2017-115-Minutes for Meeting November 26,1984 Recorded 3/23/2017Recorded in Deschutes County CJ2017-115
Nancy Blankenship, County Clerk
Comm issioners'Journal 03/23/2017 11:53:29 AM
For Recording Stamp Only
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
Bend, Oregon
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Audio Cassette Recording Titled: Regular Meeting and a Discussion of Solid
Waste Franchises and Ordinance.
November 26, 1984, 10:00-11:30 AM.
A meeting of the Board of County Commissioners was held on
Commissioners present were Albert Young, Lois Prante and Larry Tuttle. Also
present was County Counsel Rick Isham, the Public Works Director and the
Director of the Solid Waste Department.
Mr. Tuttle suggested that they meet to discuss how to proceed, after developing a
draft Ordinance. He said that after reading it, he does not know that much more
than he did before regarding the problems.
Staff explained that the proposed Ordinance is basically a rehash of the old
Ordinance. There were a lot of assumptions that help the franchise garbage
haulers and do nothing for the County. He would like to see the document down
to three or four pages so it is understandable and eliminates the mumbo -jumbo.
There are references to the DEQ and management plan that he can't find. It
appears to be a document that is meant to be something to litigate later on.
Transcription of Audio Recording of Special Meeting regarding Solid Waste Franchising Page 1 of 6
He does not think this resolves the Inn of the 7t" Mountain's garbage hauling, or
Romaine Village where they use a permit in the exemption process. These
questions have not been addressed. These came up about three years ago. They
wanted to haul their own garbage from the rental area. It is still in litigation
although the County is no longer involved.
Rick Isham said that instead of having language to regulate certain collection
activity, a public Ordinance regulates all hauling but can exempt certain activities
for specific situations. The difference is that with one, you define what is
regulated. The question is, what is outside of the regulations. Now they are
saying that everything is regulated and you have to find your niche to get out of
the regulations. It is easier for the franchisees if they know if they are in or out.
Mr. Tuttle asked why they franchise garbage haulers. Mr. Isham gave the history
for the County. In the 1950's and 1960's, there were no franchise haulers except
in Portland. The more powerful franchisees got together and formed a lobbyist
group. They got legislation passed and went to cities and counties with the
Ordinance that they basically have now. It is supposed to create orderliness in
the industry, is more efficient and provides services for less money. A lot of
governmental agencies, including Deschutes County, signed up for the standard
form of the franchise ordinance.
Theirs is a very strong lobby and have been able to push through a lot of
legislation.
Mr. Young pointed out that they decided not to compete against each other. Mr.
Isham said that some of this occurred. They decided on areas, although there are
places where there are multiple collectors working in the same neighborhoods.
There are 116 independent refuse haulers in Portland. It appears not to make a
big difference to the customers.
The theory is under a franchise system that they will provide better service
overall. They are charged the same at the landfills.
Transcription of Audio Recording of Special Meeting regarding Solid Waste Franchising Page 2 of 6
It was pointed out that the minimum number of customers in rural areas is an
issue. You have to take the service if you live in Redmond, and it is the highest
rate in the area at $8.50 per month. It is tacked onto the water bill.
There are different rates inside and outside of the UGB. Mr. Tuttle said this is
more efficient in the cities. He would like to see the County get out of the
franchise business and let the cities set the tone for areas outside the cities, by
demand. It was pointed out that the areas south of Lava Butte could be a real
problem. There are thousands of people but they are spread out. Sunriver is
logical but not the areas outside of that in the rural areas.
People can be charged a surcharge is they are outside of the established routes.
It is up to the individual but some would prefer to have their garbage hauled and
not have to self -haul. The County does not get into regulating this.
The fiscal impact of the County not franchising is 3% or about $20,000. They
make some of this up at the landfill when people self -haul.
Mr. Isham is concerned regarding the language of the Ordinance. It was written
in such a way to make it appear that the franchise system would be continued
into perpetuity. There would be an automatic renewal. He is not sure how they
might terminate a franchise.
Mr. Tuttle asked if they could franchise recycling areas and not garbage hauling.
He was told this could be done but the franchises that they have today need a
termination date. Mr. Isham said there could be legal ramifications.
The theory was when the Ordinance was adopted, that franchisees would agree
to some things but give up some other rights. All but one are supposed to
terminate at the end of this fiscal year.
They could franchise just for single family residences, and let all other business be
open competition. The landfill usually charges a flat rate but some has a
surcharge based on whether a yard of trash is compacted.
Transcription of Audio Recording of Special Meeting regarding Solid Waste Franchising Page 3 of 6
There was a lengthy discussion about letting fees seek their own level and not
interfering with pricing. Mr. Isham said this happens already with commercial
accounts. Mr. Young is concerned that if the prices were forced to be too low,
service would begin to suffer. Other haulers might want to come in and compete.
They need to be licensed so that service can be controlled. The number of
haulers would go down based on how much profit they want to make and
whether they provide the expected service.
Mr. Isham said they might want to limit the number of licenses. Mr. Young feels
this would adjust by itself. Mr. Isham said that setting what they can charge the
customer is not open market. It has to be a reasonable amount. A franchise
system can be done properly. There is no accurate accounting required without a
franchise system. At this time, the County can't get the information it needs.
They all do their paperwork differently and don't share it easily. It is unknown if
the public is being adequately protected from overpricing of services. Many
people won't bother shopping around.
Mr. Young feels that open competition will take care of itself. He wants to see the
County get out of this business altogether and just handle the landfill, and charge
the same to everyone. People can self -haul if they want.
Mr. Tuttle stated that he doesn't see why the County should be in the franchise
business, either, except for recycling, which is required. They can draw some lines
there to encourage recycling. However, the recycling industry is volatile and
sometimes certain items have no value. The State DEQ decides what has to be
picked up and what is marketable.
Mr. Isham said the cities franchise to a great extent. They do have service
requirements. Mr. Young said that there are yards in and outside of the cities
where people are not having trash picked up, and are not hauling it themselves.
Some have huge amounts of garbage. He asked if anyone knows the percentage
of people who self -haul or don't subscribe to a service. He was advised that 46%
haul their own but this might be mostly outside the cities.
Transcription of Audio Recording of Special Meeting regarding Solid Waste Franchising Page 4 of 6
Ms. Prante asked if they divided things up for franchising purposes, people should
be able to opt for it or not. Mr. Young said that the recycling haulers have
different trucks. Ms. Prante asked if the haulers could overlap areas or get
together and decide what areas they will cover. Mr. Isham said the new
Ordinance does allow for subcontracting agreements, so this could be done.
Mr. Isham said that the Ordinance could not be approved before the end of the
calendar year at this point. They have too much to work out. He would like to
see the franchises have an end date, but be renewable, perhaps in ten years.
If the old Ordinance continues, there is no end date. There is a timing question at
this point. He does not know how this might go legally.
Ms. Prante does not want to make such a drastic decision so late in the year,
without working through it, considering the impacts on the public and the
industry. She is uncomfortable with potential fall -out.
Mr. (sham said that the industry is aware of this because they were given a crack
at developing the language. They started in August and it took some time to get
their input. They kept coming up with issues regarding the language. Redrafting
the franchise language has been considered for some time.
Mr. Tuttle said there is some state law being considered that might affect it. It
might take several months to do a good job. He won't consider all of this on a
wholesale basis just yet.
Ms. Prante said it is not their job to protect the franchise haulers, but the public.
The franchises terminate at the end of the year, but they had this draft in August.
She would like to know options to buy some time, perhaps extending the current
agreements for a year, so they can develop a long-term plan.
Mr. Isham said it was apparent even in August that something had to be done.
There needs to be clear direction from the Board with a schedule as to when this
has to be finalized, so no one drops the ball. They could extend for six months
and see what they can get done during that time. Mr. Young doesn't want
anyone just putting it on the back burner and forgetting about it for six months.
Transcription of Audio Recording of Special Meeting regarding Solid Waste Franchising Page 5 of 6
It is unknown if an extension would go over well with the franchisees, but they
have to protect the public because they eventually pay the bill.
There was a long discussion regarding how long to extend the existing contracts,
and what happens if they don't renew them at all. Ms. Prante feels they should
know what makes sense within a couple of months. That will allow time to make
adjustments. It would be in the public interest to extend for a year.
Mr. Young feels there should be a separate agreement for recycling since that is
controlled by the State. He doesn't like the haulers making things murky by
combining these.
It was decided that the Board would be prepared to make a primary policy
decision on continuing franchising by March 1, 1985. They will then deliver
information to the Solid Waste Advisory Committee before March 15.
1 certify that the above is a true and accurate record of a meeting, as reproduced from a
cassette tape identified as Minutes of a Special Meeting of the Deschutes County Board of
Commissioners, held on November 26, 1984. This record was completed subsequent to the
presiding Deschutes County Board of Commissioners' tenure.
" f I 1 1111? ` J�
>', ,
/, zqll-wc�
Bonnie Baker
For the Board of County Commissioners
Transcription of Audio Recording of Special Meeting regarding Solid Waste Franchising Page 6 of 6