06/20/1989 - Packet CITY OF TIGARD
UTILITIES AND FRANCHISE COMMITTEE
MEETING AGENDA
June 20, 1989, - 7:00 P.M.
Tigard City Hall - Town Hall Conference Room
Members: BARRETT IRWIN v/ JACOBS r/ McREYNOLDS
WALSH WOGEN
Ex-Officio Members: Leichner_ Miller Schmidt
1. Call to Order and Roll Call.
2. Minutes of March 21, 1989
3. Reduction in Metro Dump Fee
4. Yard Debris update
5. Other business
6. Adjournment
< � �C�✓�Pda%t :�'�'C f;;s'"�F'ey,'r"�,P -.�''" / ay Q ^> s"',..�
do/0055s
Pt� t
C'
ft
JANET HOLMES
12215 S.W. 33rd. Ave.
Portland, OR 97219
(503) 244-3629
June 16, 1989
Mr. Wayne Lowry, Finance Director
City of Tigard P.O. Box 23397
Tigard, OR 97223
Dear Mr. Lowry:
Re: City of Tigard' s High Cost Garbage Service to Businesses .
This letter follows my recent telephone conversation with you
regarding my concern with the high cost garbage service enforced
on those using large containers (businesses) because of your
franchise with Pride Disposal Company. I question why there
is such a large mark-up with those companies doing franchises.
The consumer in my opinion is not benefited as I feel that I am
in a good position to judge as I have used four of the six com-
panies listed below in my study. The results are as follows :
COMPANY NAME MONTHLY RATES BASED ON CONTAINER SIZE/WEEKLY SERV.
& PHONE # (2 yards) (1 yard) (1 can)
1 . DIANE' S DISPOSAL $ 45 . 00 $35 . 00 (lk yds . ) $ 8 . 50 curb
(774-4935) $10.00 non-
curb
2 . SALVI SANITARY SERV. $ 45 . 00 - 60. 00 $25 . 00 - 35 .00 $11 . 15
(232-8104)
3 . HOWARD SUNDE & SON $ 57 . 60 $28.80 $10.50
(246-2660)
4. S.W. SANITARY SERV. $ 60.00 $35.00 $11.00
(636-8874)
5 .*PRIDE DISPOSAL CO. $109.81 $60. 91 $10.80
(625-6177)
6. "ROSSMAN SANITARY $110.26 $76. 12 (14yds) $10.99 Mult.
(636-3011) $ 9 . 13 L.O.
*Franchise Companies
I feel the numbers above speak for themselves when service and over-
head are comparable. Those of us falling in franchise areas are
paying unfair rates for same service given by the non-franchise
companies .
I would like you to carefully review this information and present it
to the City Council in hope of a change in your franchising policy
to benefit all your taxpayers.
I would appreciate hearing from you in the near future regarding this
matter.
SiR,cerely yours ,
JVnet Holmes
YARD DEBRIS RECYCLING IN THE WASHINGTON WASTESHED
August 1989
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
. 1 Q
w 7
Introduction
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.
Originally an air quality issue, yard debris has transformed into
an air quality and landfill issue. When backyard burning was
first introduced in December 1980, the Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ) estimated that yard debris would
"equate to 5% of the total municipal waste generation and would
more than likely go unnoticed at the landfills" .
Time has shown that estimate to be low. The Metropolitan Service
District (Metro) , the regional government responsible for solid
waste disposal, has demonstrated through waste composition
studies that yard debris makes up 10.7% of the regional
wastestream. When added to the estimated amount of yard debris
composted, both at home and in commercial processing facilities,
yard debris generated in the metropolitan region amounts to
175, 000 to 190, 000 tons.
The Washington 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. Statistically representing 26% of
the wastestream in the region, the jurisdictions in the
Washington Wasteshed are responsible for addressing approximately
46, 800 tons of yard debris.
Plan Objectives and Approach
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.
The objectives for this plan are:
1. Determine the amount of material generated in each
jurisdiction.
2. Determine the amount of material presently being
processed and marketed in the region.
3 . Determine potential growth in processing and
marketing of yard debris in the region.
4 . Evaluate options for collecting and processing yard
2
debris.
5. Recommend options for collection and method of
financing each option for each jurisdiction.
6. Work within the policies of the Regional Solid Waste
Management Plan.
This work coincided with the beginning of Metro's regional yard
debris planning process and effort was made to accommodate
concerns for yard debris collection and disposition.
The planning committee attempted to create a plan that will
conform to future Metro plans.
The plan is a cooperative endeavor by the cities and Washington
County. The Planning Committee consists of representatives of all
the cities within the wasteshed and the County. Being outside the
Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and having a population smaller than
4, 000, the cities of Banks, Gaston, and North Plains are not
affected directly by this rule change. Metro is represented as
an ex-officio member of the committee.
Technical advice was provided by the creation of two sub-
committees. The Collection Sub-Committee consisted of members of
the Planning Committee as well as representatives from the
hauling industry, Metro, and the County' s Solid Waste Advisory
Committee. The Processing/Marketing Sub-Committee also had
members of the Planning Committee in addition to local private
processors, local landfill operators, Metro, local agricultural
business representatives and an agent of the Unified Sewerage
Agency (USA) .
Historical data as well as current programs were evaluated to
determine the most appropriate system for recommendation to all
jurisdictions involved. Findings were examined within the
context of specific goals and objectives determined by the
committee. This information then was applied to the Washington
Wasteshed and particular recommendations are made for adoption.
Section 1 of this report contains the system analysis of past and
present programs for collection, processing and marketing.
Programs in the metropolitan region are examined for cost and
effectiveness in recycling yard debris from the wastestream.
Section 2 proposes a program for yard debris recycling and the
expected results. The plan outlined is a system approach for the
entire wasteshed.
3
Findings:
The following is a summary of information relating to yard debris
recycling in the Washington Wasteshed. Since this program is
dependent upon marketing a final product, the findings are
categorized from markets backwards to the source.
Markets:
1. Experience has shown that yard debris recycling is
dependent on markets for the finished product.
2 . No market has ever been established for converting yard
debris to hog fuel.
3 . The future of the existing yard debris compost market
is at risk by development of a regional mixed solid
waste (MSW) compost facility.
4. Landfills in Washington County have either shown a
desire to expand their use or begin to use yard debris.
5. Dependent upon future EPA regulations covering the
field application of sludge, USA has committed to
expand their existing yard debris program.
6. Markets have demonstrated that yard debris compost is a
viable soil amendment product.
Processing:
1. Home composting as a disposition of yard debris
represents a significant portion of the total debris
generated, and should be encouraged.
2. The cost to collect and process yard debris is more
economical than to collect for landfill.
3 . Regional processing capacity is presently being
expanded to accommodate total yard debris generated in
the metropolitan area.
4. A yard debris processing certification program is vital
in the development of a responsible plan.
4
Collection:
1. Collecting yard debris for processing and marketing
contributes to maintaining landfill space for other
non-recyclable items.
2. An economic, convenient yard debris collection system
will help prevent non-point pollution of the Tualatin
River and its tributaries.
3 . Backyard burning is a major method of disposal for 4 of
the 9 cities in the Washington Wasteshed.
4 . Yard debris collection has been shown to be needed
predominately from March through November.
5. A successful collection program will involve manual
labor to check loads for contaminates.
6. A weekly depot collection program can expect to recover
50% of the yard debris generated within 4 miles of the
depot if a reasonable charge for disposal is
maintained.
7. Tax supported weekly curbside collection provided to
all residents can collect up to 95% of yard debris
generated in a jurisdiction.
8. In a survey of jurisdictions involved, King City,
Durham and Sherwood each indicated a preference for
weekly curbside collection.
9. All the other jurisdictions preferred weekly self-haul
depots complemented with an on-call pick-up service of
source separated yard debris provided by the franchised
hauler.
10. Existing businesses in the solid waste industry have
expressed a desire to provide any depots that are
needed to collect yard debris. Area haulers have
committed to providing curbside collection to
jurisdictions that have indicated such service needs.
11. As it is with any successful program in recycling, yard
debris recycling will be dependent upon an active
education and promotion program of the potential users.
5
Recommendations:
The following are staff recommendations that will offer an
initial system for yard debris recycling for the Washington
Wasteshed.
1. Local rate setting authorities for county landfills and
franchised haulers need to encourage yard debris
separation through differential rates.
2 . All jurisdictions need to develop policies that
encourage the use of yard debris compost in park
improvements, road construction, building landscaping
and other relevant uses.
3 . All jurisdictions need to address yard debris
collection depots, processing centers and vending
centers for final product in their comprehensive land
use plans.
4 . A certification program for yard debris recycling
depots needs to be adopted by all 13 local governments
in the Washington Wasteshed through a jointly developed
model ordinance.
5. Initiate a system of low density collection depots
through the existing solid waste industry to provide
five area depots open to the public and one commercial
depot.
6. Direct local franchised haulers within the UGB to
provide fee for service on-call source separated yard
debris collection.
7 . Direct local franchised haulers serving the Cities of
King City, Durham and Sherwood to provide appropriate
on-route curbside collection of source separated yard
debris.
8 . Initiate a wasteshed wide education program to increase
amount of yard debris home composted.
9 . Develop and implement a wasteshed wide education and
promotion program on yard debris recycling and use of
yard debris compost.
10. Establish a plan for ongoing system evaluation that
will obtain the necessary information to determine
future direction of yard debris recycling in the
6
Washington Wasteshed.
11. Continue to work closely with Metro in the development
of the regional yard debris recycling plan.
The intent is to provide a basic service level that will allow
augmentation in the future. Many questions remain concerning both
markets for yard debris compost and the ability to collect yard
debris from the wastestream in a county wide system.
By instituting a base service level that will complement any
future plan, this will allow time: 1) to gather data on use and
cost of the initial system, 2) to raise public awareness to the
problem of improper yard debris disposal and educate them of the
solutions, 3) for markets to expand to accommodate increased flow
of material for recycling and 4) to work with Metro on the
regional yard debris recycling plan and adjust the Washington
Wasteshed plan to conform.
7
YARD DEBRIS RECYCLING IN THE WASHINGTON WASTESHED
August 1989
O O
f
Table of Contents
Section 1 - Discussion and Analysis
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Plan Objectives and Approach . . . . . . . 2
Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Pilot Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Jurisdictional Responsibilities . . . 7
Variables Affecting Recycling . . . . 10
Participation Rates and Costs . . . . 14
Section 2 - Plan Parameters
Plan Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Education and Promotion . . . . . . . . . . 22
Certification and Land Use . . . . . . . . 23
Implementation and Future Planning . . . . 23
Section 3 - Appendix
Committee Memberships . . . . . . . . . . A
Computer Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . B
Metro Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . C
Tables and Figures
1.
(All graphs and tables will be presented at June 22, 1989 and
will be included in the final report)
Introduction•
On Dec. 20, 1988, the Washington County Board of Commissioners
met to address the EQC requirements that yard debris recycling be
made available to county residents. Concern was expressed as to
the relationship of yard debris disposal and non-point source
water pollution within the Tualatin Basin.
The Board of Commissioners approved the concept of developing a
city/county planning team to work on writing a yard debris
recycling plan for the Washington Wasteshed. This concept was
presented to the cities of Washington County by Commissioner
Steve Larrance on January 5, 1989 .
Commissioner Larrance explained the concept of a Tualatin Basin
Plan for yard debris. The EQC has set a compliance schedule for
the Tualatin River that the County and the Unified Sewerage
Agency must meet by June 1993 . A March 1990 deadline has also
been established to have management authority in place to control
non-point source pollution within the county.
Commissioner Larrance's presentation centered on two ideas. The
first was that the wasteshed needed to address its requirements
for yard debris recycling. The second was the related topic of
non-point source pollution and how a yard debris recycling
program can affect this specific County concern.
Plan Objectives and Approach:
On January 26, 1989, representative of the 9 cities and the
County met to discuss particulars for a city/county yard debris
planning team. The following ideas were agreed upon in principle
at that meeting:
1. This team would be called the Washington Wasteshed
Planning Committee, to be chaired by the Wasteshed
Representative.
2 . The Committee would be made up of the Wasteshed
Representative and a representative from each of the 12
cities located within the Washington Wasteshed.
3 . That the objectives of this Committee would be to apply
for a 6 month time extension from DEQ for plan
submittal, and upon receiving such an extension, to
develop a plan to collect, process and market yard
debris within the wasteshed.
2
4 . The Committee would set up two sub-committees for
technical advisement. These two sub-committees would
report their findings back to the full Committee for
consideration. The Committee will have sole
responsibility to reach a consensus report that will
then be taken to each individual City Council and Board
of Commissioners for their review and decision.
a. The Collection Sub-Committee would evaluate
collection options for the Committee. Membership
would be made up of select haulers, the county,
Metro, any city representatives, and a
representative from the County Solid Waste
Advisory Committee.
b. The Processing/Marketing Sub-Committee would
review current processors and markets and evaluate
potential processors and markets. Membership would
be made up of the county, any city
representatives, a USA representative, Metro,
processors, nursery and other agricultural
interests.
5. The Committee would have the Wasteshed Representative
and any interested city representatives present at all
Metro meetings concerning the regional yard debris
plan.
6. The Committee and the two sub-committees would meet as
often as necessary to make ensure that the plan is
developed within the stated timeline.
7. The Wasteshed Representative would be the primary
contact person for the Committee and will be
responsible for keeping the cities informed.
Timeline
February 15, 1989 Deadline for cities to have indicated
their intent for plan development.
February 16, 1989 Determine make-up of sub-committees, set
schedules for sub-committee meetings,
and send letters to members.
March - May 1989 Assess local collection methods, data
collection on cost alternatives,
.evaluate funding sources, determine
amounts of debris generated, appraise
3
processing and marketing impacts.
June 1989 Present findings to Committee for review
and evaluation. Determine plan
parameters that meet consensus of all
members. Write wasteshed plan.
July 1, 1989 Final yard debris report ready for
approval of Committee and for
presentation to jurisdictions for formal
approval.
August 15, 1989 Submit final Washington Wasteshed Yard
Debris Recycling Plan to DEQ for
approval.
Findings:
The action of the EQC in requiring yard debris recycling has a
background in the Portland area backyard burning ban. Air quality
concerns were the cause of the imposition of the burn ban in
December 1980. Public and political pressure caused a brief
lifting of the ban followed by reimposition of the burning ban.
In considering a burn ban, concern was expressed for the ultimate
disposal of yard debris. In the 111980 Portland Metropolitan Area
Yard Debris Survey" conducted by the Department of Environmental
Quality, estimates predicted that yard debris diverted to
landfills would amount to 5% of the total municipal waste flow.
Since that study, more consideration has been shown to amounts of
all material being landfilled. With the closure of St. John's
Landfill and the resultant shipment of regional waste to Eastern
Oregon, the emphasis of yard debris has shifted to waste
reduction in addition to air quality.
Pilot Projects
DEQ worked from the beginning of the burn ban to help establish
yard debris collection and disposal alternatives. In February
1981, DEQ passed through to Metro an Air Pollution Control
Program Grant to develop disposal alternatives for yard debris.
Initially four processing alternatives as well as six collection
alternatives comprised this demonstration project. A brief review
of Metro's report "A Demonstration Project for Recycling Yard
Debris" is needed to understand how the region evolved to its
present position.
4
In 1983 , four private processors existed in the metropolitan
region. In the ensuing 6 years, two processors went out of
business. One of those processors was replaced briefly by a
government operation that also failed. One of the two remaining
processors is limited by the State in the amount of material that
can be received until accumulated material has been marketed.
This has left Grimm's Fuel as the predominate regional processor
of yard debris.
Metro's report based a planned regional processing system on
three main processors, the fourth being eliminated due to high
operating cost. These three companies, Waste By-Products, located
at St. John's Landfill, McFarlane Bark of Oregon City and Grimm's
Fuel of Tualatin established a geographic distribution of
processors.
The collection alternatives showed a similar survival rate. Of
the 6 case studies, only 2 have continued to the present as
viable collection methods. A review of these six programs and the
reasons for success or failure is important in developing a
workable plan for the Washington Wasteshed. They are:
1. Oregon City - This pilot project started out as an on-
route curbside collection by city crews. It recovered
up to 80% of yard debris generated but also sustained
the second highest cost of the six programs.
This program was eventually taken over by the
franchised hauler and is currently a successful
program. It is much the same as the City of Gladstone
collection program. It is supported by property taxes,
available to all city customers and has increased
collection of yard debris to a 95% recovery rate.
Oregon City and Gladstone are excellent examples of
successful curbside collection programs for yard debris
that work. The recovery rate is high and the acceptance
by residents is positive. The issue that threatens the
program is the inequitable portion of the tax that is
paid by commercial property. Business property tends to
have little yard debris or they contract with private
landscapers to maintain properties.
2. Lake Oswego - An on call curbside pick-up program was
initiated in the City of Lake Oswego by the franchised
hauler. The program was of short duration during the
winter and consequently was not very successful. The
potential for such a system was demonstrated however
and might be a mote acceptable program if properly
implemented.
5
Routes for collection need to have enough paying
customers to spread the cost of labor and equipment out
to as wide a base as possible. This is the determining
factor in any curbside collection based on economics.
3 . West Linn - The City of West Linn originally started
yard debris collection with on call pick-up by city
crews. This pilot program experienced the highest costs
of all six programs. Residents were not charged for the
service so acceptance was good although only woody
wastes were collected.
In 1985 West Linn began their present program of
operating a weekly depot for collection and processing.
Run by the city with partial volunteer labor, this
depot collects 50% of the yard debris generated within
the city.
4 . City of Portland - A neighborhood clean-up project was
sponsored by the City of Portland for eight days. The
project was run by volunteers and was free of charge to
area residents. The material collected represented only
a 3% participation rate.
An ongoing program could not be realistically based
upon volunteer labor and the cost of hauling the
material recovered would need to be paid from some
source. The last problem is that a 3% recovery is not
acceptable for retrieving yard debris from the
wastestream.
5. City of Beaverton - The City of Beaverton also
sponsored a neighborhood clean-up project but used both
city crews and a franchised hauler's crew.
Participation for this one day event was higher than
for the City of Portland project. Due to the
volunteers, this was the least expensive of the six
projects.
The same problems experienced with the City of
Portland's clean-up are present here. Much of the cost
of this project was absorbed by the city and the
franchised hauler. Participation rates are again the
main problem of any neighborhood clean-up. For ongoing
yard debris collection to be successful, more material
must be retrieved.
6. City of Portland - The second pilot project in the City
of Portland involved a one day curbside collection
program provided by a non-franchised hauler. The
project was well accepted considering the convenience
and free cost.
6
This type of program never was adopted since their was
no method to provide long term financing.
Jurisdictional Responsibilities
Yard debris recycling involves different government jurisdictions
that have varying responsibilities for planning and implementing.
A basic understanding of the roles of each government entity is
essential in understanding the process for recycling yard debris.
State of Oregon
The State of Oregon through the EQC is empowered by the
Legislature to ensure compliance with the intent of the
"Opportunity to Recycle Act" . Oregon Revised Statue (ORS) Section
459 deals with solid waste control. Section 459. 165 to 459.200
specifically addresses recycling; setting standards, implementing
guidelines, defining responsibilities and appeal processes.
One section critically important to developing a viable yard
debris recycling program is section 459.170 (2) (c) . It states
that "In adopting rules or guidelines under this section, the
commission shall consider availability of markets for recyclable
material. "
DEQ, under the authority of the EQC, is responsible for writing
and implementing the Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) pertinent
to yard debris. Located in Division 60 are the recycling and
waste reduction rules.
The Washington Wasteshed was created in Section 340-60-025 based
on a common solid waste disposal system. The intent was to
provide a responsible party to oversee the implementation and to
provide assistance in the education and promotion of recycling.
On September 9, 1988 the EQC adopted rules identifying yard
debris as a principal recyclable material in the Clackamas,
Portland, Multnomah, West Linn and Washington Wastesheds. One of
the criteria used in this decision was the waste composition
study showing yard debris accounting for 10.70 of the entire
regional wastestream.
The EQC further established guidelines for developing and
implementing a plan for yard debris recycling. DEQ has developed
rules to implement yard debris recycling and to monitor it's
success. An overview of these rules regarding planning and
implementation is examined here.
7
Under OAR 340-60-120, Section (1) , the Washington Wasteshed shall
submit a plan to DEQ on providing yard debris recycling to the
residents of Washington County and the 9 Cities involved. Section
(4) lists the parameters that such a plan will include:
a. estimated amounts
b. collection methods
c. number of participants
d. participation rate
e. amount to be recovered
f. process for recycling
g. capacity of processors
h. projected growth
i. description of alternatives
j . timeline of growth and use
For implementation of the plan developed under the above
criteria, DEQ has set the following guidelines on which it will
judge a plan acceptable. OAR 340-60-125 gives three options in
separate sections.
Section (1) would require county haulers to provide curbside
collection as defined under OAR 340-60-020. Thus yard debris
would be in the same status as glass, tin cans, newsprint,
cardboard, and motor oil.
Section (2) suggests three alternative methods for collection
that would be acceptable to the DEQ. They are:
"a. Monthly or more often on-route collection of yard
debris during the months of April through October, with
a drop-off depot for noncollection service customers
available at least monthly, or"
"b. A biweekly or more often yard debris collection
depot within one mile of the yard debris generators, or
such that there is at least one conveniently located
depot for every 25, 000 population. "
"c. A monthly or more often yard debris collection
depot, supplemented by a weekly or more often yard
debris depot during the months of April through
October, both within one mile of the yard debris
generators, or such that there is at least one
conveniently located depot for every 25, 000
population. "
Section (3) gives the affected jurisdictions the opportunity to
develop an alternative method that meets DEQ's approval. DEQ sets
the criteria for approval of such an alternative plan on its
ability to provide the service to residents and to reach the
8
final goal of DEQ.
Section (5) sets the final goal of DEQ. In this section are the
minimum performance standards for recovery of yard debris
generated in each jurisdiction within the Washington Wasteshed.
They are:
"a. By July 1, 1989 recovery of at least 25% of the
yard debris generated in the area. "
"b. By July 1, 1990 recovery of at least 40% of the
yard debris generated in the area. "
"c. By July 1, 1991 recovery of at least 60% of the
yard debris generated in the area. "
"d. By July 1, 1992 recovery of at least 80% of the
yard debris generated in the area. "
A qualifier under OAR Section 340-60-120 (7) states that the
above minimum standards shall be met:
"except when it can be demonstrated to the Department's
satisfaction, that a program which meets these minimum
standards will produce more source separated yard debris
than the processors or the local or regional government
jurisdiction are capable of utilizing. "
DEQ has testified and the rules state that the above standards
shall be met "unless otherwise provided in an approved yard
debris recycling plan" .
Metropolitan Service District
Metro was created to be the regional government for the three
Portland metropolitan counties. Duties that have been delegated
to Metro since its inception include; regional transportation
planning, regional solid waste disposal, community zoo
management.
Within solid waste, Metro's tasks include regional waste
reduction, regional recycling, solid waste planning, solid waste
facility permitting, solid waste transportation and landfill
operation. Additionally, it offers technical assistance to local
jurisdictions on implementing solid waste programs.
Metro's responsibility to yard debris is set down in the Oregon
Administrative Rules Division 60. Section 340-60-120 (1) & (2)
allows Metro to develop a regional plan that would meet each
local government's requirement. Through intergovernmental
9
agreement, each local jurisdiction would be responsible to work
with Metro in developing and implementing a regional plan.
Local Governments
For local jurisdictions within the Washington Wasteshed, three
options were available. To develop a plan independently, to sign
an agreement and work with Metro, or to work as a group within
the wasteshed. The Cities of Banks, Gaston and North Plains are
not required to provide yard debris recycling.
The Cities of Beaverton, Cornelius, Durham, Forest Grove,
Hillsboro, King City, Tigard, Tualatin, and Sherwood in concert
with Washington County have signed a "Statement of Intent to
Participate in Washington Wasteshed Yard Debris Recycling Plan" .
Washington County, through the Department of Health and Human
Services, is DEQ's designated Wasteshed Representative and as
such is responsible for the annual Wasteshed Report. This report
was submitted on February 15, 1989 with a 6 month extension
request
for development of a yard debris recycling plan.
DEQ subsequently conditionally approved the annual wasteshed
report with the provision that the yard debris recycling portion
of the report be submitted by August 15, 1989. Local
jurisdictions have till that date to approve a plan to implement
yard debris recycling.
In addition to rules requiring yard debris recycling by each
jurisdiction, Washington County and the cities located within the
Tualatin Valley need to be concerned about water pollution of the
Tualatin River.
Although a small contributor to non-point pollution in the
Tualatin Basin, yard debris that is disposed of in gullies and
waterways in the County eventually find its way into the Tualatin
River. By providing a system for collection that finds acceptance
by the residents of the county, one source of pollution could be
eliminated.
Variables Affecting Recycling
There are a number items that directly or indirectly affect a
yard debris recycling program. In order to better understand the
problems associated with setting up such a program, these
components need explanation.
10
Backyard Burning
The backyard burning ban initiated by DEQ took in the majority of
the metropolitan area. The Cities of Hillsboro, Forest Grove,
Cornelius and Sherwood lie either totally or substantially
outside the ban boundary. Portions of unincorporated Washington
County also lie outside the burn ban.
This is significant to these jurisdictions since the performance
standards that DEQ will judge a plan acceptable are based on the
amount of yard debris retrieved. Under Metro's methodology for
determining a jurisdictions available material, burning is not
taken into the equation.
The only data available on percentage of people burning yard
debris is from a ten year old survey by DEQ. In this survey,
conducted regionwide before the burn ban took affect, 35% of
respondents stated that they burned. By volume, the total burned
was estimated at 13% of all yard debris.
If the regional estimate of 1000 pounds of yard debris per single
family household is reduced by these percentages, jurisdictions
outside the burn ban are more realistically looking at 870 pounds
to as low as 650 pounds per single family residence. This is a
sizable reduction in the total amount of material to be recovered
to meet the compliance standards.
The survey, by including the entire region, averaged together
areas opposed to the ban with areas that favored the ban. In
order to reach this average, it would be reasonable to expect
that the percentage burning in the areas left out of the burn ban
area would be higher than 35%.
Until more complete and current figures are available, an average
amount between the number of people who burn and amount by volume
will be used. The amount of material per single family residence
will therefore be reduced to 770 pounds for jurisdictions outside
the burn ban.
Backyard Composting
Home composting has been figured into Metro's methodology for
amount of material generated regionwide. It is estimated that
home composting accounts for 25-30% of the total amount of yard
debris.
Backyard composting is the most desireable alternative for
disposal and should be encouraged in any plan. The advantages are
11
that the material never has to be collected, processed or
marketed. All those functions are completed at the site of
generation.
Like backyard burning, the number of people who home compost is
difficult to determine accurately. Also, like backyard burning,
if a reasonable system for collecting yard debris is instituted,
will this affect the number of people who compost or burn? It
would be expected that home composters are more likely to
continue composting yard debris even if provided a reasonable
collection system.
Processing
In 1983 four processors started recycling yard debris in the
metropolitan area. Today two processors remain. McFarlane's Bark
in .Oregon City continues to process and market yard debris
compost as well as Grimm's Fuel in Tualatin.
McFarlane' s Bark is under DEQ restrictions to reduce the amount
of material stored on site. Consequently, this processor is
limited in the amount of material that may be disposed of on
site.
The Washington Wasteshed is projected to have the following
processing capacities:
Grimm's Fuel Expansion Project
Operational in 1991
(26% of 100, 000 ton capacity) 26, 000
Lakeside Reclamation 1, 000
Hillsboro Landfill 8, 000
USA Sludge Program 9 , 000
Total 44, 000
Grimm's Fuel is the predominate processor for the region. In
1988, an expansion project was started to provide additional
capacity for yard debris at Grimm's Fuel. Due for completion in
1990, the total capacity will be 1 million pounds per year.
The Washington Wasteshed has 26% of Grimm's processing capacity.
This amount to should be 260, 000 pounds or 26, 000 tons yearly.
This is the only full processor in the county that both grinds
and composts yard debris.
Other partial processors of yard debris in the county are
12
Lakeside Reclamation, Unified Sewerage Agency and possibly
Hillsboro Landfill. Lakeside Reclamation currently grinds
material only, and projects doubling the amount of material
processed to 1000 tons yearly. Lakeside Reclamation has been
using yard debris as both ground cover and hog fuel .
USA has been using yard debris since 1974 as a bulking agent for
sludge in their field application program. This program has been
very successful and well accepted in the agricultural community.
USA anticipates increasing their grinding operation to 9000 tons
annually. This is a considerable increase from their current 400
tons. This increase in yard debris usage is contingent on a
continuing sludge application program on area farms. New EPA
regulations are being adopted that may restrict field application
of sludge.
New processing capacity may begin at Hillsboro Landfill. If the
planned expansion of the landfill is approved, 8000 tons annually
may be chipped to be used as both intermediate cover and for
final cover on the landfill. It has yet to be determined whether
yard debris is appropriate intermediate cover.
These operations have a projected total processing capacity of
44 , 000 tons annually with the wasteshed' s share of Grimm' s Fuel
accounted for in the total.
Certain safeguards will need to be addressed by all the
jurisdictions concerning yard debris collection and processing.
Problems have arisen within Washington County of the
establishment of uncontrolled yard debris collection sites.
With yard debris carrying a charge for disposal, the opportunity
exists to collect a fee to dispose of yard debris on private land
with or without the intention to process the material. The
problem arises when an operation ceases, leaving the landowner or
local government with a potential fire and health risk.
Markets
Local processors have developed markets over the last five years
and have experienced a growth of 20% or more per year. Much of
this market has been gained at the expense of other soil
amendment products. Bark dust and peat moss are similar products
against which yard debris compost must compete. Yard debris
compost has penetrated the home, landscape and nursery markets
and has been well accepted.
Existing markets for recycled yard debris in Washington County is
predominately material sold through Grimm's Fuel. Of the known
estimates of yard debris being recycled, Grimm's Fuel accounts
13
for 86% of the material being marketed.
The remaining material is accounted for by Lakeside Reclamation
at 8% and USA's sludge program at 6% of the total. Grimm's Fuel
is the only County processor marketing finished compost to
individual and commercial customers. The Lakeside and USA
programs are both only chipped products used in-house and not
marketed to the public.
Total known markets in the Washington Wasteshed for yard debris
in 1989 are expected to be:
Grimm's Fuel
(26% of 22, 000 tons) 5,720
Lakeside Reclamation 500
USA Sludge Program 400
Total 6, 620 Tons
The large growth of yard debris products that was experienced
from 1983 to 1988 seems have to flattened out. A market that was
sustaining growth over 50% per year experienced only 14% last
year and is projected at a 13% growth next year.
If the in-house programs at USA and Hillsboro Landfill can reach
there projected yearly totals, this will add 17, 000 tons to the
market capacity of the wasteshed. This will require a concerted
effort on both programs to reach this goal. Grimm's Fuel took 6
years to build processing capacity and markets to handle a
similar amount of yard debris.
Other potential markets have been explored by various businesses.
Since 1983 several attempts have been made to develop a hog fuel
market for both yard debris and demolition debris. No ongoing
viable program presently exist for either. The future of a hog
fuel market is questionable and may only come through incentives
to business or individuals.
A large variable that could affect the yard debris markets is
presently being developed in the region. Metro is initiating a
mixed solid waste (MSW) compost facility with a capacity of
185, 000 tons annually for the metropolitan region. Although
contractual restrictions on marketing of finished compost will be
imposed, this project proposes giving away the final product.
This government subsidized facility may infiltrate markets that
been developed for yard debris compost by private industry over
the past 6 years.
14
Participation Rates and Costs
The current cost for disposal of mixed waste for the landfill at
Metro South Transfer Station is $45.75 per ton. Disposal of
source seperated yard debris at Grimm's Fuel is presently $14 .00
per ton. However, unlike the landfill option, the cost of
processing yard debris can be distributed on the disposal cost
and on the sale of the finished product. When the added revenue
from sales is accounted for, the cost for processing is
approxiamately $17. 65 per ton.
Currently in the metropolitan area, three successful yard debris
collection systems are in use. By analyzing these three very
different programs, an appropriate, cost effective method for
collecting yard debris can be determined. From the initial 6
pilot projects, today we have 3 basic types of yard debris
collection.
On-Route Curbside Collection
The City of Gladstone has had a curbside collection program for
yard debris since 1969. Oregon City has also instituted a
curbside collection program. Both programs are based on property
taxes, and are available to all local residents. At a respective
cost of $27.00 and $25.46 per year for an average home, these
programs are successful due to the broad based financial support
and high participation rates experienced.
Oregon City and Gladstone are excellent examples of successful
curbside collection programs for yard debris that work. The
recovery rate is high and the acceptance by residents is
positive. The most recent data shows participation rates as high
as 95%. The issue that threatens the program is the inequitable
portion of the tax that is paid by commercial property. Business
property tends to have little yard debris or they contract with
private landscapers to maintain properties.
In other curbside collection programs based on voluntary
participation, costs were higher due to lower participation.
Curbside collection works when the cost of the program can be
spread over the largest user base as possible. It would appear
that only through property tax or mandatory service that a
sufficient base can be maintained.
Self Haul Depot
Since 1985, the City of West Linn has run a successful weekly
15
depot for the residents of the city. Run by city staff with
volunteer labor through community corrections, the depot is open
on Saturdays. Experience has demonstrated that an observer is
necessary to guarantee that contaminates are not allowed to be
discarded.
Participation has shown that operating from March through
November provides the optimum access for residents when that
service is needed. This program has had good participation with
estimates showing 50% of the yard debris in West Linn being
recovered for processing.
At a cost of $3.00 per yard to dispose, some of the cost of this
program is subsidized by the city. Use of city equipment to chip
and move compost piles as well as the occasional city crew for
labor to run the equipment supports this program.
Although no resident is more than 4.5 miles from the permanent
depot site, many residents have no means of transporting material
to the site. West Linn currently offers on-call service through
the franchised hauler for source separated yard debris. This is a
fee for service program.
The city is attempting to initiate a delivery/pick-up system
where trailers of yard debris compost will be delivered. After a
suitable time full trailers of yard debris will be hauled away in
the same trailer. This enables compost to be marketed to the same
people producing yard debris.
Neighborhood Clean-ups
Many cities in the metropolitan area sponsor city or neighborhood
clean-up days. Usually held in the spring or fall of the year,
most programs collect any outdoor material. Attempts are made to
keep yard junk and yard debris separate in order that the yard
debris may be recycled. Generally these events are subsidized by
the jurisdiction, at no direct cost to the residents, and use
volunteer labor.
The City of Beaverton provides such a service to city residents.
It also sponsors through the city's franchised hauler a monthly
yard debris collection depot. Conducted in a parking lot,
material is loaded into garbage compactor trucks and then hauled
to a local processor.
Acceptance by the residents has been good for this type of
program. The amount of material recovered accounts for 1.5% of
the estimated 4783 tons generated in Beaverton. Costs for this
program are subsidized through the franchised hauler.
16
An average of 3 .5 employees and 2 compactor trucks are provided
by the hauler. The cost to residents, $3 .00 per yard, covers the
expense of disposal at the local processor and part of the wages
of the employee.
Computer Analysis
in order to understand a systematic approach to yard debris
recycling versus individual collection by jurisdictions, a
computer analysis by Metro in Section 3 provides data for each
individual jurisdiction for a curbside collection program and
indivdual depots.
Metro's computer model did not have the capability to look at a
county wide system of depots so a computer model was developed so
material recovery and cost projections could be evaluated. This
model is capable of performing "what if" problems for the
wasteshed.
17
Plan Parameters:
In developing a yard debris recycling plan under DEQ rules, ten
points of information must be provided. These will be addressed
as they relate to the Washington Wasteshed. The amounts for
Washington County are for the unincorporated areas inside the
UGB.
1 - Estimated Amounts
City of Beaverton 4,783 Tons
City of Cornelius 432 Tons
City of Durham 132 Tons
City of Forest Grove 1, 055 Tons
City of Hillsboro 3 , 355 Tons
City of King City 313 Tons
City of Sherwood 433 Tons
City of Tigard 3,806 Tons
City of Tualatin 1,404 Tons
Washington County 20, 600 Tons
Wasteshed Total 36, 314 Tons
These amounts are derived from the methodology (see Appendix C)
developed by Metro that will be applied to all jurisdictions
addressing yard debris recycling. For cities outside the backyard
burning ban boundaries, an amount (23%) has been deducted that
approximates the material burned in these jurisdictions.
2 - Collection Methods
A low density depot system will be developed for the affected
portion of the wasteshed. This will consist of 5 self-haul
collection depots located throughout the urban portion of the
wasteshed. This will allow the majority of the residents to be
within 4 miles of a depot, or one depot per 53,000 population.
The solid waste industry has committed to provide these depots
and they will be open to the general public. Although contingent
on sighting these depots, early commitments from the solid waste
industry project the depots to be located at:
Forest Grove March-Nov. , weekly service, Saturdays only
Hillsboro Year round, daily service, Mon.-Sat.
Beaverton Year round, daily service, Mon.-Sat.
Garden Home March-Nov. , weekly service, Saturdays only
Tualatin Year round, daily service, Mon.-Sat.
Additionally, an existing depot located west of Beaverton for
commercial recyclers will be incorporated into this plan. This
facility will continue to be closed to the general public.
19
Complimenting the depots will be on-call source separated
curbside service provided by the franchised haulers. This will be
a fee for service program with rates set to provide incentive to
recycle yard debris versus disposal to the landfill.
To meet the particular needs of the Cities of Durham, King City
and Sherwood, the local franchised hauler will provide source
separated curbside service. This will be a fee for service
program offered to residents in each of these cities from March
through November. It will be at the minimum a monthly collection.
These three cities will provide the entire Jre wasteshed an
opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness of a fee for use
curbside collection program. Data collected on the participation
rates and amount of material retrieved will greatly assist the
other jurisdictions future program planning.
3 - Number of Participants
The goal of this program is to reach as many residents as
economically as possible. Estimates for each jurisdiction are:
City of Beaverton 21, 000 Residents
City of Cornelius 1,959 Residents
City of Durham 395 Residents
City of Forest Grove 4, 666 Residents
City of Hillsboro 12,444 Residents
City of King City 1, 005 Residents
City of Sherwood 1, 151 Residents
City of Tigard 13,750 Residents
City of Tualatin 6, 080 Residents
Washington County 65, 975 Residents
Wasteshed Total 114, 675 Residents
Again, these figures take into account the substantial number of
residents who burn yard debris in the cities outside the burn
ban.
4 - Participation Rate
This plan is based on the assumption that a convenient depot
system will generate a 50% participation rate. This has been
demonstrated to be attainable under similar conditions. However,
this plan addresses a county wide collection program rather than
a city wide collection program.
It is further expected that the fee for service curbside
collection program in the three cities will attain a 50%
participation rate. This would appear to be the minimum rate
needed to make this program economically realistic as costs of
20
such a program increase dramatically if such a rate is not
maintained.
Because this plan is based on the development of new markets,
participation rates are expected to increase over the next 4
years. Since several factors affect future market development, it
is judicious to look at two sets of participation rates.
One is the rate projected from all planned programs reaching
maximum potential. The second is a median rate based on more
realistic growth projections in programs that presently do not
exist. These rates do not take into consideration the
considerable effect that Metro's MSW compost facility may have on
markets. Projected rates are:
Maximum median
1989 19% 19%
1990 32% 23%
1991 44% 29%
1992 50% 39%
5 - Amount to be Recovered
Like participation rates, the amount of yard debris to be
recovered will be determined upon market availability for
finished product. -
This plan involves the development of new markets. The amount of
yard debris to be recovered is expected to increase over the next
4 years. since several factors affect future market development,
again it is judicious to look at two sets of recovery amounts.
One is the amount projected from all planned programs reaching
maximum potential. The second is Median rate based on more
realistic growth in programs that do not even exist as yet. These
amounts again do not take into consideration the considerable
effect that Metro's MSW compost facility may have on markets.
Projected recovery amounts in tons of yard debris are:
Maximum Median
1989 6, 120 6, 120
1990 11, 000 8, 050
1991 15,780 10, 380
1992 18, 337 14,260
6 - Processors for Recycling
Four facilities will be used in Washington County for processing.
Three are currently processing yard debris and the fourth has
21
made a commitment to begin processing under this plan.
They are:
Grimm's Fuel Tualatin Grind and compost
Hillsboro Landfill Hillsboro Grind only
Unified Sewerage Agency Hillsboro Grind only
Lakeside Reclamation Beaverton Grind only
7 - Processor Capacity
The capacities break down as follows:
Washington Washington Washington Washington
County Wasteshed Wasteshed Wasteshed
Projected Potential Utilized Present
Grimm's 100, 000 tons 26, 000 tons 8, 060 tons 5, 018 tons
Hillsboro 8, 000 tons 8, 000 tons 3, 000 tons 0 tons
USA 9, 000 tons 9, 000 tons 3,200 tons 400 tons
Lakeside 1, 000 tons 1, 000 tons 1, 000 tons 500 tons
Total 118, 000 tons 44 , 000 tons 15, 260 tons 5, 918 tons
The four listed processors located in Washington County have
projected combined capacity of 118,000 tons of yard debris
yearly. This figure needs to studied closer.
Since Grimm's Fuel is a regional facility, the Washington
Wasteshed has to recognize that only 26% of the total capacity is
available. This second column offers total Washington Wasteshed
potential capacity.
But yard debris needs to be utilized either internally or through
markets to be considered recyclable. The third column is the
projected capacity based on market development and utilization by
the processors. These figures are again based upon realistic
projections for processors that will need to sustain 100% yearly
increases in capacity for the next four years to meet these
goals.
Present capacity is measured by amount of material utilized or
marketed in 1988 and is represented in the fourth column.
This demonstrates the importance of market development for yard
debris compost.
8 - Projected Growth
over the next four years, it can be expected that considerable
growth will be experienced under this plan. Again dependent upon
market development for any growth, the following shows the
maximum growth projected and a realistic growth projection.
22
Maximum Median
Percent Percent
Increase Increase
Participation Rate 229% 294%
Amount Recovered 338% 263%
Utilized Capacity 424% 258%
9 - Alternatives for Collection
This alternative plan founded on low density depots can expect to
provide the opportunity to recycle to residents of the Washington
Wasteshed. Supplemented by a fee for service curbside collection
of source separated yard debris, this plan offers a basic
recycling level while markets for finished material are expanded.
10 - Timeline
Projecting over the next four years the growth of this program
can best be visualized in Figures y and z. By equalizing out the
amount of yard debris collected with the amount of yard debris
processed and utilized, low density depots can expect to meet the
projected demand.
Figure Y shows demand versus collection under maximum market
development over the next four years. As can be seen, the
collection system based on 50% retrieval rates begins to lag
behind processing capacity by 1992. Graph y shows this more
dramatically.
Figure Z takes the more realistic approach that a more median
market development will take place up to the 50% retrieval rate.
Graph Z shows a strong steady growth in utilized yard debris.
Education and Promotion:
All successful recycling plans need an education and promotion
program. Yard debris recycling in the Washington Wasteshed will
have an emphasis on collecting and using yard debris compost.
Home composting will be stressed in the education and promotion
program. The more material that remains at the site of generation
means less material to collect, process and market. All those
tasks are completed at no cost to the system through home
composting.
A wasteshed wide program will be developed to education the
community on the advantages to backyard composting. This will
include a part time compost educator that will be available to
23
school, civic and other interested groups.
The compost educator will also be responsible for promoting the
beneficial aspects of yard debris compost. This will require
coordination with processors in the wasteshed.
Promotional material will be distributed supporting the use of
the depot system for yard debris collection, the availability of
a fee for service curbside collection of source separated yard
debris, and the benefit of yard debris compost in the residential
soil amendment market.
A community educational display will be created that will promote
yard debris recycling and use. This will made available for
libraries, schools, community special events and fairs within the
wasteshed.
Part of the commitment of the cities and the County will be to
promote the in-house use of yard debris compost. Written policies
within each jurisdiction directing parks, roads and building
maintenance to use yard debris compost where appropriate would
establish a leadership role for the general public to follow.
Certification and Land Use:
Jurisdictions in the Washington Wasteshed will develop a model
ordnance for certification of yard debris collection depots. The
need to set standards for performance is in the public interest
as uncontrolled depots can become public nuisances requiring
county or city enforcement.
This is in conformance with DEQ rules pertaining to permit
requirements for disposal sites. A certification program will
also ensure compliance were applicable with Metro's permit system
for collection sites.
Land use planning will need to be addressed in those
jurisdictions were depots or processors are planned and in those
jurisdictions that may be considered in the future. Incorporating
standards for depots and processors into the comprehensive plan
will allow these functions to take place in that zone.
Implementation and Future Planning:
Although this plan is based on major participation of the solid
waste industry, commitments have been made that implementation
will occur in a timely manner. After DEQ approval and contingent
on land use and Metro approval, 4 of the 5 depots should be open
24
for business by March 1990. This will coincide with the beginning
of the heavy demand period for yard debris dispcsal.
The fee for service curbside collection of source separated yard
debris would be implemented at the same time by local franchised
haulers after rate review and approval by local jurisdictions.
The education and promotion program would begin prior to the
startup of the main program to ensure good public awareness of
yard debris recycling.
Several factors will be assessed during the implementation and
evolution of the Washington Wasteshed yard debris recycling
program. Data collection from all parties involved will assist in
program evaluation toward meeting plan objectives. As markets for
yard debris evolve this plan will allow the wasteshed to
accommodate such changes.
This plan will precede Metro's regional yard debris plan and will
necessitate an appraisal at the time of -approval of the regional
plan to assure compliance by the Washington Wasteshed Plan. This
may require revision of this plan and submittal of any changes to
DEQ for approval.
The Washington Wasteshed has been active in plan development of
the regional plan from the beginning and will maintain an active
role through Metro in future planning. It is the wasteshed's
intent to work within a regional framework for yard debris
recycling.
25
Washington Wasteshed Planning Committee
Bill Martin, Chair Washington County
Robert Prickett City of Banks
Beth Erlendson City of Beaverton
Jerald Taylor City of Cornelius
Jeanne Percy City of Durham
Jeff Hecksel City of Forest Grove
Marilyn Begert City of Gaston
Cecilia Petrocco City of Hillsboro
Lenore Akerson City of King City
Karen-Lee Stolte City of North Plains
Clifford Scott City of Tigard
Jan Nelson City of Tualatin
James Rapp City of Sherwood
Ex-officio Member
Becky Crockett Metro
Appendix
A
Yard Debris Recycling Sub-Committee
for Processing and Marketing
Gary Clapshaw Hillsboro Landfill
Hillsboro
Larry Depree Farmer
Hillsboro
Mike Edera Landscape Contractor
Banks
Bill Fuller Tualatin Vineyards
Forest Grove
Howard Grabhorn Lakeside Reclamation
Beaverton
Rod Grimm Grimm' s Fuel
Tualatin
Sandy Gurkewitz Analyst-Resource Recovery
Metro
Dan Leonard Manager, West Basin
Unified Sewerage Agency
Gill McLain Schlegel 's Sunridge Farm
Banks
Members of the Washington Wasteshed Planning Committee
Appendix A
Yard Debris Recycling Sub-Committee
for Processing and Marketing
Gary Clapshaw Hillsboro Landfill
Hillsboro
Larry Depree Farmer
Hillsboro
Mike Edera Landscape Contractor
Banks
Bill Fuller Tualatin Vineyards
Forest Grove
Howard Grabhorn Lakeside Reclamation
Beaverton
Rod Grimm Grimm's Fuel
Tualatin
Sandy Gurkewitz Analyst-Resource Recovery
Metro
Dan Leonard Manager, West Basin
Unified Sewerage Agency
Gill McLain Schlegel 's Sunridge Farm
Banks
Members of the Washington Wasteshed Planning Committee
Appendix A
Yard Debris Recycling Sub-Committee
for Collection
Becky Crockett Project Manager
Metro
Keith Eldein Aloha Garbage
Aloha
Bill Gildow Solid Waste Advisory Comm.
Washington County
Estle Harlan Harlan Business Consultants
Milwaukie
Bosti Rebagliati Forest Grove Disposal
Forest Grove
Dave Tonges West Beaverton Sanitary
Beaverton
Buzz Walker Walker Garbage Service
Portland
Members of the Washington Wasteshed Planning Committee
Appendix A
(Computer analysis will be presented at June 22, 1989 meeting and
will be included in final report)
Appendix B
(Metro methodolgy for yard debris generation will be included in
final report)
Appendix C
MEMORANDUM
TO: Wayne Lowry, Finance Director
FROM: Keith Liden, Senior Planner
RE: Pride Disposal service
DATE: April 18, 1989
In the past few weeks, I have received two calls regarding the service provided
by Pride Disposal. Could you please relay these comments to Pride at your next
Utility and Franchise Committee meeting.
1. Mr. Whiting (ph. 245-6475)
Said that recyclable material (esp. cat food cans) prepared in a manner
advised by METRO has been rejected by Pride as not being properly
prepared.
2. Mr. Knebel (ph. 639-1223)
The dumpster at Twality Jr. High is being emptied around 3am and on
behalf of the neighborhood, he requested that this trash pick-up time be
changed to a more civilized hour.
Also, some time ago I received a complaint from Libby Durbin (ph. 684-4486)
because the rates for alternate week service is more expensive than weekly
pick-up.
April 28, 1989
Larry Schmidt
Schmidt's Sanitary Service, Inc.
8325 S.W. Ross Street
Tigard, OR 97223
RE: Operation of trucks
Dear Larry:
I have received a request that the operation of trucks on your property be
modified so that they are not parked along the eastern property line. The
noise and diesel fumes are found to be objectionable in the early morning hours
and on weekends. As we discussed earlier this year, your business is
considered a non-conforming use in the R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units/acre) zone
and I must respond to complaints, particularly if they appear to be related to
the expansion of such a use.
I will be out of town next week, but feel free to contact John Acker in our
office if you have any questions. I shall be available after May 8th.
Sincerely,
Keith S. Liden
Senior Planner
c: John Acker
;l j CUSA
Mrs. S.M. Holmes _
12215 S.W. 33rd.
Portland, OR 97219
Mr . Wayne Lowry, Finance Director
City of Tigard
P.O. Box 23397
Tigard, OR 97223
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD' 0KEC0N
'
TO: Pat Reilly' City Administrator Respond 8y
17-R0M: Wayne Lowry' Finance Director
For Your Information
DATE: March 23^ 1989 S�gn and Return
SUBJECT: Review of Waste Haulers Annual Reports
The Utility and Franchise Committee met on Tuesday, March 21, 1989' to discuss
and review the financial reports submitted by the solid waste haulers for the
year ending December 31 , 1988.
Tigard Municipal Code Section 11 .04 requires the Committee to review the
reports and to report back to the City Council by April 1, on whether or not
the results of the evaluation of the reports requires an adjustment to the
garbage rates charged to Tigard citizens .
In August of 1987' the Council approved a procedure to be followed in
reviewing the reports . The procedure allows for an adjustment to the garbage
rates if the aggregate profit percentage of the haulers is less than 0 percent
or greater than 12 percent.
Upon review of the annual reports, the Utility and Franchise Committee found
the profit percentage of the solid waste haulers to he within the limits yet
forth in the procedure, and therefore, recommends that no adjustment be made
to the garbage rates charged within the city of Tigard.
Z believe that passing this memo on to the City Council will meet the
reporting requirements of the TMC.
ke/9]h6D
t
I
I
i
r I
I
i
j
t
F y-,wrl'
fi25-6777'
i
I
i
I
t
i
I
I