|
HAMILTON COUNTY May 10, 2001 DATE: May 10, 2001 TIME: 2:00 pm PLACE: Hamilton County
Environmental Services PRESENT: Policy
Committee Members PRESENT:
DOES Staff Others In
Attendance ABSENT: DOES
Staff I. CALL TO ORDER Mr. Portune called the meeting to order at 2:03 p.m. Mr. Portune welcomed everyone to the meeting. II. CLERK'S REPORT A. Approval of Minutes - March 8, 2001 Mr. Graham motioned to approve the March 8, 2001 minutes. Dr. O'Reilly seconded. All were in favor and the minutes were approved by acclamation. B. Additions to the Agenda Add the following under informational items:
A. Finance SubCommittee Report - April 12 and May 10, 2001 Mr. Graham stated that the Finance SubCommittee met by phone for the April 12, 2001 meeting. The Finance SubCommittee reviewed and compared the tipping fees for the past few years and found that the revenue is still in line for the $2.5 million budget. Mr. Aluotto provided a revenue trend analysis chart for the Finance SubCommittee to review. Mr. Aluotto will speak about this item later in the meeting.
The Finance SubCommittee reviewed the expenditures and recommended approval of SWR 03/2001. Mr. Graham motioned approval of SWR 03/2001. Mr. Ingram seconded and SWR 03/2001 was approval by acclamation. IV. POLICY ITEMS A. HB 166 and SB 71 In constructing these bills, the legislators relied on state-wide geologic and landfill capacity data to determine that the moratorium was appropriate. OEPA has estimated that 22 years of landfill capacity exists state-wide. District Staff feels it is important to convey to Hamilton County's legislative delegation that this state-wide data is, in many respects, not applicable to Hamilton County. Not only is Hamilton County in a more precarious position in terms of the ability for a moratorium to affect short-term planning capacity; but the operating procedures of Rumpke, as well as Hamilton County's local geology, serve to minimize the environmental threat which may legitimately exist in other areas of the State. The prevailing geology in Hamilton County negates much of the concern regarding the environmental impact of fractured glacial till. In addition, Rumpke, in the construction of new cells, excavates to bedrock before beginning waste placement. This was stated by Mr. Riddle at the March 8, 2001 Policy Committee Meeting and confirmed in conversations with OEPA staff. District staff recommends that the Policy Committee take a position in opposition to HB 166 and SB 71, in their current form, as these pieces of legislation do not consider factors local to Hamilton County in imposing a state-wide landfill moratorium. Dr. Geis asked Mr. Riddle if the glacial till issue was documented. Mr. Riddle stated it was documented in Rumpke's PTI. Mr. Portune asked Mr. Ingram if there were any health issues associated with either one of the proposed bills. Jeff, I have no clue what Tim said. Do you remember him whispering during his answer? Dr. O'Reilly passed out a written motion with a draft letter addressed to Ohio Representatives. The motion read as follows: As the Policy Committee's Public Member, I move that the
committee send the following to each member of the legislative
delegation from Hamilton County. The decisions about environmental
effects must be done by experts, not amateurs. Dr. O'Reilly's letter urged Ohio Representatives and Senators to table HB 166 and SB 71 and oppose their adoption due to Southwestern Ohio's geology being different than other area's in Ohio. Attached to the motion and letter was explanations of HB 166 and SB 71 from the Internet. Mr. Corman stated he thought it was a little premature to take any action at the present time against the bills. HB 166 also addresses expansion in certain areas and not just environmental issues. Western Hamilton County is already rapidly expanding and he feels this issue also needs to be considered. Mr. Corman suggested the bills set a date or implement a time line instead of making it retroactive for any pending permits. For future permits, include them in the moratorium to prolong capacity in Hamilton County by approximately 15 years. Mr. Graham asked if the Board of Commissioners should be the ones to oppose or support the legislation. Mr. Portune stated it may be in the best interest for the Townships or Political Subdivisions to support or oppose the legislation. This would not prevent the Commissioners and/or Policy Committee from taking a position on the bills. Mr. Portune stated that it seemed as though the legislation was in the early stages of discussion and moved to table this Policy Item until the July 12, 2001 meeting. Dr. O'Reilly commented on the Internet version of HB 166 and reiterated his opinion that experts and not legislators should be charged with the development of siting criteria. Mr. Portune reiterated the fact that the Policy Committee has time to act on this and again suggested tabling this Policy Item until the July meeting. Dr. O'Reilly accepted Mr. Portune's suggestion and asked if the motion could be brought back at the July meeting. Dr. O'Reilly asked Mr. Aluotto if he would prepare a memo to the Policy Committee addressing the current set of guidelines for subsection C of HB 166. The memo would include the specific siting criteria for this section of the bill. Mr. Corman seconded Mr. Portune's motion; all were in favor and the motion was approved by acclamation.
A. Transfer Station Activity and Planning Projections Mr. Aluotto passed out the revenue trend analysis to the Policy Committee and explained the chart to them. During passage of the District's latest Plan Update, the issue of transfer stations was raised-particularly as it relates to the ability of those facilities to export waste from Hamilton County. This was viewed as a potential problem as exported waste could result in lower District revenues. The CSI Transfer Station came on line in June, 2000. Based upon Staff estimates, the CSI Transfer Station took in between 120,000 and 160,000 tons in 2000. These estimates are in the process of being confirmed with CSI personnel. During this period of time, District monthly revenue has been, on average, higher than usual - but has fluctuated much more than in past years. While there may be many reasons for this, it is certainly possible that transfer stations are influencing the amount of waste disposed in District. The District is not currently suffering from severe revenue declines as a result of the existing transfer station in Hamilton County. This does not mean, however, that such declines could not manifest themselves in the future. Mr. Aluotto stated the importance of keeping the Policy Committee up to date on this issue, and the District's planned response, should revenue decreases materialize. The Plan Update states three revenue scenarios; $2.2 million, $2.5 million and $3 million and how the District would respond programmatically for each revenue scenario. Currently, the District can maintain its program level at $2.2 million; anything below that will cause the District to start thinking about an alternate fee structure if the District felt that pattern was going to continue. It was brought up at the Finance SubCommittee meeting as to when the District become concerned with this trend. At this point, the District does not feel it is a concern in terms of revenues. A discussion ensued regarding a fee increase and reduced program levels. The Policy Committee concurred that this item should be looked at again at the July 12, 2001 meeting. B. Green Building/Buy Recycled Procedures District staff recently met with the Directors of the Hamilton County Public Works Department and Hamilton County Facilities Department. The goal of the meeting was to determine a procedure for examining and if possible including recycled content materials in the construction and maintenance of Hamilton County facilities. The three departments succeeded in developing a strategy for integrating recycled-content materials into the review process for future County projects. A member of District staff would be involved with the architect discussions for every capitol project initiated by Public Works and the Facilities Department. Mr. Portune thanked the District for its continued work on this project and asked if any tracking of other purchasing policies has been done. And if so, could the Policy Committee have some examples of the language used in the purchasing policies that have been adopted. Mr. Aluotto stated the District is aware of some local purchasing policies and asked if anyone present could inform the District if they know of any. Many of the known local policies that either have not been well implemented or are fairly ineffectual. Most of the very effective ones are located in areas that are more accepting of those types of proposals (i.e. west coast). Dr. O'Reilly stated that the General Services Administration (gsa.gov) has information on its web site dealing with buying recycled. Mr. Aluotto stated a concern with green building/buy recycled is quality and cost. Although recycled-content has made great strides, it is still perceived as more costly. Along with recycled-content, the District is promoting sustainable materials. Mr. Portune asked the District to obtain examples of successful recycled-content bidding specifications from other jurisdictions. A brief discussion ensued regarding recycled-content purchasing. C. Market Development Activities The District has been working on three major items regarding Market Development Activities: -A marketing video, in cooperation with Butler County, that details projects where recycled-content materials were used with success, and will provide information on the cost and quality issues associated with each material. The goal of this effort is to expand the options of local decision makers in terms of choosing materials for new projects. A copy of the video will be sent to a contact in each political subdivision in Hamilton and Butler County. -The District has received proposals for its Secondary Materials Study, (as outlined at the last Policy Committee meeting). The District is in the process of scheduling interviews with two of the three consulting firms which submitted proposals. The District is preparing to submit an ODNR Market Development Grant for On-spec Materials. On-Spec is a local manufacturer which uses post-consumer/industrial plastics to manufacture various products for use in the construction and design industry. Manufacturers wishing to apply for a Market Development Grant must do so through their local solid waste management district. ODNR personnel have stated that this grant proposal is one of the better candidates in the state for receiving funding. This would be the first time that Hamilton County ever received a Market Development Grant. D. Alliance for Chemical Safety Household Hazardous Waste Proposal As reported at the last Policy Committee meeting, District Staff is currently assisting members of the Alliance for Chemical Safety in the evaluation of a permanent HHW collection facility in Hamilton County. The District has arranged a tour of Summit County's permanent collection facility. The Summit County facility is the most comprehensive public sector facility located in the State of Ohio. The tour will take place on May 30th and is open to any Policy Committee member wishing to attend.
In an effort to facilitate communication between itself and political subdivisions, the District will be launching a List Serve project in late May. The list serve will allow solid waste or administrative personnel at each political subdivision to communicate with all other subscribed contacts in the County. The idea of a List Serve was well received at the first meeting of the District's Recycling Outreach Committee. A full report on the first Committee meeting will be given in July.
The District is still in the process of planning a computer recycling event for June 29 and June 30, 2001. The District has sent approximately 4,000 flyers to residents and organizations advertising the event. In addition, District Staff attended an event in Cuyahoga County to gain firsthand knowledge of how these events operate. The District is actively seeking more volunteers for the event on both days.
OEPA staff has recommended to the Solid Waste Advisory Council (SWAC) that changes be made to the next State Plan. Changes that could possibly affect Hamilton County are: an increase of the required industrial recycling rate to 66% from 50% and OEPA recommending to SWAC that districts implement procedures for electronic collection events/managing electronics. The District has already stayed ahead of both of these changes. The third recommendation would be that districts evaluate the use of economic incentives in their plan strategies.
Heather Ellis with Keep Cincinnati Beautiful gave a brief update on the Great American Clean-Up which occurred on April 21, 2001. Ms. Ellis thanked the District for funding the tire disposal part of the clean-up. VI. TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS HB 166 and SB 71, Green Building/Buy Recycled and Multi-Family recycling will be future agenda items. A brief discussion ensued regarding multi-family recycling. VII. POLICY COMMITTEE MEMBERS' COMMENTS Mr. Aluotto stated that Sue Magness, Education Specialist, was the recipient of the Non-Formal Educator of the Year award from the Environmental Educators Council of Ohio. Mr. Aluotto stated that Ali Khodadad, Operations Coordinator, was recognized as one of the employee's of the year for Hamilton County. Mr. Aluotto stated that the District has recently hired Tanya Raimey as the new solid waste intern. Mr. Ingram stated a public hearing will take place on June 5, 2001 regarding Rumpke's PTI. Mr. Gwyn stated on Saturday, May 12, 2001, Forest Park will be having their second annual city-wide yard sale. VIII. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. IX. UPCOMING DISTRICT MEETINGS The next Policy Committee meeting is scheduled for 2:00 pm on July 12, 2001 at the Hamilton County Department of Environmental Services, 250 William Howard Taft Road. X. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Graham motioned to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Ingram seconded and the meeting was adjourned by acclamation at 3:28 pm. |
