2009-1239-Minutes for Meeting May 13,2009 Recorded 6/2/2009FICIAL NANCYDESCHUBLANKENSHIPTES COUNTY CLERKDS Q 200901239
COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 0610212009 08;35;50 AM
III IIII~IIIIII~IIIIIIIIIIIII
0 -12;8
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, MAY 139 2009
Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Dennis R. Luke and Alan Unger.
Also present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy
County Administrator; Tom Anderson and Barbara Rich, Community
Development; Mark Pilliod and Chris Bell, Legal Counsel; Tom Blust and George
Kolb, Road Department; Timm Schimke, Solid Waste Department; David Inbody,
Assistant to the Administrator; and two other citizens. No representatives of the
media were present.
Chair Baney opened the meeting at 1:35 p.m.
1. Discussion of Services Provided to Solid Waste by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture Wildlife Services Program.
Mike Slater, District Supervisor of the USDA-APHIS Wildlife Services
Program, gave an overview of the program. It is a cooperative program but is
meant to benefit county residents. The Oregon Department of Agriculture and
the Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife have been partners previously, but
have withdrawing from participation more each year. Commissioner Luke
suggested that this could be because there is less open ground and more people
and housing. Mr. Slater said that this has in fact increased his department's
workload. The program in this area has become broad spectrum due to
increasing wildlife-urban interface issues.
Mr. Schimke said that the new electronics recycling law is supposed to operate
at no cost to the County. Manufacturers can also propose and develop their
own program rather than donating to local governments. Four large groups
have been formed that made a lot of promises on what they will take in. The
concern is if the collector hits its quota, based on percentages, and drops away.
Mr. Schimke stated that he is looking at other options. As requirements get
greater and more recycling is needed, it gets more difficult to get some of the
public to comply.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Page 1 of 10
2. Continued Discussion of Requests from Forest View Special Road District
and Panoramic View Estates Special Road District for County Assistance.
Torn Blust gave a brief overview of the request, which has to do with 1.6 miles
of road in Forest View subdivision that the residents would like to have the
County control for dust. Despite the cut-through traffic and school buses, it is
not a unique situation in the County. Others will want this same service and
then where does it stop. He recommends that the County does not get involved.
A special road district has the means to handle this on its own.
In the past the County's contractors have indicated that they will do work in
those areas for the same cost as what they charge the County.
Another area is a road that serves as a secondary access road in Panoramic
View Estates. (Mr. Blust referred to an oversized map at this time.) It went
over the difficulties of going along property lines. A better option might be to
use County-owned property for an easement, or a public road right-of-way that
would be a conditional use. County Forester Joe Studer said that he supports
this strongly, from a wildfire protection point of view. Mr. Blust said the
homeowners would take care of future maintenance but would not be able to do
all of the initial development of the roadway. They got a cost estimate done at
around $12,000 to put down, gravel on an existing roadbed. The cost to the
County would be similar.
Mr. Blust said that Mr. Studer thought there might be FEMA or grant money
available for this, provided the property owners cover part of it. The other cost
is the land use action, which is about $1,700. The advantage of going through
the conditional use process is that it would give all of the adjacent property
owners an opportunity to comment. Mr. Blust stated this could be done as a
one-time expenditure and the property owners would take it from there. It may
be possible to roll the land use costs into the grant.
The Commissioners agreed with staff's recommendation to proceed with this
proj ect.
3. Update of 19th Street Construction Timeline.
Mr. Blust presented the 19th Street extension project development timeline. He
then explained where they are on the chart and when to expect funding or
grants.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Page 2 of 10
Commissioner Baney asked if there would be a trail adjacent next to the road.
Mr. Blust stated that there would be a 100-foot right of way, which should be
plenty of space for that. (He referred to an oversized map at this time)
Much of the needed land is owned by the Bureau of Land Management, but
there is some private land involved that will require more work. A land use
process and goal exception will be needed for lands under private ownership.
The timeline is a best guess at this point. A consultant will need to be hired to
do the environmental and land use portions of the project. The right of way
acquisition will be time-consuming, taking at least a year. ODOT's goal is to
solve access problems and other traffic issues having to do with Highway 97.
4. Continued Discussion of Step 4 Grievance.
The attendees introduced themselves at this time, for the benefit of Cecil
Tibbetts, AFSCME negotiator, who was attending via conference call.
Commissioner Unger said he listened to the tapes, read the minutes and the
written documentation on the issue.
Dave Kanner gave a summary of the issue to date, plus the position of the two
Commissioners as of the last meeting. The basis for denial at Step 3 is that Ms.
Rich's position is not the same as those of other divisions within the
department, per the contract.
He thought that Commissioner Baney felt that a comparison with other senior
planners should be done, and Commissioner Luke felt that there was no
violation of the contract and the grievance should be denied.
Ms. Rich said that she was treated as a limited duration employee even though
per County policy would be a full-time regular employee.
Mark Pilliod asked whether Commissioner Unger feels as though he can weigh
in on a decision at this point. Commissioner Unger said that he is comfortable
with his knowledge of this issue. He asked how the limited duration employee
aspect fits in, per the contract. There are a lot of other things involved but this
is an important point.
Mr. Kanner stated that whether limited duration or regular, it is irrelevant to the
grievance. It is not addressed in the contract. A business decision was made
that a senior planner is no longer needed in environmental health and there is no
funding for that position.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Page 3 of 10
Normally if a business decision is made that a particular position is no longer
required or funding is not available, they would go through the article 14
process and look at the organizational unit and everyone who fits that position.
Based on that analysis, someone would likely be laid off. There is only one
senior planner in the environmental health division. If this analysis is required,
current and past practice should be to compare only those within the division. It
was not felt that this was necessary.
Commissioner Unger said that there are six senior planners, some of which are
specialists. You would not compare a long-range planner or transportation
planner with an environmental planner or a general planner. He sees these as a
different classification. The job descriptions have a lot of differences. A
general is a planner who has come up through the ranks. There is a difference
in those groups. If you considered planners, you would look at the three
differently. He does not see this as an article 14 grievance.
Commissioner Baney said the difficulty she has is that the positions were not
compared at all. There was a lot of weight given to the fact that it was a time-
limited position. The work ended when the grant was exhausted. She disagreed
that the time limited employee component played a larger part.
Tom Anderson stated that the business decision part of the process was to
eliminate that position. It was the lack of funding. Whether she was viewed as
a temporary or regular employee was irrelevant.
Commissioner Baney said that there are no separate funds for long-range
planner, so if that work is done, would that person go away. Mr. Anderson said
he does not know, as they have not looked at that classification. In the building
division they separate inspectors based on certifications and expertise.
Commissioner Luke stated that long-range planners are always needed.
Commissioner Unger said that as they move through the comprehensive plan
update, there might be changes in what is required. That position could go
away, also.
Commissioner Baney said that the results might be the same if they are all
compared, but in principal, there are skill sets to consider across the board.
Since it was called a senior planner position and was no longer limited duration,
the process used to make this decision was not the best. She would like to look
at all of the positions and compare them. Perhaps you would get down to three
different positions.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Page 4 of 10
Commissioner Unger said he feels this is laudable but is not sure it is grievable.
Ms. Rich was called a senior planner to get the right pay grade for her skills and
experience. The process of comparing the positions does not enter into this
situation, though. He does not feel Ms. Rich's position should be compared to
the other planner positions. He is sorry this has happened and wish there was
more funding to continue to this work.
LUKE: Move to uphold the decision of the County Administrator regarding
denial of this grievance.
UNGER: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
UNGER: Yes.
BANEY: Chair respectfully votes no.
Mr. Tibbetts said that he still does not feel that the proper process was used and
feels strongly that this is the wrong decision.
Ms. Rich said that she appreciates the notice but that her co-workers are treating
her like the walking dead, and that this is the most difficult thing she has ever
gone through.
5. Update of Commissioners' Meetings and Schedules.
Commissioner Baney said that due to a scheduling conflict, she is unable to
attend the ORMAP meeting in Salem tomorrow.
6. Other Items.
Discussion regarding further notification of event venue hearings. The person
who made the request would like this notification enhanced to include
properties that are adjacent to EFU properties. There was a full MUA-10
mailing for a previous hearing. Legally, a Measure 56 issue does not have to be
widely notified; it would simply be posted and those within a certain boundary
of the applicant would be notified. Another request was to notify all EFU
property owners of a Planning Commission hearing; this cost was about $4,000.
It is her understanding that this type of mailing is not normal, and most
interested parties were advised early during the event venues issue.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Page 5 of 10
There is a hearing scheduled for June 16, and a request was made to mail to all
EFU owners and a second request was to mail to properties adjacent to EFU
properties even if they are zoned MUA.
Commissioner Luke said if the applicants are known, it is simpler to do a
mailing. It is not often that a decision affects a whole type of property. He
does not recall doing this except for comprehensive plan issues, which was tied
into the property tax mailing.
Commissioner Unger is not opposed to a mailing, but is not sure of the potential
benefit. All of the issues and concerns have been brought before the Board by
this time. He also said that the legislature is dealing with the private parks
issue, which could make this a moot point. He has a problem dealing with
spending all of this money when things are so much up in the air right now. He
does not see the value of doing this.
Commissioner Luke said that most of the people affected have expressed their
views. Commissioner Baney stated she would like to see more people involved
and interested. She feels that those who are interested are showing up already
or are corresponding. She feels a good job is being done and the media is
involved. She does not feel that spending $4,000 or more would be a benefit.
Commissioner Luke stated that the Board has discussed a lot more about the
situation than the Planning Commission has. Commissioner Baney noted that
the Planning Commission is advisory and does not have the authority to make a
decision. Commissioner Luke would like a mailing sent out to all MUA
properties. Commissioner Unger does not think a mailing is needed, but what
he would like to get from this is alternate ways to reach people. Commissioner
Luke said that there are laws on how people are notified. Dave Kanner said that
the legislature may adjourn right after the hearing and the entire matter might be
moot at that point.
Commissioner Baney would like to see a matrix of the impacts and changes
before having the hearing. A work session would be held to discuss the matrix
and a hearing would follow in July if appropriate, which would involve a
mailing to MUA property owners prior to the hearing.
At this time, the Board went into executive session under ORS 192.660(2)(h),
litigation, in regard to event venues. Afterwards a decision was made.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Page 6of10
UNGER: Move that Code enforcement be withheld if a copy of the contract
can be produced showing that a 2009 event was booked by
September 2008.
BANEY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: No. (Split vote.)
UNGER: Yes.
BANEY: Chair votes yes.
Regarding a request for a support letter for funding for Central Oregon
Irrigation District regarding piping 2.5 miles of their canal, Commissioner
Unger asked that the Board approve and sign it.
LUKE: Move approval.
UNGER: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
UNGER: Yes.
BANEY: Chair votes yes.
Concerning previous discussions regarding the Sheriff's Office and Parole &
Probation Department, Commissioner Baney said that she has given this a lot of
thought and would like to continue investigating the possibility of combining
the two groups. Her concerns are timing, and having agreements in place that
the Board would not relinquish its authority over the programs handled by
Parole & Probation. Commissioner Luke asked whether this would be
budgetary control or affect what programs are utilized. She would like both.
She would also like to look at this in thirty days or sixty days to learn the cost
and delivery benefits. Within two years, the objectives that should be met
would be determined. Her reasoning is long-term benefits and she feels it can
be a win-win situation.
Commissioner Unger stated that he sees the Sheriff's office doing enforcement,
the Judges doing judiciary and corrections doing what they do. His concern is
whether the SO could differentiate what they do from what is done by Parole &
Probation separately. He feels there is more cohesiveness between Adult and
Juvenile than there is with the Sheriff's Office. He does not see the benefits at
this time.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Page 7 of 10
Commissioner Baney stated that the Juvenile group has low recidivism, and this
is higher in the adult population. She hears the same things she heard three
years ago. Parole & Probation said that they have a hard time getting in to see
clients. The Sheriff's Office says that they never show up. Obviously, there is
a lack of cohesiveness, and there could be some savings.
Commissioner Luke stated that this would primarily involve management. In
some counties there is a captain who reports to the Sheriff. They are in the
chain of command.
Commissioner Baney said that it is possible to have them work together and
gain some efficiencies. Commissioner Unger asked if there are problems now,
why those couldn't just be addressed to see if they can be solved without
malting a radical change. Commissioner Baney feels there is more to it than
that; that there could be some fiscal efficiencies found for the long-term. She in
no way feels that Ken Hales is not doing his job and he has been an asset to the
County.
Commissioner Unger stated that perhaps with some guidance, perhaps people
could work harder to resolve any issues. Commissioner Luke said that people
like decisiveness and do not like to leave things hanging. There is some time to
put something together, but by July 1 he would like to see some kind of
decision made.
Commissioner Baney said that Mr. Hales has streamlined the workload and has
done a great job since he has been here. There is a philosophical difference
between corrections and enforcement, but steps can be taken to make this work
more smoothly. There will be a question of opting out or not next year.
Erik Kropp said that it is important to take the people out of the equation and
look at the long-term results. It needs to make sense for the County in the
future, and if there are some financial benefits they need to be known. It is
possible that it would not result in a cost savings.
Mr. Kanner stated that the funds for misdemeanants are not fully loaded, and
the Sheriff would want to make sure that the funding is correct. Commissioner
Baney said it is not so much about the dollars but the service delivery.
Mr. Kanner stated there is no agreement that can be entered into with the
Sheriff. The only authority the Board has is budget authority. You could
reduce his budget or move Parole and Probation out.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Page 8 of 10
Commissioner Luke said it is one elected official to another, and he feels that
this Sheriff would live up to his word. Mr. Kanner asked what the exchange of
consideration expected in this agreement. Commissioner Luke said that it is no
different from what they have with the Court. It is an understanding of what
everyone wants to see done. It is reviewed each year and if there isn't enough
money, one has to be eliminated. This would be no different. Commissioner
Baney said in a perfect world, for instance domestic violence supervision, a
determination would be made whether to invest money in this misdemeanant
population. If it came down to whether or not to supervise, it would be decided
in partnership wit the Commissioners. That way if the Sheriff said this couldn't
be funded, it could be worked out or funds withheld. What it sets up for the
future is that the intent of the partnership is one that is unique and balances the
enforcement and corrections and restorative aspects.
Commissioner Luke stated that other jurisdictions have been analyzed, and in
some places, it failed when a certain person left. It should not be personality
driven but a change can be made later.
Commissioner Unger said that he wants to give this more thought.
Commissioner Baney wants to be able to give staff guidance. In the Health and
Mental Health situation, there was a good opportunity to make a change. This
is much more sensitive. She would like to move forward and be respectful.
She wants to see what the actual numbers might be and how the service
delivery would be handled, and reserves the right to be shown that she is wrong
if something totally unexpected shows up. She would want to be sure that Mr.
Hales would remain with the County.
She is also concerned about how to balance the advisory input of LPSCC. Mr.
Kanner said that the Department of Corrections decides who delivers Parole &
Probation services, pursuant to a community corrections plan that has been
approved by LPSCC. The reality is that no matter what LPSCC recommends, it
can be changed. The Department of Corrections will likely do what the Board
of Commissioners recommends.
Mr. Kanner stated that a meeting with both should be set up, and they should be
up front with staff so they know what is going on. Commissioner Baney asked
how this could be handled without creating problems within the departments.
Mr. Kanner stated that the unions may be supportive, but he doesn't know how
the rank and file would respond.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Page 9 of 10
At this time, Commissioner Unger had to leave the meeting. The remaining
two Commissioners and Mr. Kanner talked about the upcoming budget
meetings and several of the issues to be addressed at that time. The
Commissioners indicated that in the future they would like to have some
discussions during the budget preparation process so that they would be aware
in advance of recommendations for potential program cuts and other sensitive
issues.
Being no further items addressed, the meeting adjourned at 5: 00 p.m.
DATED this 13th Day of May 2009 for the Deschutes County Board of
Commissioners.
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary
Tammy hey, Chair
2
Dennis R. Luke, ice Chair
Alan Unger, Commissioner
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session
Page 10 of 10
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
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, MAY 13, 2009
1. Discussion of Services Provided to Solid Waste by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture Wildlife Services Program - Timm Schimke
2. Continued Discussion of Requests from Forest View Special Road District and
Panoramic View Estates Special Road District for County Assistance - Tom
Blust
3. Update of 19th Street Construction Timeline - Tom Blust
4. Continued Discussion of Step 4 Grievance
5. Update of Commissioners' Meetings and Schedules
6. Other Items
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 otherwise 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.
N
t~
O
~
W
M N
Q)
d
,
x
ca
LL.
O
c
CL
4
~
C
O
0
ce
CL
A
M
J
N~
V
N
N
L
A
W
C
v
to
a
c
to
E
~
O
o
a
To: Board of County Commissioners
From: Timm Schimke
CC: Dave Kanner, Connie Thomas
Date: April 10, 2009
Re: May 13 work session agenda Item
At my last meeting with the Board, we briefly discussed the services received from the
US Department of Agriculture Wildlife Services Program. They provide starling control
for us at Knott Landfill, as well as a variety of other services throughout the County. It
was suggested that it may be helpful if representatives of the program were to meet with
the Board to present the program and services that they provide. We are on your April 29
work session agenda for this purpose.
Funding for the program comes from the Department of Solid Waste budget, the Oregon
Department of Agriculture, and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife along with
some contribution from specific entities that receive direct services. The proposed
budgeted amount from the Department of Solid Waste for next fiscal year is $102,000.00
USDA-APHIS-WILDLIFE SERVICES
o~ Mike Slater
o District Supervisor'
Wildlife Biologist
michael.t.slater(@usda.eov
LaGrande District-Office
Phone (541) 963-7947 Fax (541) 963-7952
I
Oregon's electronics recycling too successful for some manufacturers - Environment Impact - OregonLiv
Oregon's electronics recycling too successful for some manufacturers
Posted by slearn May 12, 2009 19:44PM
Page 1 of 6
'Fredrick D. Joe/The OregonianWorkers at
Columbia Recycling stack and wrap TVs and computer monitors before storing them in the corner of the recycler's
Northeast Portland warehouse.
Read MRM's
letter
Click for the
letter MRM
sent to its
recycling
contractors
Less than five months in, Oregon's free electronics recycling program is collecting too much too
fast for the largest manufacturer group involved, prompting it to ask the Oregon recyclers it
works with to dial back their efforts.
The group, the Electronic Manufacturers Recycling Management Company, or MRM, recently
warned Goodwill and its other collectors that it won't pay if they participate in off-site recycling
events put on by groups such as churches or neighborhood associations.
' Facing high returns and a bum economy, MRM told the collectors to limit themselves to state-
provided signs for advertising and not to use freelance fliers when it comes to state-mandated
free recycling of televisions, computers, laptops and monitors that began Jan. 1.
http://blog. oregonlive. com/environment_impact/2009/05loregons_electronics-recyclinglprint.html 5/13/2009
Oregon's electronics recycling too successful for some manufacturers - Environment Impact - OregonLiv... Page 2 of 6
E-waste floods
collections under „
Or o,oon's new . ~ .
prograrnforfree
recycling of
televisions, 12.2
cornputers and million
monitors are -,yell pounds
ahead of the
rniminum collection
amount the state
set for 2003.
Through March: 4.9
million pounds
Sou1u: °rea°" 2009 Minimum
DPP 6i:lwOM of
Ena ronmimtai required
i1"d q
5'. EVE (:'"MMii`!/ i HE Cafv'EGC}N44N
And it dropped two recycling companies from its collector mix, Garten Services of Salem and Columbia Recycling of
Portland, to cut down recycling volume.
Columbia Recycling held an electronics recycling event in late March for the Vietnamese community, designed to raise
money for a Rose Festival float. Now owner Bang Tran says he's sitting on at least 60,000 pounds of recycled
electronics, much of it from that event, that MRM won't accept.
Tran said he advertised in Vietnamese publications for the fundraiser and put out fliers.
"In the contract, it never said you can't do that," he said. "We thought if the government has a program to clean up the
electronics, then the recycle people should help the community clean up."
MRM, backed by Panasonic, Toshiba, Sharp and, in Oregon, 18 other television manufacturers, is one of four programs
that began collecting electronics Jan. 1. That was the Oregon Legislature's start date for manufacturer-financed free
recycling of TVs, monitors and computers statewide.
Betty Patton, president of the consulting firm Environmental Practices and MRM's Oregon director, said Columbia's
recycling volume was unusually high.
It wasn't clear where Columbia's recyclables were coming from, she said, if they had been collected before Jan. 1, or
whether large businesses with high numbers of electronics were involved.
Oregon law requires manufacturers to pay for free recycling only for individuals or small businesses with fewer than 10
employees. The collections that created Columbia Recycling's current stockpile came after MRM suspended taking
collections from the company, Patton said.
"It was a lot more than what we were expecting," she said. "We asked for documentation of where things were coming
from, and they did not provide us with enough information."
Tran said his company was dropped with little notice, and the high recycling volumes came from his outreach and
contacts within the Vietnamese community.
"I didn't make all the new TVs, so why blame it on me?" he said. "Somebody has to be responsible for this."
http://blog.oregonlive.comlenviromnent impact/2009/05loregons_electronics recyclinglprint.html 5/13/2009
Oregon's electronics recycling too successful for some manufacturers - Environment Impact - OregonLiv... Page 3 of 6
Halfway there
Through the first quarter of the year, MRM collected 2.3 million pounds of electronics for recycling, the highest total of
the four recycling groups in Oregon's E-Cycle pro ram and on pace to exceed MRM's minimum state requirement of
5.03 million pounds for all of 2009.
The group also contracts with Goodwill, which has an extensive network in Oregon, helping push up its recycling
numbers.
Through the first quarter, the four programs combined collected about 5 million pounds. The total minimum required
for the year is 12.2 million pounds.
In a letter to its collectors, MRM warned that its member manufacturers "have limited financial resources to continue
financing the program once the (state) targets are achieved."
The manufacturers pay collectors from 4 cents to 7 cents a pound for electronics collected, then pay to have the
recyclables processed. The down economy has dampened demand for electronics and driven down the price the
manufacturers can get for recyclables, Patton said, even as they pay collectors at a fixed rate.
"What we're telling collectors is we are ready and able to accept the material that is brought into your facility, but
having special, heavily advertised events give us a break here," Patton said. She added: "I don't think we would be
having this conversation if it weren't for the economy."
Officials with Oregon's Department of Environmental Quality, which oversees the E-Cycle program, said the state does
not plan to get involved in the dispute between MRM and Columbia Recycling. Manufacturers do have the right to
control events for free electronics recycling, said Loretta Pickerell, manager for solid waste policy at DEQ.
But MRM's letter told collectors to accept electronics for recycling only if the electronics' owners bring them in, which
is blatantly illegal, Pickerell said.
Negotiated goals
Manufacturers knew that collections were likely to exceed the state minimums, Pickerell said. State officials agreed to
set a relatively low minimum required return amount for 2009 because manufacturers were worried about having to pay
a state penalty if they fell short.
The state told the manufacturers to prepare for higher returns, Pickerell said.
"All of them heard that and all of them understood it," Pickerell said. "This is not a surprise."
Barbara Kyle, national coordinator of the Electronics TakeBack Coalition, said Oregon is doing well on collections
because its legislation mandates convenience. Among the requirements: Any electronics recycling program must offer
services in every county and have sites in all cities with at least 10,000 residents.
But the MRM letter reinforces that the companies, which say they support 100 percent recycling, "don't want to
encourage people to bring their products back," Kyle said. "They want to do the minimum."
So far, collections by the three manufacturer-run programs are ahead of their minimum 2009 pace, while the state-run
program is falling short. The 2010 minimums, recently set by the state, are nearly double this year's amounts.
Steven Elmore, business development specialist for Garten Services, one of two companies dropped by MRM, said
MRM may be getting more than its share of returns "because they paid (collectors) on time and they were real easy to
http://blog.oregonlive.com/environment-impact/2009/05loregons_electronics recyclinglprint.html 5/13/2009
Oregon's electronics recycling too successful for some manufacturers - Environment Impact - OregonLiv... Page 4 of 6
work with." Garten contracts with several of the E-Cycle programs.
The early numbers could be misleading. Residents are recycling a lot of televisions and monitors that include heavy
cathode ray tubes. And the digital television switchover in June is likely boosting television purchases and recycling
volumes.
Bill Goman, who runs recycling programs for Goodwill Industries of the Columbia Willamette, said he understands
manufacturers' cost concerns. But some "may be overreacting," he said.
"If we had a goal of 5 million pounds and we collected 10 million," he said, "they should be happy with us."
Scott Learn; scottlearrignews.oregonian.com
Categories: Breaking News
Comments
wallydallas says...
A good start on the tale of the toxic time bomb called E-waste.
A lot of this plastic is sent to China where it is turned into tiny plastic pellets and re-sold and made into toys etc.
Problem is computer plastic is coated with cancer causing flame retardants. The lead glass is worse.
The headline should be "Wealthy and giant TV factories don't want to pay for their garbage so taxpayers will pay with
money or health risks"
Just put these quotes next to each other:
"MRM, backed by Panasonic, Toshiba, Sharp and 18 other television manufacturers.... began collecting electronics
( under ) Oregon Legislature's start date for manufacturer-financed free recycling of TVs, monitors"
AND
'member manufacturers "have limited financial resources to continue financing the program once the (state) targets are
achieved." '
AND
'the companies, which say they support 100 percent recycling, "don't want to encourage people to bring their products
back," Kyle said. "They want to do the minimum."'
Same on these companies. They don't want to take back the bad products that only last a few years; they learned the
Detroit get rich quick revenue model of disposable products.
Here is a great CBS TV story that documents how most toxic computer lead is dumped in states with few toxic
protections laws: Arizona
http://blog.oregonlive.comlenviromnent impactl2009/05loregons_electronics-recyclinglprint.html
5/13/2009
Oregon's electronics recycling too successful for some manufacturers - Environment Impact - OregonLiv... Page 5 of 6
http://cbs5.com/investigates/e.waste.loopholes.2.993 177html
Posted on 05/12/09 at 8:34PM
tdcowboy says...
Even the recycling industries are as crooked as the politicians. Now I can't even recycle my old TV and monitor.
Posted on 05/12/09 at 9:12PM
egodraconis says...
We've got out of state box retailers bribing state politicians (I don't know what else to call MASS donations to state
congressional election campaigns by out of state interests) to establish redemption centers for bottles which would
inconvenience the public that VOTES for these politicians. Oregon DEQ won't get involved to solve the e-recycle
problem. Imagine that? Why doesn't the Oregonian ever follow the money trail? Oh yeah! I forgot! The bulk of
Oregonian advertising revenue comes from these box retailers too.
Posted on 05/12/09 at 9:59PM
wch says...
Again, another issue that wouldn't exist but for government involvement and entanglement.
Posted on 05/12/09 at 10:07PM
Lost2Time says...
Once again, leftist no-business experience dopes think businesses have unlimited funds.
Posted on 05/12/09 at 10:35PM
tombdragon says...
Don't forgot these are the same "Planners" who continue to label our lifestyle as excessive and our fail to recognize our
out migration can be associated, to a certain extent, to their assumptions, and forecasts that have nothing to do with
how we want to live our lives. They can't predict what we need to throw away, where we need to travel, and that we
want to get away - from them.
Posted on 05/12/09 at 11:36PM
Cordo says...
"Betty Patton, president of the consulting firm Environmental Practices and MRM's Oregon director"
What a joke of a company name.
"Again, another issue that wouldn't exist but for government involvement and entanglement."
http://blog.oregonlive.comlenviro=ent impact/2009/05loregons_electronics-recyclinglprint.htmi
5/13/2009
Oregon's electronics recycling too successful for some manufacturers - Environment Impact - OregonLiv... Page 6 of 6
"Once again, leftist no-business experience dopes think businesses have unlimited funds."
No, dum*as*es, products with a planned obsolescence in a throwaway society. Products built of toxic materials.
Consumers pay for the recycling through purchases of the products.
It's common sense, not rightist or leftist crap.
Posted on 05/13/09 at 12:14AM
davejor says...
Talk about a bunch of misinformed bunk being posted. Leaded glass posses absolutely NO hazard. The standard line
"resold and made into toys" is just another scare tactic with no meaningfull truth whatsoever.
I do support the recycling program, I think it's great! The kinks do need to be worked out however. Spewing baseless
accusations only polarizes the issue and doesn't help make the program a success.
Posted on 05/13/09 at 6:24AM
tas50 says...
davejor: He wasn't referring to leaded glass making it's way into new products, that's an issue of the water supply. He
was referring to plastics that have flame retardant coatings. Only recently have manufacturers started removing
bromides from their plastics. It's stuff you don't want in your kids toys.
Posted on 05/13/09 at 8:44AM
Footer
http://blog.oregonlive.comlenvironment impact/2009/05loregons_electronics recyclinglprint.html
5/13/2009
J-TES c
1' O
60
pRoad Department
61150 SE 27th St. • Bend, Oregon 97702
(541) 388-6581 • FAX (541) 388-2719
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 11, 2009
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Tom Blust, Road Department Director
RE: Request for Dust Abatement on Sunrise Blvd.
Background:
The Forest View Special Road District plans to apply dust abatement on Sunrise Blvd.
this spring and has requested County assistance to help pay for the application.
Sunrise Blvd. is a dedicated public road that is maintained by the special road district.
The road district contends that because they have to deal with cut-through traffic from
outside the district and because Sunrise Blvd. is used as a school bus route it warrants
the use of public funds to help maintain the road. Dust abatement (mag-chloride)
applied on the full 1.6 mile length of Sunrise Blvd. would cost approximately $3,800
(material plus application).
Recommendation:
The Road Department does not recommend funding the dust abatement with county
road funds. Although Sunrise Blvd. does experience some cut-through traffic and is
used as a school bus route, this use is not uncommon on other local access roads
throughout the county. If the county pays for dust abatement on Sunrise Blvd., it will set
a precedent for all local access roads in the county. The county does not have the
resources to fund a dust abatement program on local access roads.
NTES
w
p Road Department
61150 SE 27th St. • Bend, Oregon 97702
(541) 388-6581 • FAX (541) 388-2719
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 11, 2009
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Tom Blust, Road Department Director
RE: Panoramic View Estates - Secondary Access via
Hurtley Ranch Road
Background:
The Panoramic Access Special Road District is seeking county support to construct a
secondary access from the subdivision to Hurtley Ranch Road via a new road across a
county owned parcel. The road district is willing to commit to the maintenance of the
road and pay some percentage of the construction cost (see attached email). The
creation of this secondary access is strongly supported by the Cloverdale Rural Fire
Protection District (see attached letter).
Creation of a new public road right of way across the county parcel (zoned EFU) would
require a conditional use permit. The cost of the permit is $1,665. The road
construction cost is estimated at $12,000. This construction cost is based on building
the road along the existing dirt road alignment, which is the preferred alignment based
on our field inspection.
Recommendation:
The Road Department recommends moving ahead with this project assuming the road
district pays for a portion of the construction cost and all future maintenance costs. The
County Forester has indicated that FEMA or other grant dollars are available to cover
2/3 of the construction cost leaving the road district to pick up the 1/3 match. The Road
Department would act as the applicant for the conditional use permit and cover the
permit fee.
Email from Bruce Bowen:
Tom
Attached is an estimate from Robinson-Owen in Sisters to do the
extension of Emerald Valley to Hurtley Ranch Rd that we discussed with
the commissioners. There are two prices. The first is for about
$12,000 to grade and gravel the route that the dirt track takes now.
The second number, about $28,000, is the cost of re-routing along the
property line (Tammy Baney's suggestion). The property line route
would involve taking quite a few trees (many of which are very large
ponderosa pines). That route also comes rather close to a fairly new
home on the western boundary of the county property and to a home on
Hurtley Ranch Rd increasing the political costs for both the county and
the road district.
The Panoramic Road Board met and considered the costs and the county's
questions from our meeting with you and the commissioners. First, the
board did commit to maintaining the road, no matter which route is
selected. Second, given that the total amount that we received in tax
money this year was only $22,700, the board did not feel like it could
pay the entire cost of either alternative. Even the cheapest
alternative would be 53% of our total revenue. We have some savings
from years when less plowing and grading were needed; so we would be
willing to pay some fraction of the cost.
I have spoken with Fire Marshall Wheeler of the Sisters-Camp Sherman
Fire Department (which provides ambulance service for Panoramic) and
with Chief Gable of the Cloverdale Fire Department. Both are quite
supportive of this, and both agreed to send formal letters of support
to you. Chief Gable even offered to appear at a public hearing. His
view was that this is a "life-safety issue."
In summary, Panoramic Access Special Road District is willing to commit
to the maintenance of the road and pay some percentage of the cost
depending upon the total cost. The road district would prefer the
current route because of significantly lower cost, less damage to the
environment, and distance from homes.
Bruce
+ FALL RURAL FIRE R68787 Geo. Cyrus Rood + Sisters, Oregon 97759
(541) 548-4815 Fox (541) 548-7131
March. 31, 20019
Torn. Blust
61150 SE 27 h Street
Bend, OR. 97702
Dear Tom
Di s, TRt a
PREVEhiT FIRES
I understand there are efforts made to have the Deschutes County Road Department improve,
repair and/or maintain a small. portion of road that links Hurtley Ranch Road to Emerald Valley
Road here in the Sisters area.
As Fire Chief for the Cloverdale Rural Fire Protection District I have used this link between the
two roads as a secondary escape route in plans, in the event of wildfire. The Panoramic
subdivision, rated one of our fire district's most extreme wild fire potential hazards, relies on
this link to provide this vital secondary access/egress during emergencies.
My interest in the project is for our highest priority, Life Safety, and I support any efforts to
improve, repair and/or maintain this portion of road that will provide a substantial secondary
escape route during emergencies for the residents of Panoramic subdivision.
I appreciate your consideration of my comments and any assistance you may provide.
Sincerely
Charles R. Cable, Fire Chief
Legend
Taxlots r Road in Question
County Routes Special Road Die[dct
1""MPdmary Highway „ County Taxlots
. -"Arterial - - SECTION LINE
Collector TOWNSHIP/RANGE LINE
Local r--1 Golf Course
V The hfoumetlon an thie map was derived stun '"I detebeses do
0.25 0.5 0.75
Deschutes Coudy'c G.I.S. Cue "a taken in the oration of thb
map. but it is provided Ys is". Deschutes County cannot =ept any
responsibility for rrors, onissims. or posldonal accuracy in the dgflal
data or the undedying mewds. There en newrrerdies, wpm= ar
implied, ndudng the wunrity of-.h.tebi* or fit- lu a
Articular purpose, accenuparrying dis product, Haawr, notification
d" _ors wit be appreciated.
Miles DATE: May 11, 2009
es
chutes County Road Department
Iohn Andersen. 01 Se LA l
1
:•A_r<L': .11::7 l:l2
Lim
\\Hig[way\GI3_Prly\ArcGl3_Plvducts\Metrnpuliten Aleas\
W
Z
J
_0~
V5 F-
WZ
X
W
W OJ
w >
F- LU
V ! o
rnU
LL
. c
f l
0
o.
,I
N
n
1=
s
",w
t
e'
r~
f
skl
a
_
~_n I
E5
a
~
~
I
0
N I
o
n
r
I
L~
o
I
I
I
S'
-
r
C
Lg
0
O
N
~f
O
t0
N
O
co
O
O
00
co
N
00
O
0
O
8
O
O
Qp~
O
O
O
O
O
O
p
r
C
N
N
N
N
O
N
~
N
O
N
N
N
N
W
N
N
O
r
N
C
N
i~
N
I~
~
(O
W
f'7
(~V
O
0
O)
S
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
p
0
p
O
~
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
O
N
O
N
N
a
N
~
r
~D
~
~
r
R
f7
p
t0
a
a
2
z
z
z
~
z
1
f
F
t:
0
-
O
M
p
m
m
0
0
N
0
m
Ln o
0
.
i
O u
O
O
d'
U
U
U
ZO
U
ZO
ZZ
O ZZ
U
U
U
U
A
c
E
C
N
w
c
N
Q
-
E
O
J
'a
>
O
W
d
W
O
H
m
c
U
W
m m
.0
a
0
crn
CL
S
.
aci
m
m
y
d
d
a
v
r
€
n
%
d
c
m
m
c
E
3
E
Q
q
Q
d
0
a
s
C
C
>
C
d
>
C
N
O
t
T
N
(q
W
J
M
{p
O
W
O
c
m
d
F
Z
m
J
J
U
Z
U
W
Fn
C