Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2008-1008-Minutes for Meeting December 03,2008 Recorded 12/23/2008
DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS I~} ~0~~~~~o~ NANCY BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERK 1q COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 12/23/2008 08;28;25 AM 11111111111111111111111111111 2008-1008 Do not remove this page from original document. Deschutes County Clerk Certificate Page If this instrument is being re-recorded, please complete the following statement, in accordance with ORS 205.244: Re-recorded to correct [give reason] previously recorded in Book or as Fee Number and Page Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.orc MINUTES OF WORK SESSION DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 39 2008 Present were Commissioners Dennis R. Luke, Michael M. Daly and Tammy Baney. Also present were Commissioner-elect Al Unger; Dave Kanner, County Administrator; Sheriff Larry Blanton; Timm Schimke and Chad Centola, Solid Waste Department; Scott Johnson, Mental Health; and approximately twenty other citizens, including media representative Hillary Borrud of The Bulletin. Chair Luke opened the meeting at 1:35 p.m. 1. Briefing and Discussion of Oregon Psychiatric Security Review Board. Clare Buckley, Director of the Oregon Psychiatric Security Review Board, and Tony Guillen, Coordinator, gave an overview of how cases are handled through the judicial system. A judge makes the initial decision, at which time the case goes to the Review Board. The District Attorney, the judge and parties to the case are kept informed. The Board decides what kind of living situations are appropriate under a conditional release and the responsibilities of the Board and others involved in a case. This program is highly structured and monitored. There are about 750 people in Oregon under the Review Board's jurisdiction, with about eighty of those in Deschutes County. Commissioner Baney clarified that the Sheriff's Office receives information on the individuals to be released, and if contact occurs, the Sheriff's Office will report in. It is a statewide system. Scott Johnson added that if the person is in a local city, that police entity is also advised of a release. Commissioner Luke said that some people feel the Review Board is not effective enough and people are released when they should not be. Ms. Buckley replied that public safety is the first priority even if the State Hospital is overcrowded. There appears to be support from all entities. Scott Johnson stated that the move has to be justified, and it is a cooperative effort. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, December 3, 2008 Page 1 of 5 Pages Sheriff Blanton stated that the Oregon State Sheriffs Association has had issues with some dialogue and terminology used by the Review Board. For instance, a secure facility to him is a jail. Based on pickup orders from PSRB, they will be transferred by the State Police. The Sheriff's Office is responsible for court orders but this is not the same, and there is no reason for forcibly taking someone to the valley. He asked if the County would be afforded some beds for other mental health uses. A property on Pole Sholes Road will be the site of the new facility. It is in the design stage at this point. Ms. Buckley explained how the program receives its funding and the costs of treatment. They are working on organizing more residential facilities throughout the State. There are a lot of considerations and interests to balance, including ADA laws, the Americans with Disabilities Act and other legislation. They have been meeting with various agencies to try to keep everyone informed. 2. EDCO Semi-annual Briefing. Roger gave a PowerPoint presentation and prepared information. The County funds $110,000 annually. A quarterly update is provide to the Commissioners. He talked about trends and the impact of continued population growth. Deschutes, Crook and Jefferson counties are the fastest growing of the 36 counties. The numbers for 2007 show an employment figure of 101,712 in Central Oregon. Changes in employment indicate that Deschutes County remained on the positive side for job growth, at least for 2007. This year will be different. Crook and Jefferson counties showed a negative figure for 2007, and this figure will be worse for 2008. Per its strategic plan, EDCO hopes to add 1,500 new jobs within three years, along with $75 million in capital investment. 2009 has some big projects planned. One new business that was recruited was Altrec/Great Outdoors, which is an on-line retailer; they built 35,000 square feet of administrative and distribution space. They now employ 60 people and hope to double this and their facilities within the next few years. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, December 3, 2008 Page 2 of 5 Pages Another business that was recruited was PV Powered, which is the largest U.S. manufacturer of grid-tied solar power inverters. They are expanding rapidly and are remodeling and moving into a vacated facility now. Breedlove Guitars also has expanded into its new production facility and is adding to its product lines and wowk force. Work is continuing in efforts to expand commercial air service, industrial and business park development readiness, to address transportation issues and to expand and enhance higher education. EDCO is involved in a ten-year effort to bring in high technology business, medical and alternative energy. They are launching their new website in early 2009. Commissioner Baney asked if any of the population growth includes moving their work with them. Mr. Smith said that in general about 15% of employees come with a company that is relocating. 3. Solid Waste Update. Robert Brickner of Gershman, Brickner and Bratton, solid waste management consultants, gave a presentation of the work being done by his company and other team members relating to the Demolition Landfill project. The study at this point is two large volumes totaling perhaps 200 pages of work. The presentation went over the key points of the study. Discussion took place regarding an aerial view of the property, showing roads, surrounding development, etc. A sketch of three separate areas showed what can be expected in each as far as the type of waste and how much work it may take to address each site. Lengthy discussion took place regarding what is buried in various locations in the landfill area and how testing was done to determine the types and amount of waste material. Also addressed were any potential environmental impacts; possible uses or potential disposal of any excavated landfill materials; the location of fencing and fill material; the potential of State funding in the form of a tax credit. The credit could be used for the purchase of specialized equipment. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, December 3, 2008 Page 3 of 5 Pages Timm Schimke stated that the value of some items, in particular scrap metal, varies with market demand. He would like to see the value of whatever comes from the location to cover the cost of whatever ends up at Knott Landfill. Recommendations include soliciting for a DEI (Developer's Expression of Interest). This could involve a public-private partnership, using the site for commercial uses. If there is no interest at this time, the County can decide not to do anything until conditions are right. Mr. Brickner pointed out that DEQ laws and other requirements can change over time and it may not be prudent to wait too long to take action. 4. Economic Development Grant Requests. None were offered. These will be held until the first week of January after Commissioner-elect Unger takes office, as Commissioner Daly has no further grant funds available to him. 5. Update of Commissioners' Meetings and Schedules. None were discussed. 6. Other Items. None were discussed. 7. Executive Session, called under ORS 192.660(2)(h), litigation. The Commissioners went into executive session at 4:00 p.m. No action was taken, and the executive session adjourned at 4:30 p.m. Being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, December 3, 2008 Page 4 of 5 Pages DATED this 3rd Day of December 2008 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. ATTEST: Recording Secretary Den is R. Luke, Chair Tammy Baney, Vice C Mir Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, December 3, 2008 Page 5 of 5 Pages Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org WORK SESSION AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1:30 P.M., WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 2008 1. Briefing and Discussion of Oregon Psychiatric Security Review Board - Mary Clare Buckley, Director of PSRB 2. EDCO Semi-annual Briefing 3. Solid Waste Update 4. Economic Development Grant Requests: 5. Update of Commissioners' Meetings and Schedules 6. Other Items 7. Executive Session, called under ORS 192.660(2)(h), litigation - Mark Pilliod, Steve Griffin PLEASE NOTE: At any time during this meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.660(2) (e), real property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2) (h), pending or threatened litigation; or ORS 192.660(2) (b), personnel issues Meeting dates, times and discussion items are subject to change. All meetings are conducted in the Board of Commissioners' meeting rooms at 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless othertivise indicated. If you have questions regarding a meeting, please call 388-6572. Deschutes County meeting locations are wheelchair accessible. Deschutes County provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. For deaf, hearing impaired or speech disabled, dial 7-1-1 to access the state transfer relay service for TTY. Please call (541) 388-6571 regarding alternative formats or for further information. 00 o N fy~ D I J c0 I I ~ j V ® Sri 0 i] A Q~ pp I i I ~ i I to LL i I I I i ~ b i i a M i ~ ~ c^ P to ~ j © I u •a, a I I i I i M I I I ~ , k 'jQ+ nn I I I L` L4 h I I I, I I ~ I I ~ ~ W C~I I ~ o I I I r ~ I ~ I [~I of A4 1~ ill _ I o. o ~I (1 K ~SS I H Awl' aJ o a Ei 1)I -I z' ~I I o L C Z I 111 1 ~'o i I ~ I Q) U) ~r 0 U) D 0 C O -a-+ CU 4-a C a) U) a) CL U) O U) U) E E 0 U 4-- O L CO C O U Document Reproduces Poorly (Archived) -1-+ _0 , 4- ~ O CO ; m I OS C: 4 U) O CD x C U • .F..r > w • - . C m 0 - a~ E ~ E 0 M m C -C o CO C~ s s m to CCU, CO M O N 4-0 ~ ~ 00 O r-- O N N 00 > - Q LO M m C'7 ~ ~ > ti N O 4-a X U') .0 E O Q U. O Uw) U) 00 c O (n C 0 +a) •A O s ~aE c cu U o ~ a) 0 ~Lo prn~c`° O cu M U 0 a) 70 ) ~ C cu C O s U O C O a C E E a) N CO 0, U N U 0"0 C a) O X a) 0 ~ C (D N .6- 0 0 I- cu al- = c6 O N > c a) 4= a O O - > (c > 4-0 O M cn O TO t' co 7 C M O a) CO -p P O= O Q) J co .U a) 'a E N O O U W O . N E :O D U) U Lo W. 0-- C O CO) C Q. O N O M O C -1.- 4 o V 0) E2 0 p CU ~ O n LL 0 c cu O a? 0) E 0 0) C G D O CU O $ w LO ca 7 CO ~ Q S 70 co CU (D C4 Q. OD...J al , co W E G G W C cc co) c~ U 0 ( U c Q- O E U ' .6-- • ~ ll.l ~ /W+ U V U O 0 co C U O ~p •Y N ~ m c L O U) < CC W (D >1 -co Co oaf) 0 0 O L otS c ~ 6 O O O V r ca Q C W tM C/) (D 0 0 CU (D c 2) LEE Z> Z) r- (D cc a) (D • • • (A ® co F- 0 J N U M W E 0 co Z> 0 a c C LL U) C cU (D 0 00 a) (D co `1 t 0 O v) N co 4- Q O (D m M (N Q -a ~ - cu - a) > ^ ` W CU 0 U) -0 V) A / LL _ 4= Q Q co) O (n Q Q O cu 0 J a C > + CU 'O$ CU 0 O L- L O Q L w $ Q C C O _ O U L- O O) P cu O O O O a a- -1 a ~/J O E (D M U- _ (4 0 N E 0 0 0 0 0 o° ~ N 0 m w ~ m 'p a. cu O C O C U C O j C U .c N E U) 0 cu C) N c` O O O O O U a a (n fu a C m is ca c* N $ O O ad c 0 cu c* Q 4- LL U L (D a) c 3t a a) C Y L- a) E 60 :r U) c No ca U a O a) cu U O m $r- cu a) 0) U m > :a (n N n - N O m aa)) ~ > wx cv ~ CL 2 0Q i pa cu > -C > I I I I I U N L CU Y U) ,C U) ,C U) Y CO) ) (D CO) cu cu cu cu i i Li. w r -77 - - „y.... c0 47 fFff~~55~s.. t 00 Q ~ O ,A v+ Cc O L Co .y N O L a) N 0 -0 O > O 'O Q o > c a O Vo c~ C O H 0 } 0 co s ag o ° ~ E _ 01 C ~ Cc 0 , 0 N O Cc m (D E 0 O :E s co N ~ N ~ w 2m }Y Qm v O N C O ca O U J J N Q L-> N CO N (0 L p O N N A N N C N N O ~ ~ ~ ~ y co = (D > 05.2 f !t- i Ego 'a m co 0 ~X f$ (0 E I- O Q O A EN C U? O s m > c m o~ N cc mE~o ~ -o0) = N N O(V w p m 0) N A o O ~ 0= C C y v E co cON N C 0 a) -D Nrn E rn c ` Irv = o rnQ (U~ o N m E Com ~ O •rvY O u) - o M 4; m v N O F- t = N X N ! m 0 0 V a OL O N :2 N= p o 0) 2 c m ° U o , m C O C- 0 Q p y ti CL L rn U M O • rn m w N E N m N D r- co 0 fn V N N$ a) y ` N v / om V H (U m N N m" vt y+ r J n V/ l^W) E m c/ C i W .Vk,k r 5 p f 4 4 t TKY~ t9 4 d JR 0 W s k' . 4-0 1 S ~ y i 11 d ~+•I ~ ~ t e W ` s ~ y ~ 4 5 Nd.~`r co ® . - 7 ca ` ` C X L.LJ O cu '4 1 r~,ry s . i f. 1I i ►t N cc a) f0 . CD M L m i ~ t0 N 00 M0 W ~ cn 4- W AA'' 1 \P Y Y c G V 0 L : N = X N Q a 0 W Q 0 \ Q AW O O O i M V Q N ~ V , i N N V Q L M Q Q CL Q ~ 0 ~ N N O p y~ co N f0 ~ C O Y O ' ^ m c m C ~ D w ~ w O1 p i m o 0 cr, cu E cn X CO) ♦J i.r ❑~n 9~ xl' N m 1 ° 9 ~ SS 1 ~ r5 ❑ s SI ~ C ~ i ~lY 22 6 L k r N V $ I ~ I I s i r~ , PY 4 N ~W $ .e+ $ O q ~ L.L. yet cm) ~1 F x d V/ o f fi vm e . c O U W V E co .a) U i g~ C ~rr$ 3 ~a i I C O A U _ W CL cc r s cn E oj 0 Cc U) M M 3 C N r N a) a C i O C L Q. (D -r- cU a) CL D 6 :3 V U CU a) O~ co O Co fu N O O O 1-- 0 C) oa 3: y~ (D 10 N CD se N M 4i N C .C N C cC r c ~ co ^ ' q CO I'- CO O N N- W N W • U E ~ _ N co O 0 ~ 'a co ~ cam a) 0 C W > U) M O ~ .O O O CO) os~nccu M CU (L) U C O ~ 3- 5 O `C Q. ca O` c N N r M g co C 0 U N U E V L- n ' cu E N ° Q a N Q 4- a NI m tO W 00 0) M 1 00 N O M ® 00 Ln 00 n W f~ N M N I, ~ O ~ N ~ M ~ r, n' ~ Q F Fo co 0) \Y J (U -m v o ar E E E .N 2 o ~ v) v o MWzW W WWV W v ; ~ ~ O at at O O O O pO ~ '-I L M N O O N 00 V l 0M p V Q ^ 0 N ~ f0 00 00 N 000 N N O p O L 01 l0 O O ^ 00 to a O O1 Q a t r-1 R N R O O O Q) V M N V1 N N n~ M M 0 06 N V a i ~ N m ,..j ~ > C Il U 20 N ~ ~ a Y o N jy V Y (v f0 N ~ w a ~ o o ~ v u ~ C L a in 1 O LL a 01 J E 7 H ry m I~ _7 C ` O N Yn E ~ 0 O > O > O > f0 O i 19 3 v `x° o 0 0 0 0) m a a C120 2 v o> o~ o o v oV) o a N V C f0 E N > O ri i r m v m ° v a~ ui 6 a t: Z ao m c N O CO) 3 N s s V m to 0 O 3 '00 = O O 3: -0 oo~c oE 0 mvi m L O 0 -a t C c 0 N J m c m o M N to 0-0 O O N U M ~ C 0 Co m N N 5 Q) m LO O Q- p 0 a) Q CU a) r Q 0) (n N V m o. -0 N U C a) m Q C 0 C O CM N o 0 M c3 0) cu M0.mc0oV O N> CE ~ N a") OL U) . 22) 70' -0 U 3 ao Q a) -o V m a) L- 0 N L N>, 0 O 7 c(D 0 -C m L > (L) m O Q m m~ U) -0 O U) N Y~ -a3 U 3 s 6 m a) 0 = O M V) 0 13) 3: s O C.) 2 -0 0 0 a= c c`o (1) m N 3 0 a)rn >,s0E$ ~ooN~ON N Q m m s 0 O 0 0 *r N _ N O N N C ~ L y+ N N O a) ~ n< -C o a~UC: m O D) o O C m EOCao ~ca)c6 oca~ a) Q' L U .L N •L o) E L H$ vE~i Ham 'CO) CO ~m cca N .4d 'D 0] 0 CU }N O N 0 r 0 L L 0 Q m - m M. 0 Om~ O0 Q s E c E s CL r l~ 0 s a) 0) O w. 0 w ( - co ca O N 0 c (D 0 D L N ~ a) N O cu - m N ? co 4. CU 3: O 0~E c 0 . r (D > (D 0 O O E L CO O3: M U) 0 :E a) m a) 0 s 5 V/ cu m C-0 m -p N ~5 S: C 0 CO ca CO (D 0) - ~ cn O ~ . 2 cn N 0 O ~ o c Q = cu E - o o m 0 O. V O N c N m 0 Y X C A mCUWM'a ~ s mW M Es E X co O +r . M 70 a) m M CL U) M :3 -a cn Q N O O " 7 O O 0 i o RS ~ s (n 4-, C c C) &A- CD .0 O - O O N Y-~ c N O O O AN O E + m CO) U E 4. O ca N 0 E~ V a)u) X a) CO U s O} N O ca .L a) L V O ~ 0) (D C ~6 0 Q O L M W co N nj a) > L ca 0 to N O No U-)~c o~ (D a Q. 0 N O to ' > 0 cc _ -0 C) Oc to U m "a r O>'6 a) o O V E U MN E 0 M 0v- O fQ N X"a a Q. O to O U A V) ~O (D E"- c ~ v W O CO O O C N.0-0 f-r >J H U • x AA'' $ } \ 00 O 04 N C N Ol 0 C II 4) cn CO ?I alo W C N U } U } U } U E o E3 $o 0 O C:) O 0 O CO O = H O :3 -0 $ N N LO :512 x CO) m U') ";r C w > E co E N N " CD Co O a- N > o_ 4-0 H co a) % d m O O t rI / N 'L CO Q O$ O N m ^ O CCU G N C E E E m c J U B > O O o m s O 0 C) o O 0 ~ O Y E O 0 rn0 E E =o f a h a) O fn tl) 3§ O ~ N V/ Cl) O O= w w F N d W ca > m s p I I I ~arn O U ~Q/~) VJ U) O U N W i 2 -0 s K I d ~ yp HIM, w e 3 ~ F 5yy $kgg~& ~ Ea~d ~ 9.~ 1 ~k6BO C E R I i_ r 9 Y ~ ¢ C. 6 is I fa III! \1 ' r @@esi~,la;99.~ k~ sges;y;~fY,9; I N C' ¢ @~~ U N Cl) cn 0 f I ' N g CD N ''AA V/ W. C O C J O O C O co 14 C 0 M O D o ;rt@meffiO~tID N a pp L Aj2~ CD HN b~ cn_ o a d ~ g ammmm 11,1111111 HIM i r ~ ~ N C> O u ° ~ m Vl M ^ ~ .~-1 .-1 r~-1 l0 lD N N O ~ lD ~ 'Lin ~ m- R l0 O O A o u ~ oa - d rn ~ r-. N M ^ ~ ~ M o m f~'0 C~~ ~ rn m rn a ~ u' i O v m ~ -Z 'o IN u, F C ~ - m ~ C ` c a v y,, Y V N v ~ ~ oc 3 ~n v ~ a i= ~ o 3 o °c ~ LL ~ o 4- co $ c0 o o CY) ~ E a) 0 0 M m ' v / ca .O c O '.-U N Cl) 'p U a) O . C: a) om c N 0 > (u V a) CA Co E O M -0 > a) O > r 3 O c cu cu o O N , cn U O E C: CU w O- CU a) ° c O " O O (D U N L 0- 0- 0 cu Co m a) 0.2 O a) E cO O O U E m~ a)a)cnOU > co a)ca> . cu r ~ U O a ) ) co O O O cn t CL) a) E t W V =mm-° D) O a) L Occ a i . CD a) a) E W L W c a i Q i N TS V (D L m C cc O -a J E L Q. (C CL L _ ' 4? O O cu a) a) O c m > O O c6 O c6 O a C p~ 3 +r = + ~ c N co cc o + L -°~~'~E ON 4) (a C) O ca 0 v) cn E "D Q- N L "r Z L (D L_ = co N co L_ c C t. co 0 E ` (D m 0 0-C cr N ca a) m co E -J p CO U) 0 m O3: ca > c= ~ Co O~ O ~ ~ u)-o= JOOCuNa) 2EaE E (D S 00 C 7 0 a) a) =ma) ~ E cca)a) a) c y. c.) O O • O a) > - 0 U) co M (D 'O E 0 0Nt 0 M N m >'a J cc > N ~ cu > v-) c='°-' Q C E F- J co cv 0 O pa. _ N rNi m m 3 N C N O rnm U N U ~ N ° • j Inch m= ' N . cc mL- C 0 °pcNa.~m ~c N CL ~ ~ crn v-. - m ~a m m i X + -0 (D 0 m e Q m U t O p E W ' V p a A N X N N a A$ U CD L~j - cp fA c. N (a cc ga ~ X N s° 0 cm- °NOc 0 D # + U Q C U1 v U ` N M N O - N • U .a N C,4 cU C •N -co cm: U CO N m a 0 C N c v t L ~N C 7 N 0 _ ~ to a) N m. m E C-) N C m 'a M _ 4- • m t Qt M " c w mE a) CL w A c v ) s E - m Cc ° E O a) a> 0 E N m ~p a) aV J V! pm TO~m.~ CL Q N - N L N N Q N ° C N N _ -0 a) ° (D ° -0 . .m (D C m 'j5 cn (D Q) m > 2 2 (D 0 m v cu 75 E 2 E 3 L' y ~ c.) E m o I I I t0 a) (D w N (D 4) : +c O 3 -0 C CL U) o n U ~ c C V1 a3 a) da O N QD ' m C_ a 7 N 7 U J ca E U U N t a; a> ui m` 0 m Q cc ~p '0 0 m° a 3 .he O W E N "Cr o' U ° E Z' 0 N N a~a Y CO) 4- N cc - C C od a N was QD ; O o~ m w N- ° N N a 0 co 03i cc E ' m E o. 3 • a)0m a ` o V 0 C N C' w 0 m U L m w a 3 in m o~$ cNi C C t j N c co c i W 0 c a> D d) CU m 'FL E 0 O c m V Ems ma) ~ a E a~°c c CL O N U - C tq 2 u o a CL N f0 C E U cc y C a) ~0 E G O O N o w 2 2 d U 0) ° c E a> 3 N F- S n O Nw N~ O I I I I I I V - m CL C U U N C a) a) > O U C O CM a) Co CL Co - C -0 N m m C s.N M O 0 7 a)E~ E U a)~ -J m 'a CO vUa) C C m ca L' m O ui C N 3t-- O N -O w O c - -0 ~ Y U O s E C O 0 U n o m U -0 a) a"r L O O N ai -0 y N z (h M L a) L 4? - a) m M c_ in U) CL a) N cc cu CO Z3 a)a)m C E~om a) a aria`)~ (D O - + U 3 E O .O w + E Y O C C 0 O C ~ a) •C N J a 0-`Cr- N NNM acim0)N a) o b (Q V N N- N O N 0 •N w y E ' N a) to N O c~C~ ~ mc w0 co~s$ )C caW N a) .s- N 'a U) E - 3 O 47) a `O "a N 0 A U) OM Mc N LL 3 0 0 m N O A f0 co) m E N (D CO E C .U 0 t C N N O C fd C 0 O N E D U m M C N } N Q l y U 2! U C . . N m O C ) N a) H O m + - `o 0 T Q O E E C 0 0 Q n a U m a) Z .6 E A O s m r~ "d 0 = W.- > ci E 0 E .0 U) s v y V O +r m 7~ s w C~ N U O m t° m3 coc ~ 0 oa0(D C CO 3: t C 0 U a N c U~> cu NmN0) cu ~YmEc E N U - (n N C 0 O O 0 .0 N = O 0 6m -a t! c c c>,a)~ N E b-0r0 CU 7 co tm 6 L E i. co O 0 a) 0 E ca c 0 O s 0a) N c ~CU (D CU Eu)LNa) O . O a U) N m c 2 Lm -0 v 0 ~o CU L) O" m a) m J v U "D N OC E 6 FL V M `0 L `0 O O •O 13 ~ a N O d C ~ \ U _ N N E > E a) C N ) 0 N O N 'O 3 0 3 W N y ~.0 0 ~ Y 0 0 0 N O C - ~ ' O O U a? `a m N m o 00 a c C" 3 u) O 3 C U m O ~ E O N 0 wa- n CO $ o O 0 m N (D c E0 L O ~ E ~dU a ~ a C O .0 p a i a 0 C U .O E (V E C O LL in tq m 0 w m U~ Q m m cn . ~ i C O - )j N N O m a) 2 AA,, W (D 3 c a N a0- O C O a) :3 u) 725 N ' 0 a) N (a O a) L C CA C 0 a C E O Co 0 0 E E O c M V ) 0 CU C: .2 0 0 `NOo" 0Cc CL m c cn -0 ® 00 c D mmmt ~ (D Mm N > M :3 -0 4- F- CO 4-- m s a) N O ,0 L L_ W U) c N CO (n u fn O L s N> C U) 2) 0 3: W$ cc $ N m c - O N s p C 1 ~ c 0 4- J E ~ w O O u m a) s c a (Q W 4-, Cl) (D U) C N c m ca a U U 0 'O CO o m m N E u) (a 0 0 ~ `p t m a a m 3 m s (D 0 E-O 0) ~ m ao p0 m N m , ~ O 3: Cl (1) .D) E E V c as cn N a) $ c N 0 U 0 O 0 = p v ) s C m N U co 0) Em 0 H-~-C (Da 002) P N ~ W cts v / c O V ~ L u d o A~ W A ~ a \ ~ z N o LL a N s N z ~ .gT~p; p6 3 s ~ a N N 'C r C 0 N LL ~ C LL W W LL f LL LL f ~ ~ 3 ~ LL 4- o O N W ~~If Obi O b 0 0~0 O O~ O~ N O~ O~ N Ot Ot 6 A A, W CC N E ~s E 'Fr O ao . W .x _ O . r O A~ r C O d ¢ Yn 9 N g 9 0 ~ ~ _ T m C C O C.-. ~ O el :0 (L) 4- 0 C -v o - co -a (L) CU i U v° ` O v U) c 0 ~ cc O J N C'o 0 v 0-0 0 m m Q) m (D O 4 - E (D U`. V o L 4? cO 3:2U p a) W U < to ~ ~ co C cts cc Oa) - Qao 2 U 3: 0- Ca U- X 0) 0 C co _ w e cv ~ cn J m 0 ' C- = W N _ . 0~00 ~C ca a) °~a ~ - , xE O Ca ~2 C LL a) -0 C (C O O E a) r J -0 - ~o ~o>°c mO i O v N 0 C o2 cc ~C a) _ 0 -D C• 0 a) C O 0 0CwCCOC a) O~ c aM 0 a " ° E U o o c a ~ a i 70 N ~ Q N .c .r O O N U 0 H U (D L) m= .J-O-vv o LL< cow O 4- CO) C 7 - C U') CC) 0(U (1) (D 0 p i 0 ~ p O fC SU LL p m C) 0 N -0 N M M . C cC CO a) - 'O A U a) c6 - O O) +r E 0f ~ M ' > Y O < O 0) E -a y -0 IM m O E cL a) o - . ~ M o C C i a o o O a) cu Q. = o H a) ui O a) > O -W +a E c fl. o O E > N D o A) m CO U a) L m m O i p C E S to p 0 Q" O p 0 > - CL 75 0 M 0 0 a O co O N U O N d ) CL ca a) U . M>. ~ Q O ~ a cu 3: CU O O o o ~ c o aa) } U a E m > , N N c N O "0 0) N 00 w r_ Eao ca ca 0 O m Camcnm 0 r o U a® E M c ®L-® co m N>Q(.5 O cU EoU)c-a Q) a) 1 :3 M r- 0 U) U) 4- M J Q O •C' N 00 3 V 0 O O Q O r_ CL 0 (1) Cc s m N cn o e :3 (D ~ N W-0 s N O C -p C O U U) U 0- 2! 0 0 X C N 0 :3 a) M _(a CO) 0 V> C ma a) C O O C J X O U > .«r O O N p C C (L) N L m zz z E QN C O 0 (D ~O U O C O Q N 0 w O E Q co V ~ N O a) ~ ~ o U) < M CO Zi 0 e•°~~ q sc l- CO) 0 Ca to a \''v ,A O m u= s ° Ci O <ca N N N (D V c ~ E c ° 0 (D C3) 0) m E -0 co MI) O U-) cu ~c 0 c }a C U X OC L U ° M " m> C a) a a) .r O - 0) (D _ N Cl) C: 3 C U) W a) o Y u? (:0 3 " Z cc- co. a-,-a m ~ 0 rw s m m E 70 w N C Q O LL - W 0) co m m U.~ N '.S 0oa~0) co wm N O C pco,~ ~m-5 o m- E me E Fu (D 0 - ~N X Q. (U Q v J c a m t O i a) U o p (D c U CU cn 0) 'a L wi m p' U C ® o H r c Q X co N 4- C V 0 o~ Jo w N 0-0 W N O N O E ca a vii cn a) c L V° C N Q c O o0 cool- c 0) m -2t' E _j 0 Co ~mo•j'n0 r- cn (D *Fn (n O ti N t O 0 ° S•=' os Q 0 cu o a) Q O N c c (D Z' c>i (D p c~ ~ to 0 U L O+L p rn~~ c _ ocm v °ic0c (n oQ N M ~wcn'Ea'-W4)2 Boa'°a) Em 0-0 . CL M 0 (n CL (t) 6 m (D CO) m :3 Q O Q.Q O Hm~QU)CC)- °maaH~E j ~ (D ~ w a Q Q C 0 CO (D .0 (Q o c a) J O O O a) 0 CN a"i~° coNm~ U O ;-:p U ~ O 0 0 (D N$ a) o c m+ N c t N N,~~' > j, C sUcnc aC50r~-O (1) $ N 4U5 O CL tea? ~ E co -C Co $o°c ) m ~ U o V ` u~Ug o~ N o =-c " O C U c CL C c o O'= m ~ p V 0m cOi ° N Q N N U p >+C) a) U) E°_ n ~o o v c~ a> a-0 o O O C "O n c° ° Q aci `h o co W- O O N 4= 0) UR U) N~ ~ O c-) O 4) N 0 N O C 4, L~ C~ s._ O cc~ ~ M Fa Cc Q Q) (n O~ ~P p~ vm V (DE 2% .2 -c O~°m caU>~ a+ c 45 L N O O N N 1- •N E m a m O to o (D C.) ~ N Q_ j N" O W ~oom~ x -0 co aa)a)0 N Q N 0 M. p LZ C7 N O> c c m o Q E C L- CL cc Fa O O O a E LO E I c cn r a~ o $ U p L (D (D •Q m e N C: > s m Q- CO (D M CL - C: C !E OL U O 2~ Q m N - Co :3 Q arc E' -v,`O:p o 0 U Q-0 Q~-0 HC.) caa$sC>Q~c°~ j N ° D N v1 o c N N C d m .U d C_, m N N m c W O L N oo No co~Z c~~E (D 0 (1) > owa 0 0-,~. Q. C O w W :3 00 CUM (3) cn O N ® O O LCD C 'a O) N c 4) L O L tm J ` 4-0 ~ N g +r _A ~ + N > 4) w N E O N O O c> D) j (D 7 N L M r- O o C.TOL.~ C mC E O CO U NwU a 7 W (n O =1 O O O (o O L . -0 N d y O n C 0 U f0 a m L a)w N 0 cc N O • 0 U) Q o f 6 U ` y~ L.. QD (1) Q O 0 M CU O O w ' c 0 CO) CD m o L a) U Q CL ` U CO) -U fBJ a~ ~p O~ L c O N y 11 LL N V 4 N> c c O O y m ® CO) Q LL V/ v' N d j O O n y - C~ w? -2 0 ® (D C cm 2 E E (D :3 0 7 00 U E o C? Q m.0 (L a = O QCL ® a) CO) O O o O (D N ~ /V O Q "a cc 0) O ^ O j O CO) co N tO .°i N O W T =3 O N W O U W 0 0 .i O N O N - O O N N c o E O O N C N O Fo o Co US > w o U Ep N - N- O N N N N N N N E @ cu O C :E CL y j N ~ N L L C O O O C 0 m \ d p YI O O • N ' L ~j 0) W co O CU +I d O° O° u°f O O Q O d T L E 6 \ d w w 2 E U c _ I1 L. 13 L - C N ' ~ d (n C co _ _ o vi ui n ~T O CO) L U) C co -0 E :3 in E U) -0 >1 0 i1~ L iu n w o t; 3 ° n O U Q C a C r- to C C O w 3 o ~o U N X N N 3 - U -p f0 U) U - a c U C N w i =N~v ~ W L N C C (U O O Z: N C d N (D a in in o .n ° m _w w 3 .«=v mu° W A/ 0) .V: 0 Q U U) C N O fA A` W d ti m a e o+ n ri m o ti v `O m tO u i rv v d p. „2 , w w o o L,j~ U) N O Q ~ f0 O w- O N N E C o N Y C o e .°'a m° e ro " v °a ? d - o m N • C N C 7 L O a r.+ (0 0 W v N C m t= ` w w ° a v d$ (n O ~ ~ U > V p p N U w ° ' m Q m d = v rv N t 8° a? o W m o v m c U) co o O U) (D . -C o X = d v v "v vvvd 0~ L - a i 3 " " " N L ul O m O O ~L B Q d d °o ' ~ ~ aa ~a a a n 0 z V) O m 2 _ fl Q UL G u c 5 g 3 ~ ~ c ~ v m ?n j 7v Deschutes County Demolition Landfill Subsurface Investigations . 1. Executive Summary a. Introduction/Overview of the Project Scope of Services The Demolition Landfill, owned by Deschutes County, consists of approximately 75 acres and was an old pumice surface mine. It is located in the southwest part of the City of Bend, Oregon, and is adjacent to a private quarry. The site operated with an Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) permit for 25 years, from 1972 through 1996. On January 25, 2008 the Deschutes County Department of Solid Waste issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the hiring of a consultant to conduct a Demolition Landfill Subsurface Investigation. The RFP indicated the following: "The property has generated considerable interest from prospective developers, and Deschutes County, which owns the property, is interested in exploring reclamation or remediation of the site and any existing or potential problems associated with existing waste, and the eventual sale or development of the property ....Our goal is to provide as much information as is practical to prospective developers in an attempt to maximize the marketability of the site. The specific activities that were contracted by the County and completed by Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. (GBB) during this 2008 Study can be generally described in jive tasks: Task 1- Development of a Project Work Plan Task 2 - Volume of Waste - Geotechnical Exploration Plan Task 3 - Waste Characterization Task 4 - Hazardous Materials Screening and Oregon Brownfield Program Funding, if Applicable Task 5 - Vadose Zone (Foundation Soil) Investigation b. Potential Fill Volumes and Waste Characterization As a result of the 2008 efforts to assimilate existing data and gather new information, the GBB Project Team prepared a much improved description of the prevailing conditions in the landfill. Figure 1-1 presents the site overview for each of the three areas evaluated, with many more drawings presented in the full text. The review developed a basis for estimating the total volume of Waste Material and Cover Soil, and indication as to where Waste Materials are distributed within the Landfill. The section lines indicated on Figure 1-1 mark the cross-section locations presented as n drawings in Section 6 of this Study. The specific characteristics of the three main fill areas within the Demolition Landfill are presented in Table 1-1. 1 Deschutes County Department of Solid Waste Request for Proposals for a Demolition Landfill Subsurface Investigation, dated January 2008. GBB/C08016 1 October 31, 2008 Deschutes f: ulitty 1)e I ol'ition Landfill Subsurface Investigations Table 1.1:- Landfill site overview, by Area - _ 1 Total Si A Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 . ze, cres 2 Size f W 23.2 9.8 39.4 . o aste Footprint, Acres 3. Acres of Waste that Extends Beyond County Pyoperry Line 3 E 25.3 2.6 6.8 19.5 0.2 0 . st. of maximum Depth of Fill (i.e., Feet to Native Soil) 4. Est. of Years Waste Was Placed (Permitted in 1972) 5 Est of T t l V l 60-70 2-1987 70-80 70-80 1992-1996 . . o a o ume of Waste in Place,_CY_ 6 Est of T t l V l 33,500 E 838,000 . . o a o ume of Cover Material in Place, CY Est of Total V l M 258,000 245,900 K . o ume aterials above Native SoilCY 8 Est of Ratio of I Pl 91,500 480,OOO 1083900 . . n- ace Waste Material to Cover Material 4.4:1 3.4:1 The history of Area 1 is well documented in the 1997 subsurface assessment and includes a description of troublesome surface instability in many areas. Much of this instability is associated with the eastern portion where the 1960s aerial photographs and our 2008 explorations support the conclusion that this edge was a near vertical pumice mine high-wall that now offers a fill thickness at the deepest point of approximately 70 feet. The data developed for Area 2 suggest that waste materials similar to Area 1 are likely present. The primary difference is associated with improved on-site regulation, as we understand that during the entire time of filling Area 2, a landfill attendant was present to regulate disposal operations limiting materials to exclude Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)- type debris. Waste thickness was discovered to approach approximately 70 feet in the western zone with a much shallower sub grade to the east. The waste material appears to extend slightly beyond the south property line toward Century Pit which drops off dramatically at the southern fence line. The most recent filling was done in Area 3, and this disposal is reported to have been regulated in a fashion similar to Area 2 such that MSW was excluded. Through the early stages of filling Area 3, the Crown Pacific mill, which contributed many forms of wood waste during the entire operation of the Demolition Landfill, was still in operation; mill waste was anticipated and, indeed, was encountered in the 2008 exploration. During the later years of the Area 3 operation through 1996, the City of Bend was growing rapidly, and much demolition debris was likely disposed that included remnants of razed structures, concrete and waste rock. Large quantities of woody debris, such as stumps, logs, and slash were also discovered. Based on the GBB Project Team's detailed field investigation outlined in this 2008 Study, the entire site of the Demolition Landfill is estimated to contain the following total materials: Estimate of Total Cover Soil = Estimate of Waste Material = Total In-place Volume = 546,000 CY (18%) 2,488,000 CY (82%) 3,034,000 CY GBB/C08016 2 October 31, 2008 11 1f" O 1 C7 w ~i'r ~~TPLANI~ATA DAVID EVAHB ■e~ ~ABBOQ~AT6B Tj'~~, O 0 c w F+ N S 00 _T cC N N a r O O 7 N m CL V 0 m a m a 1« 3 N O •"1 G d M A r N n C N v m O_ K O O r w O. Cn C N w CD J Deschutes County Demolition Landfill Subsurface Investigations Oftentimes, the actual quantification of solid waste materials is discussed in tons. While no specific in- place density measurements have been made for this 2008 Study, the in-place density range is most likely from 1,600 to 2,000 pounds per cubic yard. Therefore, if we assumed 2.5 million cubic yards as the volume of Waste Material, the Demolition Landfill could contain 2.0 to 2.5 million tons of Waste Material. This is exclusive of the approximately 550,000 cubic yards of total cover material estimated to be in place within the three areas. c. Waste Characterization The filling of the current Demolition Landfill started over 35 years ago as a non-regulated dump area and was closed in 1996. During most of the more than 25 years that the Demolition Landfill was operated, no formal data were maintained as to the material composition or specific constituents that were placed into the landfill. Thus, no records can be found to identify the actual volumes disposed. The GBB Project Team developed an approach that integrated what was measured and/or reported in 1997 with the new and additional 2008 boring information developed over the past few months by the GBB Project Team. Boring data was augmented by the use of (1) magnetometer testing, (2) resistivity imaging, (3) seismic refraction, and (4) refraction microtremor. These baseline excavation and boring data from a total of 72 different excavations/borings from the 1997 and 2008 activities were considered. During the review of these documents, an estimated 20 main types of materials were specifically called out in the historical excavations/borings advanced in 1997 or 2008. However, as the GBB Project Team assessed options for estimating the waste characterization, we kept in mind that the 72 excavations/borings provided subsurface information on only about 0.1 percent of the entire site area. Thus, the specific materials that were buried and their precise locations will only be known if the total site were excavated and material types quantified by such activity. Based on GBB's methodology, Table 1-22 presents the GBB Project Team's estimate of what might be buried in the Demolition Landfill. Table 1-2 - Estimate of Main Constituents within Demolition Landfill Main Constituent Materials Potential Estimate of "Total In-Place Volume" of Material, CY Potential % of Total Volume, By Constituent Ash 85,699 3.5% Inerts 379,935 15.7% Reclamation Fill 26,297 1.1% Sawdust 148,952 6.1% Metal 63,485 2.6% Tires 4,676 0.2% Unidentified 156,553 6.4% Wood Waste 1,324,056 54.5% Roofing Material 81,324 3.4% Fines 156,553 6.4% TOTAL 2,427,530 100.0% 2 From Table 9-4; refer to Sections 6 and 9 of Study for a review of the methodology details. GBB/C08016 5 October 31, 2008 a Deschutes County Demolition Landfill Subsurface investigations d. Landfill Impact on Native Soil and Groundwater Issues Analytical test results from this 2008 Study did not indicate liquid waste flows or leachate movement into the underlying site soils. The 2002 URS report indicated that, in 2002, three deep wells were located on the west side of the Deschutes River about 400 to 1,000 feet north? of the Demolition Landfill site with a static ground water level of 300 feet below ground surface. Therefore, the deepest point of Waste Material in the Demolition Landfill is more than 200 feet above the groundwater level. Since this 2008 Study did not find indications of significant leachate movement into the underlying soils, and such leachate migration (if present) would have to infiltrate an additional 200 feet of native bedrock beneath the Demolition Landfill to reach the underlying aquifer, it is reasonable to assume that groundwater beneath the Demolition Landfill does not appear to have been impacted by the Waste Material buried at the Demolition Landfill, but additional field work would need to be completed to confirm this. Twenty samples of landfill material and native soil were analyzed for 220 individual chemicals and compounds with very few detections. Several constituents in the soil and waste samples were identified, including arsenic, lead, petroleum products and associated constituents, (i.e., benzene and PAHs), and tetratrochloroethylene, in concentrations that exceed one or more of the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality's (DEQ) generic Risk-Based Concentrations (RBCs). Potential asbestos-containing material (PACM) was observed in a few test pits; however, due to the timeframe of filling of the site, this would be expected. Based on the conditions observed and the results of chemical analysis, we do not find evidence of significant chemical contamination of the Waste Materials that would require immediate action or remediation. We found no indication of significant environmental impact to native soils lying beneath the waste. e. Potential Uses of the Landfill Materials, if Excavated GBB has been involved in the detailed review of numerous construction and demolition (C&D) waste recycling projects and also helped evaluate several landfill mining operations, an approach which the County may wish to consider. Based on the data evaluated during this Study, it is our opinion that the primary materials that could be identified and, in part, recovered from the mining of the Demolition Landfill, are as follows: • Metallic objects (ferrous and non-ferrous, including appliances, auto parts) • Woody materials (combination of dry materials and wetter wood waste, including lumber mill wood residues, tree stumps and branches) • Tires • Inert materials (distinguishable rocks, concrete, asphalt, porcelain pieces, etc.) • Dirt and small inert fill materials • Soil-like material & compost-like material (decomposed fraction of organics, as well as drywall pieces and plaster fragments) • Mid-sized materials 2 inches and < 6 inches as a mix of plastic, paper, cans, bottles, roofing, wood, wire, etc.) GBB/C08016 6 October 31, 2008 Deschutes County Demolition Landfill Subsurface Investigations • Larger pieces > 6-inch sizes of mixed and tangled demolition materials that are typically hard to separate, including roofing materials, wires, strapping, larger wood shapes, fencing, concrete w/rebar, plastic and rubber pieces, hoses, vinyl siding pieces, furniture pieces • Sludge-like materials and potentially hazardous materials, such as household hazardous waste containers, batteries, ammunitions, asbestos-containing materials, and small PCB-containing materials, such as ballasts used in old florescent light fixtures f. Potential Value of In-Place Materials If the Demolition Landfill were subjected to a landfill mining operation, based on the borings and test pits conducted to-date and the nature of the identified materials known to exist at the site, the main material streams that typically would be expected to be generated from a combination mechanical- labor sorting system are as follows: • Final cover soil fill material (soil < % inch in size) that was applied for site closure above the Waste Materials. This would be stripped off the site as conditions and cover material depth allow. • Dirt-like fines (estimated < 1/2 inch in size) that has been screened from the Waste Material layer and consists of soil, small rock and other inert fragments, composted/degraded wood and other organics that have broken down). • A 1/2" to 3"-sized screened material that could include small pieces of wood, metals, inerts (rock, concrete, etc.) and miscellaneous debris that could be additionally separated with a de- stoner system and magnetic system into rocks/inerts, wood pieces, metals and residue. • A 3" to 6"-sized screened material that could include pieces of wood, metals, inerts (rock, concrete, etc.) and miscellaneous debris that could be additionally separated mechanically with either a de-stoner system and magnetic system, or by manual sorting with a secondary sorting belt. • A greater than 6"-sized screened material that could include larger pieces of wood, metals, inerts (rock, concrete, etc.), plastics, tires and miscellaneous other debris. The constituent materials could be separated using a manual sorting line and bin system. Note: Many of the above functions would also generate certain process residue and rejects (non- reuse/recyclable materials) that would have to be deposited into a landfill. For this 2008 Study, it is presumed that this material would be disposed of in the current County landfill or be landfilled on site. Due to the nature of the material reported to have been deposited and observed in both the 1997 and 2008 investigations, and the solid waste experience of the GBB Project Team members on other projects, the mining and removal of the Waste Materials from this site_is technically possible. Based on discussions that took place during the course of the 2008 Study, the estimated unit values for the primary materials, if able to meet the general virgin material specifications as an "equal" are estimated as follows: * Soil, from the cover material: $S/CY Compost: $S/Cy s G68/68016 7 October 31, 2008 Deschutes County Demolition Landfill Subsurface Investigations • Soil-like fines: $1/CY (Potential use as ADC for daily or intermediate cover at the County Landfill) • Aggregate: $5/CY • Metals: $150/ton • Wood as fuel: $0 (Potential value and delivery charges assumed to net out) or make the wood into compost (see above) In order to make a preliminary estimate of the final disposition of the materials if a landfill mining and materials processing/recovery facility were employed, an estimate was made (refer to Table 1-3) of the recoverability fraction of each main constituent. If it were possible to reuse and/or develop viable markets for the materials noted, approximately 83% of the Waste Material, or two million cubic yards, could potentially be managed at a break-even or higher end-use. However, it is cautioned that, at the time of this 2008 Study the U.S. economy is in a slowdown, some would even say a recession. Thus, the economic demand for these types of non-virgin materials is in a state of flux. Reviewing the marketplace closer to the time of actual production must be undertaken and demands/values adjusted accordingly. Table 1-3 - Estimate of Reuse/Recoverability Potential Main Constituent Materials, after Unidentified Waste is Distributed Potential Estimate of "Total In-Place Volume" of Material, CY Estimate of Reuse/Recoverability Potential Volume Potentially Reusable or Recyclable CY Ash 85,699 95% in Fines Fraction; 5% Reject 81,414 Inerts 379,935 90% in Mixed Inerts Fraction; 10% Reject 341,942 Reclamation Fill 26,297 95% in Fines Fraction; 5% Reject 24,982 Sawdust 148,952 98% in Fines Fraction; 2% Reject 145,973 Metal 63,485 95% in Metals Fraction; 5% Reject 60,311 Tires 4,676 99% in Tires Fraction; 1% Reject 4,630 Unidentified Rejects 156,553 10% Reuse/Recycling; 90% Reject 15,655 Wood Waste 1,324,056 90% as Wood Fuel or Compostables; 10% Reject 1,191,650 Roofing Material 81,324 100% in Rejects Fraction 0 Fines 156,553 98% in Fines Fraction; 2% Reject 153,422 TOTAL 2,427,530 Subtotal 2,019,979 Projected Reject Materials to Landfill 407,551 TOTAL 2,427,530 During the sampling and lab testing process, wood waste (estimated to be the largest single constituent buried in the Demolition Landfill) was assessed and analyzed to determine moisture content, volatile content, ash content and BTU content. There is a good possibility that a portion of the wood waste materials could be used as a biomass fuel, if these materials can be processed to meet the technical fuel specifications of the biomass energy plants. Discussions were held with representatives of the Oregon Department of Energy and Ochoco Power, a regional biomass plant developer in Prineville. The Prineville project appears to be about 15 to 18 months away from full operation as an 18 megawatt power plant consuming 130,000 tons per year of wood chips. The plant is about a one-hour trip from Bend. Based on the current diesel fuel price, the marginal transportation costs of the Wood Materials could potentially equal the delivered fuel value, thus producing a disposal site for this Wood Material at a zero net cost, but this would likely require some processing to meet the fuel specification. Thus, the overall cost of this processing could make this material cost more than it actually nets, but the cost of hauling to the County landfill and disposal fees would be expected to be much higher. The impact GBB/C08016 8 October 31, 2008 Deschutes County Demolition Landfill Subsurface Investigations of the remaining life of the County Landfill would also be significant. Another future biomass plant is also being planned in La Pine, Oregon, which is closer than Prineville by about 10 miles. The County should carefully watch the development of these biomass energy facilities and their fuel specifications. Based on the material values, as well as our projection of the quantities that must be disposed at the County landfill, the "net" of the excavated constituents would cost the County $5.1 million. While some of the materials have value, the landfill disposal costs at the current tipping fee rates are projected to be over $7.5 million. These details are presented in Table 9-6 of this 2008 Study. g. Landfill Fence Location and Fill Excursions As can be seen on Figure 1-2, for the most part, the Waste Materials buried in Area 1 of the Demolition Landfill are estimated to be on County-owned property. However, in four small areas, it appears that Waste Material has been buried on adjacent property. As Figure 1-2 shows, the location of the existing County fence constructed around most of the property was not always constructed on the property line; rather, it appears to be at a location of convenience as a public access deterrent and not a precise property boundary delineation. Due to potential confusion of land ownership versus waste filling, David Evans and Associates, Inc. (DEA) conducted a formal Boundary Survey of the County-owned Demolition Landfill site during this 2008 Study, and this survey appears in Appendix 10 of this 2008 Study. The four excursions outside Area 1 total approximately 2.6 acres not owned by the County. While a fence has been installed to separate Area 1 of the Demolition Landfill from the area owned by Bend Metro Parks and Recreation District (BMPRD) property, this property is partially located on top of buried Waste Material. Approximately 50,000 CY of Waste Materials are currently estimated to be buried on the BMPRD property. Additionally, Area 2 has one smaller fill excursion that occupies 7,200 square feet of non-County property (see Figure 1.1). No such fill excursions were identified outside Area 3. h. Opinion of Confidence in the Range of Estimates Presented in the process of completing this project, the County desired to know, among other things, the level of confidence in the output information. While GBB has been provided with historical information from 1997 and 2002 studies, and has also compiled additional specific information in 2008 to help address each of these key issues, the answers must still be provided with many caveats. The only absolute facts that are known are: (1) the site area and (2) the current closed elevation of the Demolition Landfill. These are known because a recent Boundary Survey was completed and aerial photography of the property was conducted in the summer of 2008 to establish the surface contour elevations for the closed site. However, except for these two information sources, the detailed information is based on indirect and less precise exploration methods. Also, since the Waste Material decomposes over time, the site will continue to subside indefinitely, including the continuing development of sink holes. No specific records of the long-term Waste Material flows into the site exist, and no precise grades of I' the native soils exist to allow the calculation of the bottom baseline of the site. However, several advanced technology devices were used during the 2008 Study to help define the approximate extent of the Waste Material and the beginning of the in-situ native soils. Those means and methods consisted of information obtained through the use of (1) magnetometer testing, (2) resistivity imaging, (3) seismic refraction, and (4) refraction microtremor. A description of these methods, and the information obtained therefrom, are presented in the detailed 2008 Study. GRO/C08016 9 October 31, 2008 Y' Deschutes County Demolition Landfill Subsurface Investigations As noted earlier in subsection b, the GBB Project Team estimates that the site, including offsite fill excursions, contains approximately 550,000 CY of Cover Soil and 2.5 million CY of buried Waste Materials above the native soils. We are of the opinion that this total in-place volume estimate is probably within 20 percent. Boring information from 1997 and 2008 is documented, and analytical test results of the soil samples from 2008 are available. Since the boring protocol and sampling procedures, the sample chain of custody process, and the Laboratory Quality Control Programs are quite strict, the GBB Project Team has a high level of confidence in the test result information and believes this overall information is very representative of the site conditions. The last and most challenging component of this 2008 Study pertains to the makeup of the Waste Materials buried within the Demolition Landfill. While over 70 excavations/borings were advanced into the waste to gather boring details of the waste conditions and composition, the amount of material actually qualified to help establish a waste composition profile is minimal. A "best estimate" of the composition of the Waste Materials buried is presented. A confidence level of 30 percent might be realistic for the total compositional results presented herein. a. Potential for State Funding As the County evaluates the implications of this 2008 Study information, it is also worth mentioning that the Oregon Department of Energy (DOE) has an Oregon Business Energy Tax Credit program available that includes "Recycling Projects" as qualifying projects. A preliminary discussion was held with Mark Kendell, a Senior Policy Analyst with DOE; he indicated that processing equipment for the recycling of materials buried in the Demolition Landfill would most likely quality for consideration under this Tax Credit program at a 35% level. It was also noted that if the County wanted to buy the equipment, the Tax Credits could be transferred to a private company operating the system to achieve the same project end-result. Thus, this State-sponsored financial assistance program should be considered by the County in any future decision-making process. Also, once this Study is completed, a discussion with Oregon Economic Development (OEDD) in consideration for Brownfield's funding for this and future work will be done as part of our contract with the County. The information gleaned from this meeting will be compiled as an Addendum to this report. b. Site Conclusions and Recommendations Due to the location of this particular site inside the City of Bend limits, and the growth of the City of Bend and Deschutes County in general over the past couple of decades, the property presents potential development opportunities. The GBB Project Team is aware that some developers have expressed interest in developing this site, but the current in-situ quantity of buried waste materials and long-term liabilities for the site present obstacles to that potential development. I GOO/tOW16 10 October 31, 2008 w 1 00 00 O 01 r R N f .1.11,114- I I„ ~ X r ~ I- 0 0 c m 1 W N N O O L. 1 1• ..1 ~a 1 Jf O Cl CD y r~7 fD Vf d fD O O 5 r w r~ C a- y C f7 A~ 0 a y AMI BCMG, T8 Wr &XBSFfFMYDlATA owvio BvwNG DEMOMMy ~wNO w:"a 021:re®~I0B • mmm OOH Y, Obi MIalI Deschutes County Demolition- Landfill Subsurface Investigations The obligations of the County in maintaining ongoing post-closure maintenance have been dealt with regularly, and this 2008 Study is another step in the forward-looking process of better understanding the environs in, around, and below the Waste Materials. Based on the samples analyzed during this 2008 investigation, none of the materials require classification as a hazardous waste. However, a few instances were identified where the solid waste may need to be handled as a hazardous material rather than "clean" solid waste, if the County decides to excavate the Waste Material. It is also important to note that, even though borings and test pits were sited where the most contaminated soils/wastes were expected to be present, it is possible that contaminant concentrations may be present onsite in greater concentrations than those identified during this project, and/or that constituents may be present onsite that were not identified during this project. Further, if waste materials from this site are re-excavated that contain potential asbestos-containing materials (PACM), including roofing shingles, roofing felt, sheet flooring, flooring tiles, etc., care must be exercised in order to handle PACM in accordance with Oregon regulations. Based on our technical findings, materials estimates, and the laboratory sampling recently completed, and recognizing that the County will continue to have long-term responsibility and associated liability for the site if left status quo, the County appears to have at least the following two viable options pertaining - to the disposition of the Demolition Landfill: • Continue to provide the required annual oversight and monitoring of the landfill as has been done since closure and complete whatever on-going maintenance and site care is necessary in accordance with the County's regulatory and legal responsibilities; or • Advance the opportunity that the current site location presents.a strategic business setting that might be attractive to a third-party private developer, and that a long-term Public-Private Partnership for the transformation of the site might be possible. This opportunity could improve the economic vitality of the area while, at the same time, reducing the County's long- term site liability created by the buried Waste Material. Since the County has been conducting the post-closure care activity at the Demolition Landfill for many years, no additional discussion of those activities is deemed necessary and such effort would be beyond our scope of work. However, with respect to the Public-Private Partnership idea, the GBB Project Team has provided more discussion in the following paragraphs. Without a specific development plan in mind, GBB thinks that no additional site activity is necessary at this time by the County to probe or sample materials in order to "refine" its understanding of the site as a potential business opportunity. Any small amount of additional knowledge gained by spending additional County money exploring this site at this time will, in our opinion, not significantly modify a potential developer's interest in the site in the near term. Since the road to redevelopment will involve time, money, and permits, as well as political and public support, the disposition of the current in-place materials will undoubtedly evolve over time as the site redevelopment opportunity approaches reality. Therefore, in the near-term, GBB suggests that the County consider issuing a national solicitation that for purposes of this 2008 Study will be termed a Developer's Expression of Interest (DEI). This DEI would be used to identify the list of entities that might be interested in advancing a future Public-Private Partnership proposal for the County to consider. Based on the number of responses and the quality of the firms responding, the County can then reassess whether to continue to pursue optional site redevelopment or not. If the private sector interest is not at a level deemed satisfactory to the County, GBB/C08016 13 October 31, 2008 Deschutes County Demolition Landfill Subsurface Investigations the idea could be tabled until a more robust economy returns, hopefully bringing with it more private sector interest. If the DEI is successful and merits the County's continuing pursuit of the opportunity, a Request for Developer's Proposals could be issued. However, as the County is undoubtedly aware, it does not take a lot of proposals to create a successful project; but rather, only one good proposal with a sound developer. Finally, it is noted that if the County were interested in putting together a DEI document, most all of the site information and the findings of this 2008 Study could easily be repackaged and consolidated to help explain the current site conditions and near-term needs as part of the premise of the project opportunity. d GBB/C08016 14 October 31, 2008