Loading...
2011-2795-Minutes for Meeting May 04,2011 Recorded 5/13/2011COUNTY NANCYUBLANKENSHIP,P000NTY CLERKS COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 05/13/201109:15:12 AM IIIIIII 2011 2 III IIIIIIIIIIII111111111 - B Do not remove this page from original document. Deschutes County Clerk Certificate Page 1 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.orsz MINUTES OF WORK SESSION DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WEDNESDAY, MAY 4, 2011 Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Alan Unger and Tony DeBone. Also present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; and, for a portion of the meeting, David Givans, Internal Auditor; Peter Russell, Nick Lelack, Terri Payne and George Read, Community Development; Timm Schimke, Solid Waste Department; Laurie Craghead, County Counsel; and approximately twenty other citizens, including Amy Pfeifer and Jim Bryant of ODOT, and Hillary Borrud of The Bulletin. Chair Baney opened the meeting at 1:35 p.m. 1. ODOT Presentation: North Highway 97 Corridor Project. Amy Pfeifer of ODOT indicated there would be a draft EIS (Environmental Impact Study) by the middle of June; and a formal public hearing, after which a preferred alternative will be selected. They hope to finalize this by late 2012. She referred to a PowerPoint presentation showing aerial photos and other information on the two alternatives. She said that the most significant differences are in the areas north of Cooley Road, which could involve an interchange and an overpass. One allows for more local access than the other does, which restricts movement considerably. The impacted lands are for the most part MUA-10. The proj ect is partially within the City limits but other parts are outside of the UGB. Plan amendments to the TSP and Goal exceptions are needed before the project plans can be finalized. Chair Baney asked about costs, phasing, and what might be required by the County. She asked if the City has a preference, and the cost of each alternative. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, May 4, 2011 Page 1 of 7 Pages Ms. Pfeifer said that both can be built in chunks, and the cost is about the same. The tradeoffs are mostly impacts to rural lands or local out of direction travel for residents. The final alternative could end up being a combination of the different ideas. They are working closely with City and County staff on this. The cost of the whole project is estimated at about $230 million, and specific phases have not been identified. The project needs to be identified in terms of the EIS. Jim Bryant said a Goal exception is needed for the area outside of Robal Road and the northern portion of the project. A decision by 2012 is based on a fairly uncomplicated public process. Peter Russell said staff is looking at potential impacts on transportation and areas outside of the project. Ms. Pfeifer said the City has not indicated which they prefer. East DS-1 allows for more connections to the existing road systems. East DS-2 would require more improvements to County roads. Several local roads would likely be closed because there will be a center median. Public involvement will be extensive. Some residents do not want DS-1 because it impacts their neighborhood specifically. DS-2 limits access, so anyone missing a turn would have to drive for miles in order to turn around and come back. Discussion regarding impacts to neighborhoods and local streets then took place. Commissioner Unger indicated at this time a preference for DS-1, which would be friendlier to local traffic. 2. Updates of Demolition Landfill and Landfill Gas-to-Energy Project. Timm Schimke spoke about the demolition landfill, located off Century Drive. He said it has some problems, and he is working with the development community to find a solution. There were permit issues five years ago, and the County was required to do a groundwater assessment. Several wells need to be installed. They are expensive and would have to be monitored for thirty years. If the waste was removed, this would not be necessary; and at the time this was discussed a few years ago, it was a viable alternative. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, May 4, 2011 Page 2 of 7 Pages The DEQ has asked about a waste removal plan or a plan to put in the wells. $400,000 of the next budget is dedicated to this project. Gas monitoring will be included. The existing monitors have been compromised due to their proximity to roads, so new ones will be necessary on private property, with easements required. This is moving ahead. If redevelopment is too far in the future, the potential for problems is a concern. Some work might be needed to stabilize some areas that need it. He will be reviewing cost estimates for this work. There has been discussion about use of the gas, but there probably not is enough to be commercially viable at this time. Landfills produce methane gas. It can be used to generate electricity and sold back into the grid. Knott Landfill is relatively small and is dry, so it is less viable than in other places. It does not last forever, but can be enhanced to produce more quickly. The emphasis is now on new technology for smaller projects, and there is a lot of opportunity for this now. Using a gas engine system can be too noisy for the neighbors. There are other possibilities that are quieter, but not as efficient. He wants to develop a few different paths to see where each might lead. This is a Solid Waste operation, with the department to provide funding, and receiving any funds from power sold. There would be no middleman. Chair Baney said that she feels anything the Demolition landfill property might sell for would cost that much to make it ready to sell. She would like to hear some ideas on how this might be approached. Mr. Schimke said even if the same developer does the cleanup, it does not greatly improve the picture. It is not known if the cost can be recouped. It is a liability and the technology is not available to be able to track and follow what is there. Some liability may always remain. He said some waste could be removed over time to result in a saleable piece of property. Mr. Kanner added that the waste is burning underground, and if it is opened up there will perhaps not be fire, but smoke and steam, and it will be unsightly. Mr. Schimke stated that he will try to find out what material and how much of it is in the problem areas, and report back to the Board. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, May 4, 2011 Page 3 of 7 Pages 3. Recycling Education & Promotion - Alternative Plan for the DEQ. Mr. Schimke reviewed mandated recycling requirements. He said that the DEQ looks to the County as the responsible party. There is a diversion goal that has to be met. The program requirements are put on the cities, and nine elements are involved. You can choose the first three plus one, or number five through nine. The law requires weekly collection of recycling waste. At this time, full recycling pickup is not done every week, so in this case the County is out of compliance. Yard debris is picked up by prescription. Education and promotion is another element of the requirements. If the required elements are not followed, a separate comprehensive plan has to be developed. Chair Baney said she has been asked, if education and promotion is working, why more has to be invested.. Mr. Schimke replied that it is hard to know where to cut. At this funding level, it is hard to focus on anything new. Each budget will include something in particular. Commissioner Unger stated that the public wants this reevaluated to make sure the funds are being spent properly. This is a lot about the cities more than the County. Mr. Schimke explained that there are twenty or more years of history, and education and promotion complied better with the law then. The program has worked well and did not need a lot of scrutiny, but evaluating regularly is good. Commissioner DeBone added that everyone knows about recycling, more or less. He asked what the next step is. Mr. Schimke replied that the population changes, people from other places do not know what is recyclable here and what isn't. The Environmental Center hits a different audience. Ongoing education for just about anything is key to a successful program. Commissioner Unger said he supports environmental activities, but maybe they can rethink how to put out the environmental message. This is a bigger educational thing than just recycling. The Environmental Center could be the voice piece for the larger picture. Ms. Schimke stated that they have to rely on the generator of waste to separate what is recyclable and not. This is the most efficient if done right, but they always have to think about the next step, such as loads that are not separated, before those get to the landfill. Conveyors and screens may make sense someday. The wood recycling program and others are effective, but the cost to landfill those items needs to be high enough for the generator to recycle or reuse. Food recycling can be instituted, but it requires a lot of oversight. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, May 4, 2011 Page 4 of 7 Pages Mr. Kanner said that he met with representatives of the cities and the haulers, and they are all supportive and on board. He has not met with the Environmental Center people yet. Mike Riley, representing one of the haulers, said that the system works now even though they are out of compliance on the recycling part. Composting is making huge strides due to permit changes; and they are trying to do more with the commercial parts of the waste stream, along with events and construction or demolition. They will be ready when the economy improves again. Chair Baney had to leave the meeting at this time. 4. Continuation of Review of the Proposed Comprehensive Plan Update. Review of Section 2 of the Plan took place. There are some changes in the forestry section; and updating of items from needing to be done to having been completed were discussed. Under the table regarding energy, Terri Payne said that the issue is transportation and land use, with transportation costs equaling energy costs. This is more regulated by the State now. There may have to be a new goal to address this. Commissioner Unger stated that energy use is one component; others are how to manage congestion and growth in rural areas. They are just talking about vehicle miles driven, not the use of woodstoves or power. Ms. Payne explained that the idea of walkable neighborhoods and mass transit is very limited in the rural County. Land use patterns influence transportation costs. People often want compact, walkable communities, but that is nearly impossible in rural areas. Laurie Craghead noted that there is talk about rezoning to allow more dense development. Discussion took place regarding geothermal energy and in particular Newberry Crater. Ms. Payne said that alternative energy concepts all have pros and cons. It was pointed out that the use of hydroelectric use on canals has already been done. Commissioner Unger noted that the move at this time is to study other areas with the same opportunities. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, May 4, 2011 Page 5 of 7 Pages The group discussed Section 2.9, environmental quality. Ms. Payne said that the public felt that listing just stakeholders is too watered down. They wanted to see agencies and others with expertise added. Discussion occurred about language that would protect trees. Ms. Payne noted that when someone gets to the point of development, perhaps they could consider the trees. This is common in cities. Commissioner Unger said that wide enough rights of way are needed. Some cut down more trees than necessary, with a long-term effect. Ms. Craghead added that nothing protects the trees except landscape management overlays. Code would need to be written for this. Ms. Payne said that the public has asked that language such as `coordinating with agencies regarding impacts of policy' be included. They are trying to get to, among other things, air quality issues. This is not a huge issue like it would be in an urban area. Commissioner Unger pointed out that if someone tills a field and leaves it, dust can be an issue for a year. Regarding surfacing mining, attorneys have commented that all current policies should be retained and more added regarding Goal 5. They asked that all Goal 5 ESEE's be retained. Ms. Craghead said that staff has no listing and no idea of the complete Goal 5 resources at this time. Ms. Payne added that there is a packet developed, but some were adopted into a resource element and may not know it. They could be put back into Chapter 5. Staff would have to search for all of the Goal 5 ESEE's, but a notation could be made that they be retained for now. Ms. Payne stated that there were public requests for stronger language regarding preserving topsoil, reclaiming the land, and so on. Commissioner Unger observed that DOGAMI is not strong at all, and does not look at reclamation the same way. Ms. Payne said that the County needs to start thinking about what else can be done, although this is limited because the surface mining sites are protected under Goal 5. Commissioner Unger said that they need to recognize the impacts to residential areas. Ms. Payne replied that the policy says that uses have to be balanced. Ms. Craghead said that conflicting uses have already been analyzed. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, May 4, 2011 Page 6 of 7 Pages Mr. Kanner stated that considering the extent that the County hears from citizens on this issue, it is a problem. However, from the County Administrator's point of view, the cost of dealing with it is a bigger issue. Moreover, the County can't always just step in no matter what the public wants. Ms. Payne said they can work with the State to make sure requirements are complied with, to the extent possible. 5. Update of Commissioners' Meetings and Schedules. None were discussed. 6. Other Items. Mr. Kanner stated that the remodeling project in the meeting rooms has been delayed, as the camera equipment will not arrive for another week. The room can be used prior to then, however. Broadcasts can begin perhaps in early June. Commissioner Unger cautioned that it would be prudent to make sure everything is working properly before going out with it. Being no further discussion, the meeting concluded at 4:45 p.m. DATED this ! Day of 2011 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. Tammy Baney, Chair ATTEST: &Utt~ 544t,4-- - Recording Secretary Anthony DeBone, Vice Chair alL. 4~2~ - Alan Unger, Commissioner Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Page 7 of 7 Pages Wednesday, May 4, 2011 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 WEDNESDAY, MAY 4, 2011 1. ODOT Presentation: North Highway 97 Corridor Project - Peter Russell; Tom Blust; John Heacock (ODOT) 2. Updates of Demolition Landfill and Landfill Gas-to-Energy Project- Timm Schimke 3. Recycling Education & Promotion - Alternative Plan for DEQ - Timm Schimke 4. Continuation of Review of the Proposed Comprehensive Plan Update - Terri Payne, Community Development (If needed, from the morning Business Meeting) 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), litigation; ORS 192.660(2)(d), labor negotiations; 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. R3 O L ~ " V ~ I 0 V "a CN co 14 . Q) C E 1 IV s ~ - ~ M O w I `p CL ~ M - `~I 1 ~ I I I j J I ~ ~ V I I ~ a i i t i i N (IN r I i V ~ H CLC co C N I ro Z 4 z S a. 0 vi i I a L "0 L L 0 U 0 z c m r**Oa CF) U Cl) U 0 0 o*- N N . . r.r. a now Cl) 4) 0 MOM L cu %on 0 2! N 0 E 0 -6me cu -Imr CD U cu a. E CCU E a 0 w L 0 w a cu C ~L 2 CL C E O V Q. 4- O 3 a~ a~ O c 0 m .i vw SO ..O .0 W E U O .rr E C N E cC~ rr U U N . a~ c E H U N ~O ^L LL ~ 9~~ 0 Document Reproduces Poorly f Archived) Document ReprC3duces PooOy r 1 V J 0 Ama w ~)OCU,rent Reproduces (Archived), N Mimi m w 0 L a 0 a r Z v m rn ■ y ■ o u F ■ t . cu ° U) 4 4) O CL y-~,. L v ° E O L. C) C/) ~ vCLp I- ao c 0 .OO _ v) =w-0 c C.C E -CU Lo- =01 (10) - cf) U X cu Q a~ a~ cu~ow.%% cf) 0 O N O ~ c cu E r. (D cu = od V CV T. ( L cn CD E E in a p CU ?%CD ° c E w cD 2 E cu 0 0 cn cn O ~.sL O z3 4~ cu 0 ° to E woo J v c~ Q wzw Cl) o cl ' w L cl cu a) CU cn a cn E a a) ~ E cn 0 O E U . w > ~cn a~ O Ca E cn > 2! > m a) .a -a Cl) ~ L. o a t,,,) Q.. o E 'a) N O a N \~w 7 O U w . U i C: cis a . ° cn v~ cn co 4) cn E FW7 a c 0 a .(1) a) o a a~ cl) a) .0 U O CL (L) r>1 LL La U) CL N Na Z 0 . 9 0 0 TES Department of Administrative Services Dave Kanner, County Administrator MrA%AX~ 1300 NW Wall St, Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 www. co. deschutes. or. us April 27, 2011 TO: Board of Commissioners FROM: Dave Kanner RE: Changes to Deschutes County Recycling Plan At your work session on May 4, Timm Schimke will provide you with an update on revisions to the County's recycling plan. These revisions grew out of a discussion the Board had last January when Timm presented a request for Board signature of a contract with the Environmental Center to provide the enhanced recycling education and promotion required by ORS 459A. This led to conversations with the Department of Environmental Quality over the requirements of ORS 459A during which it was discovered that we are out of compliance with the statute and DEQ administrative rules. The corrective action proposed is the submission of an "alternative method" plan to DEQ that we believe will meet with DEQ approval. As background, it's important to understand that the plan submitted annually to DEQ by the County is really submitted on behalf of the cities of Bend and Redmond. The County is not, by law, required to offer a recycling program (except in unincorporated areas within the urban growth boundaries of Bend or Redmond), but the cities are required to do so. The cities of La Pine and Sisters are not statutorily required to offer recycling programs because their populations are less than 4,000. The County has historically done all of the required planning work and paid for certain elements of the cities' recycling programs because we had the staff expertise in the Department of Solid Waste that the cities did not have and because the funds to pay for these program elements were built into the tipping fee at the County's disposal facilities. As such, city residents were already paying for these programs through their garbage bills. The County, although not required to, extended these programs - to the extent practical Countywide because County customers were also paying through their garbage bills and because, frankly, it's the right thing to do. Attached to this memo is an outline of the recycling requirements of ORS 459A. The County (i.e., the cities of Bend and Redmond) has historically met these requirements by offering elements 2 a., 2 b. and 2 c. of ORS 459A.010, plus elements 2 f. and 2 h. (shown on page two of the attachment). Other elements are also offered but not to the universal Enhancing the Lives of Citizens by Delivering Quality Services in a Cost-Effective Manner extent that would qualify as meeting the opportunity to recycle mandates. We have relied on the haulers and the Environmental Center to meet the requirements of 2 c., the expanded education and promotion program. When Bend and Redmond went to every-other-week collection of recyclables and every- other-week collection of yard debris by subscription only, our recycling plan became non-compliant. The cost of providing a compliant program would undoubtedly result in a significant rate increase for garbage customers and would arguably not result in an improved recycling rate for Deschutes County, which is already meeting its recycling goals. As such, and with the concurrence of the cities and the franchised haulers, we will submit a plan to meet our recycling goals with "an alternative method that meets DEQ approval." This alternative program will provide for continuing the current bi-weekly residential curbside collection program, plus at least some of all of the other program elements except for the expanded recycling depots. The recycling education and promotion program conducted by the Environmental Center will be continued, but at a reduced level; $100,000/year rather than the previously proposed $150,000/year. Again, the cities and haulers are all in agreement with this alternative program and we have some indication from DEQ that they may be amenable as well. Staff will be available to answer any questions you may have about this at your May 4 work session. ORS 459A - Reuse and Recycling The Opportunity to Recycle (requirements) 459A.005 Opportunity to Recycle defined. 1. At a minimum, city/county responsible for solid waste management must: a. Provide a place for collection of source separated recyclables at disposal sites or other location more convenient to the population served. And collection at least once a month of source separated recyclables within city UGB. May propose an alternative method. b. Comply with rates and programs elements (459A.010) 2. Opportunity to Recycle includes a public education and promotion program that a. Gives notice to each person of the opportunity to recycle and: b. Encourages source separation of recyclable material. 459A.010 Program Elements and Recovery Rates 1. Statewide goals 2. Opportunity to Recycle includes the following program elements: a. Durable container for each residential service customer b. On-route collection at least once each week of source separated recyclables to residential customers on same day that solid waste is collected c. An expanded education and promotion program. Cities/counties responsible for providing an opportunity to recycle shall provide the education and promotion program in either of two ways: A. Prepare and implement a plan approved by DEQ B. Implement all of the following i. Provide recycling notification and education packets to all new residential, commercial and institutional collection service customers (detail) ii. Provision of quarterly information to collection service customers iii. Provision annually to customers information under i iv. Targeting of community and media events to promote recycling. d. Collection of 4 principal recyclable materials from multifamily complexes with 5 or more units. e. Residential yard debris collection and composting program that includes either: A. Monthly or more frequent on-route collection of yard debris from residences or: B. A system of yard debris collection depots conveniently located and open to the public at least once a week. f. A commercial recycling program that includes: A. Weekly onsite collection B. An education and promotion program C. Other elements including but not limited to waste assessments and recycling recognition programs. D. Each commercial generator of solid waste shall strive to achieve 50% recovery by 2009. g. Expanded depots for recycling h. Solid waste residential collection rates that encourage waste reduction (no decrease in per unit costs for larger containers) i. A collection and composting system for food from commercial and institutional entities 3. Cities and their UGB a. Cities over 4,000 population but not more than 10,000 and counties responsible for the area between the city limits and the UGB shall implement one of the following: A. Program elements set forth in 2 a. b. and c. above: B. A program that includes at least three elements in 2 above C. An alternative method that meets DEQ approval. b. Cities over 10,000 population and counties responsible for the area between the city limits and the UGB shall implement one of the following: A. Program elements set forth in 2 a. b. and c. above and one additional element set forth in 2 above B. A program that includes at least 5 elements in 2 above C. An alternative method that meets DEQ approval 4. Recovery rates and 2% programs