The URL can be used to link to this page

09/19/1989 - Packet CITY OF TIGARD U1 ES AND FRANCHISE COMMITTEE MEETING AGII SE TEMBER 19, 1989 - 7:00 P.M. TIGARD CITY HALT. - TOM HAIL OCNFIRENCE ROAM � I--,' I-,' LI-1 NEMBERS: McReynolds, Barrett, Irwin, Jacobs, Walsh, Wogen EX OFFICIO: miles, Lp-idVpr, SdVdt -.1. Call to order V2. Minutes of August 8, 1989 v�. Rate Comparison 4. Recycling 5. Yard Debris 6. Styrofoant Containers 7. Other Business 8. Adjournment r ` City Of Tigard Comparison of Garbage Rates With Other Washington [0uOt« Cities Wash tr Tigard YS Tigard Durham C0VOtv Tualatin B8aV Sherwood Average Average ------------------------------------------------------ -'------- -----'--- Residential 10.30 10.10 10.45 lO'lO 8'80 11 .00 10,13 1.73% 1D'lO Commercial 10,80 I0'60 9'25 11.00 10.41 3.72% Containers - Loose One Yard 60'91 60.91 59.80 57'60 54.94 61 . 12 69.20 2.89% Two Yards 109'81 109'81 106'65 104,15 99.90 109'70 106'67 2,94% Three Yards 146.92 146.92 141.25 139.43 135.87 145.96 142,73 2.94% Four Yards 183'92 183.92 175.65 176'16 17I'68 182'15 I78.9I 2.80% Eight Yards 308,25 308,25 291 ,95 284.50 298.78 302'09 298.97 3. 10% Containers - Compacted One Yard 142,84 134'55 132,65 143'46 143.18 130.34 2.51% Two Yards 231.88 239.96 216,80 285.73 230,21 236'92 -2.13% Three Yards 312'12 317.81 293'00 369'42 308. 17 320.I0 '2.49% ------'--------------------------------------------------------------------------------'------ � WithOUt Washington CUUOtv ' Tigard Vs Tigard Durham Tualatin Beav Sherwood Average Average ---------------------------'-------------'------------ --------- Residential 10.30 10.10 }U,lO 8'80 1I'00 lO'Uh 2'39% Commercial 10'80 10'60 9'25 ll'OU 10'41 3.72% Containers - Loose One Yard 60,91 60.91 57.50 54.84 61. 12 59.08 3.10% Two Yards 109.81 109,81 }04.}6 99,90 109.70 106,67 2.94% Three Yards 146.92 146.92 139'43 135'87 145'96 143'02 2.73% Four yards 183.92 183.92 176.16 171.68 182.16 179'56 2'43% Eight Yards 308.25 308,25 284,50 298,78 302'09 300'37 2.62% Containers - Compacted One Yard 142'84 132'65 143.46 143.18 140'63 1'64% Two Yards 231.88 216'80 265,73 230.21 236.16 -1.81% Three Yards 312.12 293'00 369.42 308.17 320'68 -2'67% Page 14A • TIGARD/TUALATIN TIMES • Week of August 31 -Sept. 6, 1989 Tigard City Briefs Tigard backs yard liability and safety as counterpoints to DE debris recycle plan the issue. Tigard residents will be given the The cities of Salem, Bend and for opportunity to recycle yard debris Pendleton all have PUC orders s CO with the city's agreement to par- restricting routine train horns P within ticipate in a proposed countywide city limits. An order was recently mf recycling program. granted to Eugene. Tigard joins eight other Before an order is issued, the PUC roa Washington County cities in support- will conduct an investigation into Pr( ing the yard debris recycling plan.The Tigard crossing safety, visibility and to, plan must first be approved by the traffic patterns. wa Department of Environmental Quality. Al! The plan is part of the Metropolitan ing Service District's Regional Waste Safety plans aired set Management plan to reduce yard Pic debris in landfills. for Durham Road Du The plan calls for five recycling A meeting of parents, educators, depots in Washington County. Three local police and City Engineer Randy sta' full-service depots would be placed in Wooley has produced some plans for me Beaverton, Hillsboro and Tualatin. improving the safety of Southwest ter They would be open six days a week. Two other depots termed limited-use would be placed in Forest Grove and ST. VINCE the Beaverton/Garden Home area. Those two depots would be open THRIFT Saturdays only from March to p November. BACK"1T O—SCH\ Residents could dispose of yard debris at a depot site or, if debris is separated, arrange for curbside pick up. County officials estimate that as L I much as 60 percent of yard debris September 7 thru Septembe waste could be diverted from Iandfills under the recycling program. lo The program would be fundedthrough curbside collection and dis- posal fees. Tigard residents generate about Selected Clothing Iten 3,806 tons of yard debris annually. 0 The final draft plan is expected to ---_ go to the DEQ for approval Sept. 1.5. City will request whistle-free status City Administrator Pat Reilly will r draft a letter on behalf of the city to the state Public Untilities Commission asking to bar the sounding of train whistles at certain crossings within the city. Toby Padgett, a downtown Tigard BOOKCASES.. $114.9 resident, asked the council to petition the PUC for whistle-free status from LAMPS.... $19.9 10 p.m. to 6 am. daily because train /�� whistles late at night have interrupted 4 Q,& G DRAWER her normal sleep patterns. a i R Padgett's request was supported by DRESSERS...... $34.9 the Department of Environmental Ouality in a letter written by Terry nolln- •MIIWAUKIE 10574SE32nd •GRESHAM 219Y -" ^� 974OSEPOWFU sHILLSBORO 6485 E L. THE WALL SITIFT JI t ... THURSDAY,AUGUST 31,1989 Bi w�4 Y Marketing: Kellogg tries to mollify critics of health claims for cereals Page B6. MRKETPLACE Who's News: Bard is latest to leave Tambrands after realignment Page B6. For Recyclers, the News Is Looking Bad print,says some towns allow phone brooks Newspaper Glut The Trash Piles Up and junk mail to get thrown Into the mix, One household's aeration of rernverablea and permit bundles to be tied with such contaminants as panty hose. per monm •iT th pounda Forces Towns Newepepere HE future scares me," Toll on the Midwest Sa sone rec clip So far,the slide in price for old newspa- y recycling per has taken its highest toll on Midwest- To End Projects Glaee containers^ indust executiern recycling programs because of the re- 17.3 executive. gion's higher transportation costs to paper Tin cans As communities and mills and ports. ByBI:Wnt.t.Srnt:e:'r Jnnn,.LL PAUL Last month,Dane County,Wis.,com- StaJJ Reportrr of Tn. 8.8 individuals witness the missioners partially lifted a ban on land- Just 15 months ago,Joe Harrison was Cardboard higher costs of recycling filling old newspapers after the county's officiating at the ribbon-cutting ceremony M 4 ' paper broker halved the amount of old the are likely to lose newspapers he was willing to buy each for the newly expanded recycling center in y y month.The temporary waiver was opposed Barberton,Ohio.Setting an upbeat mood Aluminum cane for the event,two local chicken houses t•s interest in programs they by many elute leaders who believe rest- gave away dinners as door prizes while f9astic"Pet"" once thou ht would be ehea , dents will get out of the recycling habit. disk jockeys from a nearby Akron station 90.6 g p Youngstown, Ohio, quit picking up played reeotds and cheered the six-year- .clear pinaGc soh drink hoteke or even free,to operate. newspapers a month ago.William Dundee, the city's litter-control coordinator,says old program to collect newspapers,glass Inao.r�r. residents were advised to store old papers, bottles and aluminum cans. but may soon be told to just throw them Today fie Harrison[eels less festive. cling program of because it accounts for Fleming,a Baltimore paper broker.(Con- out.The city still collects glass and alumi- The city official g trying to unload erton'0 roughly de%of revenue,has collapsed this trarydecades s popular belief,newspapers take num,but Mr.Dundee says he's concerned re used recycling equipment.Barberton'- year under oaths ago, oversupply. decades to decompose in landfills.)And that before long,"People are going to say recycling program,which used toecontrib- Little Fifteen months ago, pMr.er Harrison got without workable recycling,communities 'I'm wasting my time recycling.'" uta$3,000 to 85,000 a year to the Little 830 a ton for old newspapers.Just before with overflowing landfills must build un- Lea e and other community projects,is he shut his doors Jul 28,he Roger S.Angell,a Washington,D.C., League Y P 1 y paid a broker popular,expensive disposal plants or face dead. S10 a ton to haul papers away.The newspa- big recurring costs to ship garbage ever- consultant to Browning-Ferris,agrees with Success killed recycling in Barberton, per glut will cost communities more than longer distances. environmentalists that the recycling move- just as it threatens community recycling 8100 million in lost revenue this year,and Many politicians are trying to salvage ment in America could be seriously under- programs across the U.S. the longer range implications are more newspaper recycling,and in the process mined as people get disillusioned by the Collected for Naught worrisome.Even It newsprint makers stick are putting publishers on the spot,trying failure community programs. B In Minneapolis,"recycling is becoming It's no secret America is having trouble to their promises of recycling more paper, to force them to use more recycled fiber. less popular,"says Mo Rafferty,the city grappling with the garbage crisis.Despite it could be two or three years before they Connecticut recently passed legislation re- official,because residents heard that their overflowing landfills,many U.S.cities and are equipped to do so.And[hen,produc- qulring a publisher that prints in Connecth newspapers were going to a landfill any- states refuse to grant permits for new tion will still hinge on publishers'demand, cut,or that sells more than 40,000 copies of way because of the paper market's col- clumps ob dumps or incinerators,citing health and which has been weak.The need for old a newspaper in that state,to use 40%racy- lapse.That practice has stopped,Mr.Raf- property-value concerns.But in their rush newspapers,therefore,isn't likely to 1n- cled fiber in at least 201%of the newspa- ferry says.However,in June the compa- " "to mandate the only other option—recy- crease anytime soon. per's sheets.The law takes effect In 1993 fees that collect the recyclable goods cling—politicians have failed to stimulate The future scares me, says Kevin and,by 1997,90%of all sheets will have to demand for recycled goods. Preblud,vice president of U.S.Recycling meet the 40%quota. forced area governments to renegotiate Y g contracts.As a result,garbage fees rose "We told lelected officials]they were Industries Inc.In Denver.As people wit- The 1,385-member American Newspa- roughly 20%,and now the cost of recycling going to have a problem,but they didn't ness the higher costs of recycling,he wor- per Publishers Association Is threatening approximates the cost of landfilling. listen,"says a frustrated John Rafferty, ries they will lose interest in programs to sue,arguing that such a regulated mar- 'Recycling has been billed as easy to director of the solid-waste division of they once thought would be cheap,or even ket erodes the "traditional distance be- do and tree,"Mr.Rafferty says."Bu[It is greater Minneapolis's Metropolitan Coun. free,to operate. tween publishers and governments,"ac- neither." cil. "Recycling is entering a very danger- cording to Tonda Rush,an attorney for the The markets for recycled aluminum ous period,"says Jerry Powell,editor of association. and glass have held up,because reusing Resource Recycling,a trade publication In Ms.Rush acknowledges that publishers those materials is still cheaper than start- Portland.Ore."A lot of governments are have had a longstanding bias against recy- ing afresh. And the plastics industry, going to have trouble riding out the cled newsprint,claiming inferior quality. afraid of being legislated out of business,is slump." In addition, recycled newsprint, costing financing its own search for uses of recy- With more communities discontinuing about the same as new paper,has no price cled plastic.But the market for old news- paper pickup in face of the glut,"paper is advantage.Ms.Rush says the bias Is erod- papers,the key commodity in any recy- going back into the trash."says Margaret ing as technology improves,but legislators appear impatient.California and Wiscon- sin are expected shortly to follow Connecti- cut's example.There's even talk in some state capitals about requiring a deposit on each newspaper,or requiring newspaper and even magazine publishers to collect their old publications. Feeling pressured,several paper manu- facturers in the past two months have an- nounced plans to increase capacity for processing recycled paper.However,the paper makers say it will take three years to gear up fully. Meanwhile,"I'm afraid we're going to lose the grass-roots momentum for recy- cling,all the Boy Scout troops and church groups,"says U.S.Recycling Industries' Mr.Preblud.In New York,Rod Edwards of the American Paper Institute wonders whether cash-strapped municipalities will restart their recycling programs after the slump is over,given that recycling news- papers may still cost more than sending them to landfills.While landfills are less of an option in the jam-packed Eastern states,there is still space in the Midwest, though it is getting more expensive. For companies like Waste Management Inc.in Chicago and Browning-Ferris In- dustries Inc.In Houston,the woes of com- munity recycling programs represent a business opportunity.That's why they've added recycling to their list of disposal services they offer communities.But for communities, the professional help adds huge cost.Under some Browning-Ferris contracts,municipalities even must share the company's financial risk when prices for recyclable commodities decline. Some towns are adding to their prob- lems through poor collection habits.James Burke,executive vice president of Garden State Paper Co.,a major recycler of news- CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON OOUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: August 28, 1989 DATE SUBMIU=: August 22, 1989 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Authorize MN OUS ACTION: Council Workshop Signature on A eement to lemt August 21 1989 Yard Debris cl' with Wash. EPARED BY: Cliff. Scott DEPT HEAD OK CITY AMIN OKwWTED BY: City Council I'1 l i POLICY'ISSUE Should the City agree to participate in the Washington County Wasteshed Yard Debris Recycling Program as a way to meet ORS 459.161 which requires that residents in this area be provided the opportunity to recycle yard debris? INFORMATION SCARY Attached is a proposed resolution which authorizes the Mayor to sign an "Agreement to Implement Yard Debris Recycling." The Yard Debris Recycling Plan was reviewed by the City Council at their Study Session on August 21, 1989. (A ccuplete copy of the Plan is available at the office of Ed Murphy, Director of C.amumity Development.) ALTERRATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Approve the attached resolution as presented. 2. Modify the attached resolution. 3. Reject the agreement. FISCAL IMPACT Urilazawn at this time. The recycling program will be financed through fees charged to the users of the program, or generally to all garbage collection rate payers. The City will need to negotiate rates with its franchised haulers. SUGGESTED ACITON 1. Approve the attached resolution. cwdebris CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 89- A RESOILVION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AUTi30R:LZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AN AGREEMENT TO IMPI_ T YARD DEBRIS RECYCLMC AS PART OF A COOPERATIVE EFFORT OF THE LOCAL JURISDICTIONS OF WASHINGTON COUNTY AND AS A MEMBER OF THE VQASfiTNGiC)N COUNTY WA.sSTESHED. WH3MS, the Tigard City Council has reviewed the proposed Washington County Wasteshed Yard Debris Recycling Plan; and RIUM AS, the proposed Plan appears to provide a cost effective yard debris program which will assure residents of the Washington County Wasteshed that they will have access to yard debris recycling as required by Oregon Statute. NOW, TIMMEFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: Section 1: The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign the Agreement to Implement Yard Debris Recycling, a copy of which is attached hereto as 1#0 i it A." PASSED: This day of t , 1989. r - City of Tigard ATTEST: �GGX��-� uiz,C GCS Deputy City City Recorder - City of Tigard Resolution No. 89-&Aj Page 1 k CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: August 21, 1989 DATE SUBMITTED: Auctust 16, 1989 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Yard Debris Re- PREVIOUS ACTION:none cycling workshop PREPARED BY: DEPT HEAD OR A CITY ADMIN OREQUESTED BY: W--P-0- Y ISSUE Should the City Council endorse the Washington County Wasteshed Yard Debris Recycling Plan? Or alternatively, should the City propose amendments to the Plan, or consider implementing the recycling requirements by other methods, including coming up with an individual plan. .The Plan being proposed is intended to provide a cost effective yard debris program that will assure residents of the Washington County wasteshed that they will have access to yard debris recycling. This meeting is intended to be a workshop on the plan proposed by representatives from Washington County and the nine cities within Washington County affected by the requirement. The City's representative in this process was Cliff Scott, Field Operations Manager. INFORMATION SUMMARY The material attached (relevant pages from the Plan, plus two letters) gives an overview of the planning process and outlines the proposed program. Bill Martin, the recyling coordinator for Washington County, will be at the Council meeting to review the Plan with the City Council. (A copy of the full text of the Plan is available in Ed Murphy's office) . Should the City Council wish to endorse the Plan, a Resolution to that effect will be placed on the Council's August 28th agenda. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Recommend changes to the proposed Plan. 2. Direct staff to start an individual planning process, separate from Washington County's planning process. 3. Endorse the Washington County Plan. FISCAL IMPACT Unknown at this time. The recycling program will be financed through fees charged to the users of the program, or generally to all garbage collection rate payers. The City will need to negotiate rates with its franchised haulers. SUGGESTED ACTION No action is recommended at this time. The workshop is intended for education and discussion only. summ.yar AGREEMENT TO IMPLEMENT YARD DEBRIS RECYCLING As members of the Washington County Wasteshed, and required under Oregon Statue to provide the opportunity to recycle yard debris to residents within the wasteshed, the local jurisdictions of Washington County and cities of Beaverton, Cornelius, Durham, Forest Grove, Hillsboro, King City, Tigard, Tualatin and Sherwood have, in a cooperative effort, produced the following plan. Each signed signature below represents a separate resolution or order duly approved and on file by the appropriate jurisdiction, adopting this plan . Chairman-Board of Commissioners Mayor - City of Hillsboro Mayor - City of Beaverton Mayor - City of King City Mayor - City of Cornelius Mayor - City of Tigard Mayor - City of Durham Mayor - City of Tualatin Mayor - City of Forest Grove Mayor - City of Sherwood E I Ali 1.� :JU CC: BB/0268c/8/2/89 WASHINGTON COUNTY, August 7, 1989 OREGON To: Washington Ca my Wasteshed Planning Committee From: Bill Marti j Subject: Yard Debris Recycling Enclosed is the. final -draft copy of the "Yard Debris Recycling in the Washington County Wasteshed" report and the executive summary. Also enclosed for your information is the letter to DEQ stating that a 2 week time limit for the Approval process is to brief and that the Committee has been informed that Sept. 15, 1989 will be the final deadline for submittal. I have provided additionally, a draft copy of the signature insert for each jurisdiction that will be placed into the final printed copy of the plan. There is one master, so I will have to obtain each mayor's signature separately. Lastly, I have provided a copy of the Washington County Board of Commissioners resolution order that has been approved by county counsel. You will have to edit this order as we are required to obtain approval from our Solid' Waste Advisory Committee before Board action. I can be available for any requests for attendance at any City Council meeting or work session to help present the Committee's report. Call me at 649-8722 if you have such a request and I ' ll try to schedule to the 'best of my ability. Thanks for your assistance in putting this plan together. I look forward to working with each of you again in the future. A!J G 71989 0*nMLll?'ty'D1'V810PMent Department of Health&Human Services 265 Southeast Oak Street Hillsboro,Oregon 97123 Phone:503/648-8881 WASHINGTON COUNTY, July 28, 1989 OREGON David K. Rozell Waste Reduction Manager Hazardous and Solid Waste Division Department of Environmental Quality 811 SW Sixth Ave. Portland, Ore. 97204-1390 Dear Mr Rozell: I need to inform you of our current progress to final plan submittal of the Washington County Wasteshed Yard Debris Recycling Plan and to follow-up your letter of July 11, 1989. In conversations with Mr. William Bree, I have expressed concern over the time that is required for formal approval of the plan by the county and nine cities. After meeting with the cities on July 27, 1989, two of the jurisdictions are scheduled for plan approval in the first part of September; Washington County on Sept. 5, 1989 and the City of Forest Grove on Sept. 11, 1989. Therefore, the date of Sept. 15, 1989 will be needed in order that a fully signed plan may be submitted to the Department. The timeline that we will be pursuing is: August 7, 1989 - Final draft plan delivered to the cities. August 15, 1989- Final draft plan delivered to the Department. September 15, 1989 - Submittal of final approved plan to the Department. The county and cities involved understand that the final draft plan submitted for their review in August can not be substantially changed in its base goals in the interval of review and approval. The Planning Committee appreciates the Department' s understanding of the time necessary to formally present the final plan to ten different jurisdictions for their approval. If you have any questions concerning this timeline for completion, please call me at 648-8722. Sin re y, i Bill artin Recycling Coordinator Department of Health&Human Services 265 Southeast Oak Street Hillsboro,Oregon 97123 Phone:503/648-8881 t YARD DEBRIS RECYCLING IN THE WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTESHED August 2989 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction: The Washington County Wasteshed consists of the unincorporated areas of Washington County and the Cities of Banks, Beaverton, Cornelius, Durham, Forest Grove, Gaston, Hillsboro, King City, North Plains, Tigard, Tualatin, and Sherwood. This designation is set down in Division 60 of the Oregon Administrative Rules. The State of Oregon Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) on September 9, 1988 added yard debris to the list of principal recyclable materials for the Portland Metropolitan area. Effected jurisdictions were required to include a plan for yard debris recycling in the 1988 wasteshed report. The cities of Banks, Gaston, North Plains and portions of unincorporated Washington County, being outside the Urban Growth Boundary and under 4, 000 population, are not required by the EQC to develop a plan to assure residents access to yard debris recycling. The Planning Process: The Department of Environmental Quality provides three alternatives to local jurisdictions for planning and implementing .yard debris recycling. Local jurisdictions may plan individually, cooperatively with other jurisdictions or allow the Metropolitan Service District to plan for each under a regional plan. On January 5, 1989, representatives from the County and the 9 cities affected met and agreed to establish a cooperative planning process. Intergovernmental agreements were subsequently initiated to formalize this understanding. A 6-month time extension from the original February 15, 1989 deadline was approved by DEQ for plan development and submittal. The time allocated was used by the Washington County Wasteshed Planning Committee to research yard debris recycling alternatives and to recommend a specific program for adoption. Input was provided by two sub-committees made up of representatives of industry, government and the public pertaining to collecting, processing and marketing yard debris. The goal of this plan is to create a cost effective yard debris collection system to complement a regionally based processing and , marketing system driven by market demand. This work coincided with the beginning of Metro's regional yard debris planning process. Effort was made to accommodate regional concerns for yard debris collection and disposition and to create a plan that will conform to future Metro yard debris plans. Historical data as well as current programs are evaluated to determine the most appropriate system for recommendation to all jurisdictions involved. Findings are examined within the context of specific goals and objectives determined by the committee. This information is then applied to the Washington County Wasteshed and particular recommendations are made for adoption. Section 1 of the plan contains the discussion and analysis of past and present programs for collection, processing and marketing. Programs in the metropolitan region are examined for cost and effectiveness in removing yard debris from the wastestream. Section 2 proposes a program for yard debris recycling in the Washington County Wasteshed and the expected results. The plan outlined addresses all 10 local jurisdictions as an integrated system for collection. Local options and concerns are accommodated within this systematic approach. Section 3 offers supplemental information to the proposed plan. Included are printouts for each local jurisdictions concerning DEQ requirements. Computer models are also included that assume various scenarios and the effects that each may have on local jurisdictions. Plan Parameters: The plan will offer an integrated system for collection of yard debris in the Washington County Wasteshed. It should be noted that the plan outlined does not meet some detailed specifications as defined by DEQ in the rules. However, this plan meets the intent of the law in providing to the residents of the Washington County Wasteshed the opportunity to recycle. In relying on the declared policies of the EQC, the plan sets forth an equally effective program that is both more economical to install and operate and more convenient for use by the public. 1. The plan is based on 5 local yard debris recycling depots. Three full service depots open six days per week, year round will be located in Hillsboro, Beaverton and Tualatin. Two limited use depots open Saturdays only from March to November will be located in the Garden Home/Beaverton area and in Forest Grove. 2. An on-call fee for service curbside collection program for source separated yard debris will be initiated by area franchised haulers to compliment the depot system. 3. The City of Durham will initiate a weekly fee for service curbside collection program and the City of Sherwood will continue a quarterly curbside collection program for source separated yard debris. 4. A two part education and promotion program will be instituted. A home composting program will instruct residents on the advantages of home compost. The other program will educate residents on the advantages and options for yard debris recycling in the wasteshed. These 4 parameters of the plan will allow the Washington County Wasteshed to divert form the landfill an estimated 600 of all yard debris from the wastestream. This will allow the wasteshed to meet DEQ goals till July 1, 1992, when an 80% goal for yard debris recovery takes affect. Each jurisdiction recognizes that curbside collection of yard debris may be required to meet this 80% goal. When market conditions for yard- debris compost indicate the established collection depots are inadequate in supplying material to local processors, the Washington County Wasteshed will review the present plan under existing economic conditions and will consider modifications to meet the prevailing market requirements. Additionally, upon plan approval by DEQ, the Washington County Wasteshed Planning Committee will develop needed guidelines for implementation of yard debris recycling. 1. All local jurisdictions will address yard debris collection under their franchising authority to assure that uncontrolled collection does not create public nuisances. 2. All local jurisdictions will address yard debris collection depots, processing centers and vending centers for the final product in their comprehensive land use plan. 3. The Committee will work with the affected jurisdictions in sighting depots and in mitigating any concerns that may arise. 4. The Committee will develop a plan for ongoing system evaluation that will obtain the necessary information to determine future direction of yard debris recycling in the Washington County Wasteshed. Consideration of the EQC policies on economic viability was instrumental in plan development. 1. The plan relies on funding yard debris recycling through yard debris disposal fees at the area depots. Local franchised haulers providing yard debris curbside collection service will also rely on yard debris disposal fees for funding. 2. A uniform rate for yard debris disposal at local area depots will be established by local jurisdictions to avoid flow control problems. 3. Local and regional rate setting authorities for county landfills and franchised haulers will need to establish a differential rate structure that will encourage yard debris recycling by the public. The plan provides a primary service level that will accommodate augmentation in the future as questions concerning markets and collection are answered. Local Jurisdictions - Supplement 1.0 to 1.9 Supplements 1.0 through 1.9 list the plan parameters as they apply to each local jurisdiction making up the Washington County Wasteshed Yard Debris Plan. This sheet covers the proposed plan and how each jurisdiction meets DEQ rule requirements. It should be emphasized that this is a wasteshed plan and the system for collection is based on county wide participation. Local jurisdictional boundaries were not a factor for establishing service areas. Instead, centers of population are emphasized to provide the most efficient system of recycling centers for the public. Computer Financial Analysis - SURRlement 2.1 In order to understand a systematic approach to yard debris recycling versus individual collection by jurisdictions, a computer model was designed to perform "what if" problems. Supplement 2.1 presents 'a financial analysis for one scenario. The capabilities exist to run any number of options through the model and to adjust the model if assumptions are found to be invalid. EXHIBIT "A" AGREEMENT TO IMPLEMENT YARD DEBRIS RECYCLING AS members of the Washington County Wasteshed, and required under Oregon Statue to provide the opportunity to recycle yard debris to residents within the wasteshed, the local jurisdictions of Washington County and cities of Beaverton, Cornelius, Durham, Forest Grove, Hillsboro, King City, Tigard, Tualatin and Sherwood have, in a cooperative effort, produced the following plan. Each signed signature below represents a separate resolution or order duly approved and on file by the appropriate jurisdiction, adopting this plan. Chairman-Board of Commissioners mayor City of Hillsboro Mayor - City of Beaverton Mayor City of King City Mayor - City of Cornelius mayor City of Tigard Mayor - City of Durham mayor City of Tualatin Mayor - City of Forest Grove mayor . - City of Sherwoo&-- CC: BB/0268c/8/2/89 SUPPLEMENT 1-8 - WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTESHED YARD DEBRIS PLAN City of Tigard Statistics: Population: 27,500 Single Family Residences: 7,612 Outside Backyard Burn Ban: NO Yard Debris Generated: 3,806 Tons Yard Debis Composted: 952 Tons Yard Debris Collectable: 2,855 Tons DEO Yard Debris Plan Parameters: # Potential Participants: 27,500 Participation Rate: 50% Amount to be Recovered: 1,427 Tons Amount to be Composted: 952 Tons Percent of Yard Debris Recylced: 63% Processors for Recycling: Grimm's Fuel - Tualatin Present Processor Capacity: 22,880 Tons Collection Standards: Depots Garden Home/Beaverton Depot : Open Sat. Only (Mar. - Nov.) Tualatin Depot: Open 6 Days per Week/ yearround Curbside On-catt fee for service source seperated curbside collection service to be offered by local franchised hauler . SUPPLEMENT 2.1 - WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTESHED Estimated Cost of Yard Debris Collection Background: Population 267,500 # Single Family Dwellings 75,894 Generation Rate 0.50 tons/SFD/year Yard Debris Generated 27,912 tons/year Recovery Rate 50.00% Annual Collection 13,956 tons Drop Box size 40.00 Cu. Yds. Collection Depots: Tons Collected Hours open per Annual Annually Week Labor Cost Forest Grove 553 8 $1,714 Hillsboro 3,485 0 $0 Beaverton 3,932 64 518,278 Tualatin 4,215 0 $0 Garden Home/Beaverton 1,771 8 $1,714 Facility Disposal Hauling: Hauls Per Year Annual Cost Cost Per Ton Forest Grove to Hillsboro 138 $9,679 $12.00 Beaverton to Tualatin * 328 $22,935 $24.00 Garden Home/Beav to Tualatin 443 $30,997 $24.00 * compacted load Public Disposal Fee: Disposal Rate: $3.25 per cu. yd. Administration and Promotion: Planning and promotion: $20,108 Flyer $5,000 Display $1,400 Revenue: Disposal Fees: $453,572 Total Revenue: $453,572 Costs: Administration and Promotion: $26,508 Facility Disposal: $286,489 Hauling: $63,611 Labor Cost: $21,70.6 Insurance $5,000 Taxes $1,250 Capital Costs (10 Year Plan) $27,165 Total Costs: $431,729 NET INCOME (LOSS): $21,843 SUPPLEMENT 2.1 Page 2 Distribution by Jurisdiction: Single Yard Yard Debris Family Debris Burn Ban Debris Composted Home Yard Debris Dwelling Generated Percent Burned Percent Composted Collectable Beaverton: 9,566 4,783 100.00% 0 25% 1,196 3,587 Cornelius: 1,122 561 77.00% 129 10% 56 376 Durham: 264 132 100.00% 0 25% 33 99 Forest Grove: 2,741 1,371 77.00% 315 10% 137 918 Hillsboro: 8,715 4,358 77.00% 1,002 10% 436 2,920 King City: 741 371 100.00% 0 25% 93 278 Sherwood: 1,125 563 77.00% 129 10% 56 377 Tigard: 7,612 3,806 100.00% 0 25% 952 2,855 Tualatin: 2,808 1,404 100.00% 0 25% 351 1,053 Washington County: 41,200 20,600 100.00% 0 25% 5,150 15,450 Total: 75,894 37,947 1,576 8,459 27,912 Capital Costs: Beaverton Forest Grove Average Cost per Haut Engineering $20,000 $8,000 $70.00 Construction $40,000 $15,000 570.00 Drop Boxes $11,000 $8,100 $70.00 Compactor $70,000 $0 Fence $6,000 SO Landscaping $3,000 $0 Sub-total $150,000 $31,100 Interest $75,000 $15,550 Total $225,000 $46,650 Amortizied Costs: On 10 Year Schedule $22,500 $4,665 A IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1 FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON 2 3 In the Matter of Adopting ) RESOLUTION AND ORDER "Yard Debris Recycling in ) 4 the Wasteshed" ) NO. 5 It appearing to the Board that the opportunity to recycle 6 . yard debris is required under ORS 459 .165 and further clarified 7 under Division 60 of the Oregon Administrative Rules; and 8 It appearing to the Board that the County, in a cooperative 9 planning process with the cities of Beaverton, Cornelius , 10 Durham, Forest Grove, Hillsboro, King City, Tigard, Tualatin and 11 Sherwood, also known as the Washington County Wasteshed, has 12 formulated a plan, now known as "Yard Debris Recycling in the 13 Washington County Wasteshed" , to provide the opportunity to 14 recycle yard debris to the unincorporated portion of the County 15 inside the Urban Growth Boundary; and 16 It appearing to the Board that said planning was in 17 accordance with the Metropolitan Service District ' s "Regional 18 Solid Waste Management Plan" collection policy ( 6 . 0 ) that states 19 that local governments shall be responsible for assuring that 20 collection of recyclables is conducted in a cost efficient and 21 reliable manner ; and 22 23 It appearing to the Board that the Solid Waste Advisory Committee reviewed the plan on August 16 , 1989 , and has 24 25 recommended that said plan be approved; and 26 Page 1 CC: BB/0267c/8/2/89 It appearing to the Board that this matter is before the Board for approval, and having reviewed the record from the 2 Solid Waste Advisory Committee and having afforded the 3 opportunity for argument from interested parties, and the Board 4 being fully advised in the premises, it is hereby 5 RESOLVED AND ORDERED that, in accordance with the 6 recommendation of the Solid Waste Advisory Committee, "Yard 7 Debris Recycling in the Washington County Wasteshed, " attached 8 as Exhibit "A" and on file with the Clerk of the Board is 9 adopted; and it is further 10 RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the Board authorize the Chairman 11 to sign for the County a cover sheet for attachment to the plan, 12 asset forth in Exhibit "B" designating the County as a party to 13 the approved plan; and it is further 14 RESOLVED AND ORDERED that department staff present said 15 approved plan to the State Department of Environmental Quality 16 for State approval . 17 18 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 19 FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON 20 21 22 CHAIRMAN 23 24 RECORDING SECRETARY 25 26 2 CC: BB/0267c/8/2/89 Page Metro Computer Models - Supplement 2.2 Metro's computer model was created to determine cost of curbside collection of yard debris for local jurisdictions. Although this does not fit into the proposed Washington County Wasteshed plan parameters, it is provided here as a basis for comparison for individual jurisdictions. It should be noted that Metro assumptions for the model are listed at the bottom of each sheet. An 80% participation rate is one of the more important assumptions made that effects the numbers provided. METRO CURBSIDE COLLECTION COST MODEL ------------------------------------------ (Once-A-Week Collection Program) CITY: City of Tigard POPULATION: 27,500 DWELLING STRUCTURES: 7,612 TOTAL STREET MILES: 77 DWELLING PER RILE: 99 NUMBER OF ROUTES, 7 served per week RECOVERY RATE: 30,448 per year DISPOSAL/PROCESSING SITE, Grimms DISTANCE TO DISPOSAL SITE: 15.16 DISPOSAL RATE: $4.00 per cu. yd. Monthly Cost of Collection & Disposal WAGE RATE FOR COLLECTION ------------------------------------------ Items SS/hr $10/hr S12/hr ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LABOR 2,954.01 3,551.42 4,172.45 TRUCK 1,778.07 1,778.07 1,778.07 FUEL 290.44 290.44 290.44 DISPOSAL 3,383.11 3,383.11 3,383.11 PROMOTION 0.00 0.00 0.0¢ ADMINISTRATION 166.67 166.67 166.67 PROFIT 954.09 1,013.83 1,075.93 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL COST $9,526.39 $10,183.55 $10,866.6@ Cost per Cubic Yard $0.31 $0.33 $0.36 Cost per Dwelling S1.25 $1.34 S1.43 BASIC ASSUMPTIONS I------------------------------------------------------------------------ I 1. Yard Debris Recovery Goal is 80 percent I { 2. Unit cost of truck is S7.53 per hour I { 3. Fuel cost per gallon is S1.30 I { 4. Number of routes is based on sax. operation hours of { 8 hrs. per route { 5. Administrative cost is based on number of routes (does not { { include administrative costs for promotion) I 6. Profit margin allowed the hauler is 10 percent I City of Sherwood 350 DEO Requirements 300 ------------------- 250 T 200 Yard Debris Collected - 0 n s 150 100 - if curbside implemented 50 0 Yr. 1989 Yr. 1990 Yr. 1991 Yr. 1992 Yr. 1993 City of Tigard 2,500 DEQ Requirements ------------------- 2,000 1,500 Yard Debris Collected T 0 n s 1,000 '"" / it curbside implemented 500 0 Yr. 1989 Yr. 1990 Yr. 1991 Yr. 1992 Yr. 1993 Computer Modelincl for Market Demands - supplement 2.3 - 2.4 This supplement looks further at the various scenarios that are possible for yard debris market demand. The two options are: 1. A moderate growth in market demand 2. A substantial growth in market demand SUPPLEMENT 2.3 - WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTESHED YARD DEBRIS RECYCLING Moderate Growth in Market Demand vs. Material Collected Percent of Percent of Grimm's Total Tons Material Available Material Available Total Grimes Wash. Co USA Grabhorn Hillsboro Processing To Material To Material Tons Fuel(Tons) Share Landfill Landfill Capacity Tualatin to Tual. Hillsboro to Hills. Retrieved Yr. 1983 2,427 1,262 400 500 0 2,162 1,262 7% 400 4% 1,662 Yr. 1984 5,885 3,060 400 500 0 3,960 3,060 17% 400 4% 3,460 Yr. 1985 7,294 3,793 400 500 0 4,693 3,793 21% 400 4% 4,193 Yr. 1986 8,725 4,537 400 500 0 5,437 4,537 25% 400 4% 4,937 Yr. 1987 10,800 5,616 400 500 0 6,516 5,616 31% 400 4% 6,016 Yr. 1988 19,300 10,036 400 500 0 10,936 9,223 50% 400 4% 9,623 Yr. 1989 22,000 11,440 400 500 0 12,340 9,223 50% 400 4% 9,623 Yr. 1990 25,000 13,000 800 750 250 14,800 9,223 50% 1,800 19% 11,023 Yr. 1991 28,000 14,560 1,200 1000 500 17,260 9,223 50% 4,656 50% 13,879 Yr. 1992 31,000 16,120 2,000 1000 1,000 20,120 9,223 50% 4,656 50% 13,879 Yr. 1993 34,100 17,732 3,200 1000 2,000 23,932 9,223 50% 4,656 50% 13,879 Yr. 1994 37,510 19,505 5,200 1000 3,000 28,705 9,223 50% 4,656 50% 13,879 SUPPLEMENT 2.3 Moderate Growth in Market Demand 60,000 50,000 40,000 T 0 30,000 Market Capacity N S DEO Requirements ........_........................ 20,000 ----------------------- 10,000 ------------- Collection Rate Yr. Yr. Yr. Yr. Yr. Yr. Yr. Yr. Yr. Yr. Yr. Yr. 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 Computer Modeling for Curbside Collection - Supplement 2.6 Supplement 2.6 proposes that the Washington County Wasteshed phase in curbside collection of yard debris. This is a "what if" exercise to determine if the wasteshed could reach DEQ goals of an 80% recovery rate for yard debris. This models assumes that curbside collection would be phased in by 1993. Exceptions to the implementation of a curbside collection program would be the Cities of Hillsboro, Cornelius, Sherwood and Forest Grove. These cities lie outside the DEQ backyard burn ban and it is assumed that a curbside program would be difficult to initiate. other assumptions critical to this model are that a voluntary curbside collection program could attain a 75% participation rate. This is very optimistic since such a high level of participation has only been obtained through mandatory service. « - � LHrMGr NI) p 0.0 T I•«err • • - •t +,, '..• ♦a rj. .,.x... ' fbl fi ♦r « r a a ♦ �1 1 r ♦ i l ra t r - - ............>� i::�ti�:�i:�i•i:i•.-ii:ititi•i:-: :�::':!ti:j?.:-ti': - .I t .s�«.uc. .:.�'.�:'�:.��:i:._:..,.:,.:....:;/...:':'':-:::.:::%::•::ti • .,I I .. .. • . ''::'::'':';�::�:: } . . . . . ' ''' .:•:;;o%:': ' �:�:i:i i::::}i>i:ii:i: "-?}} ' .�:�:`�iiS�'i}: ii:<{i?'�i:i�::: ::� �ii::i:�iiiiii:-��-�' PROPOSED ....:% �..': i->:><_ RECYCLING � � �:�::.::-:'�.;'''.;:?:;•:Q;:'::a,':::.:::.:.:.:: :-a.:.;-. :..� . - .......... ...... ......... . .... .... :. :?»:-::.y.. Lam::::::. .................. .................. CENT ,Fb ERS ........:.:....... • ... ::'...:'......... ........... .......... ...:.::.::..:.::..:._.:.s.:..-::. ,,.:.•::_ -.-r.- ..:... :8i is->i:i iii:i�i::g `> c :'i r':%.::-.;•...te l:.,! ...x.... ....-:�:".•::. . ,• 1 col :1 .......... . e r .. .• .. .. .. r. .. .. .. .. .. .. f _ -w. e.. .:.plc:-: _ ..�_•-:::w-:::::::::: :• . .JL.. .. 3G::.::::::.��'��.-.�:��.. 1. .: .. { .. .._.y..•::•:•:::::::•:.,.:•:•... ..: -.�....: .•. .:.'::•.:`.,.- .c:::::�::::•: .; ..:•._: .. :.... ._: .:•l.- i, .... :.;::4 :::::::.::-:. . :.r.c.... -:::r.-:>::.. f t j . x... �,•: \ — r. ::::•::::::.::�::.•:::�::..:-.��:•:r:. ..:�:: .. ..:.�:::.�•::.:.:::..:..::.:.� ... ...... is _ O V �.t... ........ : 4 •. .......... .. ...... :. ..:•:..:.:::::r•: :::. . . . -f .......... O ...♦. ...................:. ''-'-.... - '::::•:4:+}tib �'.�::':•: ....;'�:t:':::,•. -. r..::../.._ _. .. ............ ...:. ...f:i-}...:. ' i a .. .. OF Av000 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. •_ .2 .. ........... . H�'Lrol .......:. . -. �...::.. .:.::..•:::::::.�..::::.:.:.::.�:.-: :: :.:::. ::.�.-._:...::::.::::.-::. _. .._ : ... .:� ..q.""Tv., .:.:...... .......... .... .. .. :=::��::,'�a+:=: : - 0 1 2 MILES rl R. . ..-... :. .. -::::�:1• is:.-.as A``� C 1 - ♦ .:.::. ..\ ... ::•:::::••:� .. : :::. -.. •::::'::..::fir: k i �e x r - PE 7C iv:- ......... :.. .. . ...... .. ....... ... . ..... .. .. ............... .... .. DAYS rr/VL NUAIAH • ..... .. .. ..... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..... .. .. .. 'AR NIRA/ a ♦ ♦a r - ■ ♦I a ♦ r ! - a .:'::::::.:.:::::�:::.:.:::.:. ..�•:::�.:.�:.::�:.�.�•:.�•:::�::�:.�:..::::•. -:.:':::.}.:::1•:.::::.�:::::•::�:::..::: :•:.:•}:•i:•:4}:-"r:-T:.�.i:•:ti�i?:-:•:•}: ...... ......♦.:�•ii:�?ii:•i:�:iii-i:�i:�ii::i..... ..... ..... ESV_\ mtj I ♦ . I 1- sx ♦ ♦ r a • r_ ♦ N 1 ...�,t .• t.♦. ..,,:::•.:::•.��:•:�=.::::::;:' OPEN .... .:.::.:...... .. _r XX SATURDAYS -,'AoI _ �'►- - ONLY a _ T l . r • •;- S N.e �y F J s N ♦ '�• Lf AFF PF ST ERC 1!F(1N 2 _ L � IA _ C O M M � ONLY 1. '�r. fi'.-'i• iia n M Lf _ _ CO MERC IAL - a <r,w,L„ 0 ru:%•;:::.:'•�:•-::::•••:--:•''i::�:}:::S:i�?i:�:jt. .:._t;ti•Y.:•;e;;ii:,{,:.iL;�r:%,!..?t;::;�:iy ::.i.;-'-:. :;.>.:s.:•. r n - DEPOT� ::: -.:-:::::: �., qty}* :.;~r;�:: ~ ? .� '�,<;•+':i; «: � ,� URBAN N'!S! LAVRfL FID EAST LALMEL RD TS +,C•. .....,.. �1:•-.s�1,jr tJ...• _ o FERN _ ;::�: _ %::..'� ,�.,.•..,; � :::k:.. ,L•>!.i:r:.:... G R O W � H PEAK RD ti :.'AqN.;. 'h::f:':::f':,' :!C' ;'.+•i<i .t'':,:.,. -M ..;< OU ARY N D :4 B Ik'. 1 'o 1 n y�•y� TT "ft•. C .L •i::..K.. ...,..... is Figure 8 9 < 1 - L ]irSi.•.-• .T% :.:..;fl:.:.�.i�i'-:�:`!:':i'iii::i:-:�i:::`::'::y"'��-��YY::%y: .y;%:i:�-:c:i;:;:;:�i;:i,';::::+:}ir:• �• .SAUL z _ Y ��♦�..cLYY f •. :i::Y — I is•U:•::•. 1 ) Q Y,T U [JE 1 _ /OIAN O/ I - S WA HIN T G ON CO 1 w9. YAMHI LLC O. z d s j} R nii:Is3 .rte ORDINANCE NO. Ban certain food providers from the use of certain polystyrene foam food containern ghd food patkAgifij with exceptions and establish a public/private task force for recommending means to reduce disposable plastic products in landfills and litter (Ordinance) . The City of Portland ordains: Section 1. The Council finds: 1. The City of Portland values the protection and preservation of our natural environment, and the benefits of reducing the amount of litter and municipal solid waste deposited in landfills. 2. The United Nations Environmental Programme diplomatic conference in Montreal (Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer) acknowledged the threat of chlorofluorocarbons to the earth' s atmosphere and established international goals for the phased reduction of the manufacture and use of specific chlorofluorocarbon compounds. The City of Portland supports international and federal bans on all non-essential use of chlorofluorocarbons. Responsible action to reduce chlorofluorocarbon use and alert the public to the danger posed by these substances should be undertaken at the local level. 3. In April 1988, the Foodservice and Packaging Institute, which represents approximately 90 percent of food packaging manufacturers, announced a voluntary program to phase out the use of fully halogenated chlorofluorocarbons in the manufacture of disposable foam plastic products for food service by .the end of 1988. 4. The State of Oregon in 1985 enacted "opportunity to recycle laws" (ORS 459. 165 et. seq. ) which are intended to encourage recycling of municipal solid wastes. The City is committed to implementing this law, and has an active curbside recycling collection program. 5. The Environmental Protection Agency has issued a national municipal waste strategy calling for a 25 percent reduction in solid waste by 1992. The strategy, titled The Solid Waste Dilemma: An Agenda for Action, includes the promotion of recycling. 6. City of Portland Ordinance 161061, dated July 21, 1988, establishes a ban on City purchases of polystyrene foam products and Resolution 34448 appointed a task force to recommend policies, programs and ordinances prohibiting the use and sale of particular polystyrene foam products in the City. 7. Readily disposable consumer plastic containers and wrappers (made from polyethylene, polypropylene and polystyrene foam) used for takeout foods are essentially not biodegradable and as litter do not decompose over time into the natural environment. 8. The use of readily disposable consumer plastic containers and wrappers has increased annually and projections indicate a significant growth in their use. 9. Plastic litter, including polystyrene foam, poses a potential threat to the wildlife environment. 10. Recycling of readily disposable consumer plastic containers and wrappers, including polystyrene foam products, has not been intensively pursued by the plastics industry or major retail users of these products. 11. The City of Portland believes that a public/private cooperative effort is necessary to increase recycling of polystyrene foam food containers and wrappers;, in order to enhance both community development and the City' s environmental quality. 12. The Council finds that this Ordinance will serve the public interest by reducing the amount of nort-biodegradable waste littering Portland, as a portion of any substitute packaging is expected to be composed of biodegradable material in whole or in part. Polystyrene foam litter is highly durable, buoyant, and non-biodegradable and therefore persists and detracts from the appearance of the area longer than many other types of litter. 13. This Ordinance will serve the public interest by reducing the quantity of non-biodegradable waste in landfills serving Portland, as a portion of any substitute packaging will be composed of products that are biodegradable in whole or in part. Polystyrene foam packaging takes up more space in landfills than many other packaging materials, because of the comparatively low density of polystyrene foam and its present popularity as a packaging material. Siting and developing landfills is an increasingly expensive undertaking, and these costs place ars e=onomic burden on the residents of Portland. Maximizing the operating life of -2- ^ landfill facilities therefore promotes the public interest, ' and this interest will be served by reducing the amount of polystyrene foam deposited in landfills. 14. The Council recognizes that other commonly used food packaging materials are also non-biodegradable and contribute to litter and landfill problems; nevertheless, the Council finds that it is appropriate to regulate polystyrene foam food packaging while not regulating other, types of food packaging at this time for the following reasons: . A. To minimize disruption in the food services industry, the Council should avoid banning a wide range of packaging materials at one time. It might be appropriate to ban other packaging materials in the future, but an incremental approach to eliminating undesirable packaging materials will cause less disruption and allow the City to handle enforcement proceedings in more manageable stages. B. Polystyrene foam is the least dense commonly used food packaging material, and therefore is more wasteful of landfill space than any other category of food ` packaging material. It is therefore appropriate to start with polystyrene foam as the City begins to address the issues of litter and inappropriate utilization of landfill space. C. Ingestion of polystyrene foam particles has been identified as a hazard to wildlife, while this problem has not been associated with other food packaging materials. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council directs: a. On and after March 1, 1989, no restaurant, retail food vendor or non-profit food provider shall serve food and after June 30, 1989 no food packager shall package meat, eggs, bakery products or other food in polystyrene foam (PSF) containers, manufactured with chlorofluoro- carbons (CFCs) which do not reduce the potential for ozone depletion by more than 95 percent, compared to the ozone depletion potential of CFC-12 (dychIorodifluoro- thane) . Compounds banned include: CFC-11v CFC-12v CFC- 113* CFC-114v CFC-115, Halon-1211v Halon-1301 and Halon 2402. Food vendors may be required to furnish a written statement from the manufacturer or supplier of polystyrene foam products used by that food vendor, indicating that the chemical compounds used in the manufacture of the vendor' s polystyrene foam products ` meet the provisions of this Ordinance~ \ ` -3- e b. On and after January 1, 1990, no restaurant or retail food vendor shall serve prepared food in any polystyrene foam (PSF) products. c. On or before April 1, 1989, the Mayor and Chair of the Hoard of County Commissioners shall appoint an 11 member task force composed of persons representing a broad range of community interests and persons hav i rig special expertise on issues relevant to the task force' s assignments. 1. The task force shall support and monitor recycling projects, including research and demonstration projects, in order to increase the percentage of disposable plastics products which are recycled and /or decrease the amount of municipal solid waste deposited in landfills. The task force shall recommend to City Council methods and specific goals, in terms of quality and quantity, for reduction of disposable plastic products in landfills and in the litter stream. 2. The City recognizes total eliminati=on of polystyrene foam and other, disposable plastic products as a way to reduc:e litter and reduce the amount of solid wastes deposited in landfills is a l=ong term community goal. Total elimination will require substantial financial commitments and should include public education. To these ends, the task force is instructed to consider the following aspects in their recommendations: a. ) Public Education and Promotion b. ) Alternative Product Recycling/Energy C -avers i on c. ) Financial Assistance d. ) Alternative Products Research (e. g. , phots degradable and biodegradable additives, etc. ) 3. The task force will prepare two annual reports with recommendations to City Council with the first report due within one year from the effective date of this Ordinance. These reports shall assess the -4- ~ success of the efforts to reduce litter and solid ' waste and make appropriate recommendations for- improvement orimprovement and continuation of such efforts' 4. The task force will disband on December 31, 1990. d. The Bureau of Environmental Services Administrator, upon determination that a violation of this Ordinance has occurred, shall issue a written notice of the violation by certified mail to the vendor or food packager which will specify the violation and appropriate penalty. Violations of this Ordinance shall be punishable by fines as follows: 1. 0 fine not exceeding $250 for the first violation in a one year period; 2. A fine not exceeding $500 for the second and each subsequent violation in a one year period. The vendor or food packager shall= upon receipt of a notice of violation, pay to the City the stated penalty or appeal the finding of a violation to the Code Hearings Officer for a hearing within 15 days of ne�i-eipt of the notice. e. The City Council, or its appointee, may exempt a food vendor, food packager or non-profit food provider from the requirements of this Ordinance for a one year period, upon a showing by the applicant that the conditions of this Ordinance would cause undue hardship. The phrase " undue hardship' shall be construed to ' include* but not be limited to: 1. Situations where there are no acceptable alternatives* to PSF packaging for reasons which are unique to the vendor, packager or provider; 2. Situations where compliance with the requirements of this Ordinance would deprive a person of a legally protected right. If a request for exemption is based upon a claim that a legally protected right would be denied if compliance were required and such request for exemption is denied, review of the denial shall only be by writ of review as provided for in ORS 34. 010 to 34. 1009 and riot otherwise. _ -5- -- f. Definitions. As used in this ordinance the following terms have the following meanings: 1. "Biodegradable" means material capable of being broken down by micro�-organi sms int simple substances or basic elements. 2. "Chlorofluorocarbons" are the family of substances containing carbon, fluorine and chlorine. 3. "Customer" means any person purchasing food or beverages from a restaurant or retail food vender. 4. "Food vendor" means any restaurant or retail ford vendor. 5. "Food packager" means any person, located within the City of Portland, who places meat, eggs, bakery products, or other food in packaging materials for the put-pose of retail sale of those products. �. "Non-profit ford provider" means a recognized tax exempt organization which provides ford as apart of its services. 7. "Prepared food" means food or beverages which are served on the vendor' s premises without preparation, or are prepared on the vendors premises by cooking, chopping, slicing, mixing, brewing, freezing or squeezing. "Prepared food" does not include any raw uncooked meat or eggS. Prepared food may be eaten either on or off premises. B. "Person", means any natural person, firm, corporation, partnership, or other organization or- group however organized. 9. "PSF" means polystyrene foam. 10. "Recycled" describe; a type of material that is separated from the solid waste stream and utilized as a raw material in the manufacture of a new product or new economic use. 11. "Restaurant" means any establishment located within the City of Portland, selling prepared food to be eaten by customers. Restaurant includes a sidewalk food vendor. 12. "Retail Food Vendor", "Vendor" means any store, shop, sales outlet or other establishment, including a grocery store or a delicatessen, located within the -6- r � ORDINANCE No. City of Portland, which sells pr'erared f0od. 13. "Reuse" means the process by which a product is reclaimed or reprocessed into anot her useful product. g. The City Bureau of Environmental Services is authorized to promulgate additional regulations and ether actions reasonable and necessary to enforce this Ordinance. Prier to the adoption of such regulations, the Bureau of Environmental Services shall give public notice of its intent to adopt regulations, provide copies of the proposed regulations to identified interested parties and conduct a public hearing on the proposed regulations. Public notice shall be given when regulations have been finally adopted. Copies of Current regulations shall be made available to the public upon request. It is a violation of this chapter to violate regulations duly adopted by the Bureau of Environmental Services. h. If any part or provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the Ordinance, including the application of such part or provision to other persons or circurnstances, shall not be affected thereby and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, provisions of this Ordinance are severable. Passed by the Council, JAN 2 5 1989 i BARBARA CLARK Commissioner .Bob Koch Auditor of the City of Portland J. ,Lang/Polystyrene Foam Task Farce : ` By November 17 1988 `fr �eputy CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 89-'J[_ A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AMENDING MUBIT "A" OF RESOLUTION NO. 88-96 TO SEI' A GARBAGE RATE FOR ROLL OUT CONTAINERS. WHEREAS, Resolution 88-96 dated September 26, 1988, contains the current garbage rates charged by the franchised waste haulers in the City of Tigard, and, WHEREAS, the Utility and Franchise Committee approved a request for a rate of $20.30 per month for a sixty gallon roll out container at their August 8, 1989 meeting; and, WHEREAS, because a rate for such new service is not included in the latest garbage rate schedule, it is advantageous to amend the schedule to include such a rate. NOW, TREK FORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: Section 1: Exhibit "A" of Resolution 88-96 dated September 26, 1988, be amended by the following addition: CONTAINER SERVICE - LOOSE Container Size One TWO Three Roll Out Container $20.30 $37.79 $54.82 (60 gallon) PASSED: This _1_L_.=— day of , 1 ATTEST: 4-1 7voi of Ti Deputy City Recorder - City of tigard APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Recorder Date cp/WIP,ESAG RESOLUTION NO. 89- �! Page 1 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD TO: Ed Murphy, C.D. Director , Respond By FROM: Brad Roast, Building Official For Your Information DATE: 8-31-89 Sign and Return SUBJECT: Solid Waste Management Ordinance Coy Humphrey has been involved in the enforcement of the Solid Waste Ord- inance, specifically in the area of recyclable material. Coy has had to cite several people who were running small businesses of picking up re- cyclable material (cardboard, newspaper, etc. ) from other businesses in the City, which is a violation of the ordinance. In pursuing the enforcement of this ordinance, Coy was asked by one of these small business owners, as to why the City was enforcing the rules on the "little guys" and not on the "big' ones. Coy looked into this matter and found that there are several large recycle businesses doing the very same kind of work. Example: Far West Fibers has a contract with the Tigard Fred Meyers to pick up the recyclable cardboard. The new Payless store is having their cardboard picked up by Oregon ,Paper Fibers. Coy check with the City Attorney's office and found that there is no provision in the ordinance to allow waste hauling by anyone other than the three franchised waste haulers. Coy is uncomfortable about proceeding with the enforcement of the ordinance where the likes of Fred Meyers, Payless, and Far West Fibers will be involved, although he feels that the ordinance should be enforced equally. I agree that there should be equal enforcement of the ordinance, however, I feel that these businesses will not just "roll over" and will most likely put up a fight, maybe going to court. Before I direct Coy to proceed, I thought it best to apprise you of this matter and ask if you have any thoughts. I think we may want to make Pat and the Council aware of this situation. Please let me know your thoughts.