Resolution No. 01-09 CITY OF TIGARD,OREGON
RESOLUTION NO.01-Oct
A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE YEAR ELEVEN OF THE WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTESHED
WASTE REDUCTION PLAN AND TO ADOPT AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH
WASHINGTON COUNTY
WHEREAS, the above entitled matter came before the Council at the meeting of February 27,2001;and
WHEREAS, that pursuant to Metro's Regional Solid Waste Management Plan, including the Waste
Reduction Chapter,all local governments are to adopt an annual work plan for waste reduction;and
'WHEREAS,that the City of Tigard and Washington County may enter into an agreement pursurant to ORS
Chapter 190 and ORS 459.065(1)(b);and
WHEREAS,the Washington County Cooperative Recycling Program Technical Committee has developed
and approvod said p!an a--id agreement with full participation by staff of the City of Tigard.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that:
SECTION I: The Washington County Wasteshed Annual Waste Reduction Program, Fear Eleven, as
recently submitted to the City, is designated as the City of Tigard's approved annual
work plan for waste reduction for fiscal year 2000-01.
SECTION 2: The City of Tigard approves the Washington County Waste Reduction Intergovernmental
Agreement and enters into and authorizes the City Manager to sign an agreement witi,
Washington County for fiscal year 2000-01.
PASSED: This day offt62001.
yo-City oTig d
ATTEST:
i
City Recorder-City of Tigard
RESOLUTION NO.01-_
Page 1
WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTESHED
ANNUAL WASTE REDUCTION PROGRAM
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
YEAR 11: FISCAL YEAR 2000—2001
I. Parties
Parties to this Agreement are Washington County (hereinafter "County")
and the individual signatory city. Plan participants expected to sign
agreements are the County and the Cities of Banks, Cornelius, Durham,
Forest Grove,Hillsboro, King City,North Plains,Sherwood,Tigard, Tualatin
and Wilsonville (hereinafter"Cities"). Any reference hereinafter to "Local
Government"shall include both County and Cities.
I I. Statutory Authority
This Agreement is entered into pursuant to ORS Chapter 190 and ORS
459.065(1)(b).
III. Purpose
Pursuant to ORS Chapter 268, ORS Chapter 459, and related
administrative rules, Metro has established a Regional Solid Waste
Management Plan (RSWMP), including a waste reduction chapter. The
RSWMP provides that Metro shall establish a multi-year work plan for solid
waste reduction and identifies specific programs for Local Governments to
implement the Metro plan. Metro has established guidelines for Local
Government's participation in the form of an Annual Waste Reduction
Program for Local Governments for Year Eleven (July 1, 2000 to June 30,
2001)of Metro's work plan. The Metro plan requires Local Governments to
adopt a work program annually. The Annual Waste Reduction Program
establishes minimum requirements for Local Government's work programs
for years one through ten, and provides that Local Governments may work
cooperatively with neighboring Local Governments if intergovernmental
agreements documenting cooperative arrangements are submitted with the
Local Government program.The purpose of this Agreement is to document
the cooperative arrangements among the Local Governments, to establish
the duties of the County as administrator of the Local Government Annual
Waste Reduction work plan for the fiscal year 2000-2001,and to provide a
structure for continuing working relationships among the Local
Governments during the upcoming years of Metro's work plan.
1
Washington County Wasteshed Annual Waste Reduction Program/nte.Movemmental Agreement: Year 11
IV. Term of Agreement
Participation shall be accomplished by adoption of the plan and by entering
into this Agreement. The term of this Agreement shall commence upon
execution and shall continue in effect until June 30,2001,unless terminated
by eitner party upon thirty(30)days notice in writing.
V. Administrative Structure
A. The Washington County Wasteshed Technical Committee shall
consist of a staff member from each Local Government appointed by
each of the Local Government administrators or governing bodies.
County staff shall act as administrative coordinator of the Technical
Committee.
B. The Technical Committee shall develop and propose an annual work
plan including projected annual expenses and revenues for future
years as necessary. The annual work plan will be developed in a
timely manner to meet all deadlines set by Department of
Environmental Quality, Metro and participating Local Governments.
Annual work plans will be presented for approval by the governing
body of each Lo.;al Government on one-year intervals only. The
:annual work plans shall provide Local Governments with minimum
waste reduction standards consistent with the Metro plan; individual
Lucal Governments may impose higher standards for waste
reduction.
Vl. Duties of Parties
A. County Duties as Program Administrator
The County shall perform work requiring technical expertise,
including plan development, data collection and compilation, report
writing, program coordination, technical advice to participating
governments, and general information to the public. The County
shall recommend policies and develop model ordinances as
necessary, and generally promote the Local Government waste
reduction programs. The County shall also perform fieldwork
including performing waste evaluations,commercial recycling,single-
family recycling, multi-family recycling, school and community
education, and special event promotion. The County shall also
perform work requiring ccordinrtior'ii with tlletro, DEQ. and other
agencies, and represent the Local Govemments before such
agencies. In addition, the County shall perform the specific duties
outlined in Attachment I(page 2).
2
Washington County Wasteshed Annual Waste Reduction Program Intaigovemmenial Agreement. Year 11
B. County Duties as Grant Applicant
The County may act as agent for all participating jurisdictions in
applying for waste reduction and recycling grant funds as determined
appropriate by the Technical Committee. Disbursement of funds will
be to local participating jurisdictions or franchised haulers based on a
formula to be determined by the Technical Committee or set by grant
requirements. This does not preclude any Local Govemment from
applying individually for any waste reduction and recycling grant.
C. Duties of Each Local Govemment
Each Local Government shall undertake annual program tasks that
are internal in nature, such as waste reduction and recycling
activities and procurement of recycled products. Unless otherwise
assigned by a separate intergovernmental agreement, each Local
Govemment shall also be responsible for enforcement of solid waste
reduction plan standards with respect to the solid waste collection
ordinances and franchisees within each Local Government
jurisdiction;enforcement may include complaint investigation,service
standard review, reporting and revisions to Local Government codes
based upon the model code developed by the County. In addition,
each Local Government shall be responsible for establishing rates
for collection franchisees within each Local Government's jurisdiction
consistent with the waste reduction program. Each Local
Government designates the County to act as its agent in receiving
the Metro Annual Waste Reduction Grant funds and other
appropriate recycling grant funds. In addition, each Local
Government shall perform the specific duties outlined in Attachment I
(page 2)and as noted in the Year 11 Annual Waste Reduction Work
Plan(Attachment II).
D. Indemnification
1. Subject io the limitations of liability for public bodies set forth in
j the Oregon Tort Claims Act, ORS 30.260 to 30.300, and the
a Oregon Constitution, the County shall hold harmless, defend, and
indemnify City, its directors, officers, agents, and employees,
i against all claims, demands, actions and suits (including all
attorney fees and costs) arising from the County's performance of
this Agreement where the loss or claim is attributable to the
negligent acts or omissions of the Courtly.
2. Subject to the limitations of liability for public bodies set forth in
the Oregon Tort Claims Act, ORS 30.260 to 30.300, and the
Oregon Constitution, City shall hold harmless, defend and
3
ve
Washington county Wasteshed Annual Waste Reduction Program Intergovemmental AgmemenC Year 11 '
indemnify the County, its Commissioners, employees,.and agents
against all claims, demands, actions, and suits (including all
attorney fees and costs) arising from City's performance of this
Agreement where the loss or claim is attributable to the negligent
acts or omissions of City.
Vit. Fundinq
Each City shall pay to Washington County as program administrator the
amount identified as the City's share for administrative costs as allocated
under the annual plan recommended by the Technical Committee and
approved by the participating Local Govemments. For the 2000-2001 year,
each Local Governments share shall consist of all revenue from the Metro
"Annual Waste Reduction Program"grant for the current program year, in
accordance with Attachment I (page 3). Washington County shall act as
administrator for revenues collected by cooperative efforts of the Local
Governments. Each Local Government shall have the right to audit for up
to three years County records relating to Metro grant funds received
through this Agreement. County may immediately terminate this agreement
by written notice to City in the event County does not receive adequate
funding from Metro. If so terminated, County shall refund to City its
unexpended allocation of the year's grant funds received by County from
Metro.
i
4
• Washington County Wasfeshed Annual Waste Reduction Progrmn lntergovemmental Agreement: Year 1 i
CITY OF
&APIC X B
Title—TyI
Date 1%0" Z-7. 3UU 1
WASHINGTON
COUNTY By
Title
Date
I
5
Attachment i
Washington County Cooperative Recycling Program
Annual Waste Reduction Program: History, Responsibilities,and Funding
Year 11: Fiscal Year 2000—2001
Mission:
The Washington County Cooperative Recycling Program is an intergovernmental
organization formed by the Cities of Banks, Cornelius, Durham, Forest Grove, Hillsboro,
King City, North Plains, Sherwood, Tigard, Tualatin, Wilsonville. and unincorporated
Washington County.
The Cooperative Recycling Program is committed to providing solid waste
management, including waste reduction program planning, public education, and
developing recycling and collection services which are provided in an efficient,
affordable, and environmentally sound manner in order to achieve state mandated and
regional waste recovery goals. The Cooperative Recycling Program's goal is to reduce
duplicate efforts on the part of participating local governments in achieving recovery
goals and providing service. Priorities for the Cooperative Recycling Program are:
• Complying with state law and achieving regional goals.
• Providing education and information on solid waste,waste reduction, recycling, and
reuse.
• Providing program coordination with other jurisdictions and agencies.
• Ensuring efficient, affordable,and consistent services for the public.
History:
The Cities and unincorporated County first met in 1989 to develop a joint approach to
yard debris recycling. In 1990 the Cities and County again met and formed a coalition
of governments interested in developing a coordinated approach to providing services
and programs, thereby conserving both fiscal and environmental resources. This
coalition was named the Washington County Cooperative Recycling Program
(WCCRP). A Technical Committee was formed to guide the activities of the coalition.
For the fiscal year 2000 — 2001,the WCCRP Technical Committee has developed the
Year 11 Waste Reduction Program work plan to submit to Metro.
Stakeholders:
The WCCRP local governments work to provide the 350,080 residents and
approximately 12,508 (August 2000) commercial establishments alternatives to
disposal, such as waste reduction, reuse options, and recycling opportunities. Voter
approval of state-wide ballot measures which limits tax dollars for a variety of programs,
reflects the desire of the public to receive Cost of iective services. Solid waste collection
and recycling services are provided by 18 franchised haulers and a number of recycling
firms and processors.
1
Attachment l: History,Responsibilities,and Funding
Program Structure:
The Cooperative Recycling Program is guided by the Technical Committee, whose
members are representatives from each City and the unincorporated County. Sub-
committees are formed in specific program planning areas; for example, commercial
recycling and waste reduction program planning, on an as-needed basis. Washington
County staff administer the program on a day-to-day basis and monitor overall
compliance with state law and regional goals. Each local government is responsible for
rate-setting and enforcement within their legal boundaries. The full scope of
responsibility is outlined in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Local Government Scope of Responsibility
COUNTY AS PROGRAM ADMINISTRATOR CITIES&UNINCORPORATED COUNTY ROLES IN PROGRAM
Plan Development Designate County as Annual Waste Reduction Implementation
Data Collection&Compilation Grant Administrator
Reporting Requirements Rate Setting Authority for Franchised Haulers
Program Coordination Authorize County to Apply for Waste Reduction Implementation
Technical Assistance to Local Governments Grants as Applicable
General Public Information
General Promotion Internal Recycling Programs:
Public Education In-House Recycling Programs
Coordination with Local,Regional,and State Procurement Policies
Governments and Agencies Multi-Family Recycling Service Resolution or Ordinance
Organic&Yard Debris Facilities Zone Code Review
Program Implementation: Waste Reduction Program Enforcement:
Residential Curbside Recycling Program Program Implementation Assurance
Coordinate and Conduct Waste Evaluations Complaint Investigation '
Community Education Code Revision
Multi-Family Recycling Program Service Standard Adoption
Organic Program Development Report Requirements
School Education
Commercial Recycling Program
Contribute Revenue to Program and Incur Contribute Revenue to Program for Administrative Costs
Administrative Costs as Lead Jurisdiction
Since local governments retain authority over the rate-setting process, it is each local
government's responsibility to assess the fiscal impacts of the new waste reduction
programs included in the Year 11 Plan and the continuation of existing programs for
their franchised haulers.
Funding:
Disposal fees and franchise fees fund the area's waste reduction programs. Metro
collect s a portion of the disposal fees paid b; area residents- and redistributes a small
percentage of the money in Annual Waste Reduction Program Grants to local
governments in order to conduct waste reduction activities. These Waste Reduction
i Program Grants are awarded on a per capita basis to each City and County(see Table
1).
2
Attachment/: History,Responsibilities,and Funding
Table 1. Population and Funding Allocations
Jurisdiction 1999 Metro Challenge Grant Franchise Total Fundkeg
Population Allocation Fee
Funding
Banks 1,310 $577 $0 $577
Cornelius 8,440 $3,742 $0 $'.:,742
Durham 1,535 $677 $0 $677
Forest Grove 16,275 $7,174 $0 $7,174
Hillsboro 69,670 $30,709 $0 $30,709
King City 2,095 $923 $0 $923
North Plains 1,755 $774 $0 $774
Sherwood 9,855 $4,344 $0 $4,344
Tigard 37,670 $16,604 $0 $16,604
Tualatin 21,345 $9,408 $0 $9,408
Wilsonville 12,985 $5,722 $0 $5,722
Unincorporated 167,095 $73,652 $260,085 $414,393
Washington County
TOTAL'S 350,080 $154,308 $260,085 $414,393
Each of the jurisdictions participating in the WCCRP assign their funding through an
intergovernmental agreement to Washington County to e-iminister the WCCRP work
plan. In addition to the County's Waste Reduction Program Grant money, the County
contributes franchise fee generated funds, which matches the amount of Metro funds,
for use in administering the Cooperative Recycling Program. TaL-1 reflects the 2000-
2001 level of funding for the program.
Priority will be given to complying with state requirements and maintaining programs
established in the first ten years of the waste reduction program. The WCCRP
governments should assess the impact of reduced funding on programs and determine
whether new funding sources should be secured.
Work Plan:
The work plan for the WCCRP follows,as Attachment II. Responsible parties for each
activity is noted for each task.
y
K
7
H
9i
y
3
Attachment H
Year 1'I (FY 2000-01)
Metro and Local Government Partnership Plan
for Waste Reduction
May 2000
Overview:
The recent.State of the Plan Report for the Regional Solid Waste Management Plan
(RSWMP)evaluated the region's progress toward its waste reduction goals. Findings
indicated that the region is well on track with regard to residential recycling programs,
but is lagging behind in other critical areas. The report recommends a new and focused
approach to cooperative waste reduction activities in the region and continued support
and maintenance of our existing programs.
In rethinking the manner in which we pian and implement programs,Metro, DEQ and
local government partners chose to take a true team-oriented approach to developing
new programs and initiatives. Intergovernmental work groups were formed to plan the
new strategies and will implement and measure these new strategies as a team—a truly
regional approach. Local jurisdictions and Metro will continue to maintain and report on
independent activities as well.
This plan brings together three integral pieces of the region's waste reduction and
recycling system: new and focused efforts to recover more from the commercial,
construction/demolition debris(C&D)and organics sectors;continuation of competitive
grants for innovative waste reduction programs;and the maintenance of programs that
form the toundation of the region's recycling infrastructure.
Plan Structure and Format:
The Year 11 Partnership Plan is divided into the following three program areas:
Pari I: New Initiatives in Commercial,C&D, and Organics
Part ll:Targeted Competitive Grant Program
Part III:Maintenance Programs
Part I introduces three focus areas to the Partnership Plan:commercial,C&D, and
commercial organics. These new initiatives form the core of the work and activities to
be implemented in the region. Each of the three programs was identified as lagging in
recovery levels necessitating intensive,focused planning and implementation efforts
s
over the next few years.
Part II provides competitive grant funds and a structure to target RSWMP practices that
are not otherwise addressed in other program plans and for which other sources of
funding are not available. This portion of the program also seeks to support creative
methods for addressing solid waste issues. Each year,an area or areas of focus will be
developed based upon targeted needs or regional priorities.
1
Year 11 Metro and Local Government Partnership Plan for Waste Reduction
Attachment II
Part III tracks the established programs in the region that must be continually
maintained by local government and Metro services. These programs form the
foundation of the region's waste reduction and recycling system and include single and
multi-family residential recycling services,regular outreach and education to all
residents and businesses, school education programs,commercial recycling, household
hazardous waste education and outreach,home composting programs,construction
and demolition debris outreach and regional planning support.
Annual Work Plan Development and Approval Process Schedule:
The public input process and program plan development schedule are incorporated into
the Year 11 Annual Plan as"Appendix A."
Link to the Regional Solid Waste Management Plan Recommended Practices:
The Regional Solid Waste Management Plan presents a set of recommended solid
waste management practices designed to meet the overall goal of the RSWMP:
Continue to develop and implement a Solid Waste Management Plan that achieves a
regionally balanced,environmentally sound and publicly acceptable solid waste system.
The recommended practices embody six broad integrated strategies:
Invest in waste reduction before building additional transfer and disposal capacity.
Expand the opportunity to recycle.
Emphasize the waste reduction hierarchy.
Maintain flexibility and encourage innovation.
Set interim target dates,define roles and responsibilities, and focus on implementation
issues.
Advance cost-effective practices for managing the region's waste.
The RSWMP-recommended practices were developed for particular areas of the solid
waste system:residential waste reduction,business waste reduction,building industries
waste reduction,solid waste facilities regulation and siting,and transfer and disposal
facilities.
Specific activities in this annual partnership plan will be tied to the recommended
practices through the annual State of the Regional Solid Waste Management Plan
Report published by Metro at the end of each calendar year. The Year 11 Partnership
Plan addresses all areas of the RSWMP recommended practices through maintenance
of established programs, a new emphasis on commercial waste reduction and recycling,
construction&demolition debris recovery,and commercial organic waste reduction and
recovery.
Measurement of Progress:
Each of the three sections in this partnership plan for waste reduction has an
independent progress measurement and reporting scenario tied to the specific tasks
involved. At the end of fiscal 2000-01,progress reports for each section will be
produced independently. These reports,combined with other important measures such
Year 11 Metro and Local Government Partnership Plan for Waste Reduction ..
Attachment II
as the State of the Regional Solid Waste Management Plan Report and the Annual
DEQ Recycling and Recovery Report will be combined and used to assess regional
waste reduction and recycling progress.
Part 1' New Initiatives in Commercial, C&D and Organics
Overview:
The recent State of the Plan Report for the Regional Solid Waste Management Plan,
which evaivated the region's progress toward its waste reduction goals,indicated a
need for new initiatives in three solid waste program areas. The need for new initiatives
is predicated on the following issues:
The recovery rate for the region has stalled, at about 43 percent.
■ The easily accessible material in the waste stream has been recovered.
Progress in retrieving additional recoverable materials will be much more difficult
and more costly.
. Waste generation, fueled by a strong regional economy, has grown over the past
years. This means that in order to meet our waste reduction goals,even higher
amounts of recyclable and compostable materials must be diverted from disposal
than earlier anticipated.
. Recovery from the commercial,organics,and construction and demolition
sectors is lagging behind the residential sector,where recovery is strong and
steady.
. Declining tip fees further complicate the recovery of materials from lagging
sectors,
In December of 9998,a group of Metro and local government solid waste managers
convened to address the issue of the region's stalled recovery rate and the need for
new efforts in certain targeted sectors. As a result,three work teams comprised of
Metro, local government and DEQ staff were formed to develop new strategies and
initiatives in the commercial, construction&demolition debris,and commercial organics
sectors. The teams'objectives included:
Development of a new approach to the waste reduction planning process that
results in unified, measurable,accountable and targeted work plans.
3 Increase regional recovery by concentrating on the lagging sectors of
scommercial,organics, and construction and demolition(while continuing to
ill support existing strong recovery from the residential sector.)
Identify areas within these lagging sectors on which to focus cooperative waste
reduction activities.
Identify emerging issues in waste reduction planning that may need special
attention; e.g.,co-collection.
3
Year 11 Metro and Local Govemment Partnership Plan for Waste Reduction
Attachment II
• Integrate the results of new initiatives into the State of the Regional Solid Waste
Management Plan Report,DEQ Waste Composition Study and other recycling
and solid waste data and studies.
• Determine the resources required for these new initiatives and measurement/
reporting activities.
• Regular evaluation of the focus areas to ensure they remain relevant.
New Initiatives Program Plan,Administration and Timeline:
Each of the three work teams convened in June 1999 and independently developed
three-year work plans for their respective focus areas. An overview of the work plans is
presented below. The complete three-year plans are included with this plan as
"Appendix B."
Commercial:
In order to reach regional recovery goals,the region needs to have recovered an
additional 168,000 tons of commercial recyclables between the Laseline year of 19'.5
and the target year of 2000. To meet this goal, about half of the available recyclable
paper(including OCC), containers and scrap metal remaining in commercial waste
would need to be captured.
Of the 20 actions identified by the Task Force, seven received a ranking greater than
three on a five-point scale. These seven actions comprise the plan recommendations
that follow. (Actions are listed in order of decreasing priority.)
1. Market development: Increase market development efforts, both regionally ,
through Metro and statewide through the Oregon Market Development Council.
Develop markets for new materials and local markets for recycled feedstock that
might offer higher scrap prices.
2. Assess disposal bans for selected materials: This proposal needs greater review
by stakeholders, including haulers, private recycling collectors, processors,
markets,disposal facilities,businesses and the public. In particular,issues such
as enforcement, market price impact and flow control need to be reviewed.
3. Expand local governments'technical assistance to businesses on waste
prevention, buy recycled and recycling: The current technical assistance
program of waste evaluations needs to be assessed for its effectiveness in
increasing recover tonnage. Data collection for future technical assistance
+ programs needs to be standardized by local governments to allow easier
monitoring. Staffing needs to be increased to provide greater follow ups at each
j business and to expand the number of targeted busir:esses.
4. Implement design review ordinances for recycling collection areas in new
buildings: Some local governments have adopted an ordinance,but do not have
dedicated staffing to monitor submitted plans and compliance. Adoption of an
ordinance and adequate staffing are needed to ensure that new construction in
the region will have adequate recycling space to enable full participation in
reaching the region's recycling goals.
4
Year 11 Metro and Local Government Partnership Plan for Waste Reduction
Attachment II
5. Promote commingling: Mass media outreach programs were not generally seen
as effective in reaching businesses as they are in reaching households.
However, the development of commingled collection and processing capacity in
the region was seen as an important shift in how recycling service was provided.
Awareness of this new service level would be especially important to businesses
facing space and resource limitations in implementing new or expanded recycling
collection. In this case,a regional media outreach program was thought to be
effective.
6. Target outreach to promote waste prevention: Specific outreach campaigns and
technical assistance should target activities(such as double-sided copying)and
packaging (reusable transport packaging)that increase waste prevention.
Specific campaigns offer the greatest likelihood of implementing an evaluation
system.
7. Review regional commingles/processing capacity. Ensure the regio- has
adequate commingled processing capacity for commercial recycling with
equitable access by the region's collectors. Make certain these facilities are
capable of meeting high standards for material quality.
Construction& Demolition Debris:
According to the revised RSWMP recovery rates,the region must recover 130,000 tons
of C&D debris in order to meet its established goals. The Construction and Demolition
Debris Recovery plan is composed of three tracks,designed to increase recycling and
recovery in all sectors of the construction industry while adhering to the solid waste
hierarchy of reduce,reuse,recycle, recover,landfill
The first track emphasizes waste prevention through salvage and deconstruction. This
practice has proven to be an effective way to prevent one of the largest sources of C&D
waste,demolition waste,from entering the waste stream. As less undeveloped land is
available,demolition will become an increasingly common activity in the future.
The second track focuses on ways to increase diversion through programs at material
recovery facilities,dry waste landfills or transfer stations. The objective is to ensure that
either source-separated recycling or effective post-collection recovery is available to all
sectors of the C&D industry. An important component of these efforts will focus on
educating the C&D industry about the different source-separated and post collection
recovery service options available for construction and demolition activities. There are
four components to Track 2:
A. Promotion and education targeting C&D generators on source separated
recycling methods and how to take advantage of post-collection recovery
options.
B. Recycling requirements: Require that certain C&D loads be processed before
disposal. (An extended stakeholder process will be undertaken before
proceeding with this recommendation.)
5
Year 11 Metro and Local Govemment Partnership Plan for Waste Reduction
Attachment H
C. Recycling Requirements: Ban the disposal of certain materials commonly found
in C&D waste loads. (An extended stakeholder process will be undertaken
before proceeding with this recommendation.)
D. Create incentives through the Metro System Fee Credit Program for post
collection recovery facilities to increase their recovery of recyclables from C&D
loads.
The third track implements a market development program to target reuse and recycling
of the materials prevalent in the C&D waste stream(wood,drywall,composition roofing
and fiberglass insulation). The current markets for these materials are undeveloped,
which represents a major barrier to reusing or recycling these materials.
Commercial Organics:
According to the revised RSWMP recovery rates,the region must recover 52,000 tons
of organic was"$in order to meet its established goals. This plan is designed to guide
the region in the direction of increased recovery while adhering to the solid waste
hierarchy of reduce,reuse, recycle, recover,compost, landfill.
This plan takes a two-track approach to organic waste management. The first track
emphasizes waste prevention, donation-nd diversion. This is considered to be a least-
cost approach,since preventing the generation of the material in the first place removes
the need to manage it as a waste product. Donation is the highest end-use of food that
is produced,and diversion to animal feed is the next step down in the hierarchy. Each
of these approaches can be implemented in a relatively rapid fashion in that an existing
infrastructure is present in the region,and outreach materials may be produced with
short turnaround. While the food donation infrastructure does exist,some assistance
and support will be necessary to enhance capacity to accommodate new and increasing
flow of material.
The second track focuses on developing a processing system to accommodate organic
waste that cannot be diverted to higher-end uses. Every effort will be made to utilize
existing infrastructure and tailor generator and collection programs to fit within existing
operations and regulatory systems.
Several pilot projects will be initiated within the next 18 to 24 months to determine the
economic feasibility of a regional organics collection and processing system. If the
pilots prove successful,the Regional Organics Team will move rapidly towards the
development of a permanent collection and processing infrastructure. If the pilots prove
that organic waste collection and processing are not economically feasible in the current
solid waste environment,only Track 1 programs will be fully implemented and the group.
will revisit the issue at a later date. The decision to develop permanent collection and
processing facilities is contingent upon economic feasibility. If feasible, and the
program determines that public participation is required to leverage processing capacity,
then we may face a large, lump-sum budget request within the next two to three years.
Year 11 Metro and Local Government Partnership Plan for Waste Reduction 6
Attachment II
During the first three years,the team has chosen to target efforts towards large
organics-rich businesses and industries. These targeted businesses are:
■ Large retail grocery stores
• Large restaurants
■ Hotels
■ Institutional cafeterias*
■ Produce wholesale warehouses
('Institutional cafeterias include food service operations in schools and universities,hospitals,large office
buildings,corporate campuses,prisons,etc.)
Program Administration and Reporting:
Because these new initiatives require the work and the s!.jpport of all regional partners,
the day-to-day administration of the various tasks in the Commercial, C&D and
Organics programs will be managed by the respective regional intergovernmental work
teams that developed these plans. Individual team members will be assigned oversight
of particular pieces of the plans,and will be responsible for reporting back to the team
when they meet on an ad-hoc basis. Each work team will give a regular update at the
monthly Local Government Recycling Coordinators Meeting and will solicit feedback
from the group as well as inform the group of progress being made. Data collection,
measurement and year-end progress reports will be the responsibility of the work
teams. As part of the overall Year 11 Program Plan,each work team will be responsible
for production of a year-end report on the progress made in the region.
Part 11: Targeted Competitive Grant Program
Overview:
The competitive grant program is designed to supplement the program funding available
through the Partnership Program. These grants are intended to assist local jurisdictions
in targeting the RSWMP practices that are not addressed in other program plans,and
for which other sources of funding are not available. This program also seeks to
support creative methods for addressing solid waste issues.
Format and Structure:
Each year,Metro will specify focus area(s)or target(s)for this competitive grant
program based upon RSWMP needs and priorities. Applicants will have the choice to:
1) Submit a proposal in the focus area(s),OR
2) Propose a project outside the focus area(s)and demonstrate that there is a true
reed for this approach that is not being addressed through new initiatives,
maintenance programs or other means. Altemative programs must also
demonstrate that they contribute to meeting RSWMP goals.
7
Year 11 Metro and Local Government Partnership Plan for Waste Reduction
1W,
Attachment H
Local jurisdictions interested in this program must submit an application for funds using
a standardized form provided by Metro. Applications must include:
A clear goal statement,
■ A clear justification of need,
■ A specific dollar amount requested,
Concise and meaningful measurement tools and methods,and
A description of intended results.
Applications must identify the specific practices of the RSWMP to which the funds will
be applied,demonstrate clear benefits to the region,and should be transferable to other
jurisdictions.
Local jurisdictions are required to provide at least a 50%match to funds requested.
This match may be dollars, materials,in-kind services or a combination of these.
Applicants are encouraged to cooperate or develop formal partnerships with nonprofit,
volunteer agencies,business associations, chambers of commerce or other.groups. In-
kind matches may be provided in part by some or all partners.
Reporting:
A 90-day progress report as well as a final report due 30 days from the completion of
the project must be submitted to Metro. Reports must demonstrate how the project has
met the stated criteria and the impacts the project has had to the prevention,recycling
and recovery of waste in the region.
Part 111: Maintenance of Existing Programs
Overview:
Part III of the Partnership for Waste Reduction focuses on the maintenance of existing
and established local and regional waste reduction and recycling programs. Significant
progress in waste reduction and recycling has been made over past years through
these existing programs. In order to maintain these successes, established programs
must continue to be funded, staffed and maintained at the same time that new initiatives
are introduced.
Maintenance Program Plan Format,Structure and Timeline:
3 The Maintenance Program format is intentionally simple and straightforward. Local
i governments and Metro will each complete the attached chart, detailing the outreach,
education and collection programs currently implemented and the efforts each will
engage in to maintain these programs. This will provide a comprehensive regional
picture of the existing programs implemented and maintained by local governments and
Metro.
8
Year 11 Metro and Local Government Partnership Plan for Waste Reduction
Attachment II
The reporting section is to be completed at the end of the fiscal year and submitted to
Metro no later than August 1,2001. This section will detail each task's actual
implementation date,as well as relevant status reports,changes and noted results. The
reporting section will serve as the basis for integrating existing program status and
progress into the recommended practices of the RSWMP, as well as the required
annual reporting to the Department of Environmental Quality.
Compliance with State Law and the Regional Solid Waste Management Plan:
All regional partners will continue to be required to comply with the provisions set forth
in State Law(OAR 340-90-040)in addition to the tasks listed in the RSWMP. Metro will
be the reporting agency for the region's three county area. Metro will also assume
responsibility for integrating maintenance programs into the recommended practices set
forth in the RSWMP. This integration will be illustrated in the Annual State of the Plan
Report section titled Implementation Status of Recommended Practices.
Annual Allocation:
As in past years,the funding assistance provided to local jurisdictions for the
maintenance of existing programs is allocated on a per-capita basis. Each jurisdiction
receives an allocation based upon its percent of the region's total population.
The FY 2000-01 allocation for the City/County of Washington equals$154,308. This
represents 18%of the overall City/County solid waste and recycling budget.
Program Overview Narrative:
This section of the Pian provides a more descriptive and encompassing overview of
maintenance programs. Local governments and Metro will each provide a short annual
narrative describing the gamut of programs and the principles behind them.
i
9
Year 11 Metro and Local Government Partnership Plan for Waste Reduction
Attachment H
PLANNED MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000-01
The Program Plan Table is divided into two sections: Planning and Reporting. The
planning section lists program areas under the header marked"Tasks"which are to be
completed in detail by Metro and local governments. All outreach,education, collection
and other existing program efforts are to be listed under each task area with an
associated implementation date noted under the heading"Planned Date." The section
header"R/WP/B"identifies whether this particular program or activity is primarily
recycling (R),waste prevention (WP)or both(B). This notation is to assist Metro in the
collection of data for reporting to the Department of Environmental Quality on the
region's waste prevention activities. The completed planning section of the table is due
to Metro no later than June 1, 2000.
PLANNING I REPORTING
Tasks Planned R/WP/B Implemented Implementation
Date Date Status/Results
Residential
Bulky VVaste Day spring 2001 R
Intent to host a Computer Fall 2000 R
Collection Event
WasteLlne Publication(bi- summer B
annual) 2000
Literature ongoing B
Web page Maintenance summer
2000 B
Multifamily
Intent to develop new summer B
literature 2001
Web page Development(bi- Fall 2000 B
lingual)
Home Composting
• Support Metro Event spring 2001 R
• Web page Development Fall 2000 B
• WasteLine Article Summer
2000 B
Commercial
Waste Evaluations ongoing B
BRAG program ongoing B
Waste Prevention Program Ongoing B
Assistance
Display Development and ongoing B
Distribution Program
Literature Revamp Ongoing B
Web page Development
Distribute a new Winter 2000 B
BusinessLine Publication(bi- Fall 2000 B
annual)
Construction&Demolition
The County is working with Ongoing R
county registered facilities
to begin dry waste
processing.
Year 11 Metro and Local Government Partnership Plan for Waste Reduction 10
Attachment:I
Household Hazardous Waste
• Support Metro EventsOngoing B
• Web page Maintenance Ongoing B
Regional Planning Support
Participation in regional Ongoing B
coordination groups:Metro
SWAC,Compost Bin
Distribution event,Mobile
Household Hazardous Waste
events,P20 group,WRAIN,
WREAC,Metro Sustainability
Forum,Organics Regional Task
Force Workgroup,C&D
Regional Task Force,
Commercial Regional Task
Force
School Outreach and Education
• Green Schools ongoing g
• Kidsline Publication(bl-annual) Spring 2001 B
• Newletters
• Web page Maintenance Fan 2000 B
• Waste Evaluations
• Waste Reduction Program Ongoing B
Assistance Ongoing B
On oin
WP
Other
• SHARPS research and winter 2000 yyp
outreach.Article In
Wastel-ine
• County review of franchise
system may provide new
opportunities in collection
practices(no grant dollars
expended).
• Organics:County sited
"Nature's Needs"(no grant
dollars expended). in the
process,standards for
nuisance and odor
abatement were developed.
Staff is working with hauler
and processors to establish
commercial and residential
organics collection along
with producing educational
material.
I1
Year 11 Metro and Local Government Partnership Plan for Waste Reduction
Attachment II
Appendix A
Fiscal Year 2000-2001 Metro and Local Government
Partnership Plan for Waste Reduction
PLAN DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE
Timeline Annual Work Plan Process
September 30, 1999 Metro and local government targeted sector work teams
(Organics,C&D,Commercial)complete draft plans and
associated budgets.
October 30, 1999 Targeted sector plans and existing program maintenance
plans combined and refined to create overall 2-3 year
approach outline. Fiscal Year 2000-01 presented in a
more detailed fashion.
December 30,1999 Draft overall framework developed by Metro and local
government staff. Version 1 ready for public involvement
process.
January—March 2G00 Regional public involvement:
Public Comment and Metro SWAG review of drafts
REMCOM Work session on drafts
REMCOM public hearing on final version
March—April 2000 Council approval process:
Metro Council consideration and adoption.
April-May 2000 Local and Regional Public involvement:
Local SWAG and other public involvement
Metro budget hearings
Local govern ent budget hearings
June 1,2000 Local Government Participation Commitment
Agreements Drafted.
PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
July 1 Start of Fiscal Year-Implementation begins
Nov. 30 Intergovernmental agreements for grant funding approved
and funds distributed to local governments to support the
i
maintenance of existing programs.
PROGRESS REPORTING
Aug. 1 Local qovernment and Metro assess progress.
Nov. 30 Metro publishes annual"State of the Regional Solid Waste
Management Plan"status report for the previous fiscal year
period
sAshare\wr&o\rnchall\year 11\yr 11 plan final.doc
12
Year f 1 Metro and Local Government Partnerahip Plan for'Aaste Reduction
Attachment It
Appendix B
New Initiatives in Waste Reduction
Draft 3-Year Plans
■ Commercial Organic Waste Recovery
■ Construction & Demolition Debris Recovery
■ Commercial Waste Reduction and Recycling
PLEASE NOTE: The budget figures represented in
Appendix B are for the METRO BUDGET ONLY. These
do not impact Washington County expenditures.
I
13
Year 11 Metro and Local Government Partnership Plan for Waste Reduction
Attachment it
DRAFT
Commercial Organics Work Plan
November 15, 1999
Overview: According to the revised Regional Solid Waste Management Plan(RSWMP)
recovery rates,the region must recover 52,000 tons of organic waste in order to meet its
established goals. This plan,cooperatively developed by the Regional Organics Work Team
comprised of Metro,DEQ and local government staff,is designed to guide the region in the
direction of increased recovery while adhering to the solid waste hierarchy of reduce,reuse,
recycle,recover, compost,landfill.
This plan takes a two-track approach to organic waste management. The first track emphasizes
waste prevention,donation and diversion. This is considered to be a least-cost approach as
preventing the generation of the material in the first place removes the need to manage it as a
waste product;donation is the highest end-use of food that is produced,and diversion to animal
feed is the next step down in the hierarchy. Each of these approaches can be implemented in a
relatively rapid fashion in that an existing infrastructure is present in the region,and outreach
materials may be produced with short turnaround. While the food donation infrastructure does
exist,some assistance and support will be necessary to enhance capacity to accommodate a
new and increased flow of material.
The second track focuses on developing a processing system to accommodate organic waste
that cannot be diverted to higher-end uses. Every effort will be made to utilize existing
infrastructure and tailor generator and collection programs to fit within existing operations and
regulatory systems. Several pilot projects will be initiated within the next 18 to 24 months to
determine the economic feasibility of a regional organics collection and processing system. If
the pilots prove successful,the Regional Organics Team will move rapidly towards the
development of a permanent collection and processing infrastructure. If the pilots prove that
organic waste collection and processing are not economically feasible in the current solid waste
environment,only Track 1 programs will be fully implemented,and the group will revisit the
issue at a later date. The decision to deve up permanent collection and processing facilities is
contingent upon economic feasibility. If feasible,and the program determines that public
participation is required to leverage processing capacity,then we may face a large,lump-sum
budget request within the next two to three years
A series of outreach efforts with a global message to the general public about the regional
organic waste efforts will be planned for roll-out once programs are implemented. It is unknown
what the specific concept or costs of such efforts will be at this time as they are dependent on
the extent of the programs implemented. Additional funds to cover this effort will be proposed in
future budget requests.
14
Year 11 Metro and Local Government Partnership Plan for Waste Reduction
Attachment II
The following draft plan provides the details and the accompanying resources needed for the
immediate implementation of a regional organic waste management plan. During the first three
years,the team has chosen to target efforts towards large organics-rich businesses and
industries. These targeted businesses are:
• Large retail grocery stores
• Large restaurants
• Hotels
• Institutional cafeterias'
• Produce wholesale warehouses
(*Institutional cafeterias Include food service operations in schools and universities,hospitals,large office buildings,corporate
campuses,prisons,etc.)
While this plan focuses on the commercial sector,the team may address the possibility of a
residential plan in the future. At this time,however,the team feels that the commercial sector
has the majority of clean,accessible and recoverable food wastes.
Organics Work Team Members:
• Jennifer Erickson,Metro
• Judy Crockett,City of Portland
• Wendy Fisher,Washington County
• John Foseid,Metro
• Matt Korot,City of Gresham
• Martine Roberts-Pillon, DEQ
• Rick Winterhalter,Clackamas County
15
Year 11 Metro and Local Government Partnership Plan for Waste Reduction
0 �_ \
§ w
$ a o ; o o L CL
« ;o ; $ §
kcn, CD
(13 k� oCD :11 co
f # � o
0 ƒ k \ CD CL
§ e eiq
K § \Q 2' kkh\ 8
: 6a 6a ; G &:a /: �
k\ w
q § ` :0�
k § / .\a \
z a \ \ _ . CD - §
2§ - '. q
2i - _ - _ k ` ���� _
| - MM
§ƒ /. / ƒƒ
uj\ - /\ _0 - )\2cm
� a { _ - -
70 CU-
\ \ \\ \ D 2 / :0 ; '\�\ \ \
■- g _ _
-- E & - - -
) 2 _k : d _ _
§ \ /k 00 2 _ 2 j \
®t - _ ci ) / \ ! _ \\�
'fM _ 2 16� 7\ 04
_\§\7'm 7 - - .7 �- ) `
\ ( / « E (
ca k\/\0 ƒ\ \ � M � k# § f .
- § � k¥ z - - = :\ <[ [ a
= k /\ /\ CD � «
\� cCL � �� LU
CL 2 ] t k (ƒ k ƒ § :R - / § ca 'k ®k ) oL
. »$ cc �7\ k § K\ .4 ��� ® I'.— a)
\ kL �}}/ƒkk� � /\ Co//\\ \ �k �kk\ k ( -
LIOI
c� oc ;cm o
0 0 cv :O o
0
o c 7 C P
N CO v3 E E 0...0. O O O v
:tA s
CD cm
4 (v o:c w, o
Ocn
O w C
3 C
N CO 64 cc O
E 0)w O O O NM
O
4 O .O O
T ti Ica
r CO O O 6N4 O ;to eA
SO EM
C O
m N 2)N O d p ;z Q 7
ri OF- 09 (=;.g OAF ;'G o
N
(D ..C
y E C O
d C d y Uj'
O d N N 3 N O
$ (n m E y
O (6 N y N C y O U O
N ) .— GCD L�0
a ID
W cn 07
C,3 'o (6 v >w
(D N N C :(n N co C O
mN Nfl E 0 v :3Q yL
co 00 :O 'D O7 'J d c0 =O
c im v n o a`a .(6 ay oc� c
a7
c m as 0 o ;�N >, a
U [0
(d y �>`(Cd 0 E E- •O�
C U N :N cn N N 8 :N
C) rn Q :a c v7 E -0 :v a a
O CCu CD
- 0 E cc0 t U cc) :OL N� cacr
m
C a N E 'O N (9 N
O cc m
m t U p N :•0 0 E L C m
N O a '� cc6p m 07 -S O c0 O .0-.0
IL
O 0)C N U N (p Y N co C.y.,a n
cn C Co p N _ _ C p O L
] OE = U @ O N (p Cw0
C O I6 O O C C (q D7 C ca 0 f'II c
i c v
al
m ;E� c 3 c e :m c 3' ;Co
2 � rn .E a
g to
O n 'n N N N = :C a @ N C E
N O i O 2=p N O N p :4= O UCL C13 C O N
ca N C 0
-C N �V y� —02 y m = O O O O O
(O O 8 �� CD d d -0 U v c y y O-,.G E di
coU o
U :07 fa`•G .2 Lc -0 L N f0 :'U= C c9 y'0 0 J
w n ,Wmvd c m- a7 W ;c y C) y a7 _� U)
0 3 (coo ;c E p r c coo c :ca aci a c a J o
•!a is C CL N (�Oa y w y Q m U.O ia m N O o
p c pt0 2cin 3°: c mom_ i; v7 3m c
� �si �i �C3 ;o88� 0 08�?? I. ca :M v=) >
0 00
Q m o o c Q d o 0
0 0 0 o a'd' o o o c
N m O fA w� N Co O O � !N9
CD Q N C Q N O O
O C7
O co O; O cp
N m p O O 4& -j N m O O M
uj
O p O O W O N O O
O d O OO 0 O O
O O L)
�N = �.O O � O OM
H (�
Uca
W c rnm o Haw
ca
LU �m o
ri U Ocn OAF- O U o
N u_ c a)
Z y y L
16 E2
a`>
XO N c N O
V)
c o c m L Z s
j:o c 3 CL ro Nis •3to
03
cu
U @ O 6lJ d c � a3
� Ucr o L
rn o aa)) p a) O () L m t
a) a7 C U �' 'Z Y �w 2 N co ca-
10
C N C- C U d 0 a7 E T 2
b oL �o n E 0 UU)i n rn
m ca m Z 2 o D ap)
0 L y Q .) U 6 m Q1
m n E c 3 M '� 2 c m ami
N w E O yC _� C L-.•v
On O E � CD
C m ((I C C a) N p
N N Z N c6 N
C C O- O cn �- O Mn y 0 'O N C d
ID � ev `=' 3 U (D m m a rn
vCL mCao c o d }W- c ami mui _pv o
-) m m � Ea) E E m� e
= a) `o
aa))'15- v co - c 19om c o o_aUi o
o -
y C12 cl a c
c�pp C L
a) U m Z O U 2-6 ` V) N U y
a) C Cl O C p 0 Co V)
a)E O y � O .Q a Q CD C C.0— N O-U N m m
my a) o L° E
-Cc)B "no m 'ro—n ��° m > ami c c � 'n c Q c �o c
`o Y o H m _o 0
opo m en v CU m and
raj a) Eu ca °�) m N v c U eEa mmc o o `cg " c
D� c c E n y w ? Q a) oa_v c% v� c U
ca -po i� C9: o ca) m o-Cc m v o
N C a) Q) ` N CD-
Ac a) d O0 C U d a)
O ca C O'E co X ( �' c O r Um O d 4? C N 2"2) a) R J
yvm d wvai mQ 3iQ m > no o . Q
c c � O0 0 cn
m e —�.�ocn 2— o acip
�Qm a) c m mm E F�J o m 6 W;r' m y o E�
v v m r a) a)— a) N— 05.0 Q a) t� m c y >--o0
v c K n o t ami- > �n� a> m� d �� ami
ci
0 a —oate •'=— =cr �E Cc*ir0 od rm-�LSL
C:) �
qd qm C)
r C) r tm O n b
c == 78
O O N m O
O L
a-• O O (D m
c?"a) O O C?
pro O O O•� p n�
Nm O O O Edi) � Nm O Via. a
O .. O O O O w O
c? C) O O O (? d O
O O O O
a O � co ems) = �
O Ef3 IR r m yy O 69
U CJ U U U U
coSE � E 5 E.= E m E 2 E
LU 2) O cc rn p (a O o m - p cG W OOi O a7 O)O m
ri Q 'S1� OSH OSI-oH OS'Fo-
cL
a) O
N C 01 t a)
.O •u) C ` .N
0.. u1 V7 H ca C y N
d O
cL
cA C — O
C w •v ym.L m Y tY6 N
� O
u) crN C w c C N U o•� O ; co
.0 N O
a) 9 O)fA w >. a) a) w-.-
O � C N d N A U N 6
o coi 6 m > 3 a) 9 c a) c o w a)
U a) N Vj - O' h'O O_ p
C >� _E > a) C d V d� 2 m a> ti Uyn
(6 V R m -aa WN a) q ca—9j'N O m U
O a) O O U .sem. 0 p)m'D O o O o m cc C
N m a) U N vi p O ai C 2,�O C O '
c a a�77 o ca
U U N C O 'G y 'ti UL' d L @ f0'� O N N
co U C `
Q ca oc
21 N U cn '�' U w O) -a `v) c, 'C p,D
p 0. N za cD C a) `p o co .O-..O C o p
` .a "a a) O a) p c) a) L O ,: a) o a) y v) v C
a a) as c 3 m•x � y @
o o v c R o a o alio uic m3aoi � vNiao
w i4 rn E c� o ocE5 �E'cm rnoEo
i E cn = o w ® ro rnE` > a2'm o -!= o
i c ur CD, E Ia a o ? _o a) c
i a ki
n. .aa n c vs m 3- oo 0o c civ .-n E
N 4? rn c a)
p (D O m c y 2 U w m s O L N 0.0.0'U O �.y >' O
7 U O1 -
,�• 4 _ a-4) c_c Q c w _O W vi %.� a)-5 o c n cc) m
c t � m En 3: N E C) CD �w�_ fn 2 L- ovo y m co E o o'� J
C O m t N U Q N tC m p V) N�"C'O O N p c7 N y 0 -p
s) — y )o a a� _n a) as= m u) = 6 a)fQ a ccp
C E tm_. a m E: -.9-8 G C U >0 0 7 to > N U m
CL m s s'o -- o c c 3 os m� 14o,v
4) € U zE; O 'n -p U O R 0.:-. U R ." O 'in O C N `N O
ami v c 3 rnm 3 � E a i; o c c ms's m �' c c.'- w� E
a N a) c a y c mO t v o y '°� c mu c
� " o� o o c`g x� m
DU tom ��- `¢no.Uow�t� a >-
CD
CD cs 0 9 f / 7 f \ f
0 o J q m G 2 _ t 4^ s $
�2 CD CD
E . $CD C=l }
o k \m CIT
2 2 k _ 2 ■
C:? k / -- ccl
-
CD
0 0 o e m o a Cl) Z i a §
8
CLE
C) § CD N CD cm C4
cm
C/) CD
f -
ca
= 2 E 2
7
CD- _ca
\
» * §
_-
0 f $B \
tm
/ ca E ; (
21 2= . _
f15 cu
_ E &
\f � � f E
\ co EE� CL
p /
E
� a 0 a -
k _ ƒ\ -
» _ § - $ � \ \
2 _ _ z
a # ® 2 f ko )
\ CD k 7 \ § UO § e «
® $ 2 = _ 7 $ k/ (
9
LO L § a \\ k f k k a
d kLu 12 ( Va
_ t I 2 \ _ )
9 _ A 2 - 2 A / § ƒ CL
\ \ cu
\ ) . {
a e� M o r « « & z 2 E
2\ m R � . m 2 )
/ / #k/. /k 2 ci �$ 2 2 -1 $ 1 LL. . : \
Attachment H
DRAFT
ORGANICS PLAN TIMELINE
FY 1999-2000 Program Initiatives
The following Organics Program initiatives are scheduled to commence within the
current fiscal year. Those tasks that span fiscal years have had their budgets adjusted
accordingly to indicate each year's particular resource needs.
TRACK 1
Waste Prevention:
1. Research and development. BUDGET: $5,000
2. Develop focused outreach and education on waste prevention coupled with on-site
assistance. BUDGET: $25,000
Donation:
1. Coordinate with charitable organizations to enhance donation infrastructure and
build capacity for recovered food. Create inter-agency work team to assess
outreach needs and coordinate messages. BUDGET: $0
2. Design, print and distribute educational and outreach materials for targeted'business
groups in coordination with charitable agencies BUDGET: $3,500.
Diversion:
Conduct market study to determine the existing and potential options for increased
diversion of acceptable,non-edible food wastes to animal feed uses.
BUDGET: $20,000
TOTAL TRACK 1: $53,500
TRACK 2:
Generator Programs:
1. Target larger organics generators in concentrated areas and conduct research on
{ willingness to participate in an organics collection program. BUDGET: $0
i
i 2. Research the proportions of pre-and post-consumer food waste generated by each
business type to best tailor separation and collection programs. BUDGET: $60,000
i
Development of Collection Infrastructure:
ti1. Utilize information gathered by City of Portland organics collection and processing
pilot project to determine feasibility of implementing Portland's organic waste
recycling requirement ordinance. BUDGET: $10,000
2. Work with area haulers and businesses to determine feasible organic organics
collection routes throughout the region. BUDGET: $0
21
Year 11 Metro and Local Government Partnership Plan for Waste Reduction
Attachment II
3. Work with haulers to determine equipment needs,collection schedules and
assistance required to implement routes. BUDGET: $O
4. Determine true costs of collection to facilitate future planning decisions.(begin pilot
projects throughout region). BUDGET: $50,000
Utilization and enhancement of existing infrastructure for delivery and processing
of organic wastes:
1. Develop tip fee at Metro Central Station for the acceptance of organic waste for
processing. BUDGET: $O
2. Build local infrastructure by working closely with facilities throughout the region to
research potential and assist with the implementation of organics reload and
processing. BUDGET: $50,000
3. (grants/contracts)
4. Work closely with Metro transfer station operator to develop organics delivery
options. BUDGET: $O
5. Investigate financial assistance opportunities such as state tax credits for recycling
businesses. BUDGET: $0
TOTAL TRACK 2: $170,000
FY 1999-2000 TOTAL: $223,500
Current FY 1999-2000 budgeted funds: $240,000
I
i
3
22
Year 11 Metro and Local Government Partnership Plan for Waste Reduction
Attachment II
DRAFT
FY 2000-2001 Prourarn Initiatives
The following Organics Program initiatives are scheduled to commence within the next
fiscal year. Those tasks that span fiscal years have had`,heir budgets adjusted
accordingly to indicate each year's particular resource needs.
TRACK 1
Waste Prevention:
Develop focused outreach and education on waste prevention coupled with on-site
assistance. Hire 2.0 FTE temporary staff for 2 year positions to distribute materials,
provide on-site assistance, coordinate contacts with business groups,provide
presentations,provide feedback to Regional Organics Team forfuture program
changes. BUDGET: $81,000 (year 1)
Donath®n:
Coordinate with charitable organizations to enhance donation infrastructure and build
capacity for recovered food. Develop a 2-year matching grant program to provide
funding to qualifying charitable organizations to increase their capacity to collect,
receive, store and distribute perishable foods. BUDGET: $200,000 (year 1)
TOTAL TRACK 1: $281,000
TRACK 2:
Generator Programs:
Develop specific educational materials focused on generator types,geographic area,
hauler equipment,and end-use of materials collected. BUDGET: $10,000
Development of Collection Infrastructure:
Determine true costs of collection to facilitate future planning decisions. (begin pilot
projects throughout region). BUDGET: $50,000
Utilization and enhancement of existing infrastructure for delivery and processing
of organic wastes:
Build local infrastructure by working closely with facilities throughout the region to
research potential and assist with the implementation of organics reload and
processing. BUDGET: $600,000
Local ®rganics Market Development:
Re-establish 1 FTE in Waste Reduction to implement a permanent and meaningful
market development program focusing on organics, commercial and C&D. (organics
work represents one-quarter of the FTE). BUDGET: $13,000
TOTAL TRACK 2: $673,000
DRAFT ESTIMATED FY 2000-01 TOTAL: $954,000
23
Year 11 Metro and Local Government Partnership Plan for Waste Reduction
Attachment H
DRAFT
FY 2001-02 Program Initiatives
The following Organics Program initiatives are scheduled to commence within fiscal
year 2001-02. Those tasks that span fiscal years have had their budgets adjusted
accordingly to indicate each year's resource needs.
TRACK
Waste Prevention:
1. Develop focused outreach and education on waste prevention coupled with on-site
assistance. Begin second and final year of employment of 2.0 FTE temporary.staff
to distribute materials, provide on-site assistance,coordinate contacts with business
groups,provide presentations, provide feedback to Regional Organics Team for
future program changes. BUDGET: $81,000
(year 2)
2. Update and reprint education and outreach materials. BUDGET: $2,000
Donation:
1. Coordinate with charitable organizations to enhance donation infrastructure and
build capacity for recovered food. Implement the final year of the matching grant
program to provide funding to qualifying charitable organizations to increase their
capacity to collect, receive, store and distribute perishable foods.
BUDGET: $200,000
(year 2)
2. Update and reprint education and outreach materials. BUDGET: $1,000
TOTAL TRACK 1: $284,000
TRACK 2:
Generator Programs:
Update and reprint focused education and outreach materials. BUDGET: $2,000
Utilization and enhancement of existing infrastructure for delivery and processing
j of organic wastes:
Build local infrastructure by working closely with facilities throughout the region to
research potential and assist with the implementation of organics reload and
processing. BUDGET: $500,000(year 2)
Local Organics Market Development:
Continue support of 1 FTE in Waste Reduction to implement a permanent and
meaningful market development program focusing on organics,commercial and C&D.
(organics work represents one-quarter of the FTE). BUDGET: $13,000
TOTAL TRACK 2: $515,000
DRAFT ESTIMATED FY 2001-02 TOTAL: $799,000
24
Year 11 Metro and Local Govemment Partnership Plan for Waste Reduction
Attachment II
Draft Recommendations
Construction and Demolition Task f=orce
November 1, 1999
Task Force Members:
JoAnn Herrigel, City of Milwaukie
Rick Winterhalter, Clackamas County
Judy Crockett, City of Portland
Christa Morrow, City of Troutdale
Marcele Daeges, Washington County
Bryce Jacobson, Metro
Overview
According to the revised Regional Solid Waste Management Plan recovery rates,the
region must recover 130,000 tons of Construction and Demolition debris in order to
meet its established goals. This draft plan, cooperatively developed by the C&D Task
force comprised of Metro and local government staff,is designed to address
shortcomings of the current RSWMP recommended practices for the C&D sector and
guide the region in the direction of increased recycling and recovery while adhering to
the solid waste hierarchy of reduce,reuse, recycle,recover,compost,landfill.
Statement of the Problem
Both the 1997 State of the Plan Report and the 1998 C&D generator study show that
recycling and recovery of waste materials from the region's construction and demolition
sites has not kept up with the amount of growth in the construction sector. The C&D
sector is responsible for generating approximately a quarter of the region's waste.
While up to 60%of this waste material could be recycled or reused,the fragmented
structure of the industry and complicated nature of most job-sites has made it a
challenge to divert materials into recovery programs.
Background
The RSWMP recommended practices for the C&D sector, as implemented, have not
created the tonnage diversion that was originally expected. Among the recommended
practices for the building industries,there are several that the task force identified as
ineffective:
Recommended practice 2.a,states that local governments will assure the availabirity of
on-site services for two or more materials and ensure that generators requesting
hauling services for construction and demolition sites are offered these services.
Haulers franchise agreements require them to comply with this recommended practice
by offering recycling services,but the rate of compliance and the actual effect on
recycling are thought to be low among task force members.
Recommended practice 1.b,Metro and Local governments to perform on-site audits at
construction and demolition sites to promote waste prevention. Despite numerous
25
Year 11 Metro and Local Government Partnership Plan for Waste Reduction
Attachment H
attempts to interest builders in this service,only a hand full of these have been
performed since 1995. The concept may have value if it was used as a component of
another C&D program, but as a stand alone item builders have not shown much
interest.
Recommended Practice 1.a, "Earth-Wise"building program to train builders about
salvage, waste reduction,recycling, and buying recycled along with other environmental
building practices. Metro staff have found that organizations with a green building
agenda are not willing to make waste issues a key concept in their promotions and
education to the building industry.
Recommended Practice 4. Develop regional dry waste processing facilities for waste
from sites where separation and collection ofrecyclables is not possible. The current
system of post collection recovery options does not appear to draw in as much C&D
waste as we had hoped for_ The task force found that much of Washington County is
under-served in terms of processing capacity,recovery facilities have trouble competing
with the rates at local dry waste land fills and actual recovery rates have been lower
than expected(down to 4% at one facility).
The 1998 C&D Generator Study found that the regions contractors as a group are not
well informed about waste recycling issues and put little energy into making decisions
about job-site waste. However,the study also found that they are open to assistance
on recycling and waste issues if it comes in a format that they can use.
Work Group Objectives
In July 1999 the C&D Task Force had its first meeting to discuss the objectives that
would guide the process..f making our recommendations. The group agreed to the
following objectives:
➢ Assess what is going on with C&D waste and recycling in the Metro region and
around the country
➢ Identify areas where improvement is needed
A Develop and implement specific programs to address the problem areas
Create incentives to keep unprocessed mixed loads of C&D material in the Metro
region.
,
i
,
Draft Plan Recommendations:
a This plan takes a three-track approach to increasing recycling and recovery in the C&D
sector.
j 1. The first track emphasizes waste prevention through salvage and deconstruction.
3 This practice has proven to be an effective way to prevent one of the largest
a sources of C&D waste, demolition waste,from entering the waste stream:
2. The second track focuses on ways to impact diversion through programs at
material recovery facilities,dry waste landfills or transfer stations. The proposed
incentives will ensure that either source separated recycling or effective post
Year 11 Metro and Local Government Partnership Plan for Waste Reduction 26
Attachment II
collection recovery is available to all sectors of the C&D industry. An.important
component of these efforts will be the education and promotion of the different
source separated and post collection recovery service options available to C&D
sites.
3. The third track implements a market development program that targets reuse and
recycling of the materials prevalent in the C&D waste stream:wood (22%),
drywall(17%),composition roofing(11%)and fiberglass insulation(11%). The
current markets for these materials are undeveloped or underdeveloped and this
represents a major barrier to reusing or recycling these materials.
All of the following recommendations come with several caveats:
➢ Depend on initial research into the feasibility
➢ They each require different stakeholder involvement strategies.
➢ They are designed to either compliment each other or existing activities
➢ Budgets,tonnage impacts and schedules are speculative and should be seen as
a starting point
➢ Further work of the C&D Task Force may be part of this. Our role is unknown at
this point.
• As these recommendations are evaluated and piloted,it will become clearer
which of the RSWMP mandated C&D activities we are doing now may need to be
modified or phased out.
i
I
27
Year 11 Metro and Local Government Partnership Plan for Waste Reduction
m
Nm O O O O
Q O O Oo N
G m O O t� Y'!
NhY!
t 69 u N
m p b O
Q y cmp O O
L O
N C C O •On 11�
3 N m fA a'q
O
cl OO d p O O
O C:, O
0 of+ O O
Lo ulj
C T m 6N? a
co
LO O
N L L L
o
o o m
a .tea >U�c >VY >V Y o0
o
a0 y
L
N c1« m
w
o 0
cW o c�
�
W m C Cp (O O)N O)N 'O c
C > C > C O
Q O -2 d -o R c R d . O c
u N d
Q
J 2 o c m c m o� coo v m - o - o m c o
N
y N ? j O
N C y C � W � O � O d C N
Z o O O - UI j >N E C O
U
a o O
Z
c m a .o 'c o mo m _� o
WN 9y N l0 E O O
per, > C QN N EO OC:)O U` d d.
o
cm
Q O C a U > m N t0 d O E C 3
m
E N -C O y O O O O y O O E O
•• N Qa C C U C U E.
O O E- N
t o o m U o m
2 > > > 5 E o E a
U -o
E-m a y v
Q vi o - E m m cD COm
L
OC co cm y �0 o c�i o f o -E >o v chi o m
~ mQ yc aci Z mw �`o So Corm E tm � T!
m N N v E y' n-ya m av S o m fa
E O N C u-C C O C O J N O ;
y t/! U O L O O L U O U N U d
c o m o d m o E m E
_ d c m a rnrnll o+ c3 w
c m °i o_ c E c E 3 m d E
c`mi E a m o,c� c� &m 3 L m of p
0
o v c E c (D U n E o o E o c > =0 I-
m o o c (x
a v U C3 c c c c o c .o y o W -i
w c € o m 2c m m -o m m o LmE c > > N X a
y �O o� �0 m m a t3
a:v m m o co m m c c c
y O mm > > N C O O O O O O E d j O tJ - m
y 15
L1 H W W �.m U ` m U n U 8 m U U
cl O N N > O �.
tl
O _. N 07 (A }
CD
p 7 O C I C Q N
N m N
d O O
O 9 U) O O CL
04 CIA
7
N a � H
O
O co
m 4 -0 O O O O
CD .� 7
m
LU
co L2 t:
tL
OO O T N l_ Cp 0. N O
U 3aF-
2-0
U U 3 F
7 C O
U
V R N C y v O 0) U N O W N O N
C p y N O O L
O Y
N y U E
(jl •Vd R (O O CE C E
F — Q p Of 3 co j N
LL V 0=d y U p _>
O a R`• c y y o a
N OL u) y= N p y p C 0)
b
v ?c E o 9 0 0.3 v
V® t a C >
m 02{ 0f V O>L L'
m mN O O 0) C C C f0 O CO
O _ co
� mwy C��N= Ccu
dZ m "�v0
1 0)R j
5 LNy Y C Op
0 0Y 0] E
0 U N� ) roN'O y
NNN
C, a 3
41
R o a r w
y R W KS L O O N _N C
� mod U3EE SCD R vU m
U CL W'O O 'O U O N 01 O E d
Q N 01 C V O U U d
1 'O G R U O L N `p N L
0) 0) O)
1 d V > `� d SQ 0) t0 U LLL- O N
LLS m g,
Q R O O U L) c a:� c
waccC3 0 ca LD
G m °� o:3L 03 O U E
3 O m Roe C O O G C fn H y oa 01 p CS—_ E
O$ R V N C N C
7 U C a o c v v $
N d m�a o3 o o m c n r Q c9
a m > Ep-_cUdm c > cm oo e
Q E a o N 3 o 3 ? 4�_ c m E I�
I �3 0 0 w U C U C O 10-
(m
0I N NCMm
a
R U O
t0 O d 0 > p L L p' E 0) y d
ad U � a� ao o d 3E a? a� F
a c a a O
12E
QCD
Q d N ri N
0 C,
0 0 0 C C <�
N
0 0 0
0
0 0 C C
0
0 0
O N M
i» cfl w
0 0
0 0
C 0 0 0 00
ti
I o CDo �� U`o 0 o'U °�tCO aw8) Ly
wU wU wU orL r- u.
0 o aaci Q '4
Q) H U s F U 3 Nva
NII N H w
Q p, O ca ? N CO d v
Oc c y
h Lo o {a E
L o f
o S c
II L= 3 C.y w '
ca o omca- cot QQ) a`) Cm E��
o c a� co Lon 3
4.5
w N a=i
ca�� o'mo owwc X
� ad aEi o
u`�Uw > Na d n�oIIE
>wv' wO
p '� aOCLa Vos NN _C'
Socc �
N w ca0N-
wws'
a >,O omQY C
E Y¢L UO O CL U O-
w E
O U o w N r 3 ° w Nva y3 6 75
ad V 75:E O Y d N Q > II a CLL G
76 FM
a N E = N CO C La Co .�
C La o- p8
LC d L a La N Z6 •
b O O o w w
La ` m 3-c—
?^ w o E v a'D w'(`to N
o' --am
N w
E mm 3� nNc 3 HwY3 LL- cu o
E oO� ocm °' w- oo cc
N o
Loi ydcNw m CL
O La 'O U lT L C fl-
�_
N N N
1 A m ,CE Gornmd E o a� crngi >
E E
Uy da' IIaci iwo-Qma ooa'_$
e ¢o u
` m a omNIIoo a@
O :g m mm
wo Eo't-
N pa
dw
o II aEi mt2w o ai m v t a`'o m C7
m m ?T-' - '�'� yoo�.c m -o ocy N ym:s p
N L > a Oj 3 C R La N E: C a? U w 0 c La E w pj O
`CL
o w o o o w c E o
w C w N C O O L n d V N Ya j 0 fA =
H "O O O..O N L` w caN V'�N y w w U U O i
o-�Q o w o a`L o 'o ac' E:.a o' E aci v N a�
C O_ Y rL cm Co C U m ` O N n- w w 0 O
La U) o uE F
m .� cry .. E m �-
N m
Qa o oQy d c
IS
O C> M O O O O O N c'7
�N 69 V1 N m
m
O
Q O O Otm
Q m O
O co O O 0 0 + ti O O O p
7
LL+ 6�9 w h m w
O N 25 cz� pO OQ N �� CL
G
m O 0 0 O O Ow
m
m fAlIm 15 Z5
W r m
C U y 1-- m C N �O y
Lm co W
a u`o co a�D a o`.0 w w ori
yO O ca U LL Cp O U LL. N
U 3 a U h 3 a
ym
3 o m
fO n m °d
c
•3
c I c m o a •5 U > m
m c o m °� wooq m
E O m O O LL U c
O V C
E S U 10--
cu
�
N O .0.. C
H N U m y O O.
.0 _d m U m m �`R c y m ` m
O O) N C N E E O o o N y N
E
C r m m �• W D C LL N d O)
•> E c
d -O @ U C m O O V N�O N p
ovi
ca vi w E Co E w E a o .O o
p c cm a`� o E c •vim �° m.c c E U
m c� gm
as m t o Eo o 43
w:5 amici 3 3 c a) m
O)•O d V C m D_ co
U y lL cc
O U O-
m E C U o r T N U co C
p C C O O C N « L =o N U
cc
O C_ (6 O C O r - Jy.. O c N N O O
d m O c N T� wcn
c
O m U E co 0 �. m N C m
d � o N �' oo EH m o � oma n a
m p• =O o m N - >L d V o0 m N
m `o ' N c . c m E c9 m rn m m T- g fl c
m m c
d � m a d �o y rn a E E H =z S E E o a
.G o- o c m cD
c 'O rn rn N v w Qco°� o (D aci
om aoi N °� m o a m gQ Q L o o` v°ii o ZEE a E
N
c m > L 2 U m L C N , 3 N D. :s O E �O p y C N
O.N (D mO H O N E E o co
C Y N N ® U O 7(O O H a O
o'p rn L E N m c a—Ei 3 m > c > a°fi -� c c9
w t -L r CD o m E m a y « o a V aci.O-. o U m U c E o
m 3 U v �p m U N C E G O C N a C u ch ch C E 5 a) O
dm m E a) n m m m m � E Ern OEo c tcE `"
p>u m m � m E m co
c miii va2u«= f6 o@mrn > c « x m
« N o
-V N > N m cu o o d O E y O w ` j 0 0 C > E m N
E � ¢ U:° co w F- U` v m Uc� ¢ �U �. y maEm 5 o U
U m
Q i.1 cli fA D cli N JP
Q Y
¥ � e .
Ct
\ �
& �
CD
\ o _ _§
Cb
C', e
\\2� o CN
_ _7
cm£ §m cm
\/\ LUuiLL-
ui gEQ, : ,
§ % }> - e
cm CD
k2 � —
� § {
/\I \ \ 0 \ \
Ste - ® ` _—
W § § cm m {
§f / ) _
(
CL, = /e D \ / / \ \
41 {ƒ \ ,0 ;
. \k \ ) _ \
�f co cm ) 1 ) ] 3
k / ( G
2C _
» � } \ \ . -
40 LL
/) koc — k 15
_
I ® %2 q� a C,_
I ■ \o
\ k/ \ k E) k f § 70
70
e « -0 (D � /7 \« § < §
kk e ;a & �
2 2 � 2 § Q a— |
§ ) 0) /\ 3 k )0 / % )
$ 0m m. . . ]r 3
\ ka w w a U) I.-
f
- °2 -
% ]k / k \ \ G
cm § C, ICRICD cl C3 CL
tm k k k k
c? c§ ®
k i k k k k k k
7 � o LU
a ® 2 � 2
. { .
)
- \ . .
ell a)
§ _ \
] . o f . -
2 2 2 2 ]
Q �
\ k k k k 2 o k . k
.4ttacnmenr 1
Draft Recommendations of Commercial Recovery Task Force
November 8, 1999
Task Force Members
Marcele Daeges, Washington County
Anne McLaughlin, City of Portland
Susan Ziolko, Clackamas County
Genya Arnold, Metro
Steve Apotheker, Metro
Overview
A Commercial Recovery Task Force comprised of local government and Metro
representatives was charged with reviewing the Metro region's strategy for reaching its
commercial waste reduction targets identified in the Regional Solid Waste Management
Plan(RSWMP). The task force began meeting in July 1999,and produced draft
recommendations on policy and program options(including resource needs)for a three-
year timeline. Members of the task force were Susan Ziolko,Chair,Clackamas County;
Marcele Daeges,Washington County;Anne McLaughlin, City of Portland; Genya
Arnold, Metro and Steve Apotheker, Metro.
Statement of the Problem
Progress in commercial waste reduction is not keeping pace to meet the targets for
waste prevention and recovery that have been set for this sector in the revised
RSWMP. Because commercial waste makes the largest contribution to the Metro
region's total waste,it is critical to achieve the waste prevention and recovery targets for
businesses in order for the region to meet its recovery rate target for total waste of 52%
in the Year 2000. The region's total recovery rate for 1998 was 43.3%,off at least four
percentage points from where it should be if the region was on track to meet its goal.
Background
Commercial waste is the largest component of Metro's disposed waste,accounting for
more than 50%of what is landfilled. Residential(including multi-family)and
construction and demolition(C&D)wastes comprise the balance.
The RSWMP sets out commercial waste reduction goals for the Year 2000 of 11,550
tons of waste prevention and 168,000 tons of source-separated business recyclabiea,
{ primarily paper and containers. These goals represent the increase in waste reduction
that is needed relative to 1995 baseline levels set out in the RSWMP.
The RSWMP identifies implementation of several recommended practices to meet the
waste prevention and recovery goals.
1. Waste evaluations or audits shall address waste prevention, recovery and buy
recycled opportunities in targeted businesses that generate large quantities of paper
and packaging.
2. Model waste prevention programs shall be developed for different types of
businesses.
Year 11 Metro and Local Government Partnership Plan for Waste Reduction 34
Attachment II
3. Coordinated regional and local media waste prevention programs shall be
developed.
4. Model buy recycled procurement outreach campaigns and policies shall be
developed.
5. Market development efforts shall look at how recycled feedstock shall be substituted
for virgin materials in manufacturing processes.
6. Provision of appropriate recycling collection containers to all small businesses.
7. Implement business recycling recognition programs.
Metro has not identified a strategy to comprehensively measure the levo)of commercial
waste prevention occurring in the region. Some data is available on diversion through
certain programs,such as paint reuse and edible food recovery. And,t;:is past summer
an intern was hired to review existing efforts to quantify waste prevention and to
determine the feasibility of applying these approaches at the local level to commercial
waste generators. A final report is due in November 1599.
Metro also has conducted focus groups with businesses on how to devaiop regional
media campaigns on waste prevention. The results of these interviews indicated that
regional media campaigns could be effective if they provide a strongly motivational
message. However, businesses made little distinction betv3een waste preven:i,)n and
recycling activities. A media campaign should not try to distinguish between these two
activities. Also, businesses need to receive site-specific information to solve immediate
problems,rather than the general type of knowledge received through media
campaigns.
However,despite the lack of measurement of commercial waste prevention,the region
has a program which focuses on commercial waste prevention. Local government
recycling staff conduct site visits at businesses,during which busine.-"s receive
information about waste prevention actions and buy recycled opportw.o.ies, in addition
to potential improvements in their recycling collection system.
In the area of commercial recovery, programs appear to be diverting a ply about half of
the tonnage needed to reach the target for this sector. However,the available data and
on-route collection practices make it difficult to isolate business recovery from efforts
that occur at multi-family locations and construction sites.
i Also,different local policies and approaches to commercial waste recovery provide
different conditions and reporting requirements for haulers and private recyclis,g
companies that provide commercial recycling collection services. For example,the City
of Portland allows each business to arrange independently for services from its 60+
a waste haulers and 30+independent recycling collectors. However,the city requires
businesses to file plans on how they will divert 50%of their waste and requires all waste
haulers to offer collection of all recyclable paper and many other materials.
Year 11 Metro and Local Government Partnership Plan for Waste Reduction 35
Attachment dI
Outside of Portland,local jurisdictions have created commercial waste franchises.
Local governments set commercial waste hauling rates for the franchised hauler,which
include recyclables in the rate schedule.
Despite difficulties in meeting commercial recovery targets,the commercial waste
stream remains rich in marketable recyclables. About 25%of commercial waste is
comprised of recyclable paper, including corrugated cardboard,high-grade paper and
mixed paper. A Washington County survey indicated that 90%of all businesses
generating corrugated cardboard had recycling collection.
Nevertheless, regional waste composition data show that waste compactors, such as
those often placed at multi-tenant office buildings, still average more than 10%
corrugated cardboard,which is twice the average from other regional waste generators.
Mixed office paper is highly recyclable,yet only 55%of businesses generating this
material have put recycling collection programs in place. Furthermore, another 12%of
disposed commercial waste is made up of metal,glass and plastic containers,plastic
film and other scrap metal—all of which are easily recoverable.
A Washington County survey of 599 businesses in August 1998 showed that the
average number of recycled materials increased with the size of the business,as
measured by number of employees. Similar results were found in studies done by the
City of Portland in 1993, 1996 and 1999.
Commercial recovery lags in small and medium-size businesses,due to a lack of
storage space and lack of staffing resources to implement recycling programs. Also,
larger businesses that have recovery programs may not be collecting the full range of
recyclables that are generated.
Task Force Objectives and Process
The Commercial Recovery Task Force met for three months,starting in July 1999,and
identified the following objectives:
• Assess level of commercial waste prevention and recovery in the Metro region.
I
identify politically acceptable programs and policies that would help the region
effectively and efficiently meet its targets for the commercial sector.
• Develop and implement specific programs and policies that were identified.
In addition to discussion by Task Force members, interviews were conducted with more
than two dozen haulers ar,-jusiness associations regarding potential actions that could
be taken to increase recovery and prevention.
Waste haulers were very comfortable in the role of providing recycling collection
i services when businesses requested those services and adequate financial
compensation was available, However, haulers did not want to be in the position of
advising their customers,the businesses,on when and how to set up waste prevention
programs. Also,haulers were reluctant to initiate provision of new or expanded
recycling collection,however, they were very willing to respond to their customers'
request for such services. Strong economic incentives were the clearest motivator to
Year 11 Metro and Local Government Partnership Plan for waste Reduction 36
Attachment II
increase recycling for this group.This may be the most difficult in Portland,where rates
are set by negotiation between hauler and customer,and not all customers yet place
recycling service as a high priority.
Businesses were supportive of recycling;however,they did not want to spend a lot of
time seeking out information on recycling,waste prevention and buy recycling actions.
They wanted specific information on markets and materials handling solutions to be
provided. This was especially true for smaller and medium size businesses that did not
have the staffing levels to figure out how to implement recycling programs. Regulatory
actions to increase recycling might be acceptable if convenient,cost-effective recycling
collection services were provided.
Finally, local government solid waste and recycling staff are definitely comfortable with
the role of providing technical assistance. However, resources are limited for field staff
to provide the initial and multiple follow up contacts needed to ensure that recycling
collection programs are implemented at businesses.
Also, local government solid waste staff(with the exception of Clackamas County),are
not involved in the plan review process for ensuring that the design of new buildings
includes adequate recycling collection space:o meet regional recovery rates.
Washington County has adopted a model ordinance for construction of commercial
buildings, but there are no staff to implement it. The City of Portland has adopted an
ordinance that applies only to multi-family units,but there is no oversight.
The Task Force developed a list of 20 potential actions. Task Force members,
according to the following criteria,discussed each action:
Political acceptance
Program cost
Potential new tonnage diverted
Ability to institutionalize
Ability to monitor and evaluate
Problems addressed by the recommended action
New problems created by the recommended action
Each action was then ranked on a five-point scale,with 1=Low and 5=High. Troutdale,
Gresham, Portland,Clackamas County,Washington County and Metro submitted
jrankings, along with final comments.
Of the 20 actions identified by the Task Force,seven actions received a ranking greater
than three. These seven actions comprise the draft recommendations being offered by
this Task Force.
i
Year 11 Metro and Local Government Partnership Plan for Waste Reduction 37
fittachment H
Draft Recommendations
Seven actions are recommended for implementation or further review,where needed.
1. Increase market development efforts, both regionally through Metro and statewide
through the Oregon Market Development Council. Develop markets for new
materials and local markets for recycled feedstock that might offer higher prices
(Ranking 4.7).
2. Implement disposal bans for selected materials. This proposed policy needs greater
review by a larger stakeholder group that includes haulers, private recycling
collectors,processors,disposal facilities,businesses and the public. In particular,
issues such as enforcement,market price impact and flow control need to be
reviewed(Ranking 4.3).
3. Expand local governments'technical assistance to businesses on waste prevention,
buy recycled and recycling. The current technical assistance program of waste
evaluations needs to be assessed for its effectiveness in increasing recovery
tonnage. Future technical assistance programs need to be designed to allow for
easy program evaluation. Staffing needs to be increased to provide greater contacts
and follow ups at each business and to expand the types and number of targeted
businesses(Ranking 4.2).
4. Implement design review ordinances for recycling collection areas in new
commercial and multi-family buildings. Several local governments have adopted an
ordinance,but do not have dedicated staffing to monitor submitted plans and
compliance. Adoption of an ordinance and adequate staffing are both needed to
ensure that the new construction in the region will have adequate recycling space to
enable full participation in reaching the region's recycling goals(Ranking 4.2).
5. Promote commingling.Commingling can result in fewer recycling containers,
accepting more materials in less Fpace,with less-complicated sorting instructions.
The development of commingled collection and processing capacity in the region is
seen as an important shift in how recycling service is provided. Awareness of this
new service level would be especially important to businesses facing space and
resource limitations in implementing new or expanded recycling collection. One
element of a regional media outreach program might talk about the availability of this
service. It is important to link any promotion of commingling with a prior inventory of
commingled processing capacity in the region to adequate geographic distribution
and access by all haulers as noted in recommendation seven below(Ranking 4.2).
6. Target outreach to promote waste prevention. Specific outreach campaigns and
technical assistance should target activities(double-sided copying)and packaging
(reusable transport packaging)that increase waste prevention. Campaigns that
target a specific activity or material in a homogeneous population(e.g.,offices for
double-sided copying)offer the greatest opportunity to have their results tracked
(Ranking 4.2).
7. Ensure the region has adequate commingled processing capacity for commercial
recycling with equitable access by the region's collectors and that these facilities are
capable of meeting high standards for recovered materials(Ranking 3.3).
Year 11 Metro and Local Government Partnership Plan for Waste Reduction 38
{
g� 0 o n o 0
O O
oym o �iA� uSo �1i�1 a
N +C E9w`' n 69
Im
wM wM M
C:E m A
O m
N
0 0 0 0 n 0 0
c CD
o C C 0 0 2
as o 0 o Ui Lo
Of $� � �w M �6e
cn En
cn o Oq
� N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
a 0 0 00 $ oo C 0
r O y c O V N Z IT N N
ciCf o 69 fA N CVS fH 6A fA
LU r Co
c N U 01 `V- O U N
m v O LL
® E ma E o o c c
Q y c U 0 U U
2
Q
F- y
z
LU
LU c
d E u a
CD m c
H N c o
y c
E w >
V c d 3
U c
G d I G W C U
O
V E O CL Q m a
E g
0 w V O A
N •U L y € N
Z w y 01 N
Q O d m w
S� C U O C o
t0.) U a-
C
7 N C G QJ 7 d L
N N > y E f0 "� •C
O
m E u� n n d - w m a
O C O O C > O N
O
yUj H m m E
G' z as > c o aci 3 C ai w r E
c
LL m CD
z o °' n m > c w v `O CL
o p
C m y n N C 0 = C ? y ca f..i
p wa 3 an d o a- 'C a c m 3 m J
�' m ,�' v ro � C
W o• .` d 3 o cc ¢ NCID 0 E
m E y �n ;n o
00
ntn
Q Y 2) a3i a EEi - EEi a ~ er m m c m rn
a
U cm ai > n > n V Q c o o
0 }
F- w w E o O a
Z cn m fV N oi
a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
n " g Lo o o• a b S b
O G b C O Z'1 O I O b fl O O p Q oo pp 1� �IryIT '
LoLci A pOp tt� 6�A 6�9 r N N (A(�1 IIT •�}•tm
p iil n I/f N N
69 69 69 to h 69 V3 EA cfl N N N N OD N
411
Ohm Y►
N
O O O O O O O O co O O O o O O O O O
00 0 0000 o S o0 0 0 oo
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c 0 0 0
o n cri o ui ri o cti V%
6-a 6� w� www c�3w www w
o m
N
�l O O oo
c:, O O 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O t�9 O O:>
O O O O O O O o Cd O C C
IIS 6) C O O IA
vaca 69 iss i»w a ww"'
w m
r
rn
C
w
c In un Lq wt In 4T
O
U O O o o �•- O � O �
H
N
C
C
O
U
U
w co �i
m C
v n m
U y
A A U m
N N w >
coR
N cm N d U
'O C y �'
N N N C
c >
c O m L
n yy
RS CI V co U y N C U K
y O Vl ca
m C e
C N m a E E a) ,n •C O `J TJJco q
USco d d o N N 9 N m N d S
C cm` C y lU d ; "O N N O
N 43
E N Y C U C N cm C >` cr X cD > N o �
W E d N O -p; = d E N E •C D-
E E e a aa) ccc .E rn w cc o rn o N :c
io E ' to m y m E y p rn m o >
E v o m Im N E m y c o �_ d a� d
V C N C V ) cL •R (O N to m N
t° �° v o a E a.` Z5 o ul y v y is m
o m c c 5. a E o cc m E 'c cu c m v y d
m y I .o ` 3 a cl E n o F a v c
aI m roE Z y -o = E m
�+ m >. E; d m £° a Eo a� 111 w o en Fl W m E
wE vi I U I N tq w •IN V C x 3 •ca d �7 G 0 E
L ' Ino � o v � m � E c p E E Y °? " c a LL 'o
w -E 73y c c v c ma c $ Z m u, v
co o m > a3i c c c Eo 1y c m E to OL M v s m
'L o a� •� c m e 9 D m 'O U c Illi a •3 > m o m E o
a m m H H �. a v o o m o a C 'oa c «° e� to Y v d v
n E :c `-' m U o` cm rn p = Z m E w W m v .5 E : 1O V v eq
'�. A i E O T C ; N y O j p te X Ep r r N !+7 ® C Y
"' •O d v E ca. O P Gf H 'gyp O y aU`) O CL R Y ` U O A Y Y Y '` 7 $ o
w > m v g v m .v O a`� N Q r= m m t+1 V U Q V t c LL a °�
m 'p c o t m E m cT c v d c) X 91 E E X >. R' t m m
d0 0 v c 4 0 o o N v ul oto 0
o E c m E �•c .g c or E e cT Io 3 m c Le FFFA � Z
o"v m Y m y
nV Nc- N `a1nom omyofi4 u3 FF0 F0 mtVwyn4Fo 2-
o
auoaF ¢ I3' o n oEi ( o i € 0icm mE -oa
IT D 0 o11 o o f1 /)N M V^ co -: co "