future method will be. So turning to page 88, I'll just very briefly highlight that the plan does talk about in terms of environmental considerations, greenhouse gas emissions for the three disposal options, and those are shown in table one in the middle of page 88 with essentially with this page 88, with annual greenhouse gas emissions that are comparable for further development of Cedar Hills and waste export, and then significantly greater emissions for a waste to energy facility. Sorry, Miss Chair. Can I ask a little bit about that chart on page 266 where materials that your staff report is summarizing? Page 88 is where I'm speaking. From your reference. You're summarizing the report? Yes, I'm looking at tables 6-1 comparison of key disposal option characteristics further develop Cedar Hills $41 a ton. Export out of county landfill 55, waste energy $136. And then the emissions which you were just talking about, further developed Cedar Hills, 91,000 metric tons of CO2 per year, about the same for export, and then 1.2 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year on a waste to energy. That right, a factor of almost 12 or 13.13. Yes, we use the regulatory models that we obligated to use. These are from the Environmental Protection Agency. And these numbers that you see here for landfilling are easily calculated. We report these regularly to the Department of Ecology here in Washington State, and the estimates you see for waste to energy were actually calculated by the hired third party experts who presented that study. You got two models. You got the EPA's warm model, which is not the one I was citing, but the numbers are different, similar in terms of scale. But then you've got the EGR TI EPA model. So that's two ways of calculating the same question. I ask you this. If you if we were to adopt the waste energy model, could we meet our council mandated direction to you to be greenhouse gas neutral by 2025? Or is that something different? This would substantially add. Challenge that effort? Yes. Yeah. Okay. I mean, this I'm interested in that. Having worked on that legislation to make you guys be carbon neutral or emissions neutral by a certain date, you stepped up and committed to it. So and I'm looking at these options. Cost is important, but the emissions profile of the technology we're choosing is important to me. Don't interrupt. I want to interrupt with a administrative update, and that is, given the length of this conversation and in my management of the meeting to date, I'm letting Mr. Evans and Ms.. Sanders know that we will be postponing the conversation about the equity and social justice workgroup for the legislative branch to our next meeting March 18th . With my apologies and Mr. Kim. Thank you. And with that, we'll continue our work on the solid waste plan. Councilmember Lambert. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to respond to Councilmember DEMBOSKY. The Kyoto protocols, the first country in the world to comply with the Kyoto protocols was Germany, and they have ways to energy plants. And one of the things they told me was that the reason that they thought they could comply was because their waste to energy plants were so much better for the air that that's how they felt that they had made their protocols. The warm model. When I was back in D.C. last year, as you may remember, I went and visited with the EPA and they are updating the calculations of the warm model. So we'll be seeing coming out fairly shortly. The calculation that was just discussed from the Normandy report was based on a formula that was given to them by the department. So they did not let you say that. So in the new study that's being done, this is going to be redone so that we have a more open discussion on that topic. Thank you. Mr. MCLOUGHLIN, if you need to. I just have some supplemental information to an earlier question. The rent payment for Cedar Hills in 2018 was slightly over $3 million with. And to continue the staff report. Mr. WHO? Thank you. Just making a note of that. Okay. So as Councilmember Lambert alluded to, the plan talks about fiscal considerations related to the capital costs of both waste to energy and waste export. But as Councilmember Lambert noted, the council did add a proviso which the entire text of that proviso was provided on pages 91 and 92 of the staff report in the 2019 2020 budget that would fund a study that would look at both of those options in detail, both in terms of the operating and capital costs, as well as the environmental impacts. And that process is currently in procurement right now. And so that that work is expected to be completed in October. So turning to page 92 of the staff report the solid waste system financed this portion of the staff report is on page 92 and the policies are generally around assessing customer fees and supporting the keeping fees as low as reasonable while recovering the cost of the system and upholding system priorities and then managing rates through smaller, more frequent increases and then also broader financial planning. Several of the recommended actions relate to the management use of certain reserves and funds. And I would just note that the the policies are are consistent broadly with prior adopted actions as well as the county's comprehensive financial management plan or policies. And I would just note that there are a couple of recommended actions for F and 11 F described on page 94, which suggest consideration of alternatives to the current rate structure and for managing solid waste rates through smaller and more regular increases. These are new approaches for the solid waste system, but I would point out that in adopting the plan, neither of these represent specific proposals and would require further council action at a later date to actually implement any of that direction. And so that concludes my remarks. Unless you have any questions for me specifically, otherwise, I'd be happy to defer your questions to the director. Questions of Mr. Who? Questions of the department. Councilmember Lambert. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a couple of questions. The amount of time that cell H will be available has changed from 2025, from 2028 to 2025 in some papers. Which is it, 2025 or 2028? Landfill capacity is estimated to be available through us till about 2028. However, when you identify the sources of that capacity, the newest cell, which is Area eight, will be consumed by about 2025. And so to get the additional two and a half or three years, we'll be looking at going back at older portions of the landfill and putting additional layers of waste on existing portions of the landfill within our permitted limits in order to get until about 2028. So I have a letter letter here that I can distribute everybody from the Department of Ecology establishing the baseline greenhouse gas emissions that have been ordered to be mandatorily phased reductions of the greenhouse gas starting in 2035. Are you familiar with that order? It was the letter that was sent to you. Yeah. Let's see. It was sent to you by Ben Blank, the Climate Policy Section Manager of the Department of Ecology. And I'm assuming it was this year. Oh, yes. December 18, 2017. If familiar with the letter. Not specifically recalling the letter. Well, anyway, basically what it says is that in 2028, Cedar Hills lanta will be a county for nearly 100 metric tons of CO2, which is 33% higher than what would be allowed under the ecology mandate. And because between 2013 and 2016, emissions at Steiner Hill have continually increased. So the the amount we're supposed to have is about 70,000. And we appear on one of the list of 150 most polluters in the state. So how do you plan to comply with the mandatory reductions, which is, I believe, in the first couple of years, 1.7%, but then it I think reduces to 1.4 later on. How are you going to make those targeted reductions? We have begun that work already through modifying our operational protocols and exploring alternatives in managing our gas collection system. So the use of daily cover, the early implementation of our gas collection system when we're designing or actually using the cell at its earliest phases. And as I said, exploratory methods around refined control of the gas collection system are all making a very measurable difference in both the quality of the gas that we're able to collect. Because, remember, we're not just collecting and then destroying this gas. We are now having it converted into renewable energy. And so we're very, very conscious to not have gas just horribly emitted into the into the atmosphere. Of course, we don't want that even more. So we want to be able to create a renewable fuel with it. And we've been very successful to increase the amount of renewable fuel and the quality of that fuel through these operational practices. And we are continuing to explore ways to even drive those numbers higher. And so we'll continue to do that. And I think that will in turn reduce the accounting of greenhouse gas emissions under EPA's regulatory model. So the clean air rules are going to go before the Supreme Court on March 19th. So if they uphold the clean air rules, don't you think it would be smart for us to wait before a major planning document and talk to the courts since it's only a couple of weeks off made a decision? So we know if they can comply. Well, these these rules, these models that we're referring to are the same models that allow us to compare and contrast waste, export and waste to energy, to local landfilling. And what we know is that local landfilling has the least environmental impact, particularly in terms of greenhouse gases. So providing we continue to operate with excellence the way that we are and pursue better practices and manage our waste locally there at Cedar Hills, we'll be in the best position to comply with any such order. So today's newspaper on B3? Yes. Had a whole top page. Rising methane levels are worrying the scientists and in this article for the first time. Normally they say that methane is 28 times worse than CO2. But I've been hearing from scientists in other places in the world that that is a low number. And in today's paper, our Seattle Times says that it's 32 times more dangerous. And so I think that this is a really important issue. And in the documents that we've been looking at, you're saying that you collect about 90% of the methane coming out of sea, out of Cedar House, which then ultimately means that there's 10% that is not being collected. And I haven't seen any calculations to what that 10%, that 10% comes out to. I have other questions, but I'm going to take them off line. The one thing that I want to also say is there is great concern to me that the solid waste advisory committees, which we had a gentleman come in and speak to, unfortunately know he's still here. Those are one of the few, maybe only public tests, public meetings that are not taped. So there's no way when people call me and say the minutes do not reflect what happened at the meeting, including my own dearly departed staff that we all knew and cared about. We come back from the meetings and say, You know what was in the minutes from the last meeting when I remember hearing. And so that's why I asked you to see if we could start taping those meetings so that I could see if the minutes jived with the the minutes. And as far as I know, you're the only committee that doesn't have audio, and that is of great concern to me. I just want to put that on the record. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Councilmember Gossett. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to hearken back a bit to the testimony from several people who are concerned about. Our. Waste to energy and whether or not we can achieve our goals. One of the things they said is that they do not believe some of the ones who said they are scientists or they know scientists that if we add eight years away, if we go back to 2000, 2000, 28, they don't believe that the landfill is adequate enough to haul all the garbage that will come. It was very helpful to me to hear you say just a few moments ago that we probably will be filled by 225. But the last three years, we should be able to add something to our older landfill areas that would allow us to take another 300 tons of garbage . What was that that we'd be adding to this area that would allow us safely to continue to dump a lot of garbage in there for three years. And it's an old part of our existing. System. Yeah. If we don't have a new cell ready by 2025. Then new cell with an audience. Right. So. So to go back. Area eight is our newest cell will begin placing waste in an area eight later this year. Okay. And these are all projections, right? These are all forecasts of predictions based on the economic and recycling figures. As best as we can plan for that cell will last till about 2025. Okay. And providing that we are going to continue to landfill here in the county is as has been proposed. We have the ability to go back to other areas at Cedar Hills that have not been fully closed and put additional layers of waste on top of those cells. Those cells have gas collection systems and leachate management systems in place. Okay. And those are available to us. It does not buy us a tremendous amount of capacity. We actually need to get busy very quickly on developing a full cell, what we call Area nine, in order to ensure that we have no disruption in service. And the area for those last three years of already existing waste areas. Does it involve putting some material on top of the current material that would then take the garbage in? Yes, sir. Because they seem that residents seem very concerned that the environmental impact caused by that is going to be deleterious to their health. But we hear that a lot, but we also hear a lot from the and this industry. Is that out there that they don't grow compost? Yeah. No, no, no. Asphalt. What's it called? And this. What kind of energy? Lakeside. Yeah. They say the same thing about Lakeside and the sand, and I'm neither spot. Do I see what the nature of the concern is? Because we've consistently get it about what we're planning as well as what Lakeside is planning. So I'm hopeful in Buffalo areas I'll be able to get some additional information to help me appreciate that we can make it and why it is that the residents are so confident that neither will work. We'd be happy. Your part. What what's your response? Well, we believe that expanding Cedar Hills not only provides a local solution, but we can do so while being a good neighbor and being attentive to the concerns of those around us. You know, I look back at 2018, okay, at the Puget Sound Cleaning Clean Air Agency, the records for odors. Okay. Zero complaints were registered from Cedar Hills. Is that right? Not a single complaint. And I attribute that to the operational practices that we have in place. The fact that we cover the waste at the end of each shift at the in the evening, and we cover that waste to prevent the emission of odors or landfill gas that we have staff onsite 24 hours a day, seven days a week to immediately respond should there be the recognition of an odor or a concern. And and we're out in the community regularly. We do odor checks six times a day driving through those neighborhoods so that we can identify an odor without having to be called. We do it. I know that we got some equipment. We actually have specially trained that. This sounds silly. I'll admit they're called nasal rangers and work. And they use they do use special equipment to calibrate their nose and to be able to identify the idea. The key is to not just identify that there is an odor, but to know what type of odor it is and what the intensity of that odor is. And this is a standard by which we operate, and then we get to the root cause where at all possible. Certainly if they're related to our own operation and we're responsive as best as we can to the concerns that are raised. But I just thought it would be important when you think about the regulatory body of the Clean Air Agency here in the Puget Sound area, know we've got a tremendous track record that was just for 2018. You can go back in previous years and, you know, less than a percent a year in total reports of odors. So I think it's a testament to the work that's being done up there. And and look, we will still be responsive to the neighbors interests and the concerns. You know, the regional aquifer is not at risk from our operation. We are not contaminating that regional aquifer. The water is cleaner leaving our site than it is coming on to our site. We actually monitor wells all across the landfill. And keep in mind, there is a Superfund site, Queen City Farms, just to the south of us. And when we measure the quality of the water coming on to our site, it's problematic. But by the time it's processed through our landfill and it it's naturally moving underneath our landfill, it's cleaner than when it came on. And it meets or exceeds the standards for federal drinking water. So we do take our environmental responsibilities seriously and will continue to do so as we consider the options for developing our landfill further. Thank you, sir. Mr. Magoffin, could you speaking to from the previous question about some of the concerns expressed by the community. Can you speak to us about the outreach you've done in the community and any meetings or events? Thank you. Yes, I would love to do that. We we have regularly for years, over a decade have hosted and continue to host semiannual community meetings. We invite our neighbors out into the community and meet with them on a regular basis every six months. In fact, April 30th is our next community meeting and we said we've done that for over a decade and those have been very, very good, healthy discussions. We had the opportunity to participate in Councilmember Gunn's town hall and have very open, real dialog with the community about their concerns and their interests. We held in preparation for this comprehensive plan the beginning of 2018. Really the entire first quarter was open into interacting with the public. We had a 60 day public comment period. We hosted a online engagement tool to interact with those who perhaps couldn't come out to a physical open house. And we continue just in the daily activities of running our business. It's not uncommon for my deputy director, for instance, who spends a lot of time up at the landfill herself to go and meet face to face with the neighbors and go to their homes and talk about the concerns that they have, or sometimes just go to coffee and talk. And so we have a continual commitment to be available and responsive to our neighbors, both in a structured and unstructured format. And one of the very good things that Councilmember Gunn administered a little while ago was the introduction of a a place at the table, if you will, for a representative of our neighborhood from the Cedar Hills Regional Landfill to be on our solid waste advisory committee. And in fact, the advertisement for that is going out this month. And we hope that through that advertisement and through our semiannual meeting that happens next month itself, that we'll be able to bring one of those voices around the table to the Solid Waste Advisory Committee to even benefit from continued and a higher level of engagement and representation. Thank you, Councilmember Dunn. Thanks. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good dialog on this, Pat. Thanks for coming today and your comments on this. I, I really appreciate your coming to that town hall, I guess it was almost a year ago now, give or take ten months ago anyway, something like that. And I, I decided to do a town hall because of the growing sort of interest and concern about the landfill and the continuing expansion of the landfill. And I sent out a postcard and Tommy might remember was there about 300 people showed a big number for a town hall, at least at this level of government and, you know, very interested in the work you did. And and, you know, walking into those town halls is it's a little bit uncomfortable. I mean, because, you know, there's a lot of folks who are fired up and there's a distrust that exists between citizens and government. But I think by the end of it, you and I had sort of, I think, defang most of the concerns or criticisms or distilled them down to, you know, what sort of legitimate words based on bad information. And and I heard I just heard your call to summarize some of the public outreach you've done, which I appreciate . And and it's actually my my sort of whole pitch today is not for solid waste to do more public outreach, because I think you've done quite a bit, and that town hall was part of it. It's actually for my colleagues to hear that public outreach for themselves, they get a little bit a little dose of it today and they've had a little bit in past meetings. But, you know, you know, we preside over as a county an ever shrinking number of regional services and for a variety of reasons, they've shrunk. But one of the things that is one of our core responsibilities is handling garbage. Solid waste is one of them. Obviously, wastewater is another one. And it's really important and all of that good stuff that I've thrown away since I was a child, most of you have as well has ended up there in District nine, right in the middle of my district, right next to the one of the country's largest composting facilities, and right next to a proposed cement plant. So you can understand why asphalt plant. Scuse me. There is a difference. You can understand why there's a lot of concern out there. And sometimes these issues are conflated. But we are talking about expanding a major landfill. And so I guess what I what I'm here to say is sort of bouncing this off to my colleagues is, first of all, I hope we don't vote on this today. And second, I would. He's going to call on either the chair of the council or perhaps chair a committee of the whole, either in total or at least a delegation of members to consider coming out to District nine, somewhere near the landfill, to hold a hearing, to just hear from folks who so many of them are living paycheck to paycheck, just like everyone else. And hard to take off work and come down here in the middle of the day just one time. It's such a significant regional issue, which is what we're focused on to hear what they have to say in advance of us taking a final vote to pass this out through full council. So that's what I'm asking for. I did commit to doing a town hall again on this subject this spring, which I plan on doing. However, if we can have a hearing and it would probably be part and parcel together. So that's my thought. And I wanted to make the ask, but I certainly hope at least we can hold the vote today. And I'm asking. Please pretty please. Well, thank you. Councilmember done, Councilmember Lambert. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And so, you know, when the citizens come in and speak, they have said over and over that they've made calls and complaints. And then one of them even said, I've complained. But then when the statistics come out, they don't say anything about our complaining. And so it would be interesting because it's hard when you say, you know, call the EPA. You know, who do you call the EPA? Even getting an appointment for me, an April to go visit with them again is difficult. Who do I call? Eeny, meeny, miny, mo. It's a big place. So I can understand why. They may not know, but I understand that many of them have begun calling the police department and the fire department to complain. So it would be good to find out from our police and fire department they're coming because they are getting because we should know how many citizens are calling and complaining because they said over and over when they've come to public testimony. So and then there's been conflicting information about the I was told that we couldn't get some data because people wouldn't let them on their property. And when I told the people, if you really want to know if you know what the things are on your property, you should probably allow those meters on your property. And they said, nobody's asked me to put it on my property. So, you know, I think it would be good to go out to the people so that when, you know, there's two sets of answers to the same question, their opposite, at least we can get some clarity because someplace between this answer and this answer is the correct answer, and I'm not sure where that is. So I think that something this big and something that, you know, we're talking about this on a 20 year plan. This isn't a 20 year plan. This is a 70 to 100 year plan. This decision is going to be a long term decision because if we don't have an asset that belongs to us in the year 2040, when all the cities can decide whether they want to partner with us or not, we are going to have a very big decision and I don't think it will be pretty at all. And so I was here for the for the end at the last major plan and was able to talk to the county employee who's now retired as of a month ago on how that all went down. And sometime you should go to coffee and hear all about that. So I think it's a great idea to have a meeting where we're talking to the people and we're also smelling the very thing that the people have complained about. Councilmember Bell duty. Thank you, Mr. Chair. More than nature of comments, if, if, if our colleague needs some additional time to work up potential amendments to the plan, I think we should find a way to do that, whether that be in committee or in between committee and council, because the IT we are making a long term commitment. I ran for office in 2015 when the last plan aspects of the last plan were a hot topic, the last I should say the last proposal, because it didn't go anywhere. The executive branch has proposed more than one updates to the solid waste long range comprehensive plan since 2001. We are many years past due having a long range, solid waste, comprehensive plan. They've conducted studies, they've done outreach. I can tell you from the city point of view where I used to sit, there was a lot of engagement with the communities and there were of course the negotiations around the solid waste of the solid waste contracts with the cities. We have commitments and an obligation to make sure that we have a long range plan for how we're going to collect, transfer and. Ultimately dispose of all of the solid waste that this very large county generates. I feel that there has been more than enough review of our long range options. There may be differences of opinion about which ones we should select and how we should transition to another future beyond Cedar Hills. There will be a B on Cedar Hills, but I think that the issues are ripe. I think they should be put before us, and I think that we should move to a vote. If not today, then relatively swiftly, because it's really time. And I want to say the suggestion that I heard at least twice today that it would be too scary or too uncomfortable to sit in the community and hear from them . I dare any one of you, my colleagues, my my dear, respected colleagues to trade stories of community meetings that we have sat in and been yelled at and how big they were and how angry they were and how important the issues were, because they're always big, important issues. That's why the emotions are high. Emotions are high because these are people's lives and it matters to them. Of course, we're capable of doing that. But let me ask you, to what end to the end of an amendment that will change the plan? I mean, we got to legislate. And what are we going to. What is the what is the alternative? We've done listening. We've done outreach. The as as has been said, the department has done a tremendous amount of outreach this time and last time and probably times before that. So I'm not sure where it's going to say, let's pause and do more process, pause and do some legislating. Okay. But I think it's time to be moving this towards a narrowed set of decision points that we can take up, debate and vote upon so that we can get our job done, which is to have a long range plan that meets the economic community and environmental needs of this county. So I'm ready to move forward, but I understand if people aren't in need a little bit more time, I could I could understand that. But not to just throw the whole thing wide open and go back to interests. We're past that. We're well past that. It's time to start moving towards decisions. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Member Bill G. This is the first time that the com planet solid waste comprehensive plan has been discussed at the committee. The whole I hear interest in making sure that we are moving forward. I hear that a request that we not vote on it today in particular. And I do take to heart the point Councilmember Belushi made about working on amendments. And it is my desire and my intent to make sure that we do that kind of work in committee to the best of our ability. Is there an interest in holding this in committee and taking this up in our next meeting, presumably with amendments to be considered? That would be two weeks from today on the 18th of March. Councilmember DEMBOSKY, As chair. Could staff help us understand, were there amendments here how that would work with respect to the Regional Policy Committee, which has heard this a couple of times and advanced it forward, do we have to go back over there or is there a way that's been amendment to the plan? Are there are there notions that could be done in the recitals, perhaps, of the adopting legislation that don't go back? Or is it we change it back, we go. Oh, if if this committee or the full council were to drop an amendment such that there was a new version of the legislation that the Regional Policy Committee had not considered, the full council couldn't actually take that up. It would have to go back to the Regional Policy Committee if, for example, if this committee were to pass an amendment creating a new version, it would be version three that would go to the full council. The full council could take up version one, which is the transmitted or the transmitted ordinance than plan. It could take up version two, which is what's right before you right now, the version that came out of the Regional Policy Committee, it could take up either of those and it could pass version one with six votes because it's not the version that was recommended by the Regional Policy Committee. It could pass version two with five votes because it is the recommended version by the Regional Policy Committee. Or if it again, if its choice was to recommend version three, that would have to go back to the Regional Policy Committee. Okay. Well, two comments. One, we got some work to do in our charter on this process, maybe to make sure we collect regional input, but be able to govern on a pace that's, you know, maybe a little faster because we run into this a lot. But to I guess I'm I'm sympathetic to Councilmember Dunn in the interests of his neighbors and in his district there. It it's not pleasant to live. Sometimes thanks to this facility, it's despite our decent track record. Just you're next to the landfill. It's not nice, but Councilman Belushi makes a pretty compelling point that we've been working on this in my six years here at the council. And I don't think anything I haven't sensed that there is a major alteration to the plan. The language in the plan that would garner five votes on an executive signature. Right. That's important. I think the plan, I guess, you know, I think it does a good job analyzing. I'm comfortable with the general approach of of completing Cedar Hills to the best extent we can from an economic and environmental perspective. I think we're real short on time, actually, real short on time to figure out what happens after Cedar Hills. I mean, it's not that long. I think I threw out a potential ten year, you know, facility siting. If you were to do a garbage burning plant, it could be longer. We could look around and see what they're taking, but planning for even waste export will take time and those options are all in this plan. So those colleagues, I think, that say, well, I like this particular solution after Cedar Hills or this one, I'm not sure why adopting this plan forecloses that. I guess I don't see that it does. So I'm I'm prepared to support the plan when my colleagues are ready to do it. I voted for it in the Regional Policy Committee, and I've listened to folks carefully and I read it, and that's kind of where I'm at. All right. We are going to hold the current planning committee. It will be on our agenda for March 18th. It will be the second such substantive item on the agenda following the report from the Equity and Social Justice Work Plan of the Legislative Branch. Knowing of no further business can be before the committee. We are.