Council member Clark Gilman criticized the removal of zero-waste language in the draft utilities chapter of the city's 2045 Comprehensive Plan update at the Olympia City Council study session on Tuesday, Dec. 3.
Gilman had been hoping, and even prodding for several years, that the city might take a "regulatory or a harder push" to achieve the zero-waste goal. But to see the whole section redlined, and then say, "Where possible, we have some of our stuff recycled, is a big pivot in my mind."
Gilman believed that achieving zero waste falls within the city's purview, not just the responsibility of the Waste Resources utility.
"If we can have an ordinance about plastic grocery bags or plastic straws, then I don't understand why we couldn't similarly prohibit other sorts of packaging," he said.
Acknowledging challenges, such as global markets and regulatory challenges, Gilman urged not to abandon its zero-waste vision.
"I just don't want us to say it's too difficult to sell our sorted garbage for somebody in another country to remake into a useful product. And so we give up on the project of that circular economy and nutrient cycling," he said.
In 2006, the Olympia City Council adopted a Zero-Waste Resolution. The resolution led to the development of the Utility's 2008-13 Toward Zero Waste: Olympia's Waste ReSources Plan, which established two primary goals: reducing waste generation and increasing recovery.
Ron Jones, senior planner with Public Works Waste Resources, explained that the intent behind the changes to the language was not to abandon the zero-waste vision, but to provide more clarity and brevity to the comprehensive plan.
Jones noted the significant challenges in achieving zero waste, with many factors outside the city's direct control, such as state legislation and global recycling markets.
Jones added that the city's policies still allowed for regulatory action if the council pursued it. He agreed with Gilman's concerns about circular economy and nutrient cycling, saying that these goals remained a priority.
Jones informed the city council that the state has been actively legislating in this area, including an organics management program that requires businesses to subscribe to organics collection. He said the utility is working to inform and onboard those customers.
In addition, state legislation has expanded the organics program to include single-family residential customers, set for implementation in 2030.
Jones added that a new bill is coming forward next year that would potentially address multi-family organics by 2035, though its passage is uncertain.
"But we have those opportunities," said Jones, adding the city could also consider banning certain recyclable and compostable materials from the garbage stream if directed by the council.
Council member Robert Vanderpool wanted the city to take a more proactive and regulatory approach rather than waiting for state-level legislation to address some gaps in achieving zero waste.
Vanderpool cited an example in their apartment on the west side, which has no compost pickup service, unlike many single-family homes. The council member highlighted the gap and said the city could address it. Another area of focus is the lack of mandatory recycling requirements for commercial businesses.
"Those are just small things that we can work (on)," said Vanderpool, expressing support on the steps toward the city's zero waste vision.
Council member Jim Cooper agreed with Vanderpool.
"It is time to mandate commercial recycling and residential recycling and stop the voluntary protocol," he said.
Gilman concluded by requesting a discussion with staff about the parameters and procedures for council members to provide input and edits as the comprehensive plan is finalized.
"I respect the public process,but I also want to be clear about what our authority and opportunity is to impact the final documents," he said.
9 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
Porter
Please don't make recycling mandatory until you all figure out where the recycled material goes. Do other communities use our garbage to make useful items? I doubt it.
Saturday, December 7, 2024 Report this
kellykelly
Instead of dealing with plastic waste packaging on the consumer end, why not pass regulations to prevent plastic packaging altogether? The city can pass laws regarding this, an example is Portland, Oregon who passed a law banning styrofoam packaging and retail outlets complied. Eventually it became a state law.
The city could push our state legislators to pass laws banning plastic packaging for the state.
In the meantime the city could find businesses who repurpose plastic waste. A Seattle based private company, Ridwell, has done this. Perhaps consult with the company to find out how they managed to find and partner with companies who repurpose plastic waste.
How was food packaged prior to the use of plastic? Somehow we managed to bring food home with out all of the plastic packaging. Consult with the elderly to find out how their parents managed with out plastic packaging.
Saturday, December 7, 2024 Report this
hptrillium
I agree with kellykelly. We need to focus on eliminating plastics as much as possible. We can use cloth bags and produce can be sold without packaging. Boxes can be reused for carrying groceries. Composting food scraps can be encouraged. Companys should be mandated not to use plastic packaging. Focus on the source of the packaging more than the recyle aspect especially since it is doubtful how much of the recyled material can be reused. It is a better use of our time and energy to stop using the plastic. Thanks to the Olympia City Council for working on this.
Saturday, December 7, 2024 Report this
BobJacobs
We are avid recyclers. That is our choice. But we believe the city should be very cautious about mandating recycling.
What will be the actual effects? A big bureaucracy to inspect residents' recycling and fine offenders? A program that produces a lot of material that is not usable(happening now)? A program that does more harm than good?
A thorough, holistic analysis must precede any such policy choice.
Bob Jacobs
Saturday, December 7, 2024 Report this
S2345S23456
I agree with the movement toward improving the way we manage our waste and recycling to be more earth-friendly, but must chuckle at the irony in this statement: "I just don't want us to say it's too difficult to sell our sorted garbage for somebody in another country to remake into a USEFUL PRODUCT. And so we give up on the project of that circular economy and NUTRIENT cycling." Ahem.....NUTRIENT? and USEFUL PRODUCT? China puts out a ton of useless plastic products....factory, factory, factory, and consume, consume, consume, and waste, waste, waste!! Let's keep in mind the carbon footprint created in collecting recycling, then to ship over vast oceans to China, then the melting down and conversion process (which is heavily off-gasing and chemical-laden, stimulating the chemical industry). Recycling is dirty too. What to do? Working toward reduction and reuse is super key. By the way, has China continued to limit what it accepts for recycling? Recycling is not a magic solution.
Saturday, December 7, 2024 Report this
Overtaxed
Will this include all City Departments as well ? I know for a fact that a lot of recyclable items are thrown in the trash/garbage by numerous departments.
Saturday, December 7, 2024 Report this
RedskinPatriot
How about you make "mandatory" the homeless recycle before tax paying citizens! Clean up the area between Pacific and Martin, city planners!
Sunday, December 8, 2024 Report this
pbaron1902
It seems as though we could have biodegradable packaging if the political will existed...The recycle prolem would surely be minimized that way. It's a national concern - not just our State.
Sunday, December 8, 2024 Report this
BrentInOly
I can get on board with this zero waste vision. I think they should start with the BUDGET!
Tuesday, December 10, 2024 Report this