Friday, October 2, 2026
Olympia City Council members are divided over a proposed $40.6 million waste resource facility, with some members leaning toward exploring contracted collection services.
At a study session held on Tuesday, April 21, Public Works Director Mark Russell told the council the proposed project would replace the aging Eastside Street Maintenance Center. He presented updated cost estimates for a waste resources maintenance facility planned for Carpenter Road.
He said the effort has been underway for more than 10 years. The current maintenance center on Eastside Street was built in 1976 and is showing its age.
“It is no longer operationally efficient,” said Russell, citing space constraints, environmental challenges, including wetlands and nearby creek buffers that limit the usable land, and aging mechanical and electrical systems rated in poor condition.
“The building and major systems are at the end of their useful life,” Russell said.
Previous assessments estimated at least $15 million would be needed for repair and renovations of the existing facility.
“Investing in the existing maintenance center would not meet the needs of our public works operations long term,” Russell added.
The site, originally designed for a smaller operation, now supports more than twice the number of programs and vehicles. It also lacks seismic resilience and does not meet current Americans with Disabilities Act standards.
A 2017 feasibility study concluded the city would need about 18 acres to support its maintenance operations. Consultants evaluated eight or nine potential private properties across Olympia, but found no suitable locations that met operational needs.
The recommendation was a phased approach using city-owned land, centered on the Carpenter Road site, which would house waste resources and heavy-duty fleet operations.
The proposed facility would house about 40 Public Works staffers and accommodate 46 vehicles, including 20 collection trucks and 19 heavy-duty vehicles for maintenance and repair.
The project's price tag includes $33.5 million in construction estimate plus contingency, design and permitting, and other costs.
Financing the project through debt would raise the utility’s annual payment of about $3 million over 30 years. The staff estimates this would translate into a 24 percent increase in a residential bi-monthly waste utility bill to $81 from $65.
Russell listed three options going forward:
Council members dismissed the third option, citing growing operational demands.
According to Russell, contracting services could mean losing certain programs.
“There are some services that are unique to Olympia that I think would be difficult to contract out and not meet the service levels that the community would expect," he said.
Council member Robert Vanderpool expressed reservations about privatization, saying historical experience shows it can be difficult to reverse and may create long-term challenges for the public. He raised the idea of possible regional discussions with nearby cities.
Mayor Pro Tem Yen Huynh was interested in exploring alternatives to the facility, including contracting options.
She raised concerns about losing long-term public control of services. She cautioned about privatization, saying once services are outsourced, they are difficult to bring back under city operation.
Council member Kelly Green was concerned about the potential rising costs, saying the $40.6 million estimate “feels like a baseline number."
She noted that additional expenses, such as truck replacements and future electrification, could drive costs even higher.
Green questioned how the city would absorb those costs given the budget challenges it has faced in past years.
During a presentation, Russell discussed how other jurisdictions structure waste services and what residents pay under different systems.
He said Washington’s waste system is based on a franchise model, with some cities operating city-run services while others contract private haulers under Washington Utility and Transportation Commission (UTC) oversight.
He noted Bucoda, Rainier and Tenino contract out garbage services, with 2026 rates around $59-$69 for weekly 35-gallon garbage pickup and biweekly recycling.
Lacey, Tumwater, Yelm and unincorporated Thurston County use UTC-regulated private haulers, with similar service levels and rates of about $50 for residential service.
Russell noted Olympia is one of few cities in the region that still directly provides garbage and recycling collection.
Council member Clark Gilman recognized the potential 24 percent rate increase is not insignificant, but it is “a relatively small amount compared to the total fee and tax burden that a household pays in a year,” and falls within a range similar to other cities.
He emphasized the city’s climate goals, including achieving zero emissions by 2040. Gilman noted the importance of continuing to track and address the carbon footprint of heavy collection vehicles.
“I would not want contracting waste hauling to excuse us from counting the carbon footprint of the heavy vehicles," he said.
Gilman said he remains interested in retaining facility operations, but wants more clarity on whether outsourcing waste services could maintain or reduce current rates, and whether it would provide financial savings for the city.
The council members agreed to have a follow-up study session. City Manager Jay Burney said staff could return with additional information on both options.
12 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
JulesJames
Olympia residents are already paying 30% more than most everyone else in Thurston County. It is difficult to fathom why City Council is entertaining the idea of increasing that disparity to 60% higher.
Friday, April 24 Report this
Bobwubbena
It would be more informative if the proposal would provide a projected "apples to apple" comparison with Lacey, Tumwater and urban rural county for a standardized good comparison. Single residents. duplexes, apartment and small business. Today's rates, projected for 5 and 10 years for the same category under comparable options are needed. I am sure Lacey and Tumwater have those same metrics. This will help determine if Private vs Olympia City options are comparable. The report as written does not provide the information that a city council person can make an informed decision. Emotions do not count when all we want is good low-cost service.
Friday, April 24 Report this
JW
It would be so in line with the way city "leadership" operates to saddle their constituents with tens of millions of dollars in debt and higher collection rates in order to meet some made up emissions goals that do not move the needle on worldwide emissions one iota.
I guess those footing the increased bill would feel warm and fuzzy inside when the electric garbage truck drives up once a week. Make sure you're looking out the window, though. Don't want to miss seeing it for even one week after you've paid so much for the privilege.
Saturday, April 25 Report this
jimlazar
If the City let the private trash collector that serves Lacey and Tumwater also serve Olympia, it would improve efficiency overall. it would also give us back glass recycling, which the private hauler is required to provide.
However, it would also mean a lower tax rate because the City is limited in how much it can tax a private hauler, but not in how much it can tax a city hauler.
I would like to have glass recycle resumed.
Saturday, April 25 Report this
Moorhead
I think it is significant that the proposed site on Carpenter Road appears to n be several miles outside the Olympia city limits. The Yelm Highway Park site is also outside the city limits. Why can't Olympia provide for its own facilities within its own boundary?
Saturday, April 25 Report this
jimLacey
JulesJames, You ask why do Olympia residents pay more? Council member Clark Gilman's comments sum that up well.
1. Compared to the taxes and fees residents already pay, nobody will notice that tiny increase.
2. There are overarching climate goals to meet. They have nothing to do with trash pickup, but must be applied to every function of the city operations.
Saturday, April 25 Report this
Snevets
How about we as citizens go back to the 3 R's... reduce, recycle, reuse. How about we as citizens stop buying and creating so much trash? Big box stores with their campaigns for the consumers to "buy 5 get the sale price" Costco with their whale size carts.
Until we as a society stop creating so much garbage we're going to have to face the truth of where it all goes.
Saturday, April 25 Report this
JnNwmn
We can spend $15 million to upgrade the existing site and not raise rates or spend $40.6 million and raise rates for fancier digs. Seems a no brainer to take the less expensive choice. The City should have Pizza places charge a refuse fee for each card board pizza box that fill recycle containers. We do not need privatation of garbage services. GIS software can solve any routing problems within the different city limits.
Saturday, April 25 Report this
KEW100
Olympia provides wonderful services for waste, recycling, composting, downtown litter/trash, graffiti "clean up," etc. I moved from a privatized municipality to Olympia. I have been impressed with the level of service -- not only in pick-up but also in customer support. I cannot tell you how important it is to have a person who is well compensated and part of the community be part of waste and other city services. Contracting out (privatizing) should be off the table, in my opinion.
Electrification is part of the regulatory environment of Washington state. The CCA places actions to address climate change in priority positions. These actions are not free, but require work. Work requires resources. Those resources -- human and infrastructural -- must be well supported, built, compensated. It is the cost of being a member of a community that eats, poops, buys, discards but also wants to provide a healthy, livable, pleasant environment.
Relying upon individual actions to address these issues is not a solution. Bless their hearts but individuals cannot always do the right thing, no matter how well they were "parented" or "schooled." They may be motivated by costs to some extent but the costs arise nonetheless.
As mentioned in the presentation, the Recycling Reform Act will provide dollars in the coming years to offset cost increases. Unlikely that costs will decrease, but the increases may be blunted. Additionally, a Bottle Bill such as HB 1607, will be back in the upcoming legislative session. Such legislation can provide additional resources as well.
The upshot is that we are collectively a wasteful society which may or may not change depending upon our long ingrained unhelpful habits.
BTW, what about construction and debris waste? Now there is another can-of-worms...
Sunday, April 26 Report this
HappyOlympian
Olympia taking a another step toward the claim for Worst Run City in America. Neighboring cities seem to have figured this out. As already noted here, yeah, your tax burden already so high, why not add more, thanks Vanderpool, your candor appreciated. And the city goal of zero emissions laughable in every sense; vast majority of the billions on Earth not concerned and will burn whatever they can get, but if we go through a ton of effort and expense our city of 60,000 will make a big difference to saving the planet. We live in a city of clowns, and not the ha ha kind.
Monday, April 27 Report this
Boatyarddog
Snevets, you are completely correct.We need to quit wasting so much and think about our Earth and our presentation on it. REDUCE REUSE AND RECYCLE
Monday, April 27 Report this
36098501
The article frames this as a divided Council, but that doesn’t match reality. There is little genuine uncertainty about the outcome. A new facility will be approved, and privatization is not a serious option under consideration. There is no chance the Council is going to give up control of waste management or the political, policy priorities and budget authority that come with it. If recent patterns hold, this will likely end in a unanimous 7-0 vote, typically tucked into a consent calendar where decisions disappear from public scrutiny.
Residents deserve more than a staged airing of viewpoints based on personal opinions and political perspectives. The ratepayers deserve to see real scrutiny of costs, scope, and long-term obligations from functional subject matter experts in waste management and construction development - not Council or City staff, or consultants that were previously city staff or council members from another city.
We have to realize, understand and take purposeful steps to avoid the unintended consequents that continually occur because the City lacks economic, business, development and functional subject matter experts within the structure of the boards governing our most important city functions and non-profits. It is just a fact we need to admit and deal with as it continually causes disruption, bad public policy and bad outcomes. (City of Olympia, Timberland Library, Intercity Transit, Port of Olympia, WSECU, local credit unions, most local non-profits). Searching out, and expanding the range of functional expertise involved would greatly strengthen both the process and public confidence in the result.
Waste management is a basic public service. $40mm is just a starting a point. These projects never seem to get cheaper. People are not asking for a showcase civic facility. They are paying for reliability, affordability and responsible waste management. Yet projects like this rarely stay narrowly focused. They tend to accumulate additional objectives - sustainability goals, climate objectives, new technologies, future-facing upgrades. Each may sound reasonable in isolation, but layered together they increase complexity, ongoing maintenance, and ultimately utility rates for everyone. Those future liabilities deserve equal weight in the conversation.
These costs are not theoretical. Not everyone in this community can absorb added expenses on an essential service. That risk should be acknowledged plainly, not softened with assurances that it’s “a small price to pay” from City Council members that appear either tone deaf or unencumbered by personal budget constraints – or worst, just dismissive of valid public affordability concerns.
For many households, another $20 a month, on top of all the other increases, isn’t a small amount of money. A fair process requires recognizing that even well-intended add-ons have real budget consequences and we don’t want public policy decisions to push even more families out of our community due to affordability. We have a 9% tax on utilities. Sales tax rate was just increased. Olympia’s B&O tax rates increased. State gas tax increased. Vehicle licensing fees increased. Paid Family and Medical Leave tax increased. The LTCI payroll tax was implemented. And the list goes on…
None of this argues against investment or environmental responsibility. It argues for clarity and discipline. When this project moves forward—as it certainly will—it should do so with transparent assumptions, realistic cost projections, and an honest acknowledgment of who bears the financial impact. Residents are not asking for less ambition, they are asking for decisions that reflect the budget realities the City places on them every day.
Tuesday, April 28 Report this