The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet - 04/12/1994A I ~ CITY ®FTIGARD OREGON PUBLIC NOTICE. Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the Mayor at the beginning of that agenda item. Visitor's Agenda items are asked to be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City Administrator. Times noted are estimated: it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be present by 7.15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet. Business agenda 6tems can be heard in any order after 7°30 p.m. Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please call 639-4171, Ext: 309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services: Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; and Qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting date at the same phone numbers as listed above: 639-4171, Ext. 309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deao. SEE ATTACHED AGENDA 40 COUNCIL AGENDA - APRIL. 12, 1994 - PAGE 1 CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 12, 1994 AG..ENDA STUDY MEETING • Agenda Review Executive Session: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session rJer the nrnvicinnS of SRS 19°2.860 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor r.. relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. 1. BUSINESS MEETING (7:30 P.M.) 1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications/Liaison Reports 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 2. PROCLAMATION - APRIL. 1994 AS FAIR HOUSING MONTH 0 • Mayor Schwab 3. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) 4. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 4.1 Approve Council Minutes: March 8, 15 and 22, 1994 4.2 Receive and File: Council Calendar 4.3 Approve Traffic Impact Fee Intergovernmental Agreement - Resolution NO. 94- 4.4 Authorize City Administrator to Enter into a Three-Year Lease Agreement with Tigard Youth Services (TCYS) 4.5 Local Contract Review Board a. Authorize Advertisement for Bids - Lakeside Drive Storm Sewer Replacement Project b. Award Bid for Purchase of Phase 2 SCADA Equipment for Monitoring the Water System to Remote Transmitting Units ,is COUNCIL AGENDA - APRIL 12, 1994 - PAGE p y; 5. PUBLIC BEARING - PACIFIC RIDGE SUBDIVISION • Staff recommends setting this public hearing over to a later date. 6. PUBLIC HEARING - SOLID WASTE RIECYCLIi1IG RATE INCREASE (CURBSIDE COLLECTION OF YARD DEBRIS WASTE) • Open Public Hearing • Declarations or Challenges • Consultant Repo-it t and naw~ i e~°^d°t:=!? • Staff Summary and Recommendation - Management Analyst Loreen Edin • Public Testimony Proponents Opponents • Council Questions/Comments • Close Public Hearing • Council Consideration: Motion directing staff to prepare necessary documents to ratify Council decision for consideration on April 26, 1994. 7. NON-AGENDA ITEMS g. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. 9. ADJOURNMENT ax.&,0412.94 COUNCIL AGENDA - APRIL 12, 1994 - PAGE 3 i' Council Agenda Item -3.1 MEETING MINUTES APRIL 12, 1994 t S Meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m:-by Mayor Jack Schwab. ROLL CALL. Council Preset: Mayor Jack Schwab; Councilors Judy Fessler, Wendi Conover Hawley, Paul Hunt, and John Schwartz. Staff Present: Patrick Reilly, City Administrator; Loreen Edin, Management 'Analyst; Tim Ramis, Legal Counsel; Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder; and Randy Wooley, City Engineer. Executive Session: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 6:35 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor, relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. Council meeting reconvened into opsin session at 7:12 p.m. 0 STUDY SESSION 139M Str t Extension: CIT West met April 5 and discussed the 130th Street Extension. Citizens voiced opinions for and against the completion of the extension. In carder for the project to be removed from the Transportation Plan; a Comprehensive Plan Amendment must be applied for and approved. City Administrator reported that there was great support for the construction of the pedestrian bridge this wi11 be done as soon as possible. Agenda Review: Item 4.4 was pulled from the agenda. The Council meetin~, scheduled for May 17 (Election flay) was cancelled. Via: CoUnCII Liaison Reese: Councilor Fessler reported her appreciation for staff assistance in sending letters with regard to a current House Sill proposal to limit local government control along cable and telephone lines. Councilor Fessler distributed a draft resolution from Metro regarding the 2040 growth concept recommendation for Council's information. CrfY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 12, 1994 - PAGE 1 2. ProolamaUon: Mayor Schwab proclaimed April, 1994 as Pair Housing Month and read the Proclamation aloud. 3. !/1$il7'~ APa1EN®!~: Gene McAdams, 13420 SW Brittany, Tigard, Oregon, expressed concerns with the proposed pedest; ian bridge in Summerlake Park. He urged the foot bridge not be built until the street connection was made. He reported on his understanding that the foot bridge would be constructed in a portion of the street connection right of way. He was concerned the foot bridge would interfere with the future street connection or used as justification to not build a street connection. ' ow-le _ _ M _s . LY roor, oC th_ L. - [-..~.+l...w ...i.w. • I~w lwwwfASd :A 6hw fill!/ CO toine9S (riU U U IUL fJUI Ll 9 Va u e0 wuL SJl w~v o ec+y vv ~vvutau ee s~ ~v same area as the street (now a gravel road) right-of-way. The materials for the bridge can be salvaged and could be relocated to another area when the street connection is made. No wetland mitigation would be required for the foot bridge. City Administrator advised staff would proceed with the construction of the foot bridge unless otherwise directed by City Council 4.` CONSENT AGENDA: 4.1 Approve Council Minutes: March 8, 15 and 22, 1994 4.2 Receive and File: Council Calendar 4.3 Approve Traffic Impact Pee Intergovernmental Agreement - Resolution No. 4.4 Authorize City Administrator to Enter into a Three-Year Lease Agreement with Tigard Youth Services (rCYS) Pulled from agenda NOT APPROVED 4.5 Local Contract Review Board a. Authorize, Advertisement for Bids - Lakeside Drive Storm Sewer Replacement Project b. Award Bid for Purchase of Phase 2 SCADA Equipment for Monitoring the Water System to Remote Transmitting Units City Administrator Reilly noted the following changes: Item 4.2; it was requested that the Council Calendar be amended to show the May 17, 1994 Council meeting was cancelled. Item 4.3 had been requested to be withdrawn and would be considered under Non-Agenda as 7.a for separate discussion. Item 4.4, the lease agreement with TCYS, would be deleted from this agenda. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 12, 1994 - PAGE 2, Motion by Councilor Schwartz, seconded by Councilor Hawley, to approve Consent Agenda items 4.1 and 4.5. Motion was approved by unanimous vote of . Council present. (Mayor Schwab and Councilors Fessler, Hawley, Hunt, and Schwartz voted "yes.") Motion by Councilor Schwartz, seconded by Councilor Fessler, to amend Consent Agenda 4.2 which would adopt the City Council Calendar with the deletion of the May 17, 1994 meeting. Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Schwab and Councilors Fessier, Hawley, Hunt, and Schwartz voted "yes.") r M9C! Of% UCAI@lmlf_► _ ®Afm1C1f► ®onf-C 011n 1n/®e9f1®e J. o-veseseV ■CO-e'Oa~esaV9 9-0%%0 1-01W V18W%Ye- %P%r 60605 a ovoV ei a. Public hearing was opened. b. City Administrator advised the City Attorney had requested this item be set aside until May 24 to allow the appellant to prepare for an appeal. Mr. Reilly advised that staff concurs with the request. C. 0 61 PUBLIC HEARING - SOLID WASTE RECYCLING RATE INCREASE (CURBSIDE Motion by Councilor Fessler, seconded by Councilor Hawley, to continue the Public Hearing to May 24, 1994. Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present (,Mayor Schwab and Councilors Fessler, Hawley, Hunt, and Schwartz voted "yes.") COLLECTION OF YARD DEBRIS WASTE) a. Public hearing was opened. b. Declarations or challenges: Councilor Schwartz advised he had participated in several discussions with people on this issue. He also advised that there were several letters in the Council packet from residents on this agenda item. Mayor Schwab said he also had had discussions about this issue. He clarified that this was a legislative public hearing and as such, prior Council discussion and review of information would not present a problem for a Council hearing on the issue. C. Management Analyst Edin introduced the agenda item and summarized the elements of the staff report, including the process used for gathering public input to date. Consultant Rich McConaghy reviewed several overhead slides, which included the following information: CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL '12,1994 - PACE 3 • Presentation overview • Yard debris options „ Comparative benefits • Relative monthly costs • Yard debris recommendations Cost control opportunities • Scrap paper opportunities • Scrap paper considerations • Individual exemption use • Recommended class exemption (Copies of the proser-daiion aniatedalusmu by ~u~ esuutxi wwvV: o~a~r ey are vn file with the Council packet material). In response to a question by Mayor Schwab, the consultant advised the haulers would not receive enough money from the sale of scrap material to cover the cost. The scrap paper program would represent a fee increase of approximately 50 cents a month to customers. dlfith regard to yard debris, special trucks would be needed. The consultant explained the City sets the rates and these rates are reviewed annually to determine whether they should be adjusted. Councilor Hunt noted the prices the haulers can get for recyclables are erratic. For example, at one time milk jugs looked as if they would be profitable, and then were not. He also noted the price of newspaper print fluctuates. The consultant said the scrap paper market was very good because a Springfield, Oregon operation will be buying more scrap paper than can be collected in the adjacent region. In further discussions with Councilor Hunt, the consultant advised the rate assumptions were based on going to a fully automated solid waste curbside retrieval system. This had been taken as a policy direction of City Council at a previous meeting on this issue. Councilor Fessler referred to options available for customers to have control over some of their costs if they found they were able to reduce their non-recyclable trash and then utilize the on-call service. Management Analyst Edin reviewed some of the discussions that had been held with citizens with regard to their concerns. An exemption program was reviewed. She noted there would be a class exemption recommended for homeowners associations who have limited need and provide maintenance for their grounds. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 12, 1594 - PAGE 4 Ms. Edin described some of the elements that wouid be necessary for the class exemption for homeowner associations. Such exemption would require a vote of the homeowner association and a demonstration that someone would be providing service for fifteen or more homes within the association area before they would be able to vote for the exemption. Based on the assumptions made and with HLA's experience, City staff felt comfortable with the cost assumptions presented in the staff report. d. Public Testimony: Jerry Ott, -9055 SW Edgewood, Tigard, Oregon, testified he was opposed to the proposal because it did not n ifr9e for an ,sxo i iWt1o1 f -F those homeowners who compost and re-use their own yard debris. He noted the program does not promote home composting and is therefore flawed. Mr. Ott recommended the program should promote. "true recycling" and that home composters be allowed an exemption. Bob Parsons, 10040 SW Century Oak Drive, Tigard, Oregon, Treasurer of the Board of Directors of the Summerfield Civic Association. (Mr. Parsons' entire written text of testimony has been filed with the Council meeting material). Mr. Parsons described the Summerfieid Civic Association which was comprised of 391 units. In addition, the retirement community has an apartment complex of 175 units, and an assisted living facility of 157 units. He advised that all the town house and condo associations have contracts with landscaping companies to take care of the year-round yard maintenance. The contractor hauls off yard debris to an approved collection station. Mr. Parsons advised Summerfield was very supportive about the class exemption offered for homeowner associations. Mr. Parsons advised everyone was interested and willing to recycle all of their refuse in an effort to conserve the landfills "just give us a feasible and workable opportunity to do so." Cece Dispenza, 114`:0 SW Downs Court, Tigard, Oregon, noted the information given by staff and the consultant was clear and concise. She advised she was in favor of the bi-weekly yard debris pickup, and noted the majority of people in the City of Tigard would use the service. She advised the yard debris program would make it possible for a trer:nendeus amount o1 material to be removed from the waste stream. Council meeting recessed at 9:10 p.m. Council meeting reconvened at 9:32 p.m. Mr. Merle Pugh, 15635 SW Old Orchard Place, Tigard, Oregon (Mr. Pugh signed in to testify, but had left the meeting). CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 12, 19YE 1, - PAGE 5 Merrill Breshears, 15100 SW 88th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon. Mr. Breshears expressed concerns over the additional costs to him. He noted he composted and chipped his yard debris and did not avail himself to many other recycling opportunities, because he recycled on his own. There was brief review of some of the rate options. Mayor Schwab noted there may be options for Mr. Breshears to save costs, and recommended thaft he contact Ms. Edin to determine what would be the most cost effective option for him. e. council questions: Mayor Schwab questioned the 120 gallons of yard debris collected every month. He especially questioned the rationale for the winter months. The consultant responded it had been Portland's experience that the start and stop of yard debris pickup was not as effective, and there was quite a bit of umissed diversion.u (That is, there was a significant amount of yard debris which would not be pulled from the waste stream if a seasonal pickup was used). The bi-weekly, monthly program appeared to be the most cost effective from the hauler's perspective, inasmuch as the investment in trucks must be made, regardless of the frequency of pickup. If the City opted to go to a monthly pickup only, then a depot system would also be required. In response to questions from Councilor Schwartz with regard to large amounts of yard debris, such as tree limbs, the consultant advised that a larger bin service is available. Councilor Schwartz asked for clarification of what other cities were doing besides the City of Portland. The consultant explained what had been the experience of other cities, and referred to a matrix. (see Council packet material, page 31). There was discussion regarding home composting and what incentives would be provided for people who do home composting at the present time. The consultant advised that customers would receive a home composting bin from their hauler. Councilor Hawley questioned wl-,at incentives could be offered to encourage people to compost. Torn Miller, owner of Miller's Sanitary Service, clarified the rates were calculated to factor in the fact that approximately .4.0% of the people would not use the yard debris program. The $2.80 rate was based on the assumption that 60% of the customers would use the yard debris service that was funded by 100% of the customers. if an exemption for home composting was put into force, the rates would increase. f. Public hearing closed. CrrY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 12,'1994 - PAGE 6 g. Council Consideration: Councilor Schwartz advised he could not support the proposal as presented. He noted he felt there was a need to take people who compost their material into consideration in some way. He said he did not have a suggestion as to what could be done, but would recommend that an option be put together for costs for an on-call system for yard debris. Councilor Hawley advised she supported the recommendation but would like to see an amendment for individual exemptions. She was concerned about incentives for people who were taking care of their disposables through composting. She said that the data (from other cities' experience). indicated that only 10% of the customers would request an individual exemption. Councilor Hunt supported the staff and consultant recommendation. He noted he probably would not use the yard debris pickup more than approximately three times a year; however, he was against an exemption plan because it would be "a can of worms." He further explained that an exemption program would require administration and possibly additional staff to monitor. He also noted that with the addition of being able to remove scrap paper from the garbage, this would take care of enough of the waste so many people could use a smaller can and save costs. Councilor Fessier noted that in listening to the remarks of other Councilors, it appeared that all five Councilors would not use the yard debris service because they were already taking care of this waste. However, she also noted the need to make this service affordable. She said she supported the staff recommendation, and also supported the class exemption as proposed. She urged promotion of the program in order for it to be successful. Mayor Schwab said he, too, supported the program as presented by staff and the consultant. As part of the reason for his decision, he noted that if there were individual exemptions the cost would rise. He pointed out that according to estimates, the majority of the households in Tigard would use the service. h. Motion by Councilor Hawley to direct staff to come back on April 26 with information to discuss individual exemption options. The motion died for lack of a second. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 12, 1994 - PAGE 7 i. Motion by Councilor Hawley, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to direct staff to prepare the proper legislation to adopt Option A as proposed by staff and HLA, for Council consideration at the April 26, 1994 Council meeting. Motion was adopted by a majority vote of Council - 4 to 1 (Mayor Schwab, Councilors Fessler. HaMay, and Hunt voted yes"; Councilor Schwartz voted "no.") 7a. COUNCIL REVIEW: CONSENT AGENDA ITE 4.3 - APPROVE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE INTERGOVERNMENTAL FEE AGREEMENT. Councilor Hunt requested a clarficeion of wo. ding within the agreement which gave hire concern that the City may be losing control over where the TIF dollars would be spent. City Administrator Reilly noted the language reflects current practice: City TIF dollars are used for the County road system. The City participates in discussions to determine how the dollars are to be spent. Mr. Reilly advised the City would have less influence over TIF funding expenditures if Council did not adopt the proposed resolution. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Hawley, to spprove Resolution No. 94-18: A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR TO SIGN A TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT" WITH WASHINGTON COUNTY. Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Schwab, Councilors Fessler, Hawley, Hunt, and Schwartz voted "yes.") 8. Executive Session: Cancelled. (Note: An Executive Session was held during the Study Meeting portion of the agenda.) 9. Af3JOURNMENT: 10:35 p.m. Attest: Catherine Wheatley, City Reco Ier Ma or, City of Tigard oat g j& o=041P-94 G CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 12, 1994 - PAGE 8 i a,. a ~.O a~ S,j e.d ' U C•i ~ .b{T~ ~ Ci• - U O 2 2 'CA ca > ~ nCS D O Q 3 c C co H "ro~ `cal a H - W c7, p; ,c c t rn v tx. o s U J a C p p'~ 7 C Lr- Lo c? acv 'a ~U do y ch 6i.6 . U) N ~pqq ~lb M q o W Z° ( C Om m a 0 °f 0 G m O_ 4. 7 Co!) © 0 - C O Ct) LU Z V z 0 4" 0 eY cmm . 0 iC ) cv le m u > O M a > N CQ m H I4 E 0 44 O 41 r-1 (T .rl M •rl U '-I H ® ® z 0 J m M A~ © N Z IL Ox LU OU. LL Oy ~ Pz aO Cn U Q Cn O r C l a rc CD w C W m a n O tor C13 a aUH m a 0 U ® V O am~a E C) =(D= 3 :c Q)y a~ CL- :,oOCL TO a. O m O ~ 0 CO o O n QDU at 0 r ® c C .0000 ® c s A V G 07 US a X X c c O n) w w a ID m .2) s O. r» a e c $ 0 O s c p w O O y o ~ e U 7 : a w V CL c a ~ v r- r-4 rn Z N ~ fig 0 t[) tp CAWN¢ ~c 'ci J mUZ2 ¢ J Z a UQjOW Z rL 'LL 0 C> O =Min Z U .L O U r r-1 4.4 O ru 4-3 ua O E 0 c 3 co a c in a O) a 0 co c O a! O Q v; m SL w c . rb ~ E E ®I qlw 0 C) LO co r H Ei V 0-5 J Z 6 i) L! U3 z 0 $ o ~ ~ m m su o ~ 00 CD 7ZL =z ® F- o aW 13 13 Q O Z M %0) VAJ Cl) Q Q M a r N rJ N Id r--I O t .7cu bl) . O 4-4 ~ O O Ln p 4-) rN-I ~ -r-i M -r•i ®U r-1®E e a c.. 0 ell O r CD p - 'ca CC" C', a ub, ' .w " t T2 W U a u GA n : Ry `J ' aC Gq U cn ca J W 2 C w a° Cl) C o V = =1 cc ,C~w=F„ •y''S" K - w O U ~p S3.- ¢ JZY 110 ~2 c> "tl ° VA 5 csH, e'.o R O vv~ v ° NP o o re a~ ° WCe7U:-- 04JI 0 H •ca AO r/i _ z O U m M CL LL O Q Q ci z O~ to Q O® LL O~: cfZ ~U N d) w > T 'o (T A c m O EE- fm A!-' c)•v to E-d (a 9) (D ~w p r ~®w'~p E w 0 n®. ®U V co Va.aj ~'V C t p C C m ~Y) C 0 0)) -a 0 L7 9 :140) 0 ME = oLC•N O U v ca0~ 0 0) 0) C o)a~0)a m ®C I :aa cc a w C a ® O7 t cc vC a ~ COL N a m fD C c w o `v M .o (D CD L C. W . G L U r C O V) O v ~ M CL e ao a~ w C 0 0 CD L_ .E m U co r- 0. 0 r--I U4 O E 9 m C OD L U co m Z3 Z3 C M W I-- .0 E U 1% ~ ~ a e"1°Ca! 4If'9--- _ \lII'S AGENDA . . t A~7~'idD1.JPSs,1"1-cr~r=w.:i. v - ..Sv..Tv.OR...D AT li~„1~1lam.',1~'~4.. _ (Limited to 2 minutes or less, please) Please sign on the appropriate sheet for listed agenda items. The Council wishes to hear from you on other issues not on the agenda, but asks that you first try to resolve your concerns through staff. Please contact the City Administrator prior to the start of the meeting. Thank you. STAFF NAME & ADDRESS TOPIC CONTACTED 1342o S, 4J, J-Ittany 130'- CUlKfeHaKe c 2, 44--igUal"s og n o v a tors.s t Depending on the number of person wishing to testify, the Char of the-Council may limit the amount f time each person has to speak. We ask you to limit your oral comments to 3 - 5 minutes. The Chair may further limit time If necessary. Written comments are always appreciated by the Council to supplement oral testimony. PUBLIC HEARING s PACIFIC RIDGE SUBDIVISION Y F] DA471 F- -1., F, t. J A _{%Q.al PLEASE SIGN IN TO TESTIFY ON THE ATTACHED SHEETS ~ i;J NIA Y~YQ'1 '~•w, u.+4' '.:4b '£o~e dlT7 7 ~ 6~~~■ s~v PLEASE PIRINT Proponent - (Speaking In Favor) Opponent - (Speaking Against) ame blame Address Address ® Name Address AaaresS Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address Name ,me rasa ress Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address Name EI Name Address Address Name Name ress ress Name Name Address Address L • M~i E M b R A N D U M 6 0 0 N O R T N E A S T G R A N D AVENUE P O R T L A N D. O R E G O N 9 7 2 3 7 t 7 T E L 5 0 3 7 9 7 1 7 0 0 F A X 5 0 3 7 0 7 1 7 0 7 by c.~4~r METRO 4" $_.&I fi~l Lf To: MPAC/JPACT From: John Fregonese, Growth Management Manager,11 V Date: April 1, 1994 Subject: Region 2040 Decision Resolution "sAJ Attached is a memo and draft resolution from Larry Shaw, Senior Assistant Counsel, regarding the Region 2040 growth concept recommendation. The memo and draft resolution will be considered by the Metro Council and JPACT and MPAC. Review and recommendations are being sought. Please feel free to call me at 797-1738 or Larry Shaw at 797-1532 should you -have questions. I To: Metro Council From: Larry Suw4,~`Senior Assistant Counsel Regarding: 2040 DECISION RESOLUTION Our file: 7.§2.DD Introduction D U At the -last Council retreat, the Council discussed a series of optional 2040 decision packages, each progressively more inclusive and comprehensive. This draft resolution incorporates both the Council preference for "Option #4," the most comprehensive package and the Planning D.apartment's recommended steps for implementation. The draft resolution is intended for action at the April 7 Planning Committee meeting and, possibly, review at a joint MPAC/JPACT meeting April 6. Option #4 Elements • 1. Metro Council adoption of a - "preferred alternative" urban fon a concept illustrated with a map. This conceptual urban form is the basis for upcoming implementation actions such as urban-reserves; 1JC3B•review,':and the-TransgortadowSystem.Plan MP): -11iis is a :.ponc pt,ceantingeart on further; orlt, :not an le laad:t►se•decision. s 2. Metro Conte adoption:of a work plan leading jto l o -adoptionvi some Charter- mandatsd regional,; framework; plan: componentssuch as urban reserves; " UTGB, hoWi..... Oensi~a. Grees► in •.1995: ^ ra y g Spam 3.-~ a..i, 1:1....)Y •."•C vi.~Y :Y-. tau. ;'.l {.t 3. Metro Council adoption of prelintinary_._20l popuftfion and :employment.,kwwth allocations from 2040-marts-as the basis for.discusdon of the 1995 UGB and 71SP. 4. Metro Council adoption of a .range of. 50-year population and employment growth allocations, for xef nementan'development:oftheTegional1ramewo plaii } M Metro Council March 15, 1994 Page 3 form and a map, 1995 work plan, preliminary 2015 growth allocations, 50-year ranges of growth allocation, and a regional framework plan implementation strategy. '1 he resolution would include a referral to MPAC of any draft functional plan concepts or provisions the Council deems necessary. At or near adoption of the 2040 resolution, an ordinance of RUGGO amendments reflecting the preferred urban form would be adopted. ds 1729 s • BEFORE THE METRO COUNCIL [D Jt U a U FOR THE PURPOSE OF DESCRIBING ) RESOLUTION NO. 94-1930 HiTENDED METRO ACTION ON ) FINAL REGION 2040 REPORTS ) Introduced by Rena Cusma, AND COMIM[ENTS ) Executive Officer ) WHEREAS, Metro adopted land use regional goals and objectives called Regional Urban Growth Goals and Objectives (RUGGO) in September 1911 which are required by state law;.and WHEREAS, During the development of RUGGO, there was widespread interest in a long-range, 50-year view of regional growth which leads to Metro's Region 2040 planning program; and WHEREAS, State law requires several significant 20-year regional land use decisions in 1995 that will be affected by identifying the region's long-term planning direction; and WHEREAS,. The Metro Council intends to identify the region's long-term planning direction in 1994 to enable Metro to complete specific complex planning tasks in 1995 a€er extensive public involvement and full participation of its local government partners; and WHEREAS, Final 2040.reports and problem-solving responses to the research are anticipated in August 1994• when the Metro Council anticipates beginning its deliberations; now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED, 1. That the Metro Council shall review 2040 reports and receive comments and x eadatiosis =from rthe' Shc and MPAC ah the prefe ncd conceptual appal to they form of the Metro region in 2040 including, but not limited to, growth treads (up or out, or more), Urban Growth Boundary (UCB) and land supply, travel congestion, urban cente€ s, urban design, intensity of c1m d1opment, satellite cities, neighbmhooft and greenbelts. 2. , That the Metrco Council intends to act ~m dal 2040 iepoM and public and MPAC coan tsadopting a lutioa -ideznfifyift the regioWs long-term planning direction containing .the following: Page 1 = Resolution No. 94-19360 Co u n ti l Aq e nd a 1-fen n 4+ D- PROCLAMATIO14 FAIR HOUSING MONTH WHEREAS, housing discrimination occurs when one is prevented from living In a house or apartment of his/her choice due to race, color, religion, national origin, sex, familial status, marital status, or physical or mental handicap; and WHEREAS, under either federal fair housing laws or Oregon civil rights statutes these forms of discrimination are illegal; and WHEREAS, the month of April marks the 26th anniversary of Title VIII of the Federal Civil Rights Act. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED WHAT I, Mayor Jack Schwab, of City of Tigard, hereby proclaim April 1994 as FAIR HOUSING MONTH in City of Tigard, Washington County, Oregon, and encourage all citizens to join in this observance and further urge that they take increased notice of the housing conditions in their communities and join in this effort to promote fair housing for all. Dated this day of , 1994. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the City of Tigard to be affixed. Jack Schwab, Mayor City of Tigard Attest: City Recorder ialm w &am 0 Council Agenda Item 441,2. MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Patrick J. Reilly, City Administrator DATy: April 4, 1994 SUBJECT: COUNCIL CALENDAR, April, 1994 - June, 1994 official Council meetings are marked with an asterisk If generally OK, we can proceed and make specific adjustments in the Monthly Council Calendars. ,April '94 vvuaaCi.L rl= L.iaay (64.30 p.m.) Study Session Business meeting * 19 Tues Council Study Meeting (6:30 p.m.) 21 Thurs Volunteer Dinner (6 p.m.) Tigard Christian Church * 26 Tues Council Meeting (6:30 p.m.) Study Session Business Meeting * 10 Tues Council Meeting (6:30 p.m.) Study Session Business Meeting *7 Tues Council`Study Meeting (6:30 p.m.) ELECTION DAY * 24 Tues Council Meeting (6:30 p.m.) Study Session Business Meeting 30 Mon Memorial Day Holiday - City Offices Closed June * 14 Tues Council Meeting (6:30 p.m.) Study Session Business Meeting * 21 Tues Council Study Meeting (6:30 p.m.) * 28 Tues Council Meeting (6:30 p.m.) Study Session Business Meeting h:\login\cathy\cccal ki Is ~J, i AGENDA ITEM # `t, For Agenda of -April 12, 1994 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA PREPARED BY: R. Wool, DEPT HEAD OK CI INFORMATION SUMMARY A city may administer the Washington County Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) ordinance if the city agrees to certain conditions outlined in the ordinance. By Resolution No. 90-65, the City agreed to administer the TIF ordinance in Tigard. Adoption of the resolution has allowed the City to collect the TIF payments from developers and to retain 1000 of the funds for expenditure on eligible projects in the City. W a esolution No. 90-65 provided that the City would cooperate with the County nd other cities to adopt intergovernmental agreements setting forth more complete administrative and project funding procedures to ensure uniform and fair application of the TIF. The intergovernmental agreement has now been prepared by the County, working with the cities through the Washington County Transportation Coordinating Committee. A copy of the agreement is attached. Exhibit A to the agreement is a manual detailing the processes and forms to be used in collecting and expending TIF funds. Copies of the manual are available in the Engineering and Building offices of the City. The attached resolution will allow the City Administrator to sign the agreement. The County ordinance assigns certain administrative functions to the "Director". Cities that opt to administer the TIF ordinance need to designate a TIF Director. The resolution would allow the City Administrator to designate the TIF Director for Tigard. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED The City could cease administration of the TIF upon 90 days notice to the County. The County would then collect TIF on development within the City and the County would determine the projects to be funded with TIF revenues. The funds-would- be spent only on-County -roads. FISCAL NOTES ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall the Council approve the traffic impact fee intergovernmental agreement? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval of the attached resolution authorizing the City Administrator to sign the agreement and designating the TIF Director for the City. E= b AGENDA ITEM # U,I For Agenda of LJ) I a I G CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Lease Agreement with ' and Youth Servic( PR ~ A ~L~T TAP T T 9. '~'~+'.Pu-t-1* TIi1-L^ A -E'1C7 L' 1 L914L' L 37 F. Al. Woerts .LJY ViKh--f..41V V1TY6111A Three-year lease agreement with Tigard Youth Services (TYS). STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council authorize entering into the agreement. INFORMATION SUMMARY Tigard Youth Services provides teen parent, school retention, and family counseling programs for youth residing in the Tigard area. Since 1986 TYS has occupied the city-owned, single family house located at the corner of Burnham and Ash. The lease agreement allowing TYS to use the building expired in 1987. The 'Jity 'as applied for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to upgrade and expand the building. Proposed improvements include the addition of a meeting roam and child day care room, upgrading the electrical system, interior and exterior painting, handicapped access modifications, and installation of a children's play area. In order to qualify for CDBG funding, a long-term lease agreement between the city and the service provider is required. The attached three-year, renewable lease agreement is intended to satisfy this requirement. A representative of TYS will be available at the meeting to answer any questions regarding the services they provide or the proposed improvements to the building. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Not to authorize entering into the agreement. FISCAL NOTES The rental fee is $1.00 for the whole three-year period. The Council previously authorized the submittal of a grant application for $58,608 in CDBG funds. The application included a proposed city cash contribution of $9,352. discussion on education of the public and the, need to direct come of the public's influence and concerns to the County for assistance and recognition of problem areas. • Review of regional traffic issues including the status of the Western Bypass, higher densities, and increased traffic. Tile Cities of Tigard and Beaverton have been working on a "letter of. understanding" to address residents' concerns that Walnut and Murray could become an alternative to the Western Bypass. Beaverton staff has no problem with the draft document; the County,has not yet responded. • Review of problems on Bull Mountain Road and the need to alleviate increasing transportation pressures. • Mayor acknowledged new appointments to the TTAC were needed; a meeting to review applications will be scheduled soon. • There was discussion on the balance needed between land use densities and transportation solutions offered. Jim Castile services on both the TTAC and the Planning Commission. This is helpful to the TTAC to gain a broader view of the issues. • There was brief discussion on the Oregon Department of Transportation's proposal for improving Highway 99. It was noted that other groups in the community have formed to review this iscue. One of the committees is associated with the Chamber of Commerce. Council meeting recessed at 7:55 p.m. Council meeting reconvened at 8:10 p.m. 3. REVIEW OF CITY LFASES ,Tigg=i Cam~ii unfit/ Youth Services Lease - City Administrator advised that Council direction would be necessary on the policy issues concerning the City's relationship with the TCYS organization. TCYS is now leasing space from the City at a nominal fee. The building is beginning to deteriorate. Council discussed the fact that there has been no recent contact from TCYS advising the City of their activity as had been done in the past. Council consensus was that they would like to hear about the program and determine if it was of benefit to Tigard residents. 0 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 16, 1991 -PAGE 2 ..a '-The :Council will review this lease, as part of the budgeting. process f or "the" next°'. f iscal"`year . Chamber of Commerce Lease The City leases a portion of a building located on Main Street to the Chamber of Commerce. Presently, a group is requesting that the building be placed on a historic preservation list. Staff will prepare more information for Council review of this issue at a later date. Council discussed the Chamber of Commerce lease and related issues of whether the City should continue to own the building or whether the Chamber should own the building. Also to be considered is if the current use is the best option for the City of Tigard. S. Carolyn Long, Chamber Director, was present and explained that the Chamber currently sublets a portion of the space to a private individual. This individual also helps Chamber staff by occasionally helping persons who stop by the office and answers the phone when other staff is not there. She advised that other cities help out their Chambers of Commerce because it is seen as a mutual advantage. Consensus of Council was to review the lease at a later time. Staff will prepare information regarding City/Chamber relationships; i.e., what type of assistance do other cities offer? 4. DISCUSSION ON UTILITY AND FRANCHISE (U & F) COM41TTEiE Administrative Services Risk Manager Loreen Edin (staff liaison to the U & F Committee) reviewed some issues: Role of Committee the Committee does not deal with policy issues. If a policy question comes up, it is referred to the City Council. Legal counsel, from the City Attorney's office, is sought when needed. • Issues for the U & F Committee will probably be controversial in the near future. These issues include franchise agreements, fees/rates, and related solid waste issues being reviewed at both the local and regional levels. • Staff recommends that the Committee remain advisory with critical issues forwarded to the Council for review. The U & F has haulers as ex-officio members. Council discussed the importance of keeping the Committee impartial and not take on the appearance of being "pro- CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 16, 1991 - PAGE 3 q/a L Iq2_ Council agreed to accept the matrix, noting they would have opportunity to review bid awards for individual projects. Councilor Johnson expressed disagreement with the matrix due to her concern about Fanno Creek Park improvement cutbacks which were made in order to proceed with improvements to other parks. Council discussed Fanno Creek Park and recognized it as an important resource in the park system and the downtown area. • Future Focus: Council and Park Board discussed future focus for the Board. Possibilities discussed included: > book at park needs for the Bull Mountain and/or Triangle areas. Park Board may want to look at alternatives and needs for developing areas within Tigard's Urban Growth Boundary. > Fanno Creek Park - land acquisition. > Meetings with NPO's/CPO's to determine perspectives on priorities. > Bike trails - update the map to determine if certain projects could be implemented to fill in some gaps. > Explore working with Tualatin to connect park systems with bridge over Tualatin River. > Review the parking situation at Summerlake Park. > Recreation - what should the City's role be. There was lengthy discussion on this issue. Mayor advised he was concerned whether the majority of taxpayers desired more expenditure in development of recreational programs. Mayor advised he supported efforts, such as a questionnaire, to determine whether this is a priority for Tigard residents. 3. cv~ . ~.vav..s.x~nv,~{yv carardaca a.rsar.~ sa Council reviewed a preliminary estimate of expenses to upgrade and maintain the TCYS (Burnham Street) and Chamber of Commerce (Main Street) buildings which are owned by the City of Tigard. After discussion, Council consensus was to continue the leases with TCYS and the Chamber of Commerce for the city-owned buildings they now occupy for at least the next year. Staff will supply the Council with information in June concerning costs to upgrade the buildings to meet ADA requirements and maintenance needs and investigating availability of CDBG money for the TCYS building. 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA Adft • James Drake, 10480 S.W. Highland Drive, Tigard, OR 97224 requested to testify before Council deliberation of item 7.1 (Parking Restriction Ordinance - Highland Drive) Terry Tollen, 245 S.W. 2nd Street, Sherwood, OR requesta%d an out-of-sequence consideration of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for zoning of property be owns in the Tigard Triangle area. Mayor and City Administrator advised this area is currently being reviewed by the City; in fact, Council recently authorized a consultant agreement for development of a Tigard Triangle Master Plan. Mr. Tollen was advised to contact the Community Development Director to talk about rezoning. Jane Miller, 10920 S.W. Highland Drive, Tigard, OR 97224, noted cars parked with "For Sale" signs on or near the Town Square property as well as a number of sandwich board signs. She asked whether this was in violation of the sign ordinance. Staff will review and report findings to Council and also contact Ms. Miller. • Morey Williams, 10225 S.W. Highland Drive, Tigard, OR 97224 requested to testify before Council on deliberation of Item 7.1 (Parking Restriction Ordinance - Highland Drive) 3. CgMENT Motion by Councilor Schwartz, seconded by Councilor Johnson, to approve the following Consent Agenda items: 3.1 Approve Council Minutes: July 9, 16, and 23, 1991 3.2 Receive and File: Council Calendar 3.3 Approve Chamber of Commerce Lease and Authorize the Mayor to sign 3.4 Authorize City Administrator to enter into agreement with James M. Montgomery Consulting Engineers for water systems study. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. 4. EM Ur, MMUNG - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 91-0002 A request by NPO #6 to amend the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map by designating new minor collector roadways in the Little Bull Mountain area. SW 109th Avenue would be extended as a minor collector from its current terminus south of Murdock Street; the extension would curve across the south slope of Little Bull Mountain, crossing Naeve Street west of The Fountains condominiums and meeting Pacific CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 13, 1991 - PAGE 3 AGENDA ITEM # 4,-5-a. For Agenda of April 12, 1994 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY (Local Contract Review Board) ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Authorization to,_advertise for bids for t PREPARED BY: Greg Berry DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall the LCRB authorize advertisement for bids for the Lakeside Drive Storm Sewer Replacement Project? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Authorize the City Engineer to advertise for bids for the Lakeside Drive Storm Sewer Replacement Project. 41 INFORMAT_ION SUMMARY In accordance with the City's purchasing rules, authorization is requested to advertise for construction bids for the Lakeside Drive Storm Sewer Replacement Capital Improvement Project. The purpose of this project is to replace a damaged storm drain from 9449 to 9695 Lakeside Drive. Video inspection of the line has revealed line breaks and crushed pipe that prevents proper maintenance and could cause flooding. After construction bids are received, LCRB review will again be required prior to awarding a contract for the project. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED FISCAL-NOTES This project is part of the 1993-94 Capital Improvement Program approved by Council on July 13, 1993, with a budget of $25,000. dj/Lakeside.SS V AGENDA ITEM # L4, 5b. For Agenda of or /-2 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMRY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE SC A U PMEN PURCHASE PREPARED BY: ED WEGNER DEPT HEAD OIK CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE BEFORE THE CyuNCIL The issue before the LCRB is the approval of the purchase of Phase 2 SCADA equipment for monitoring the water system. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Award the bid to the lowest qualified bidder in the amount of $24,900.00 for the purchase of three RTU°s (Remote Transmitting Units). The qualified low bidder is Central Points Controls. INFORMATION SUMMARY Separate telephone quotes were received from two qualified vendors of the software. One vendor was the low bidder on Phase I of the SCADA System in fiscal year 1992-93. This purchase is part of the Phase II of a three year phased program to allow the staff to better manage the Water system. The last portion of the Phase II program will be presented to the LCRB for bid award on April 26, 1994. See attached memos for details on this system. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Award bid per staff recommendations. 2. Give further direction to staff. FISCAL NOTES The total bid of $24,900.00 is within the $80,000.00 budget for SCADA System and other related software. athy`agenda.ed InterOfI'ice Memo To: Ed Wegner Frown: Randy Volk Date: March 16, 1994 Subject: S.C.A.D.A. System Justification and authorization of a purchase order for Phase Two of the S.C.A.D.A. System As stated in my memo dated March 7, phase two of the SCADA system needs to have the work,:begin as soon as possible. Allowing time for the RTU's to be built in Louisiana by Aquatrol and the site preparation work that has to be done by the water department crews should start soon so as to have it near completion in this fiscal year. Inclosed are the two quotes one from Central Point Controls and the other from Electronics Technology Inc. As you can see Central Point's is $9,643.00 less than El- Tech's. Also at your request I did contact Advance Control Technology ( A.C.T. ) from Albany, Oregon. They were the other bidder on phase 1, and as expected they declined to quote on the Aquatrol equipment. I have contacted Gary Deadman with the City of Lake Oswego water plant where Central Point Control was the contractor that installed their SCADA system. They were very pleased with the work performed by Central Point. The Lake Oswego system has 17 Aquatrol RTU's in use. I have contacted Carl Puckett with the City of Salem water department. Central Point was the contractor to install their Aquatrol system. They presently have 29 Aquatrol RTUs in service and are in the process of getting 30 more. Steve Smith and Central Point was given a good reference by them. The City of Tualatin is right now working on their Aquatrol system. They have yet to receive any RTUs, from the factory, but have been working with Central Point Control and are happy with what they have done so far. Phase II of the SCADA system ( three RTU's ) Central Point Controls $24,900.00 Electronics Technology Inc. $34,543.00 February 17, 1994 Mr. Randy Volk Tigard Water District P.O. Box 230000 Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Mr. Volk: C N ITAL. POM i CGi -1 KOC I 0 SALES Thank you for your inquiry of our products and service. We are pleased to submit the attached quotation in response and look forward to doing business with you. If privileged with an order we will make every effort to insure your complete satisfaction. If there are any questions concerning the attached quote, or if I can be of any further assistance, please call. Sincerely, Steven E. Smith 6103 NE HWY 99, Suite 101 Vancouver, IVA 98663 Vancouver, OVA Portland. OR MW) 699ZM (503) E83-5652 C.omvanv Fax (206) 694-3827 P R O D U C T & S E R V I C E 0 f TO: TIGARD WATER DISTRICT P.O. BOX 230000 TIGARD, OR 97223 CENTRAL PONr COMMOIS At Q U 0 T A 'P I O N DATE: FEBRUARY 17, 1994 QUOTE #:CPC021794SS1 ATTN: MR. RANDY VOLK *ic'}:~c'~e*~F~le***is~1c****~Rtk*~It****4c9t**~ticSc*~itYCtiratyr*icic~ciricicic~iti~~c~~*:~:*•s.~,~~rlrir#* ITEM QTY DESCRIPTION PRICE #1 (1)EA RTU # 3 RESERVOIR / WELL SITE INSTALLATION, START-UP, TESTING, SOFTWARE CONFIGURATION REQUIRED, AND TRAINING (IF REQUIRED) FOR A W1500 SMART AQUATROL RTU (AS SUPPLIED ON ORIGINAL PROJECT). BRISTOL (2 EA) MODEL 2508 LEVEL TRANSMITTERS TO BE TAPPED OFF THE LINES FROM RESERVOIRS. LOCAL LCD OR DIGITAL LEVEL DISPLAYS. RTU MOUNTED INSIDE PUMP HOUSE, TIGARD WATER DISTRICT TO PROVIDE CONDUIT FROM LEVEL TRANSMITTERS TO PUMP "HOUSE, WIRE AND WIRE INSTALLATION BY CENTRAL POINT CONTROLS. $9,710.00 #2 (1) EA RTU # 6 - BRADLEY CORNER: INSTALLATION, START-UP, TESTING, SOFTWARE CONFIGURATION REQUIRED, AND TRAINING (IF REQUIRED) FOR A W1500 SMART AQUATROL RTU (AS SUPPLIED ON ORIGINAL PROJECT). AGM MODULE (1 EA)'TO CONVERT. PULSES FROM ROCKWELL FLOWMETER TO A 4-20 MA SIGNAL INTO THE RTU. (PORTLAND PIT). $7,380.00 6108 NE IM 99, Suite 101 Vancouver, IVA 98663 Vancouver, WA Portlamd, OR (?A6) 699-343'8 (503) 283-5652 Comvanv Fax .(206) 694-3827 0 CENTRAL POINT CONTROLS M1 v scomn~ MAM -404- 1 #3 (1)EA RTU # 7 - TIEDEMAN PIT: INSTALLATION, START-UP, TESTING, SOFTWARE CONFIGURATION REQUIRED,- W1500 SMART AQUATROL RTU (AS SUPPLIED ON ORIGINAL PROJECT). BRISTOL PRESSURE TRANSMITTERS (2EA) 0-300 PSI. TIGARD WATER DISTRICT TO PROVIDE TELEPHONE AND POWER TO RTU MOUNTING LOCATION (EXISTING: LOCATED ACROSS THE STREET FROM SITE). $7,810.00 This quotation is firm for acceptance within 90 days hereof unless sooner terminated by notice to buyer. FOB: factory CENTRAL P NT CONTROLS, INC. TERMS: Net 30 days Bu: 5 M• 6108 NR IM 99, Suite 101 Vancouver, ZVA 98565 Vancouver, WA Portland, OR (206) 699-5438 (503) 283-5659 Caanmanv Fax (ZO6) 694 3 827 w ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY, INC. P.O. Pox 17669 2221 N. Argyle St. Portland, OR 97217 (503) 283-0610 FAX (503) 27.3-1621 Ask ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC CONTROLS FOR INDUSTRIAL & UrILrrY CONTROL SYSTEMS DESIGN - MANUFACTURE - SERVICE February 28, 1994 Tigard Water District P.O. Box 230000 Tigard, Or 97223 Attention: Mr. Randy Volk Dear Randy: YJ We are pleased to offer the following quotes: RE: Additional BTU's and Equipment Quote #Q94007 We will install a Aquatrol designed and built RTU at this site that is similar to your other RTU's. All new equipment will be mounted inside the Portland pit. We will provide all engineering and software changes to the main prosoft system that are necessary to add this additional RTU into the system. We will also add the LINC receiver equipment into the Aquatrol cabinet. Price: S 7,418.00 We will transmit the necessary data to/from this site to RTU #6 over a dedicated phone line. We will include the following equipment: 1. A LINC 8-channel data receiver/transmitter 2. 2 new Bristol 0-300 psi pressure sensors 3. Nema 4 enclosure to house electronics 4. Relays necessary for pressure valve. 5. Completely engineered and installed. H Tigard to provide 2 new conduits from the pole across the street into this vault. One for telephone and the other for power. All equipment on the existing pole will be abandoned. Tigard to arrange for a phone line from site #6 to site #7. Tigard to supply necessary safety equipment for installation of this equipment. We will probe a telephone room.. Ve Aquatrol cards to 1 RTU. We will also it. Dialog U1traPlus 8-channej odialer to be mounted ' your office e will also mount your spare RTU side a box wit the necessary ro ' e battery backup to the unit. This unit ins lied as a office )roRr a Prosoft software to use this autodialer a n-alarms to 0 RJU #3_ Price: $13,312.50 We will install a Aquatrol designed and built RTU at this site that is similar to your other BTU's. All new equipment will be mounted inside the Pump house. We will provide all engineering and software. changes to the main prosoft system that are necessary to add this additional RTU into the system. We will also provide a new sensor for the reservoir level. Tigard is to provide any necessary conduits between the pump house and field sensors. El-Tek will provide all wire and necessary installation work. We will provide detailed engineering data and cut sheets after you decide which equipment you want. Please call if you have questions. oiuCerviy, Elect *cs Technol gy, c. Larry elenius Principle Electrical Engineer I ,Y MAR-17-1994 09:57 FROM ACT !Nr- F- ?R!Y: OUR TO iS.azc~oin71 P.'.1'i CA)=61 TedWa r, Inc. -Advanced 2MO V P.O. I 1148 Albany, Olegus 97321 Pipe:. (5m) 961--tom Fax: (SM) •967-4196 DA,IM. Much 17, 1994 (503) 639-14TH PLANDY `UGC CITY OF TIGARD - WATER DISTRICT n ICJ H-1-1 ROB RI S SAUS IUD BID DECISION COVER +0 TOTAL P.01 ~ U o e ~.r S U LnterO$'ffice Memo To: Ed Wegner WI? From: Randy Volk S fl Date: March 7, 1994 Subject: SCADA System SCADA (Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition) Phase 2 Summary FY1993-94 Budget Fiscal year 1393-94 Budget has $80,000 budgeted for the installation of SCADA Phase 2 under Major Field Equipment (see attached two quotes for the installation costs). Phase 2 is for the connections and installation of the computerized electronic monitoring equipment to the SCADA computer for three more sites in the water distribution system. Originally, we planned Phase 2 to fund four sites to be connected, but because of the time required to receive and install the RTU's (Remote Transmitting Unit), Phase 2 has been reduced by one monitoring site. These include two vaults which are our Portland Bull Run water source, and the #3 well and reservoir site. (We are removing the pump station at 132nd St. from this phase because it serves as only a back up to pump water to the FEgh Tor reservoir tanks. We intend to add it to Phase 3 in Fiscal Year 1994-95.) You will notice that the low bidder is not El-Tek, as in Phase 1. Central Point Controls is the local area representative for Aquatrol for sales and service. They were unable to bid on Phase 1 because they had committed themselves to other projects (City of Salem) and would not have been able to do the work within our time limit. It should be pointed out that the price difference between Central Point and El-Tek has to do with Central Point being the Aquatrol representative. As I explained in the memo about Phase 1, we, did experience some installation problems. I have been led to believe that Aquatrol, through Central Point Controls, is trying to make up for the lost time and trouble we experienced with price breaks to their dealer. In addition to the price break for the RTUs in Phase 2, Aquatrol is also offering a software package called Wonderware, at a low price through Central Point Controls. This program was not available at the time Phase 1 was put out to bid, but has become almost the industry standard since then. We will be able to upgrade to the Wonderware program at a reduced price, again through Aquatrol, because of the problems we have been through getting Phase 1 on line. The Wonderware software has a much better graphics package, but the real advantage is in the ability to generate reports through Excel on the computer. Also included with the Wonderware package is another computer with installed software. The second computer will also act as a CPU (central processing unit) with a Novell Ethernet link to our server. This will allow look-only access to those designated computers within the City. Advantages to obtaining Wonderware include: * Man-Machine Interface (UM) applications generator: Enhances supervisory control, monitoring and data acquisition applications. g:Randy\sadaino2 * Fully integrated development and run-time packages: Allows users to quickly and easily modify 40 applications. * IBIS Windows-based: for compatibility with all other Windows products and applications. Easy to learn and easy to use. * Object-oriented graphics: Quickly develop application.objects with full animation characteristics and store them in a library for reuse later. Duplicate objects need only have tag names changed to provide new functionality. * Dynamic Data Exchange (DDE): Share dynamic data between Intouch and other Windows applications. All Wonderware I/O servers are DDE applications providing data to Intouch as well ac other uli.^.dows applications such as Microsoft's EXCEL. * Because of Wonderware's relationship with N icrosoft and early involvement with the next generation of Windows products, Wonderware products will integrate perfectly with the latest Windows technology. Allows upgrading of software to match existing operation with cost savings compared to purchasing a whole new system at a later date. * Allows the user to design screens for monitoring, alarming, and reporting that more closely represent exactly what you would see in the field. 4) Attachments &Randylscadamo2 0 InterOftice Memo To: Ed Wegner From: Randy Volk Bate: March 4, 1994 Subject: SCADA System SCADA (Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition) Phase 1 Summary FY1992-93 Budget In 1992, the Tigard Water District Board of Commissioners approved replacing the 20-year old telemetry system (on/off switches and strip charts) with a modern, computerized electronic monitoring system. The FY1992-93 budget was approved with $175,000 to connect and monitor the entire Tigard Water District water distribution system of reservoirs, pump stations, wells, and water supply connections with Lake Oswego and Portland. In late 1992, Charles Arrera, PE, Arrera Engineering, was retained to prepare a site study and a request for proposal. Arrera Engineering had previously been retained by the City of Lake Oswego to complete a similar study for their filter plant system. The software selected by Lake Oswego was purchased from Aquatrol. Because we wanted to have a system compatible with Lake Oswego, so they could continue to monitor our water distribution system at nights and on weekends, we requested Aquatrol software and hardware for the Bonita Street pump sration site. Aquatrol hardware was later chosen for all sites. During FY1992-93, we purchased the computer and software for the entire Tigard water distribution system. However, because, there were too many sites to complete in one fiscal year, and the complexity of the installation, on the advice of Chuck Arrera, Water District staff decided to first bring on-line only the five most important sites in the system which were already being monitored with existing phone lines. The successful bid for installation was $92,554, submitted by El-Tek (Electronics Technology Inc.) and was awarded in February 1993. An additional $27,000 was spent by the Tigard Water District for site preparation, including: - 3/4", 1", and 2" conduit lines that were purchased from Frahler Electric and installed by Water District employees - Wiring at monitored sites for 110 volt outlets, lights, and junction boxes were installed by Frahler Electric. - Water District field crew employees also bored under High Tor Drive for cable crossing at High Tor reservoir site. Of the $175,000 originally budgeted, approximately $120,000 was spent in FY1992-93. There were some problems implementing phase 1, which have been resolved (see Attachment A for details). 40 SCADA System 03/04/94 Page 2 C3 FY1993-94 Bridget In the FYI 993-94 budget, we included 80,000 for installing connections and monitors for the remaining four sites of the SCADA System (phase 2). rbp~1 AGENDA ITEM # 5 For Agenda of April 12, 1994 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Reimbursement District No. 5 Hearin PREPARED BY: R. Woolev DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Hearing on the formation of Reimbursement District No. 5. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The City Attorney's office has recommended that the hearing be continued to a later date. See attached memorandum. INFORMATION SUMMARY On March 8, 1994, the Council approved Resolution No. 94-11 forming Reimbursement District No. 5. A copy of the resolution is attached. At the time that the resolution was passed, the Council directed that a formal hearing be scheduled. The hearing has been scheduled for the April '2th meeting. Notice of the hearing and a copy of Resolution No. 94-11 has een mailed to the owners of property within the reimbursement district. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Following the hearing, the Council could • By motion, reaffirm Resolution No. 94-11; or, Direct staff to prepare a resolution amending Resolution No. 94-11; or, Direct staff to prepare a resolution repealing Resolution Noe 94-11, thereby eliminating the reimbursement district. FISCAL NOTES Ww/petrie8 'OBONNELL RAMIS ET RL 503-243-2944 Apr 4,94 12:26 No.008 P.02/04 O'I)GNNELL, RAMIE, CREW & CORRIGAN ATA)MEYS AT LAW DALLOW J AUGHT HUIMING 1727 NX No" Strrrt Fortland, Orqun 97809 11IMP11ONEt (503) 222.4402 FAX; (S03) 243.2944 DATE: April 4, 1994 TO: Randy Wooley, City Engineer VIA EArmaxHiL€ FROM; Ty. K. Wyman, City Attorney's Office RE: bearing on sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 5 On March 31, 1994, our office received the attached letter from an attorney reprepenting the owners of Tax Lots 300, 400, and 500 in the above-referenced reimbursement district. Objections to establishment of the district were met to be heard on April 12, a date well within 60 days of the date: of establishment of the district. The Code gives affected persons 60 days from the date of establishment of the district to file a petition for hearing of such objections. This letter objects to the Council having spot the hearing withcut a petition, and calls for its postponement. In order to provide for a resolution of this issue, we are suggesting that the hearing called by the Council for April 12, 1994, be set over. In so doing, the City will assure itself that the hearing when held will not be subject to challenge. If you have any further questions on this matter, please feel Cree to contact me. TKW/jh Attachment (March 30 Letter from Jeffrey L. Kleinman) ct\otrc\tkw\tigvrtl\W Vvlry.n~rm JdM~ e • ODONNELL RAMIS ET AL 503-243-2944 Apr 4,94 12:27 No.008 P.03/04 O'DONNEL'L, RAMIS, CREW b CORRIGAN JEFFREY h KLEINMAN AzmarI" ♦z LAW Tas AxaASSADOR 1207 S.W. SIXTH Av"us PORTLAND. ORSOON 87204 Tsd spitC&I =3011 '=-0809 FAX (503) 2284529 March 30, 1994 MAR 31 9994 Timothy V. Ramie Attorney at Law 1727 NW Hoyt Street Portland, OR 97209 Re; City of Tigard Resolution No. 94°11, Establishing Sensta9~v g®wer Ia~simieurastn~n nd,atric No g Swear Tim: . I represent Anthony J. Maksym, M. H. Monson, and Steve wilmarth,-owners of Tax Lots 300, 400 and 500 in the above Reimbursement District. I am trying to come up to speed in this matter, and would request copios of the ralavant portions of both minutem and audio tapes of the Tigard City Council hearings conducted on February 8, February 22, and March S, 1994. Based upon the information available to me, I have a number of concerns about the proceedings to date with respect to the application or applications in question, and the hearing called by the City Council for April 12, 1394. The only issus I am prepared to address at this time is the scheduling of that hearing. Resolution No. 94-11 was adopted an March 8, 1994. TMC 913.08.020 gives affected persona G0 days from the date of adoption of the resolution to file a "petition or other legal action intended to contest the connection charge * * This would give potential appellants until may 9 to file the appropriate petition with the City. There is no provision whatso,~%,ver for the City commencing an "appeal" hearing of its own. On behalf of my clients, I would assert that the conduct of any ouch hearing would comprise an entirely ultra res act of the City and its elected Council. Moreover, the limited time allotted for preparation of a competent appeal has given rise to manifest unfairness to the citizens of Tigard, and at least the . ODONNELL RRMIS ET AL 503-243-2944 Rpr 4,94 12:27 No.008 P.04/04 Timothy V. Ramie March 30, 1994 Page 2 .appearance of favoritiam with respect to the application and the applicant in question. I hopes the City will proceed in this matter in strict accordance with its own code provisions, and that there will be no need to comnitnbe :ap,_ato legal action. V4rvy ly s, L. Klei nman JLK:slb cca Anthony J. Hakaym M. H. Monson Steve Wilmarth CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 94 =L!_.._ A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING SANITARY SEWER PBIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 5. WHEREAS, sanitary sewer improvements have been constructed to serve idge S„brt;vision and certain adjoining'properties; and •1.LV c a°v.y rG1:1 WHEREAS, all costs of said sewer construction have been paid by The Petrie Company; and WHEREAS, formation of a zone of benefit has been requested by The Petrie Company; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has submitted a report describing the improvements, the zone of benefit, a methodology for spreading the cost among the parcels within the zone of benefit, and the recommended interest rate; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that formation of a zone of benefit as recommended by the City Engineer is appropriate. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: Section 1: The City Engineer's report title "Sanitary Sewer attached hereto as Exhibit 5" , Reimbursement Distri(a.t No. A, is hereby approved. Section 2: A zone of benefit is hereby established in accordance f benefit shall be the with TMC Chapter_ 13.08. The zone o wn on Exhibit B and described on Exhibit C. The h o area s zone of benefit shall be known as "Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District Igo. 5." Section 3: Payment of the recovery agreement connection charge as city in i g v shown in Exhibit D is a precondition of rece t of each parcel within permits applicable to developmen f benefit as provided for in TMC 13.08.030. the zone o Section 4: An annual percentage rate of three percent (3%) shall be applied to the connection charge. Section 5: The zone formation 'date is February 22, 1994. The right unless 2004 22 r b , , y rua of reimbursement shall end on Fe extended by the Council in accordance with TMC 13.08.020 (b) (2) . RESOLUTION NO. 94- Page 1 Section 6: The City Recorder shall cause a copy of this resolution to be filed in the office of the county recorder and shall mail a copy of this resolution to all affected property owners at their last known address, in accordance with TMC 13.08.020 (f) and (g). PASSED: This ATTEST: City Recorder- City Tigard d]/RW:Paa-Ridge.ss E 40 - RESOLUTION NO. 94-- f Page 2 r 0 Exhibit A City Engineer's Report SANITARY SEWER REIMURSEMECdT DISTRICT NO. 5 Background A sanitary sewer line has been constructed to serve Pacific Ridge subdivision located adjacent.to S.W. 74th Avenue and Cherry Drive. The sewer,line also provides service to certain adjoining lots. The sewer line is nearing completion and the developer's costs are known. Financing All costs of construction of the sewer extension have been paid by The Petrie Company. The Petrie Company has requested that a reimbursement district be formed so that the company will be reimbursed for a share of the costs of the sewer extension in the future as other properties are connected to the sewer. The sewer extension has potentially provided sewer service-to seven adjacent properties, thereby relieving adjacent property owners of installing sewer improvements in the future. This has created a zone of benefit as defined in TMC 13.08.010(7). Zone of Benefit The zone of benefit is the properties shown'as the shaded area on the attached map (Exhibit B). The proposed zone formation date for the sewer is the date of Council action forming the reimbusement district: It is recommended that the reimbursement district'. continue for ten years. After ten years,-. properties connecting to the sewer would no longer be required to pay. the 'reimbursement fee, unless the time is extended by the Council as.-provided in TMC 13.08.020 (b) (2). 49 Cost - - The total cost of the sanitary sewer construction,.including design and inspection costs, is $46,119.00. All of this cost has been paid by The Petrie Company. 0 Reimbursement Rate West of 74th Avenue, the lots served by the sewer extension are all zoned R-3.5, which provides for single-family residential development and certain related uses. The minimum lot size in the R-3.5 zone is 10,000 sg°4are feet. The new subdivision currently under construction (Pacific Ridge) occupies Tax Lots 3300, 3400, 3600, and 3601. This subdivision will contain 11 single-family lots, with no potential for further subdivision under the current zoning. Tax Lots 21nn_ 32nn, and 3302 are currenIV fully developed with single- family residential structures and cannot be further subdivided, under the current zoning. Tax Lot 3501 could be subdivided into two or three lots under the current zoning. The lots east of 74th Avenue (Tax Lots 300, 400, and 500) are zoned C-P. These lots could be subdivided or they could be developed with more than one structure on each lot. The applicant suggests that the lots with potential for subdivision should be charged at twice the rate of the smaller lots that cannot be subdivided. This seems to be a reasonable basis for calculating the connection charge, as the larger lots have the potential of more than one connection to the sewer in the future. Therefore, it is recommended that the costs of the sewer be divided among the lots within the zone of benefit as shown in Exhibit D. The recommended cost to each lot-is shown in Exhibit D. At a meeting on February 8, 1994, the City Council heard from property owners within the proposed district and discussed the options for determining the connection charge. Based on those discussions, the Council determined that the larger lots should not be charged their full share of costs until such time as they are fully developed. Although some of the lots have the potential for more development, current development consists of one residential structure on each lot. Therefore, Exhibit .D provides` that connection of one residential structure would be charged for, only one unit of cost. Subsequent -development would pay any remaining share ofcosts. Interest Rate TMC 13.08.020 (b) (5) provides that:an annual percentage rate shall be applied to the connection charge on. the anniversary date of the reimbursement agreement. The applicant has requested that the' finance charge be 3%, which is comparable to that currently being paid to finance public improvements. This seems reasonable, as the financing costs for private development are usually somewhat higher. Therefore, it is recommended that the interest rate be set at 3%. On each anniversary of the zone formation dzte, the: established connection charges shall be increased by this 0 amount. Recommendation It is recommended that a reimbursement district be formed with a zone of benefit, reimbursement rate and interest as indicated above. Submitted February 11, 1994. Randall R. Wooley City Engineer dj/RW:Pac-Ridq®.SS i ~ ws to 0 z F- U m ~ F- U) H D co 6- Z = Ci] X W W U) I D C13 M 4J 3nN3AV QNZL Ws C EXHIBIT "C" REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 5 A portion of the W.W. Graham D.L.C. in the SE 1/4 and, the SW 1/4 of Section 1, Township 2 South, Range 1 East, Willamette Meridian, City Of Tigard, Washington County, Oregon, described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of lot 49 of the plat of Rolling Hills No 2 , thence S 010 46' 24" W, along the west line of said lot 49, a distance of 150.00 feet to the southwest corner of said lot 49; thence S 890 570 36" E, along the south *line of said lot 49, a distance of 110.00 feet to the east line of the plat of Rolling Hills No. 2; thence S 010 460 24" W, along said east line, a distance of 219.96 feet to the northwest corner of the V%ro.r _tit ~iecnrihe~i in wo,= Ntli4lher 78-039189 Washington County Deed Records; thence S 880 480 00" E along the north line of said Fee Number a distance of 104.26 feet to the northeast corner of said Fee Number; thence S 010 40' 00" W, along the east line of said fee Number and the extension thereof, a distance of 196.32 feet to the south right of way of Cherry Street; thence S 880 48' 00" E, along said south right of way, a distance of 394.50 feet to the west right of way of SW 74th Avenue and the northeast corner of lot 43 Rolling Hills No. 2; thence S 011 070 53" W, along said west right of way, a distance of 180.00 feet to the southeast corner of said lot 43 and the south line of the plat of Rolling Hills No. 2; thence S 880 480 00" E, along said south line, a distance of 50.00 feet to the southeast corner of said plat; thence N 01° 070 53" E, along the east line of said plat, a distance of 88.00 feet to the southwest corner of the property described in Land Sale Contract recorded in Fee Number 90--13022 of Washington County Deed Records; thence S 880 480 00" E, along the south line of said Fee Number, a distance of 290.00 feet to the west right of way of SW 72nd Avenue; thence N 010 071 53" E, along said west right of way, a distance of 396.00 feet to --the northeast corner of the property described in Fee Number 90-49255; thence N 880 400 15" W, along the north line of said Fee Number and the north line of the proposed plat of Pacific Ridge, a distance of 484.80- feet to the southeast corner of the property described in Fee Number 90- 30051 Washington county Deed Records; thence N 020 020 44" E, along the east line of said Fee Number, a distance of 271.91 feet, to the southerly right of way of the Public street dedicated in deed recorded in Book 149 page 293 of Washington County Deed Records; thence N 890 510 46" W, along said southerly right of way, a distance of 140.00 feet to the east line of the proposed plat of Pacific Ridge; thence, along the boundary of said proposed plat the following four courses; thence N 020 020 44" E a distance of 20.00 feet; thence S 890 511. 46" W a distance of 162.15 feet; thence S 010 280 24" W a distance of 25.01 feet; thence N 890 570 36" W a distance of 50.02 feet to the Northeast corner of lot 49 Rolling Hills No. 2; thence N 890 570 36" W, along the north line of said lot 49, a distance of 110.00 feet to the point of beginning. _ johnrh%pac_ben Exhibit D C- Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 5 Recovery Agreement Connection Charges Tax Lot 2S1 1DC 300 2S1 1DC 400 2SI 1DC 500 2c1 !DC 2700 2S1 1DC 3200 - 2S1 1DC 3302 2S1 1DC 3300, 3400, 3600, & 3601 (Pacific Ridge Subdivision)* 2S1 1DC 3501 Units** 2 2 2 i 1 1 11 2 22 Connection Charge** $ 4,192.64 4,192.64 4,192.64 2,096.32 2,096.32 2,096.32 23,059.413 4,19?_.64 $46,119.00 *Note 1: Pacific Ridge Subdivision is owned by the applicant. The reimbursement district connection charge is deemed to have been paid on these lots. Note 2: If any tax lot shown above is later subdivided,.the recovery agreement connection charge for that lot shall be assigned to the new lots in.accordance with the written instructions of the subdivision applicant. If no written instructions are provided, the charge shall be distributed equally among the new lots created. Note 3: The connection charge shall apply only to properties which are connected directly to the sewer lines constructed as a part of Pacific Ridge Subdivision (the sewer line shown on Exhibit B) . If properties within the zone of benefit are connected directly to sewer lines outside the zone of benefit, the connection charge shall not apply. **Note 4: For residential structures, the connection charge shall be at the rate of one unit for each residential structure connected to the public sewer. For commercial development, the connection charge shall be for the number of units shown in the table above. The charge per unit is $2,096.32. Over the life of the reimbursement district, the total charge to any tax lot shall not exceed the number of units shown in the table above. C O'DONNELL, RAMIS, CREW & CORRIGAN teA p4l AT'T'ORNEYS AT LAW BALLOW & WRIGHT BUILDING 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street Portland, Oregon 97209 TELEPHONE: (503) 222-4402 FAX: (503) 243-2944 DATE: April 7, 1994 M 01APR0 8 1994 TO: Pat Reilly, City Administrator FROM: Ty K. Wyman, City Attorney's Office RE: Postponement of Hearing on Reimbursement District No. 5 Last week our office received the attached letter from an attorney representing property owners affected by the above- referenced reimbursement district. You may recall that the Council set April 12th to hear objections to formation of the district. The letter requests that the City void its decision to call for this hearing, in lieu of a citizen petition calling for one. I subsequently discussed the matter with Mr. Kleinman and he agreed to a simple postponement of the hearing. He asked for a hearing date in late May or June. I talked to Randy earlier this week about this possibility. He said that he 'anticipated the Council would be hearing on that date, but could not yet be sure. 'Our suggestion is that staff advise the Council to postpone of the hearing until May 24th in consideration of the objections voiced by these affected property owners. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me. e AGENDA ITEM # For Agenda of April 12, 1994 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE SOLID WASTE RECYC ING RATE INCREASE P EA PREPARED BY: L. Edir. DEPT HEAD OK ADMIN OK ISSUE BEFORE_ THE COUNCIL Since DEQ has mandated the City of Tigard to begin curbside collection of yard debris waste between 7/9/94 and 1/1/95, Council needs to determine what collection program design would bast fit the .^seds of the community while still meeting DEQ requirements. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Council's consultant, Harding Lawson Associates, are in agreement that the following program would best serve the community as a whole and still meeting DEQs program requirements: Yard Debris Collection: • Bi-weekly collection of yard debris on the same day as garbage, year round; • Hauler-provided 60-gallon carts that work with mechanically assisted collection equipment; A uniform rate increase of $2.90 per month for residential customers; • A class exemption for residential associations with limited yard debris to be handled; with a rate increase of $.90 per month; Aggressive promotion of the service, source reduction options, and opportunities to decrease refuse collection service levels; and • Full program roll-out between 7/1/94 and 9/30/94. Scrap Paper Collection: • Weekly collection of scrap paper on the same day as garbage, year round; • Second Hauler provided 14-gallon bin for manual collection; . • A uniform rate increase of $.50 per month for residential customers; • Aggressive promotion of the service, source reduction options, and opportunities to decrease refuse collection service levels; and • Full program roll-out between 7/1/94 and 9/30/94. INFORMATION SUMMARY The State Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has advised the City of Tigard that we must begin collection of yard debris at curbside between 7/1/94 and 1/1/95. Since this type of collection program can be expensive and existing City staff did not have the time to review this issue in depth,, Council retained an outside consulting firm to conduct an in-depth study. The firm of Harding Lawson Associates (HLA) was selected since they have more than 35 years of expertise in providing engineering services for cost-effective waste disposal and recycling systems. gap" HLA developed detailed yard debris program reports which were shared with Council on 2/22/94. At that meeting, the Council requested stafi and HLA do the following: share information with the four Citizen Involvement Teams (CITs); work with the haulers to.review rate assumptions; and return a recommendation to the Council for a public hearing on 4/12/94. Staff continues to look for other refuse reduction options. During this review of yard debris (3/4/94 to be exact), staff became aware of a strong market for scrap paper through efforts of Washington County and the County Wasteshed in which Tigard participates. This recycling option comes at an opportune time. The addition of yard debris at curbside will not reduce the volume of garbage enough to allow many citizens to reduce the size of can for trash. The addition of scrap paper to the recycling program at the same time as yard debris should offer many residents the opportunity to reduce the size of can needed for garbage and thereby offset the cost of the recycling programs for the customer. Staff receives citizen requests regularly on two issues: (1) add scrap paper to the recycling program; and (2) help control the increasing cost of solid waste collection. Staff and HLA believe that the addition of both yard debris and scrap paper recycling programs will. meat the overall needs of the solid ansto customers in the City best. Per Council direction, staff has met with Summerfieid Civic Association and the presidents of the townhouse and condominium associations in Summerfield. With the assistance of the associations, a class exemption process was developed for those groups of homes that have little or no yard debris. A class exemption is fair, easy to administer, and does not represent a significant rate burden to the rest of the rate payers. Attached for your information is the following: • HLA's recommendation for yard debris recycling program (dated 4/1/94); • HL.A's preliminary cost analysis for scrap paper recycling program (dated 4/4/94); and • 9 citizens letters and the staff responses which have been received to be entered into the public hearing record. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Motion to adopt the recommendation of HLA and staff and direct staff to prepare the necessary documents to ratify this action at the 4/26/94 Council meeting. 2. Motion to adopt the yard debris recycling program portion of the recommendation only and direct staff to prepare the necessary documents to ratify this action at the 4/26/94 Council meeting. 3. Give further direction to staff. FISCAL NOTES 1. No additional City staff will be needed to implement this program. The monthly rate for a 32- gallon can collected at curbside would be $16.50 and would include yard debris and scrap paper being added to the recycling program. Many citizens would be able to reduce the size of their garbage can and thereby offset the cost of the new programs. It is anticipated that 20% of the residents using 32-gallon cans will be able to switch to a 20-gallon mini can and 70% of the residents using 2 32-gallon cans will be able to use only 1 can over the next few months. 2. No additional City staff will be needed to implement this program. The monthly rate for a 32- gallon can collected at curbside would be $16.00 and would include yard debris being added to the recycling program. Very few citizens would be able to reduce the size of their garbage can and thereby would not offset the cost of the new programs. 3. Unknown 2- F-7 J Harding Lawson Associates April 1, 1994 Project No. 27067 Mr. Pat Reilly; ['i1q, Ad u'..-dSJ-rator City of Tigard 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 E: Recon=endation fora City of Tigard lard Debris Coiiectivi• llravg-.a.it Dear Mr. Reilly: Harding Lawson Associates (ILA) has been contracted to provide the City of Tigard with technical assistance in the design of a yard debris collection program. An assessment of the regulatory requirements for a program, of program alternatives and of program costs associated with the primary options was provided in three technical memorandums delivered to the City in early February and presented at a City Council study session on February 22. Since that time we have met with the City's haulers and with City staff to finalize assumptions affecting the cost estimates and to discuss comments made on alternatives during recent CIT meetings. This communication provides our recommendation for a hauler-operated yard debris program design which we believe will best meet the City's needs for an effective, fair, and reasonably priced service addition. Recommendation Basic Recommendation Implement Option A, as described at the study session, so that all residential refuse customers are provided with bi-weekly collection of yard debris (year round on the same day as refuse service) using a hauler provided 60 gallon roll cart. We have concluded that $2.90 per household per month is a fair cost basis for this additional service. The current $13.10 single can monthly charge would increase to $16.00 per month. Concurrent with the new service, increased promotion is needed of 1) collection program features/ requirements, 2) the ongoing need to grasscycle and home compost, and 3) options for controlling net service costs by reducing refuse service levels. The red bin program should continue to be a weekly service. A proposal currently being considered within Washington County to add scrap paper to the red bin service is a separate decision from that of yard debris collection. However, there are some benefits to coordinating both changes in relation to Engineering and 227 S.W. Pine Street, 3rd Floor, Portland, OR 97204 503/227-1326 Fax 503/227-3864 Environmental Serrc As ' ,.1 Subsir/ian• rJ//nrdin,¢ As.vrrialrs • OJ/irr,Nnrirrrreide 3 Mr. Pat Reilly Ask City of Tigard April 1, 1994 Page 2 of g Harding Lawson Associates their timing and to the promotion of opportunities for residents to consider cost savings through reducing volumes of scheduled refuse service. Tine Because of the time required to order and distribute carts, and perhaps to modify some collection vehicles, it is recommended that the yard debris service be fully implemented city-wide on Odcb)er 1, iy74. So-me of the City's haulers may be able to implement the service sooner. Therefore, it is recommended that haulers be required to provide the service to all residential customers on or before October 1, 1994. At their option, haulers should be allowed to implement the service anytime after June 30,1994 provided they initiate service at roughly the same time for all of their Tigard routes and provided that they provide appropriate advance notice (30 days prior to rate change) and promotion materials on the new service as it affects their customers. Haulers should be allowed to adjust rates as soon as the new service is on-line in their franchise area. The City should do a generic promotion of the new service beginning in May and June and alert residents that, depending on roll-out schedules, their service will start sometime between July 1 and October 1. If a decision is made to add scrap paper to the Tigard red bin program, the timing of its start-up for various routes would ideally be coordinated with the start of yard debris. Both of the new services could be offered and a single rate adjustment could be made at one time. Supplemental Recommendations From the list 3f supplemental alternatives presented at the February Council study session, it is recommended that the scheduled service be provided uniformly to all residents with scheduled refuse service, except for members of eligible neighborhood or homeowners associations who opt out through a class exemption. It is recommended that residents in exempted associations pay an additional $.90 per month to help off-set fixed costs of the new service which will benefit the entire community. Residents setting out more than 60 gallons of yard debris for any one pick-up should pay an additional $1.00 for every volume equivalent to 32 gallons of yard debris set out for collection. Residents on non- scheduled or on-call refuse service, but with scheduled recycling only "red bin" service ($4.00 per month), should be provided the option of adding yard debris service with a hauler provided cart for an additional $4.00 per month ($8.00 per month total rate) or of staying with a red,bin only service. for $4.00 per month. a "i Mr. Pat Reilly City of Tigard April 1, 1994 Page 3 of 8 Harding Lawson (Associates Xeriscaping (planting low water/low waste landscaping) and grasscycling (leaving grass clippings on the lawn) should be promoted, along with home composting, as householder practices that should be continued and are consistent with the objectives of the program. Christmas trees should be collected as part of the yard debris collection effort, without additional charge. Aggressive promotion of the City's yard debris program is needed through close cooperation of the City, its haulers, and the County, as well by Metro and DEQ. Additional service options (such as hauler-provided composting bins), City/hauler-supported collection depots, rate ramping, bans on yard debris in refuse containers, vouchers for depot use, and self-haul assistance are supplemental alternatives which were considered but which are not recommended at this time. A final rFmnmendation is that the City request grant funds that may be available Um Metro through the County, and/or that in-kind services be requested from Metro to provide a baseline and follow-up study for a sample route or neighborhood in Tigard. Based on the results of that study, the City will be able to answer some key questions related to program effectiveness and the potential for increased diversion, if DEQ regulations are considered requiring weekly collection in the near future. Detailed Discussion on Selected Elements of Recommendation Rationale for Option A (Bi-Weekly Collection in 60-Callon Carts) This recommendation (Option A) best meets the criteria of diversion, convenience, and cost. Other options were eliminated for the following reasons: Option B Bi-weedy collection using customer-provided 32-gallon cans but with 60-gallon carts as an option would have provided a cost savings of about $1.00 per month (or a $1.90 rate increase) to residents using their own container. However, it would result in less diversion and would conflict with the Council's desire to move to the city-wide use of carts and mechanical collection as a long-term service strategy which reduces worker injuries and provides for efficiency and consistency of service. 11 J, Mr. Pat Reilly City of Tigard April 1, 1994 Page 4 of 8 Harding Lawson Associates Option C iii-weeky collection using 60-gallon. roll cart with reduced frequency of red bi_*! recyclables collection would have provided a cost savings of about $1.20 per month ( or a $1.70 rate increase). However, it would result in less diversion of red bin recyclables and would have been a difficult to justify to the County and DEQ, as well as to residents who have come to depend upon the convenience of weekly recyclables collection. Option D Weekly collection using 60-gallon roll cart would have required an added cost of $1.30 per month (or a $4.20 rate increase). Diversion and convenience would have been maximized. It is anticipated that weekly collection may be required sometime in the next few years. With experience doing bi-weekly collection using 60-gallon carts for a year or two, Tigard will be able to better respond to such a require_ --ent and to understand the cost and diversion implications. A_- this time it is not known whether the additional cost would justify the increased diversion and convenience. Rate Impact $2.90 per household per month would be added to the existing base rate of $13.10 per month, for a total rate of $16.00 per month for weekly collection of 32 gallons of trash and all red bin recyclables (by January 1995 haulers will need to provide roll cart service for trash at same rate) and for bi-weekly collection of a 60-gallon container of yard debris. Other service level charges should be adjusted as appropriate (e.g., mini can service would go from $10.85 to $13.75 per month and two can service would go from $26.20 to $32.00 per month double the single can rate). Additional set-outs of yard debris (in 32 gallon cans, paper bags, or bundles), should be charged at a rate of $1.00 per each additional 32 gallons (or equivalent) left at the curb. Exemltions Multi-family residential and commercial locations that currently receive commercial bin (dumpster or drop box) service for refuse collections should not receive the new yard debris service, and therefore should not experience a rate 'increase as a result. Commercial customers i,vith a single-can rate (currently $13.10 per month) should pay the new $16.00 per month base rate and be provided with the 60-gallon bi-weekly yard debris collection service if desired. Mr. Pat Reilly City of Tigard April 1, 1994 Page 5 of 8 Harding Lawson Associates Existing neighborhood or homeowners' associations with at least 15 households as members should be provided with an opportunity to elect to exempt their members from the new yard debris collection service, if they currently have a contract for yard maintenance service which includes the hauling and recycling of all yard debris. Each hauleP should wd di ster the exemption program for their franchise area according to the following conditions: ® the association's board must vote to request an exemption through letter application to their hauler, 9 the association must demonstrate that all yard debris from common and individual yards is currently being diverted from landfilling and that yard debris is/will not be placed in trash containers, O all members of the association must be exempt (service can't be provided to some and not to others), and a residents receiving regular trash service within the association should help pay a portion of the cost of the new program through a $.90 per month increase in their refuse bill (going from $13.10 per month to $14.00 per month because administrative costs of the new service are spread among more customers, the cost for non- exempted residents is kept about $.05 per month lower than if this fee weren't paid). Before applying for the exemption, associat,ons should be encouraged to talk with their landscaper to see whether the cost of yard maintenance service costs could be reduced if 60-gallon carts were provided for their use. Additionally, residents should be encouraged to consider maintaining the yard maintenance service for lawns while adding the 60-gallon cart service for trimmings from gardens in individual units. No exemptions should be offered to individual households because of the administrative effort required to manage such a process and because of the uncertainty on how such an approach would impact rates for everyone. This position as well as the requirement for some participation in funding of the new service by the exempted class is consistent with the City's uniform rate policy and the approach taken in providing red bin service to all residents. Recycling Qnly Tigard currently has a special rate of $4.00 per month for residents who wish to be able to recycle every week, but who only occasionally use on-call service for their refuse hauling ($5.10 per pick-up). It is recommended that this recycling- t Mr. Pat Reilly City of Tigard April 1, 1994 Page 6 of 8 Harding Lawson Associates only rate be continued and that an additional option for Recycling and Yard Debris Orly collection be offered for a total rate, of $8.00 per month. Promotion The City and its three haulers should work together and in coordination with the County in promoting the rationale, requirements, and schedule of its new yard debris service (for example, residents should be provided with clear descriptions of what can be put into the yard debris cart and what should be kept out of it). The following two issues should be emphasized: ® Use the 60-gallon cart for convenient management of grass, leaves and other yard trimmings; however, letting grass clippings decompose on the lawn (grasscycling) makes for less yard work, and composting leaves and grass at home can produce a valuable compost for use in the garden. These practices are consistent with and complimentary to the collection service. ® Consider whether the level of refuse service can be reduced to control the net amount of the rate increase and to help reduce the total amount of trash that must be managed. Baseline and Follow-up Study One difficulty for Tigard, as well as for other regional jurisdictions implementing new yard debris collection efforts, is that little good information is available on the diversion impacts that a collection program provides. Specifically, it has not been demonstrated how much material is typically diverted from landfills and transfer stations when a new yard debris collection program is initiated. Though there is data available on the total amounts of yard debris collected and processed by various types of programs; it is not known what portion of this recovery is a result of residents stopping their former home composting, self- hauling, or grasscycling activities versus the portion that is "new diversion" from material formerly self-hauled to transfer stations or from on--site segregation of yard debris from trash. Metro provides grant funding to Washington County to assist with implementing waste reduction programs; some amount might yet be available to assist with this study. Metro also operates a waste characterization program and might be capable of assisting directly in performing a study to obtain information profiling how yard debris is managed in a sample Tigard neighborhood(s). Sampling could be accomplished before the new service is offered (May through Mr. Pat Reilly City of Tigard April 1, 1994 Page 7 of 8 Harding Lawson Associates mid-summer or October would provide the last good opportunity for this sampling) and after the new service is offered. Follow-up sampling would be done for the same area(s) a year later. Ideally some area, perhaps outside of Tigard, would be set aside as a control where the service was not implemented and similar data was obtained. Data obtained from this effort would be very useful to the City, as well as to other jurisdictions, if a requirement is developed for weekly collection to occur. Oyyrtunity for Controlling; Costs Table 3-1, provided with Technical Memorandum #3, indicated how the potential increase in rates might affect the total new rates of residents who were able to decrease volumes of their refuse service levels. The attached chart (Table 1) summarizes how the recommended $2.90 per month increase would impact residents in four different service level situations. Hauler Risk and Return The recommended $2.90 per month increase considers the haulers risk for 40 operating this new service and provides a rate of return which falls within the Council's policy for hauler profit allowances. Summary Harding Lawson Associates recommends that the City of Tigard consider committing to implementation of a hauler-operated yard debris program which includes the following elements: ® Bi-weekly collection of yard debris on the same day as garbage, year round, ® Hauler-provided 60-gallon carts that work with mechanically assisted collection equipment, ® A uniform rate increase of $2.90 per month for residential customers, e A class exemption for residential associations with limited yard debris to be handled, rates would increase $.90 per month, G Mr. Pat Reilly Harding Lawson Associates City of Tigard April 1, 1994 Page 8 of 8 m Agjressive promotion of the service, source reduction options, and opportunities to decrease refuse collection service levels. ® Full program roll-out between July 1 and September 30,1994 u--d u,- th recommendation we are confident that the City's program will r- _i~s - - meet DEQ requirements without providing more collection service than is currently necessary. We also believe that the cost effectiveness of the program will be consistent with the desired quality of service and the anticipated level of diversion. Sincerely, )4k-6/ a r 49 Rich McConaghy, Project Manager 40 4 ID Table 1 Comparison of Potentiml for Net Cost Savings If Residents are able to Reduce Refuse Service Levels Recommended Service Alternative: Garbage Option Description Service A Frequency of varies every other week Collection: Container varies 60 gallon roll cart Size and Type. Monthly Cost: varies $2.90 Example of a large family with a large yard that does their own landscaping - Assume they can o from 2 can service to 1 can service before: 2 cans of garbage $2620 after.1 can of garbage $13.10 $16.00 than e: ($1020) Scenario #2 Example of a small family that does their own landscaping and puts out "extras" Assume that the are able to reducP; eliminate the number of extra set outs over the before:1 can of garbage $14.88 plus 6 "extras"( ear (e $3.55 each) after.1 can of garbage $13.10 $16.00 no "extras" Example of a small family that has put some yard debris in their single 32-gallon can Assume that decrease in volume allows them to convert to a mini can (20 allocil before:1 can of garbage $13.10 after.1 mini-can of garbage $10.85 $13.75 thane: $0.65 C Yd Example of a small family that has put some yard debris in their single 32 gallon can Assume that no changes can be made in refuse service levels _ before:l can of garbage $13.10 after.1 can of garbage $13.10 $16.00 than e: $2.90 Met Monthly Increase In addition to removing yard debris from refuse cans, residents might also look at increasing recycling and reducing purchases of packaging materials. Propo. ed scrap paper collection in red bins would further help reduce waste volumes - cast of scrap paper collection is not included in recommended rates. r Harding Lawson Associates April. 4,1994 Project No. 27067 Mr. Pat Reilly, City Administrator City of Tigard 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 RE: Preliminary Cost Analysis for a Tigard Scrap Paper Collection Program Bear 1~Ir. Reilly: Harding Lawson Associates (HLA) was asked to provide a preliminary cost analysis of a program to add scrap paper to the City of Tigard's current "red bin" curbside recycling program. This letter summarizes the results of this analysis and provides a brief discussion of factors affecting the costs of adding scrap paper to a curbside program, as well as other considerations which the City may wish to examine in deciding on this issue. Washington County and a number of cities within the County, as well as some in Clackamas County, have recently held discussions on adding scrap paper as a new targeted material for their weekly curbside programs. This interest is in response to an anticipation of irnproved regional market capacity for this material, increasing interest on the part of residents to have the material collected, and the potential for affecting overall waste diversion and recovery levels. If a new scrap paper collection opportunity is provided to citizens in Tigard at a reasonable cost, along with the the newly required yard debris collection, it is expected that a greater number of residents will be able to decrease their service level for refuse collection and thus exert some control over their total expenditures for waste handling charges. Results In developing this preliminary cost estimate, HLA has not consulted Tigard's three franchised haulers for specific information on how they might modify their individual operations if scrap paper were to be added to the current weekly red bin program. We understand that curbside routes in Tigard are generally operated by a single driver/ collector and that vehicles of various styles and types currently provide individual bins or special compartments for each of 10 targeted materials (newspaper, cardboard, magazines, 3 colors of glass, tin cans, scrap metal, milk jugs, and waste oil). Limited or no commingling of these materials currently occurs prior to or during collection, though some haulers in the region Engineering and 227 S.W. Pine Street, 3rd Floor, Portland, OR 97204 503/227.1326 Fax 503/227-3664 Environmental Services A Suhsidinrv J Ifnrv/ing:lssofialr.u • q)((r non;nnNidr !e~ Mr. Pat Reilly Ash City of Tigard April 4,1994 Page 2 of 6 Harding Lawson Assoclatos have expressed an interest in developing processing capacity which would allow' them to do some commingling during collection and thus improve collection efficiency through greater utilization of total vehicle capacity. Individual hauler responses to providing scrap paper collection, including fleet modifications, driver scheduling, and marketing arrangements, will vary. The approach taken in our analysis has been to aggregate service delivery as though it were provided by a single operator with the capability to add scrap paper to existing routes following minor modifications to trucks and the distribution of a second 14-gallon bin. We have assumed that recycling routes have been operating a bit below capacity (i.e., trucks are seldom "full" when they return to the yard) and that driver time can be found to accommodate extra time at each stop and extra time off-route, for emptying full scrap paper bins at the yard, without the need for a wholesale overhaul of routes and schedules (crews may currently go back to the yard before working a full eight hours or they may be able to work more than eight hours on some days after scrap paper is added). Eleven cost elements were identified and numerous assumptions were used to model the increased monthly cost of providing each household with scrap paper collection service.. Under the preferred set of assumptions identified in Table 1, it is estimated that a monthly rate increase of $.50 per household per month would be required to add scrap paper collection to Tigard's current red bin program. To place upper and lower limits on this estimate, Tables 2 and 3 were developed to establish a range of reasonable cost if alternative assumptions were used. Assumptions shown for these two tables bracket a range of reasonable cost from a low of $.10 per month to a high of $.85 per month. We are confident that the actual cost lies somewhere within this range. It is not entirely fair nor appropriate to compare cost estimates between various programs. However, when the City of Portland added scrap paper to its yellow bin program in September of 1993, the rate was increased $.28 per month. Residents had previously been provided with a second bin, so that was not included in the cost. One cost analysis developed by a hauler prior to the Portland increase indicated a need for $.42 per month. In the City of Portland, a variety of truck utilization approaches were taken to accommodate the addition of scrap paper to existing trucks and routes. For example, brown glass may have been put in a bin on the seat of the cab (because there is so little of it), so that tin cans could be placed in the former brown glass bin, and scrap paper may have been placed in the former tin bin. Alternatively, the cardboard bin may have 13 Mr. Pat Reilly City of Tigard April 4,1994 Page 3 of 6 Harding Lawson Associates become the scrap paper bin (because there was less cardboard) and some cardboard may have been sorted out of or possibly even marketed with the scrap paper. Some trucks have also been seen with 1.5 cubic yard canvas/'poly bags or 90-gallon carts affixed to the perimeter of various truck bins to hold scrap paper or materials displaced from their former bin, such as milk jugs. Our cost analysis assumes that something similar to the response of haulers in Portland would occur in Tigard. A cost analysis developed by a hauler for the cities of Wilsonville and Tualatin indicated a need for $1.60 per month to add scrap paper to the existing curbside service. It appears that the strategy in those cities will be to use dedicated trucks to collect scrap paper, possibly because the capacity and available bins on existing trucks couldn't be found. Our cost analysis and its assumptions are not appropriate if this sort of response occurs in Tigard. Discussions with Tigard's haulers are needed to understand the approaches that will generally be taken by them if they add this service. It should be understood that the amount of the rate granted can either limit or provide opportunity for approaches which might be taken by the haulers and therefore a policy is effectively being considered in the approval of a rate for either "doing it on the cheap side" or for "doing whatever it fakes so we don't see canvas bags and a string of roll carts trailing behind every recycling truck." Other Issues Scrap Paper & Markets As a program is considered, a clear definiticn, of Scrap Paper will be needed which residents, haulers, and markets all can agree on. Some mixed waste paper programs, such as those that have operated in Seattle for five years, collect a single grade which includes OCC (cardboard), magazines, junk mail, chipboard (cereal boxes), phone books, and even newspaper. Material from these sorts of programs has generally been shipped to Asia or has undergone some selective sorting for domestic mills. Tigard already has segregated collection of magazines and cardboard. Should scrap paper and these two materials be combined to make a single grade? The answer likely lies with the markets. In Oregon, the Georgia Pacific mill in Toledo and the Weyerhaeuser mill in North Bend have taken curbside scrap paper to slake into corrugating medium (the wavy layer of cardboard). Other scrap paper or mixed waste paper (mostly from office generators) has been sorted to obtain a " super" mixed grade for the ROW program which has gone to the James River mill in Halsey to I~ Mr. Pat Reilly City of Tigard April 4,1994 Page 4 of 6 Harding Lawson Associates produce a high grade drink pulp for tissue and printing and writing paper grades. Weyerhaeuser's Springfield linerboard mill will soon be taking mixed waste paper (including curbside mixed waste paper) to produce a higher end lineboard product than has typically been made from this feedstock (corrugating medium requires lower fiber quality and consistency standards than does liver board, the outer layers of cardboard'). Mixed waste paper markets are expected to experience high demand, particularly within Oregon, over the next few years and on into the future. Magazines and OCC have both experienced consistent demand from mills within Oregon. Combining them with curbside scrap paper may make the whole mix hard to move. Waste paper processing capacity to sort out various grades is starting to develop in the region and it may be possible that a number of grades can be collected together and then sorted out later. At this time, however, without processing capacity, it is difficult to develop a collection program where sorting is not done by the resident. This means that magazines and possibly cardboard should be kept separate when material is collected in Tigard. Weyerhaeuser's curbside mixed waste paper grade seems to be a good mix to shoot for in designing a scrap paper program for Tigard, recognizing that it could be changed some in the next year or two as the mill gains experience with running it through their system. It generally includes OCC (cardboard), kraft bags (paper grocery bags), brochures, junk mail, envelopes (with or without windows), paper egg cartons, paper cores, paper labels (from tin cans), greeting cards, white and colored high grade paper, computer printout, file folders, coupons, paperboard, chipboard. (cereal boxes), and gift wrap. Excluded from the grade are waxpapers, wet-strength papers, magazines, catalogues, phone books, paper back books, carbon paper, photos, freezer food cartons, poly-coated papers, meat wrapping, any paper contaminated with food, disposable diapers, milk cartons and drink boxes (MCDBs), charcoal or fertilizer bags, and tissue and paper toweling. This list is fairly diverse; we can expect that it indicates a need for increased efforts and better communications throughout the chain of collection. What's Next? Incremental expansion of a curbside list of targeted materials occurs for many reasons: resident interest, diversion potential, market or special interest lobbies, and new regulations. Within the last few years, Tigard has looked at adding yard debris, milk jugs, magazines, and now scrap paper to its recycling program. The City and other jurisdcitions can expect to consider various other types of 15 Mr. Pat Reilly City of Tigard April 4,1994 Page 5 of 6 Harding Lawson Associates rigid plastics (E-agene is doing custom PET, others are doing colored HDPE), plastic bags, MCDBs (milk cartons and drink boxes), phone books, poly-coated paper, household batteries, food waste, textiles and even other types of materials in the next few c,-nav.-. This This ..may_i~~ ~ tu L -e - - nurri a._r of categories can cause difficulty for haulers as well as for residents, particularly when each material is expected to remain segregated throughout the chain of collection. Scrap paper is probably a logical material to collect at this time. It has a secure market, it is a significant portion of the waste stream, and residents want to be able to leave it at the curb rather than having to haul it to a depot. However, the City may wish to develop a long-term strategy directing how other materials are added in the future and how the collection system will adapt or be modified to handle different types of materials. The Country, Metro, DEQ and other cities are possible partners in answering these questions. The following are key considerations which we have recommended reviewing and checking off when proposals surface for adding materials to a new or existing curbside program. The City may have others to add, such as resident demand. AMOL • Material availability in the waste stream and the potential for diversion or recovery through a curbside strategy • Marketability (not necessarily value) • Impacts on collection • Impacts on processing • Education and promotion requirements and generator impacts • Consistency with an overall strategy for development of a curbside program s Cost It is reasonable that scrap paper could be added to the Tigard program as soon as July 1994. It is important to coordinate adding the new material with Washington County's schedule for providing promotion and with the Tigard haulers' rol-out of yard debris collection. H 1(0 Mr. Pat Reilly Harding Lawson Associates City of Tigard April 4,1994 Page 6 of 6 Summary H Scaap paper could be added to Tigard's exciting red bin weekly curbside recycling program for a cost of about $.50 per household per month. The new service would ideally be started in various neighborhoods at the same time as yard debris service and as the new rates. Residents should be informed on specifics of the program and of their options for saving morQy through reducing their level of refuse service. A second household bin would be provided, residents may be requested to place scrap paper within a paper grocery bag. The scrap paper category should include the following types of materials: • CCC (cardboard), kraft bags (paper grocery bags), ® brochures, • junk mail, ® envelopes (with or without windows), e paper egg cartons, o paper cores, ® paper labels (from tin cans), greeting cards, • white and colored high grade paper, e computer printout, ® file folders, coupons, ® paperboard, chipboard (cereal boxes), ® gift wrap, and ® other paper products acceptable to the market We hope that this cost analysis and general overview of related issues will be useful as the City considers the addition of scrap paper to its red bin program. Please let us know if we can provide further assistance in this area. Sincerely, Rich McConaghy, Project Manager l`7 .3 9 E s 2 k mite a a 3 Q Q p G a ?`f0 ®«z ~ U a W C O ~lA. V~ a Aft a X11 o_I ~a a N ~ q tl ~ Ll N Vhf w 4 ~ f " S g o 8 I a w uhyf~ .~a~ N V1 N 2 A V ~ ~ ~ ~ R ~ Q N rC • ~ p •7 x ~ CI ~ N ~ .ITi ~ -1a S v~ q ~•I ~r N f7 'P In r ~ 'C 4 C ~ r7 N 6 ~ ~ W 89 N m N t~ 93 N N N H o n Y ~ a H y~ N v N y ~ M p p M 3 N h v 7 N ~ E E ~ a aq - ( a pq l m n s .r V x a G m I lb C hh pp V ~F t o/ s IQp q C rv 21 5 0 0 . Sm b~ Ii $ 2~ 4 b a 6 ~ O „ a N H N e~ f a n a g s ~ 1 1 2.1 K ~D r 'd W O O YQJ 'w0 YJ S M N to v m d g ~ N N -pgpgpgj 19 v t h 3 ~ 6 ~0 ~ o co ~ n o ~ ' N m 8g ti c' .5 r I ~ t% A. Iq C 9r CL= I i E MCC C :gFv 3: 2 30 ~a E s±. 0 8 . 8 x j~j F. qC C 3 H N h i EL .o a ~A oa ~ ~ o 0 7 I w $ b P 8 o -01 ~ ~ ~ 5551 a W ~ Z F m sa s o s N 0 0 ~ N v as Yf N cr w ~ a ~ r C C C Vf ~ h N W ~ s° E E ~ P .E o a N di ~ ~ N ~ ~QS V ~ C WWM 'H ~D April 1, 1994 Robert C. Resare, President Summerfield Townhouse Association #1 15700 SW Greens Way Tigard, Oregon 97224 Dear Mr. Resare: Thank you for your letter regarding the Yard Debris Pick-up Program. Your letter will be forwarded to the City Council for their review prior to the public hearing. The Tigard City Council hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, April 12, 1994 at 7:30 PM in the Town Hall Room of City Hall (13125 SW Hall Blvd.). want to thank you and the other Summerfield townhouse and condominium association presidents for taking the time to meet with me. Your comments were very helpful in developing the class exemption proposal for the Tigard City Council's consideration. I will be sharing with Jim Davis, the President of the Summerfield Civic Association, a copy of my report to Council early next week. If you have additional questions, please contact me Monday through Friday between 8 AM and 5 PM at 639-4171. Sinc 1 L Q Loreen R. Edin Management Analyst Ire/ms 0 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 Qf March 29, 1994 Loreen Edin Admin Services/Risk Manager *V of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. P. 0. Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Ms. Edin Subject: Yard Debris Recycling Program I'am the President of Summerfield Townhouse Assocation #1, a 54 unit townhouse association in Tigard. The mandated program of yard debris as outlined by the Department of Environmental Quality, and forced on the city of Tigard-by law, makes little or no sense to the residents of our Association. First, we have virtually no yard debris on an individual basis. We contract for landscaping services from Mr. Tom Cornilles of Rain or Shine Landscaping and Mr. Cornilles and his crew deposit grass clipping and other yard debris at a metro certified recycling station. Our residents do maintain small inner courtyards, but none have lawns. What clippings are generated by dwarf trees, shrubs, and flowers are placed in the landscaper's trailer provided for that purpose and he takes the debris to the recycler. In consideration of the above, we have no need for a yard debris recycling program and wish to be exempted from any such program simply because we have no need for a second hauler since there is nothing for the hauler to pick up. We hope the city comes to a workable decision for yard debris removal, but we believe the original idea of a yard debris proggram is not well thought out, and should certainly be at the option of the home owner...not the mandate of the Department of Environmental Quality regardless of need or the lack there of. For the residents of Summerfield Townhouse Association #1, the bulk of debris to be removed is PAPER, not yard debris. Perhaps 60% to 90% of the contents of our garbage cans is bulk marl, free newspaper advertisements and paper/plastic packaging of food and other supplies used on a daily basis. The other 10% to 30% is not yard debris, but material that is not recyclable at the present: time. In sum, we are somewhat, astounded by the pressure to recycle yard debris, when so much more could be gained by recycling paper products, and not just.newspapers and cardboard as is now the case. If you have any questions or comment, I can be reached at 684 7436. 0 Y s 'ver~tru obert -C. Res re 15700 S. W. Greens Way Tigard,,OR 97224 '.i. 51 '.i.. April 1, 1994 ; CITY OF TTIGARD OREGON Walter. F. Munhall 14805 SW 103rd Tigard, OR 97224 Dear Walt: Thank you for your recent letter outlining your concerns about a yard debris recycling program. Your letter will be forwarded to the City Council for their review prior to the public hearing., The Tigard City Council hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, April 12, 1994 at 7:30 PM in the Town Hall Room of City Hall (13125•SW Hall Blvd.). Though we have discussed your concerns over the phone, I wanted to followup that conversation with a written response to your letter. 1. "Why was $20,000 spent by.the Council for a consultant?" The yard debris program was going to have about the same annual dollar effect on the rate payers as the. City's last tax base increase. Since the City has a policy of a cap, on the number of employees (FTE) for several years, staff time is very limited for taking on new projects. For both of these reasons, staff recorrfrnended to Council that an outside consulting firm be retained to conduct them depth study. Harding Lawson Associates (HLA) was selected as the consultant because they have more than 35 years of expertise in providing engineering services for cost- effective waste disposal and recycling systems. 2. "What exactly, was the City's consultant's program for the study?" Enclosed is a copy of a summary of work which the Consultant was retained to provide as well as a detailed break-down of the key questions and issues to be dealt with at each step of the review. 3. "Whom did he meet with in developing the report?" HLA coordinated their work through my office. I held two meetings with them and Wayne Lowry, Tigard's Finance Director and two meetings with the three City franchised haulers (Millers, Pride, and Schmidt). 4. "How much time did the consultant spend on the project?" As you will note on the enclosed project budget sheet, HLA anticipated 262 hours of time to complete the project. At this time we are under budget for the yard debris program design and review. 01 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 S. "Why was a special consultant hired for such a basic study which staff or part time employees could have handled?" I believe this question was answered under your question #d'1. 6. "Why Is so much effort being directed at yard debris when plastic and junk mail have yet to be discussed?" The City did not set this priority, however, we are proceeding to comply with DEQ's mandate for yard debris collection at curbside. DEQ has determined that composting was not, by itself, a sufficient way to eliminate yard debris from going to the landfill. As we discussed on the phone, staff and the consultant will be recommending that junk mail or "scrap paper' be collected as a. recyclable at curbside within the next 5 to 6 months. The market for scrap paper has just developed strong enough in the last 5 weeks to allow us to collect it for the processor. Plastic markets are not available at this time. Before Tigard can consider collecting plastics at curbside, there must be an adequate market for the material. We are, however, currently collecting milk jugs at curbside. I would encourage you to contact your legislative representatives to encourage them to develop legislation to deal with the plastic issues in Oregon. City staff continues to work with Metro and Washington County to address the plastics concerns locally. 7. "Why was composting never mentioned in the report?" You have now received a complete copy of the Consultant's report, after you wrote the letter. As you will note, they discuss composting and grasscycling and recommend, as a portion of the Yard Debris Program, that these continue to be promoted. This is treated similarly in Portland, Washington County, City of Tualatin, and City of Wilsonville currently. 8. "Why should composters be penalized by fees for handfing debris on their own property?" The Yard Debris Program is being proposed to be a uniform service to all customers just like the red bin recycling program. 'The most successful Yard Debris collection programs are offered as a uniform service in order to keep the cost reasonable to encourage all residents to participate. Other yard debris programs have shown that over time the majority of customers participate. The "uniform service" concept for financial support is similar to the structure of support for special districts such as fire; all residents pay for the service whether they have a fire or not. 9. "Why were alternate plans not suggested for owners of small properties?" Council's policy for solid waste rate review requires that new programs not require the addition of any new City staff. In the jurisdictions where there are "individual exemptions" allowed, additional full-time staff have been required to enforce the program. In talking with citizens, both staff and the Consultant recognized the ~q need for an exemption for those condornirium, townhouse, and mobile home park dwellers who had no yards to maintain. For that reason, a "class exemption" will be recommended to the Council for adoption. This would allow homeowner associations to apply to their hauler for an exemption from the yard debris program for all of their residents. There would be a minimum charge to the homeowners within the association to support the administration of the solid waste recycling program. You had questioned, over the phone, whether I had worked with the Summerfield Civic Association. We have met and discussed this issue a number of times. I have appreciated the assistance from the Summerfield Civic Association in assisting me in developing the crass exemption proposal. 10. "Why not allow credit for citizens who haul pickup loads of Ldle br is to Grirmrns?" The Consultant looked at this option, but found it to be too'costly for the overall program. 11. "After spending $20,000, why are there no really creative plans in the proposal?" After we discussed your letter over the phone, I believe you understood there were some creative plans being recommended to the Council. Those are: • Offer "Recycling Only" rate including yard debris, scrap paper, and the red bin for those residents who do not need weekly garbage collection but do want weekly recycling service. Garbage could then be collected on an "on- call" basis when the resident calls the hauler and requests garbage service; • Class exemption process (see explanation under Question #9); • Starting both yard debris and scrap paper recycling at curbside so that more volume from the garbage can will be recycled. This should offer most residents the opportunity to offset the cost of the recycling programs by reducing the size of their garbage can and the rate that is paid for garbage can collection; • The Consultants reviewed the hauler's assumptions for the cost of the program and were able to reduce the program costs over $200,000 the first year - a direct savings to the rate payers; and • Last, but not least, I believe the City has certainty that the program meets the DEQ requirements and yet we will not do more yard debris collection than is necessary at this time. If you have additional questions, please contact me Monday through Friday between 8 AM and 5 PM at 639-4171. Since' oreen R. Edin Management Analyst Q5 d: e a March 23, 1994 Dear Mayor and Council Members: Q t . , MMA 3 0 tS9~t I have read the packet. of information regarding the proposed yard debris pickup in the City of Tigard. The Handout cons;As of four programs. May I be so bold as to present a.much simpler solution to this so-called problem of excess yard debris? Why not start the program with one 32 gal. can once a month from spring to fall. We certainly do not need any pickups during the t_ 'i f a4.:.. 1..... C and rta4a+01L i4`c~ enwrrrr-cr When tnalre I-. nnaPC Ar rnn_ WmCGi IIlolAIIS. lt uaa~ paauI •vr via. year and av.av.. tinue with this plan. When you are discussing this problem in April, I would deeply appreciate your answering the following questions in public: Why was $20,000.00 spent by the council for a consultant? What exactly was the city's consultant's program for the study? Whom did he meet with in developing the report? How much time did the consultant spend on the project? Why was a special consultant hired for such a basic study which staff or part time employees could have handled? Why is so much effort being dircctef at yard debris when plastic and junk mail have yet to be discussed? Why was composting never mentioned in the report? Why should composte=s be penalized by fees for handling debris on their own property? Why were alternate plans not suggested for owners of small properties? Why not allow credit for citizens who haul pickup loads of debris to Grimms? After spending $20,000.00, why are there no really creative plans in the proposal? n rely: Wdlter F. Munhall ID (v ~.J April 1, 1994 %ieon Cox III 13580 SW Ash Avenue Tigard, Oregon 97223 Thank you for your letter regarding the Yard Debris Pick-up Program. Your letter will be forwarded to the City Council for their review prior to the public hearing. The Tigard City Council hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, April 12, 1994 at 7:30 PM in the Town Hall Room of City Hall (13125 SW Hall Blvd.). If you have additional questions, please contact me Monday through Friday between. 8 AM and 5 PM at 639-4171. Sin ely, reen din Management Analyst lre/ms 13125 SW Hail Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 ~f March 29; 1994 Loreen Edin Tigard City Hall 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. Tigard,, OR 97223 Dear Ms. Edin: Regarding the yard debris recycling, I would like to include my two cents for your upcoming city council meeting. I am not interested in paying any additional fee on my current garbage bill. I understand the mandate by the state, and I understand the economic impact on the garbage hauler. I, along with two adjacent neighbors, currently recycle all our yard debris in our backyards and would have no need for a can or recycling through the garbage hauler. I believe the city needs to know just how many people need it,arnd come up with an exemption to those not requiring it. I do not userany landfill as it is all done in my backyard. Please accept this as my opposition to a mandatory increased fee schedule for all residents without an exemption provision. Sincerely, Cleon Cox III 13580 S.W. Ash Ave. Tigard,' OR 97223 684-3581 t Mr. Amo DeBernardis 14930 S.w. 92nd Avenue Tigard, OR 97224 Dear Amo: Thank you for your recent letter concerning the CIT meeting you attended where you discussed yard debris recycling. Your letter was forwarded to the City Council and will become part of the. record for the upcoming Council public hearing. The hearing is scheduled for April 12, 1994, at 7:30 p.m. in the Town Hall. I recognize that it seems that a "minimum plan" could be implemented as you proposed in your letter. However, please consider that DEQ has instructed the City of Tigard, through its franchised haulers, to implement regularly scheduled curbside collection services by July, 1994. In addition, local governments are required to provide curbside collection at least monthly. We have learned, from the experience of other communities, that there is a wide range of options to be considered in the design of a yard debris collection program, including: How to design the curbside collection program best for the circumstances in our community. (Please see the attached "Summary of Selected Yard Debris Program Approaches.n) How to decide on rate variables for curbside collection. The haulers have worked throughout this process to offer, suggestions and have proposed one of the alternatives under consideration. Through the CIT meetings and the public hearing process, it is our hope to also benefit from input fr6m the citizens. ` ~ y- 13125 j"W Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223, (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 v~ Y Amo 1DeBernardis March 28, 1994 Page 2 If you would like to discuss this further or have additional comments or questions, please do not hesitate to contact either Loreen Edih, Management Analyst, or me. sincere,Vf, ;a-~r ck J, Reilly Cit Administrator prc0328.941 c• Loreen Edin Ell, 3C') r, - SUMM"Y OF WLECTM YARD t: Yard Debris Yard Debris Yard Debris Extra Yard Ban on Exemptio" Program Curbside Collection Container Debris Disposal o f from CoBec4ion Frequency Type & size Materials Yard Debri s Colleetim, a Collected AOranyd sbanon Yes Eli-Weekly W gai, roll cart Yes at no No No Sani+tion. Corvallis avail to City rem only additional charge ~wa Lonmty Yes Weekly 32 gal. basic Yea, bag/bundle Yes 60 gal. cart option $20 yr 1 ke S10 yr 2 am aaark CorL*nty WA Yes Bi-Weekly 32 gal. basic Yes, bag/bundle Not regrnse6 (Pilot) (Mar-Nov) 60 gal. cart option 180 gal. a'" v ed a sign-up' 18A D HH Monthly (cart lease,~L50/mo) per pick-up program (Dec-Feb) City of Durham Yes Weekly 32 gal. basic Yes, bag/be; ndle No No ! fee duwged City of Gresham Yes Weekly 32 gal. basic Yes Yes 60 gal. cart option for exempt $10 one-time City of Lake Oswvego Yes Weekly 32 gal. basic 60 gal. can option Yes for e=mpt Yes no fee at hauler oo# Caty of Portland Yes Bi-Weekly 32 gal. basic Yes, V- bag/bundle NO No option for addhional fee charged cans (52/extra set-out) - City of Tualatin Yes Weekly 40 gailcn cop cart No No Washington County Yes Bi-Weekly 32 gallon can Yes, 52 bag/bundle No No ri Jan-94 60 1. cart option fee City of West Linn No Self-Haul City of Wilsonville Yes Weekly 60 gal. cart - basic Yes, bag/bundle No No except for. (Planned) Monthly 32 gal cart/ono opt for fee ch d golf course hh no collect option for ti assocw ors; Page 2 PIS PROGRAM APPROACHES Basic Monthly Rate Yard Debris Special Features Garbage Service for Guba ;e Colleetioaa Container Size Service ov/ Yard Debris Avail- at Landfill Backyard composting 90 gallon roll emit .$15.50 No hauler role bins sire provided to 32 gallon roll cart so cn residents who don *t (roller carts not avail L-- I use 90 gallon cart to rural customers) Avail. nearby <40 residents have 32 gal , 517.60 no hauler role been exempted 60 gal cart 521.10 (YD = V-0 of basic service) Voluntary Subscription YD only - 32 gal 54.00 Service Q, I% part) YD only - 60 gal 55.50 Bus signs wi:l promote ran-cut no fee Dec-Feb next war 1 Avail. rnearby Started with -parper- 32 gal 518.00 no hauler role set-out' service 63/can) 20 gallon S15.50 32 gallon 51755 32 al(60 1 YD opt) 51990 32 gallon S16.15 32 gal(60 gal YD opt) 51875 (YD = 52.60 of basic service) 6svaii: nearby 20 gallon Westside S1630 r`:-; hauler role _ 32 gallon Westside 51930 20 gallon Eastside 514.60 32 gallon Eastside 517.16 02/extra bag/bundle (YD = 53.57 of basic service) Avail. nearby . 35 gal. toter 517.05 no hauler role 60 gal. toter 52339 20 1 minivan S13.09 Avail. nearby A--W cost = S2/., for 32 32 gallon 15.33 no hauler role gal YD (60 X375) 32 al(60 1 YD opt) S17.58 Yes Currently considering lipping fee 54.00/CY alt curbside approaches for and debris: Exemption offered m 20 g::l minivan 516.60 (reduced service) associations & seduced 32 gallon 518.60 (no service) service to if course hh ICurrent Yard Debri Y Garbage Reca very rip Fee Qbs/driv e scv Ts I 33 575.00 572.40 I 25 pilot 575.00 50 575.00 575.00 1 50 575.00 I 2? $'15.00 1 86 \A planned HIA - 2/9.3 31 E' Dear Mayor and Council Members: At our C.I.T. meeting, we discussed'the report and various plans for handling yard debris. It seems to me that all the plans require more than is needed. I would suggest that Tigard implement a minimum plan for collecting yard debris. This plan would include the following: 1. One can per month with an extra charge for additional cans. 2. No need for collection during the winter months as there is little if any debris to pick up. 3. Curbside pickup of plastics. 4. Provision to review the plan at the end of one year. I am at a loss to understand the need for a consultant and the lack of participation by local citizens and haulers in the development of the plan. Sincerely: ,i 5, 1 - OT Arno DeBemardis 14930 SW 92nd Ave. MAR 2 8 3984 Tigard, Or 97224 March 25, 1994 3.2 Dear Mr. Hegpella Thank you for your letter regarding the Yard Debris Pick-up Program. Your letter will be forwarded to the City Council for their review prior to the public hearing. The Tigard City Council hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, April 12, 1994 at 7:30 PM in the Town Hall Room of City Hall (13125 SW Hall Blvd.). if you have additional questions, please contact me Monday through Friday between a AM and 5 PM at 639°4171. Sin ely, C 6Loreen.R. Edin Management Analyst lre/ms 13125 SW Nall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 J~ • 13700 SW 114th Avenue Tigard, Oregon 97223 March 21, 1994 Mrs. L.oreen Edin. City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Mrs. Edin: Thank you for your presentation of "Yard Debris Recycling" at the March 1, 1994 meeting of the West Tigard CIT. You requested input for the City of Tigard. I hope to attend the April 12 meeting, but I am submitting a written statement as well.. I wish to request that the participation in an organized recycling program be optional. I support recycling and have been doing it for years; I want the option to continue my current method. I compost all garden vegetable matter, leaves and grass clippings. I 40 have a two cubic yard trailer into which I dispose of all prunings, weeds, etc. I dump the trailer at Grimm's two or three times a year at a cost of $4 or $8 per load. My trailer allows me to dispose of all yard debris, including cuttings up to eight feet in length. Large diameter limbs I cut up for fire wood. I am neither eager to have to cut my prunings into sizes that will fit into a 60 gallon container nor pay the cost of a weekly or biweekly curb- side collection. Thank you for considering my position. I do believe it is necessary to keep yard debris out of the sanitary land fill and that recycling should be mandatory. I want to maintain the convenience and option of my current method and keep my costs at a minimum. Sincerely, 40-1a ~ Gerald E. Heppell L 34 March 22, 1994 Mr. Bill Erdle 7405 S.W. Beveland Road Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Mr. Erdle: ~94: 1, t-61, 010cl Thank you for you ecent letter outlining your statement concerning yard debris recycling. Your letter has been forwarded to the Tigard City Council and will also be included as part of the hearing record. The Council hearing is now scheduled for the Council. meeting of April 12 (7:30 p.m. in the Town Hall, 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard.) If•you have additional comments or questions concerning yard debris recycling, please contact either Loreen Edin, Management Analyst for the City of Tigard, or me. With regard to the second issue-in your letter concerning the Triangle and a miniature golf course located in the area where Tri- Met had planned to build a transit center, I offer the following as an update on this situation: Tri-Met appealed the Director"s_ De~isipn to the plamAng-. - Commission. Under appeal is the approval of the application for use of the property as a miniature golf course. (The golf course operator plans to lease the property from the owner.) C~ty. Adman~strat~ c UickBewersdorff 1 l ~-i 3 r a_ S 'i R C J %-.,y Recorder City Hall City of Tigard 13125 S. W. Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Please share my thoughts on the following with the City Council: ~v 7405 S. W. Beveland Rd. Tigard, OR 97223 3/20/94 r MAR 2 z 199+ dbt'-3 : 'Ln„j U L2~K:/ Yard Debris Recycling If the choice is among the four alternatives, I'd select alternative B due to its lower cost over all the rest. You can always go with one of the other alternatives at a later date if option B proves inadequate. I do take exception to the "no individual exemptions" statement. Three years ago I purchased a $500 chipper/shredder. I also have a large compost bin. Although I probably have more trees and bushes than most residents, I do not have any yard debris to recycle. I'm sure there are others in the same situation. Recycling should be done at the site where an item or material is grown or used. To this end, this type of recycling should be encouraged. None of your alternatives encourages this. It's much easier for you not to allow for exceptions, but in doing so you are discouraging exactly what we all should be doing. I ask you to consider this and show a willingness to be responsive to the needs of the people who are examples of what recycling ideally should be. Garden Golf It came to my attention in a newspaper article that a miniature golf course was being planned for a site in the Triangle area near Tigard Cinemas. This also happens to be the same area where Trimet had planned on building a transit station and potential light rail stop. If we wan: to build a community where people want to live and work in the Triangle, then I feel we need to be careful about how this area develops. Somehow it seems to me that a Trimet station is essential or will be essential in developing a community that is relatively free of having to use cars for wherever we go. I have nothing against a golf course, but the Triangle needs to be linked to the rest of the world in a way that will allow us to get there and back without driving. We know we have traffic problems now. Here's a chance for us to do something about it proactively. Please, I hope you can re-think this. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Bill Erdle a DR March 21, 1994 Mr. Ormond H. Doty and Mrs. Edith A Doty 14465 S.W. 80th Place Tigard, OR 97224 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Doty: Thank you for you recent letter outlining your statement concerning yard debris recycling. Your letter has been forwarded to the Tigard City Council and will also be included as part of the hearing record. The Council hearing is now scheduled for the Council meeting of April 12 (7:30 p.m: in the Town Hall, 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard.) F779 If you have additional comments or questions of staff on this issue, please do not hesitate to contact either Loreen Edin, Management Analyst for the City,of Tigard or me. •.114a d..* ~i 14465 S.W. 80th Place Tigard, Oregon 97224 March 18, 1994 TO: ms a Cit Council SUBJECT: Yard Debris Recycling MAR 2 ? 1994 The City of Tigard Assessment Summary for Alternative C with the lowest cost is our preference. Every other week for Red bin recyclables collection and every other week for yard tX K debris. To :make the plan more workable how about yard debris pickup twice a month such as the second and fourth weeks. Another poseibility would also lower cost and that would be to limit ya;.a debris pickup from March to October only. The thought of having another big truck coming into our street every other week is not to our liking. Sincerely, rZI M 1 ~di.th A. Doty 39 March 21, 1994 Mr. Merle F. Pugh 15685 S.W. Old Orchard Place Tigard, OR 97224 Dear Mr. Pugh: Thank you for you recent letter outlining your statement concerning yard debris recycling. Your letter has been forwarded to the Tigard City Council and will also be included as part of the hearing record. As you know, the hearing is now scheduled for the Council 'meeting of April 12 (2 :30 p.m. in the Town Hall, 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard.) If you have additional, comments or questions of staff on this issue, please do not hesitate to contact either Loreen Edin, Management Analyst for the City of Tigard or me. 4Sincerel , elayr ini c: Loreen Edin prC=1.94 13125 SAM Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD X03) ,534-2772 STATEMENT FOR PUBLIC HEARING, APRIL 12, 1994, ON YARD DEBRIS RECYLCING TO: Tigard City-Council FROM: Merle F. Pugh, 15685 SW Old Orchard Place Your efforts to abide by the Oregon DEQ edict requiring curbside nick up of yard debris is appreciated. However, it appears to me that your four alternatives, as presented to the South Tigard CIT on March 2, are not the only ones that should be considered. It is sometimes easier. to meet the needs of overnment than the needs of people. It is natural to take~„implest road, but sometimes it does not meet environmental or human needs. The current situation might even call into question the role of DEQ, or any other agency, that still does not understand that taxpayers and ratepayers have a limit. At the March 2 meeting, there seemed to be several others who, like me, do not want to pay for a service they don't need. It was brought out that some people mulch their debris, some haul it, some burn it many miles away, and so forth. Every household has different needs. Every household is different in its cormnitment to the environment. This additional "service" is needed by some and not needed by others. Have those who do not need the service been fully considered? The argument that it is cheaper for a third truck to stop at all residences rather than at some residences does riot wash. The recycling truck. now on my route has to stop at my house only once every 4-6 weeks:, and I'm certain that saves money. Another aspect that needs study, and one that may apply only to a development such as Summerfield where I live, is the matter of where to put another 32-gallon garbage can, let alone a 60-gallon can. Where I live there-are-tight restrictions; such.recepti.bles must receive special treatment and permission if put outdoors-- and there sure isn't room in my garage for a third receptacle. Yet another reason many in Summerfield don't need curbside debris pickup is that they have gardeners-do their yard work, including hauling. And, finally, I can't conceive anyone needing pickup every other week.in the winter time. Even in summer, debris accumulation is irregular. 21 Surely, the high-priced studies contracted by the Council can come up with a program that benefits residents rather than a program that makes things easv for the City. Thanks for the opportunity to make this March 33, 1994 statement. Q15 1994 zi 1i Mary E. Davis 11110 SW 130th Avenue Tigard., Oregon 97223 Dear Ms. Davis: Thank you for your letter regarding the Yard Debris Pick-up Program. Your letter will be forwarded to the City Council for their review prior to the public hearing. The Tigard City Council hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, April 12, 1994 at 7:30 PM in the Town Hall Room of City Hall (13125 SW Hall Blvd.). If you have additional questions, please contact me Monday through Friday between 8 AM and 5 PM at 639-4171. Si ,cerely, n aalgeme en R. Ede t nt Analyst Ire/ms 13125 SW Hall Bbd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4471 TDD (503) 684-2772 !I March 3, 1994 Lorin Edin City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Mrs ]Edin: I would like you to advise the Council that I will strongly object to the Yard Debris Pick-up program, if it is made mandatory. I am a senior citizen and I chose my new home with an eye to being able to maintain it myself. My yard is not low-maintenance but no--Maintenance. I have rocks and dust bark 40 both front and back, with small bushes. Twice a year I have a yard man come to trim and spray. He hauls away any debris. Those who have choosen to have lawns and plantings that require maintenance should pay for that life style. It is not mine and I will not subsidize them. Yours truly, Mary Elavis 11110 SW 130th Ave. Tigard, OR 97223 0 2- MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ~J TO: Pat Reilly, City Administrator FROM: Loreer. Edin, Management Analyst DATE: March 17, 1994 SUBJECT: Yard Debris Program Status a7aJMesAwn o The City of Tigard, like all cities in the Portland metropolitan area, is required by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality to offer curbside collection of vard debris this year. The service must be extended to all single family residential customers, with the goal of diverting 93% of all yard debris from the waste stream by July 1, 1996. In addition, though its diversion from the waste stream has not been mandated by DEQ, scrap paper comprises the single largest element of the residential waste stream. Staff has received a great deal of public input requesting the establishment of a curbside scrap paper collection service. Washington County and many cities within the County Wasteshed want to start a scrap paper program by October f this year. l3v dn~erting both yard debris and scrap pa~oer fro!n the residential waste stream (37% of the residential waste stream), many solid waste custor~iPrs in the City should be able to do~nrnsize to a smaller garbage can thereby offseCing a substantial portion of the rate increase required to offer these two new services. Exemptions should be considered for homes goat do not require the same level of service as the tvpical single family detached housing area. These homes, which are primarily located inside Summerfield Civic Association, are referred to as "condominiums" later in this memorandum. They have very similar needs like a multi-family apartment complex would have with most of the grounds being designated as common use areas which are maintained by a landscaping contractor. Mobile home parks also fall under this exemption. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff will be making recommendations at the 4/12/94 Public Hearing for Yard Debris Program implementation to include the following (program options are still being reviewed to try to keep the total cost at $4.00 per month per residential cuatomer including the scrap paper collection): 1. Yard Debris collection to begin 10/1/94 with a class exemption program for qualifying 'condominium" associations and "mobile. home parks whose rates would include a small increase to support the yard debris program administration costs; 2. Scrap Paper collection to also begin 10/1 /94 with a white bin being collected weekly; 3. "Recycle O ft* rate would be raised to include collection, of all recycling materials (red and white bins being collected weekly and the 60-gallon cart for yard debris on a bi-weekly basis); and 4. On-Call service would include garbage collection and the red and white bins, but not yard debris. PAGE 2OF5 YARD DEBRIS PROGRAM STATUS MARCH 17, 1994 BACKGROUND YARD DEBRIS In order to develop a yard debris program for the City of Tigard, City staff and Harding Lawson Associates (HLA) met with or talked to virtually every jurisdiction in the Portland metropolitan area. In addition, we have worked with Washinaton County solid waste stuff, DEQ, ; ;atro, an d our franchised solid waste haulers. Staff visited with al the CITs and have been meeting with Summerfield and other special interest groups to share information and discuss options for exemption programs. Specific program details and costs will be available in your packet for the 4/12/94 Council meeting. In developing the program, there have.been three key questions that have been asked at the CIT meetings and during exemption discussions, namely: 1. Is it fair? 2. Will it work? 3. Are we getting our program for the lowest possible cost? 1. Is it fair? OThe DEQ mandate is that we establish a curbside collection program. OAR 340, which contains this mandate, does allow for less than weekly collection if we. can prove that the lower level program will meet the regional recycling goals. I believe staff and HLA will recommend co'.!ection of a 60-gallon cart ser~lce every other week in order to meet the program requirements. Bi-weekly is more effective and convenient that monthly collection. City of Portland is currently collecting bi-weekly and DEQ is talking with them now about changing to weekly. HLA and staff are currently developing an exemption program based on a "class" or type of customers (i.e., condos and townhouses that use a landscaper similar to apartment complexes). A draft of the exemption proposal "was distributed to Council at the 3/15/94 Council Meeting. However, HLA and staff would not envision individual exemptions. Although Oregon's "Opportunity to Recycle Act` (SB 66) stipulates that users of a recycling service may not be charged more for the service than people who don't use k the DEQ has chosen not to enforce i his provision with regard to yard debris. Three jurisdictions, Lake Oswego, Gresham and Clackamas County, do allow exemptions. It is my view, after talking to there jurisdictions and HLA that individual exemptions are administratively expensive and unfair to those who remain in the program and that the system being proposed for Tigard will offer enough alternatives to those tho believe themselves to be qualified for an individual exemption. 11 PAGE 3OF5 YARD DEBRIS PROGRAM STATUS Lift - AT4FMARCH 17, 1994 The arguments against individual exemptions are: A. Exemptions raise the cost of the program for everyone else who remains in it. For instance, if Tigard were to exempt 500 single family homes, it would raise the cost of the program somewhere between $.12 and $.20 per month for the remaining homes depending on the collection option chosen. In Gresham, where 1,400 households were exempted from their yard debris recycling program, the monthly rate for weekly collection of a 60-gallon yard debris container is $5.80 per month. This higher cost can be directly attributed to the exemptions. However, since everyone benefits from this program in the form or more stable garbage rates in the long-run, I believe it is fair to have all solid waste customers participate in the financial support of the administration of the programs. B. v There is a cost to and individual exemption program. Gresham had to hire two full-time people for three months to do nothing but process exemption applications. That city charged a $10 non-refundable application fee. Clackamas County charged a $20 application fee and still estimated that it still lost general fund monies implementing the exemption program. The Tigard Council's policy direction is to only implement now solid waste program that require no more City staff. C. Effective enforcement is next to impossible. What if someone is granted an exemption then continues to put yard debris in their garbage can? Who provides the enforcement and how? What are the penalties? D. Homeowners who home compost or use a landscaping service can self-select out of the yard debris program by switching from regular weekly garbage collection to on-call garbage collection. By using on-call garbage collection, the customer receives no regular billing and no yard debris pick up. Instead, the customer calls the hauler when their garbage can is full and the hauler picks it up on the next regular collection day for that area. Payment for a 32-gallon cart would be made and that would include collection of red and white bin recyclables on the same day. Granted, this is a bit of a hassle and works cost-wise only if the customer is committed to recycling, but it is better than the alternative offered by most jurisdictions, which is pay ing for a yard debris service that would not be used. In addition, a homeowner who uses a landscaping service can take the yard debris cart, request that the landscaper use it, then negotiate a reduction in the landscaper's charges to offset the increase in garbage rates due to yard debris collection. E. If the issue for a homeowner is that they're willing to pay the rate increase but, since they use a landscaping service, they don't want the cart cluttering up their garage, they can simply call their hauler and tell them not to provide a cart. PAGE 4OF5 YARD DEBRIS PROGRAM STATUS WARCH 17, 1994 F. Although DEQ has chosen not to enforce it in this instance, exemptions are clearly not in keeping with the spirit of SB 66, which also stipulates that the cost of recycling programs be spread across the user base. People must pay fdr the program whethor they use It or not, because of the benefits that accrue to society as a whole by having such a program in place. This is much the same as any other utility billing. Because there are benefits to everyone from this program, as outlined in the above points, it will be recommended that the exempted homes be required to share in the general and administrative costs of the program. The exempted homes will receive the long-term benefit of lower or more stable garbage rates in the future. Staff will be recommending a partial rate increase for the exempted homes. 2. Will it work? Having reviewed all of the available evidence and having met with or talked to representatives of virtually all other jurisdictions in the region, staff is of the opinion that a bi-weekly curbside program under which homeowners are provi6ed with a cart and yard debris is picked up on the same day as garbage is the on program that will work. In fact, it is precisely because subscription service, monthly or seasonal, nd self-haul depot systems have failed that DEQ mandated weekly 32-gailon curbside collection. As shown in the chart below (taken from an extensive study conducted by Clackamas County), roller carts far outstrip other types of containers in terms of both participation rates and recovery amounts. Figure 1: Average amount of yard waste collected per household for each type of container. based on total households in the collection area. ibis information can be a tool to help project total material recovery for a yard waste program. f PAGE 5OF5 YARD DEBRIS PROGRAM STATUS WARCH 17, 1994 3. Are we getting our program for the lowest possible Bost? 3beneves that we are. A comparable yard debris collection program in unincorporated Washington County (bi-weekly collection in 60-gallon carts) costs $3.75 per month. In Tigard, the program is hoped to cost $4.00 per month including scrap paper recycling. SCRAP PAPER RECYCLING The single largest component of the residential waste stream is scrap paper: This includes junk mail, packaging, grayboard and a variety of other lower grade papers. Neither the state nor Metro requires that scrap paper be recycled, although such a mandate is expected before the end of the decade. Consumer surveys have repeatedly shown strong demand for scrap paper recycling services and markets for secondary fiber are improving as the increasing scarcity of wood chips drives the prices of virgin products higher. Many cities in Multnomah and Clackamas counties currently collect scrap paper at curbside now. Washington County and the cities within the County hope to have this program on-line during 1994. e obvious advantage to this program is that removing both yard debris and scrap paper from the garbage can diverts, on average, 97% of what people are now disposing. By offering recycling services for these two items, many of the solid waste customers in the City have the opportunity to switch to a smaller garbage can at a lower cost. Households. that use a 90-gallon cart will be able to downsize to a 60-gallon cart. Households that use a 60-gallon cart could downsize to a 32-gallon can or cart. Households that use a 32-gallon can will be able to downsize to a 20-gallon mini-can. This Is r4 g&ely the impact that rMcling programs are supposcd to have and ghat the state law reguiresl Under this program, each household receiving regular weekly service will receive a recycling bin similar to the red bins that have already been distributed by the hauler. The new white bins would be for scrap paper only and would be collected at the curb on the same day as garbage. Scrap paper would be placed in the white bin inside a grocery bag. i 'J RECYCLING PROGRAM CHANGES FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION as of 4/4/94 Warding Lawson Associates, the City's Consultant, and staff are In agreement that the following program should be recommended- to the City Council as best serving the community as a whole and still meeting ®EQ's program requirements: Yard W°vvr iv Cmoli®%V% r'o: • 61-weekly collection of yard debris on the same day as garbage, year round; • Hauler-provided 60-gallon carts that work with mechanically assisted collection equipment; • A uniform rate increase of $2.90 per month for residential customers; • A class exemption for residential associations with limited yard debr!s to be handled; with a rate Increase of $.90 per month; • Aggressive promotion of the service, source reduction options, and opportunities to decrease refuse collection service levels; and • Full program roll-out between 7/1/94 and 9/30/94. • Class Exemption - See attached sheet * Yard debris lnJudea: grass clippings, leaves, branches (4" or less in diameter), shrubs, plants, prunings and weeds. Scrap Paper Collection: • Meekly collection of scrap paper on the same day as garbage, year round; • Second hauler provided 14-gallon bin for manual collection; • A uniform rate Increase of $.50 per month for residential customers; • Aggressive promotion of the service, source reduction options, and opportunities to decrease refuse collection service levels; and • Full program roll-out between 7/1/94 and 9/30/94: Scrap- paper Includes: kraft bags (paper grocery bags), broch! :Pes, junk mail, envelopes (with or without windows), paper egg cartons, paper cores (from paper towels), paper labels (from tin cans), greeting cards, white and colored high grade paper, computer printouts, file folders, coupons, paperboard, chipboard (cereal boxes), and gift wrap. /hat does this mean? If the above recommendations are adopted by the City Council, what does this mean to the customer? in keeping with Council policy; no additional City staff will be needed to implement this program. The monthly rate for a 32-gallon can collected at curbside would be $16.50 and would include yard debris and scrap paper being added to the recycling program. Many citizens would be able to reduce the size of their garbage can and thereby offset the cost of the new programs. * If the above recommendations are adopted by the City Council, those residents who qualify for a class exemption would pay a monthly rate of $14.50 for a 32-gallon can collected at curbside. This would include an administrative fee for the yard debris program and scrap paper being added to the recycling program. PROPOSED "CLASS" EXEMPTION FOR YARD DEBRIS PROGRAM !sting neighborhood or homeowners' associations with at least 15 households as members should re provided with an opportunity to elect to exempt their members from the new yard debris collection service, If they have a contract for yard maintenance service which Includes the hauling and recycling of all yard debris. Each hauler should administer the exemption program for, their franchise area according to the following conditions: • the associations' board must vote to request an exemption through letter application to their hauler; • the association must demonstrate that all yard debris from common and individual yards is currently being diverted from landfilling and that yard debris is/will not be placed In trash containers; • all members of the association. must be exempt (service can't be provided to some and not to others); and • residents receiving regular trash service within the association should help pay a portion of the cost of the new program through a $.90 per month Increase in their refuse bill (going from $13.10 per month to $14.00 per month because administrative costs of the new service are spread among more customers, the cost for non-exempted residents is kept about $.05 per month lowers than If this fee weren't paid and this Is In keeping with Council's policy to have all customers share the cost of the solid waste collection and recycling program). Before applying for the exemption, associations would be encouraged to talk with their landscaper to see whether the cost of yard maintenance service could be reduced if 60-gallon carts were provided 40for their use. Additionally, residents would be encouraged to consider maintaining the yard maintenance service for lawns while adding the 60-gallon cart service for trimmings from gardens In individual units. No exemptions are recommended to be offered to Individual households because of the administrative effort required to manage such a process and because of the uncertainty on how such an approach would Impact rates for all other users. This position as well as the requirements for some participation in funding of the new service by the exempted class is consistent with the City's uniform rate policy and the approach taken in providing red bin service to all residents In the past. ri~ f2Ai Lafe>art F-dtw 0 .4 RESIDENTIAL MONTHLY IRATE COMPARISON SERVICE-OPTIONS CURRENT RATES PROPOSED RATES RECYCLE ONLY (red bins & cart) N/A $ 7.40 I red bins only (including scrap paper under new rates only.) $ 4.00 $ 4.50 cart only (yard debris) N/A $ 2.90 MINI CAN (20 gal.) w/o exemption $10.85 $14.25 w/ exemption N/A $12.25 CART (32 gal.) w/o exemption $13.10 $16.50 w/ exemption N/A 1$14.50 CART (60 gal. w/o exemption $24.08 $27.48 CART (90 gal) w/o exemption $30.19 $33.59 ON-CALL (mixed waste as well as bin & cart recycling) $ 5.10 $ 8.50 0vv-r aA pn~ cc~ VIE HLA PRESENTATION Review Yard Debris Collection Program Options Summarize Yard Debris Program Reconunendation Summarize Preliminary Cost Analysis for Adding Scrap Paper to Recs. Bin Respond to Council W or Public Questions 0 Tigard City Council Meeting- .April. 12,1994 Review and Design of a Yard Debris Collection Program for the City of Tigard, Oregon 1 YARD DEBRIS OPTIONS ALTERNATIVES A Bi-Weekly, 60 gallon roll-cart Bi-Weekly, 32 gallon can with 60 gallon roll-cart option Bi-Weekly, 60 gallon roll-cart with decreased (bi-weekly) recyclables collection Weekly, 60 gallon roll-cart Tigard City Council Meeting- April 12,1994 Review and Design of a Yard Debris Collection Program for the City of Tigard, Oregon 2 177 COMPARATIVE BENEFITS Least Medium Lowest Bi-weekly Diversion Convenience Cost 32/60gal opt. C Bi-weekly Least Least Lowest 60gal w/ Diversion Convenience Cost reduced recycling _ D Greatest Greatest Highest Weekly Diversion Convenience Cost 60 gal Tigard City Council Meeting- April 12,1994 Review and Design of a Yard Debris Collection Program for the City of Tigard, Oregon Convenience to Relative slasmsa.a., Diversion Residents Cost RELATIVE MONTHLY COST A. Bi-Weekly Bi-Weekly Bi-Weekly Weekly 60 gal 32/60 gal 60 gal w/ 60 gal Reduced ?et Recycling Tigard City Council Meeting- April 12,1994 Review and Design of a Yard Debris Collection Program for the City of Tigard, Oregon 4 0 i I Rif L DE RECD E DAi I Bi-Weekly Collection of Yard Debris on the Same Day as Garbage, Year Round. Hauler-Provided 60-Gallon Carts Collected with Mechanically Assisted Equipment Uniform Rate Increase of $2.90 per month for R esl d erttlal C' j st ;niters 21; Class Exemption for Residential Associations with Limited Yard Debris to be Handled - Rate Increase of $.90 per month Aggressive Promotion of Service, Source Reduction Options, and Opportunity to Decrease Refuse Collection Service Levels Pull Program Roll-Out Between July 1 and September 30, 1994 E Tigard City Council Meeting- April 12,1994 5 Review and Design of a Yard Debris Collection Program for the City of Tigard, Oregon COST CONTROL OPPORTUNITY By Changing Refuse Service Levels Some Residents May Be Able to Control the Impact of Cost Increases on 'T'heir Monthly Budget $ per Month $35.00 $30.00 f' 6 Current KEY J• f~l :ti'r`tiJ• r;rtij ~f~• No Change in Service Level $25.00 , f~,rti;• Change in Service Level fb~SJ• r ? $20.00 •J• • $15.00 $10.00 $5.00 $0.00 Scenario #1 Scenario #2 Scenario #3 Scenario #4 2 Cans to 1 Eliminate 6 1 Can to a 1 Can with Can "Extras it Mini-Can No Charge Tigard City Council Meeting- April 12,1994 Review and Design of a Yard'Debris Collection Program 6 for the City of Tigard, Oregon 4GX. SCRAP PAPS OPPORTUNITY WHAT Kraft Bags, Brochures, Junk Mail, Envelopes, Paper Egg Cartons, Paper Cores, Paper L ..abets` Greeting Cards, VVhite & Colored High Grade Paper, Computer Printout, Pile Folders, Coupons, Paperboard, Chipboard (creal boxes), gift wrap, & other WHY Improved Markets Interest by Residents Potential for Diversion and Recovery Together with Yard Debris May Allow for Less Refuse Service ®W Add to Existing Red Bin Program & Routes Provide Second 14-Gallon Bin, Collect Weekly Promote with Washington County M14 VM Tigard City Council Meeting- April 12,1994 Review and Design of a Yard Debris Collection Program for the City of Tigard, Oregon 7 SCRAP PAPER CONSIDERATIONS Material Availability and Potential for Diversion Marketability Impacts on Collection Impacts on processing Education & Promotion Requirements and Generator Impacts Consistency with Overall Strategy for Development of Curbside Program. Cost HLA Analysis Recommends $-50 Per Month Rate Impact Tigard City Council Meeting- April 12,1994 Re view and Design of a Yard Debris CoRecton Program for the City of Tigard, Oregon 8 INDIVIDUAL EXEMPTION ISSUE Individual Household Yard Debris Program Exemptions: Of eleven nearby programs contacted, 3 provided for individual exemptions - anywhere from 1 % to 10% of eligible households applied for exemptions all 9 A A oa nr% 1 GYt 7 a Y911 i-r%cf riol n tPti fn 1GtlVm 6G6A 63`4iAGlA 0..VlAlVa~..~aa o., ana ava ~.vv.. verifying resident participation in allowed alternatives Primary Advantage of Individual Exemptions: Residents who home compost, use landscaper or self haul don't pay for service they don't use Disadvantages of Individual Exemptions: Conflicts with State requirement - participating in recycling must not cost more than not recycling Increases costs for those who are not exempted increased administrative personnel and expense Conflicts with Council policy for uniform service and uniform rates to generator classes. Complicates service offerings (exempt glass, newspaper?) rE Tigard City Council Meeting- April 12,1994 Review and Design of a Yard Debris Collection Program for the City of Tigard, Oregon 9 ]RECOMMENDED CLASS EXEMP'TIONJ Multi-Family (Dempster) and Commercial (Dumpster) Customer Classes Generally Have Landscaper Service to Haul Their Yard Debris and Currently Have a Separate Rate and Service Schedule Exempted Commercial Customers With Single Can Service Have Paid the Basic Residential Rate Not Exempted; Should Deceive Yard Debris Service if Desired Residential Customers In Homeowner Association (Multi-Family Style) Service Locations with Single Can Service & Existing Contracts with Landscaper to Haul/Recycle Yard Debris Exempted From Service; Should Help Pay Fixed Costs of Service ($.90 per month) If Exempted Dome owner Associations Do not Pay the $.90 Monthly Fee, Rates for All Others Would be $.05 higher If Individual Exemptions Were Allowed (at $.90 per month), Rates for All Others Would be $.65 higher Tigard City Council Meeting;- April. 12,1994 Review and Design of a Yard Debris Collection Program 10 for the City of Tigard, Oregon Tigard Council Meeting 4112194 7:30pm am Treasurer on the Board of Directcrs of the Summerfleld Civic Ass'n. Sometimes known simply as "Summerfeld". I would like to address the "Class Exemption Option Proposal" presented to Jim Davis, Administrator, and myself by Lorean Edin early in March and than later at a group meeting With members of our Townhouse and Condo Associations. Summerfield has seven such Associations comprising 391 units. In addition, our retirement community has an Apartment complex of 175 units and an assisted living facility with 157 units. All of our Townhouse and Condo Associations have contracts with Landscaping Companys to take care of the year round yard maintenance. This contractor hauls off' all yard debris to an approved collection station. Each unit in the Association has a small enclosed courtyard. The courtyards are landscaped and are as maintenance free as possible. Because of some resident's physical restrictions or other reasons some of 01 these courtyards are also maintained by personal gardeners. Whatever debris is collected, maybe a two gallon bucket, is prat in the contractor's trailer. What all of this alludes to is that these Associations are virtually void of having yard debris in their garbage pickup. Although we are not excited about additional costs being added to our monthly budgets, we are very supportive of this class Exemption in cooperation to improve our necessary land fill requirements., In response to some of the suggested criteria listed In the proposal::: One of our Associations consists of 20 units. In the revised "class" exemption proposal it is noted that this exemption would include associations with at least 15 households. We strongly request that this revised criteria be adopted so that all of our Associations may be included in the (Exemption program,. Our particular Associations are run by an elected ~ 07 Board of Directors who have the authority to act for all of their residents within the Association and a vote of the entire Association would not be necessary. We would also hope that these exemptions would not be put on the basis of first come, first served. If this class exemption is put in place thar, it would appear that If an Associations qualified for the exemption than It would be exempted upon duly making their request to the hauler as outlined in the proposal. In addition to our Townhouse and Condo Associations, we have many Individual houses that have contracted landscaping service, either because of physical infirmities or because they simply are no longer excited about doing yard work. At any rate, their yard debris is hauled away by tine gardener to a collection station. Our homes are equipped with garbage disposals. In many instances the amount of recyclable garbage amounts to a grocery bag per week. We hope there will be options available to these residents whereby the haulers can provide a program with the pick-up cost allocated according to the related service. One firial Item th& I would like to address::: After my first meeting with Me cdin, I started my own experiment with the garbage that goes into the can other than yard debris. This was over a three week period. Each week I collected two groceries bags packed with envelopes, letters, junk mail, computer paper, cereal boxes, etc., compared to one half bag of recycable garbage. If ®EQ, Metro and any other agency are so interested in cleaning up our land fills than they should be giving serious consideration to this Adiculous waste of paper, plastic, cereal boxes, milk cartons and other miscellaneous that is not considered in the total process. We are all very interested and willing to recycle all of our refuse in an effort to conserve our land fills just give us a feasibita and workable opportunity to do so. Thank you for giving me this time 0 Bob tars U . F'