The URL can be used to link to this page

2019-397-Minutes for Meeting August 19,2019 Recorded 9/18/2019c-0 n 2�BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon (541) 388-6570 10:00 AM Recorded in Deschutes County CJ2019-397 Nancy Blankenship, County Clerk Commissioners' Journal 09/18/2019 9:01:56 AM pyG�v"TESICp�2< II�II�II��'�II'II��II�II'�I I �II 2019-397 C4:A_ Z � ' ♦�T Present were Commissioners Phil Henderson, Patti Adair, and Anthony DeBone, Also present were Tom Anderson, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; David Doyle, County Counsel; and Sharon Keith, Board Executive Assistant. Several citizens and identified representatives of the media were in attendance. This meeting was audio and video recorded and can be accessed at the Deschutes County Meeting Portal website http://deschutescountyor.iqm2.com/Citizens/Default.aspx CALL TO ORDER: Chair Henderson called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: CITIZEN INPUT: None offered. CONSENT AGENDA: Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of the Consent Agenda. Consent Agenda Items: DEBONE: Move to pull the Items in the Consent Agenda for discussion. ADAIR: Second BOCC MEETING AUGUST 19, 2019 PAGE 1 OF 9 VOTE: DEBONE: Yes ADAI R: Yes HENDERSON: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 1. Snow Blower Procurement 2. Consideration of Order No. 2019-038, an Order to Reopen the Record Related to the LUBA Remand for the Thornburg Destination Resort Tentative Plan and Site Plan Review ACTION ITEMS: Consent Agenda Item 1 as pulled for discussion: Snow Blower Procurement Road Department Director Chris Doty noted the purchase of the new snow blower was budgeted for this fiscal year. A cooperative procurement process was utilized for this selection. DEBONE: Move approval of the purchase of an RPM 220 Snow Blower in the amount of $152,181 from Northern Truck Equipment ADAIR: Second VOTE: DEBONE: Yes ADAI R: Yes HENDERSON: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried Consent Agenda Item 2 as pulled for discussion: Consideration of Order No. 2019- 038, an Order to Reopen the Record Related to the LUBA Remand for the Thornburg Destination Resort Tentative Plan and Site Plan Review Jacob Ripper, Community Development Department reported on the history of this item. ADAI R: Move approval of Order No. 2019-038 DEBONE: Second BOCC MEETING AUGUST 19, 2019 PAGE 2 OF 9 VOTE: ADAI R: Yes DEBONE: Yes HENDERSON: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 3. ODOT IGA - US 20/Ward Hamby, Consideration of Document No. 2019- 649 Chris Doty, Road Department Director and Bob Townsend, ODOT Area Manager presented the details of the intersection improvement project as a high priority for safety. DEBONE: Move approval of Document No. 2019-649 ADAIR: Second VOTE: DEBONE: Yes ADAI R: Yes HENDERSON: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 4. Consideration of Grant Application for the 2019 Illegal Marijuana Market Enforcement Captain Deron McMaster, District Attorney John Hummel, and Chief Deputy District Attorney Mary Anderson explained the opportunity to apply for the continuation of the Criminal Justice Commission grant for marijuana enforcement. The grant award provides two years of funding. Staffing for marijuana enforcement and community education was reviewed. Commissioner Henderson asked whether any marijuana cases had been charged and/or prosecuted due to ongoing enforcement efforts and the District Attorney could not confirm that they had or had not. DEBONE: Move approval of the grant application ADAI R: Second BOCC MEETING AUGUST 19, 2019 PAGE 3OF9 VOTE: DEBONE: Yes ADAI R: Yes HENDERSON: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 5. Consideration of Ordinances No. 2019-014, Marijuana Opt -Out and Ordinance No. 2019-012, Repeal of Ordinance No. 2018-012, Marijuana Text Amendments Tanya Saltzman, Community Development Department presented the two ordinances for consideration. Commissioner Henderson commented that he was originally in support of continuing with the original amendments specific to reasonable time, place, and manner regulations. He recognizes that an Opt -Out will allow the voters to determine whether to maintain the specific prohibitions. Commissioner Henderson feels that the County should proceed with the marijuana text amendments (especially if the voters do not support the Opt -Out). Commissioner Henderson commented on the revised text amendments and doesn't want to disregard the work done. Commissioner DeBone supports the Opt -Out and providing the voters with the opportunity to determine if the prohibitions continue longterm. Commissioner Adair supports moving forward and if the legislature makes a decision on time place and manner we could take measures at that time. She is also supportive of not going forward with the marijuana text amendments. Commissioner DeBone supports adoption by emergency in order to provide clarity and Commissioner Adair supports that decision. Commissioner Henderson is in favor of the Opt -Out but is not pleased with possible lost marijuana tax revenues. Adoption by emergency would be effective immediately. DEBONE: ADAI R: Moves approval of first and second reading of Ordinance No. 2019-014 Second BOCC MEETING AUGUST 19, 2019 PAGE 4 OF 9 Commissioner Adair inquired on the possible loss of marijuana tax revenue. County Counsel Doyle explained that a quarterly reporting form will be received by the County and upon disclosing the Opt -Out the County will learn soon thereafter whether the State will attempt to withhold marijuana tax revenue. Appropriate legal options can then be instituted. VOTE: DEBONE: Yes ADAIR: Yes HENDERSON: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried Commissioner Henderson read the Ordinance into the record. ADAIR: Move adoption of Ordinance No. 2019-014 DEBONE: Second VOTE: ADAIR: Yes DEBONE: Yes HENDERSON: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried Ms. Saltzman presented the Ordinance No. 2019-012 ADAIR: Move approval of first reading by title only of Ordinance No. 2019-012 Repeal of Ordinance No. 2018-012, Marijuana Text Amendments DEBONE: Second VOTE: ADAI R: DEBONE: HENDERSON: Yes Yes Chair votes no. Motion Carried The second reading will occur on Tuesday, September 3, 2019. BOCC MEETING AUGUST 19, 2019 PAGE 5 OF 9 6. 1999 Terrebonne Sewer Feasibility Study Road Department Director Chris Doty and Community Development Department staff Nick Lelack and Environmental Health Supervisor Todd Cleveland provided a summary and history of the 1999 Terrebonne Sewer Feasibility Study. Discussion held on the costs of a possible new study. Resident and business owner in Terrebonne, Parker Vernon went door to door for community input and signatures of support for a new system. Commissioner Henderson requested further time for review. Commissioner DeBone acknowledged the permit would be held by the governance that would define the system. RECESS: The Board took a short recess at 11:53 a.m. and reconvened the meeting at 12:02 p.m. 7. PRESENTATION: Solid Waste Management Plan Solid Waste Director Timm Schmike and Doug Drennen, Environmental Engineer presented the results and recommendations of the Solid Waste Advisory Committee relative to the future of the Knott Landfill and the proposed Solid Waste Management Plan. Jared Black member of the Solid Waste Advisory Committee commented on the work done and comparisons of different communities. Mike Riley member of the Solid Waste Advisory Committee commented on disposal rates and felt the input of the committee showed broad community support. The Solid Waste Management Plan will be included on the agenda of the Monday, August 26, 2019 BOCC meeting agenda. BOCC MEETING AUGUST 19, 2019 PAGE 6 OF 9 8. Deschutes County Justice Reinvestment Grant Application 19-21 Biennium Community Justice Director Ken Hales presented the item for consideration of a grant application to provide funding for crime victim services and staff for supporting those services. The grant will provide funding for two years. Trevor Stephens Management Analyst reported on work done with the various providers. County Administrator Anderson explained any additional staff for services would require a budget adjustment. ADAIR: Move approval of the grant application DEBONE: Second VOTE: ADAIR: Yes DEBONE: Yes HENDERSON: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried DEBONE: Move approval of Chair signature on letter of support for the Deschutes County Justice Reinvestment Program ADAIR: Second VOTE: DEBONE: Yes ADAIR: Yes HENDERSON: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried RECESS: At the time of 1:01 p.m. the Board took a recess and will reconvene in the Allen Conference Room at 2:02 p.m. COMMISSIONER UPDATE: • Commissioner DeBone reported the AOC District 2 Meeting will be hosted by Deschutes County on Monday September 16 and presented options for the BOCC MEETING AUGUST 19, 2019 PAGE 7 OF 9 meeting location and whether to provide lunches. • Commissioner DeBone also attended the recent AOC Board meeting. • Commissioner Adair went to Salem to speak with Patrick Allen of OHA and she will be traveling to Washington DC in September. • Commissioner Henderson met with CDD, Property Management, and American Hero's Foundation about the Veterans Housing Project. Commissioner Henderson attended last week's Sunriver La Pine Economic Development Retreat and also met with a Commissioner of Arapahoe County in Colorado regarding their experience with the marijuana industry and researched land trust options for affordable housing • Commissioner Adair commented on her work for a positive outreach for the memory of Kaylee Sawyer • Commissioner DeBone attended the Heart of Oregon achievement celebration last week. An incident regarding a dog verses dog occurred recently and pending investigation by the Sheriff's Office the case may either come to the Dog Board for a hearing or to the District Attorney's Office. OTHER ITEMS: County Administrator Anderson announced the Redmond State of the County Address that is scheduled Thursday, August 29 County Administrator Anderson reported on the numbers received from attendance of this year's Deschutes County Fair. Commissioner Henderson noted the importance of improving the routes for traffic. EXECUTIVE SESSION: At the time of 2:32 p.m., the Board went into Executive Session under ORS 192.660 (2) (e) Real Property Negotiations. The Board came out of Executive Session at 3:13 p.m. At the time of 3:14 p.m., the Board went into Executive Session under 192.660 (2) BOCC MEETING AUGUST 19, 2019 PAGE 8 OF 9 (d) Labor Negotiations. The Board came out of Executive Session at 3:34 p.m. Being no further items to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 3:35 p.m. DATED this �_ Day of _4; 2019 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. RECORDING SECRETARY Aw; ANTHONY DEBONE, COMMISSIONER BOCC MEETING AUGUST 19, 2019 PAGE 9 OF 9 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 - www.deschutes.org BOCC MEETING AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 10:00 AM, MONDAY, AUGUST 19, 2019 Barnes Sawyer Rooms - Deschutes Services Center - 1300 NW Wall Street - Bend This meeting is open to the public, usually streamed live online and video recorded. To watch it online, visit www.deschutes.org/meeNnZs. Pursuant to ORS 192.640, this agenda includes a list of the main topics that are anticipated to be considered or discussed. This notice does not limit the Board's ability to address other topics. Meetings are subject to cancellation without notice. Item start times are estimated and subject to change without notice. CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CITIZEN INPUT CONSENT AGENDA 1. Snow Blower Procurement - Chris Doty, Road Department Director 2. Consideration of Order 2019-038: an Order to Reopen the Record Related to the LUBA Remand for the Thornburgh Destination Resort Tentative Plan and Site Plan Review -Jacob Ripper, Senior Planner ACTION ITEMS 3. 10:10 AM ODOT IGA - US 20/Ward-Hamby (DC #2019-649) -Chris Doty, Road Department Director Board of Commissioners BOCC Meeting Agenda Monday, August 19, 2019 Page 1 of 3 4. 10:20 AM Consideration of Grant Application for the 2019 Illegal Marijuana Market Enforcement - Kathleen Meehan Coop, District Attorney's Office 5. 10:30 AM Consideration of Ordinances No. 2019-014 (Marijuana Opt Out) and 2019-012 (Repeal of Ordinance No. 2018-012, Marijuana Text Amendments) - Tanya Saltzman, Associate Planner 6. 11:00 AM 1999 Terrebonne Sewer Feasibility Study - Nick Lelack, Community Development Director 7. 11:30 AM PRESENTATION: Solid Waste Management Plan - Timm Schimke, Director of Solid Waste 8. 12:15 PM Deschutes County Justice Reinvestment Grant Application 19-21 Biennium - Ken Hales, Comm unityjustice Director RECESS COMMISSIONER'S UPDATES OTHER ITEMS These can be any items not included on the agenda that the Commissioners wish to discuss as part of the meeting, pursuant to ORS 192.640. EXECUTIVE SESSION At any time during the 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; ORS 192.660(2)(b), personnel issues, or other executive session categories. Executive sessions are closed to the public, however, with few exceptions and under specific guidelines, are open to the media. Executive Session under ORS 192.660 (2) (e) Real Property Negotiations ADJOURN Board of Commissioners BOCC Meeting Agenda Monday, August 19, 2019 Page 2 of 3 To watch this meeting on line, go to: www.deschutes.org/meetings Please note that the video will not show up until recording begins. You can also view past meetings on video by selecting the date shown on the website calendar. Deschutes County encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all programs and activities. This event/location is accessible to people with disabilities. If you need accommodations to make participation possible, please call (541) 617-4747. FUTURE MEETINGS: Additional meeting dates available at www.deschutes.org/meetingcalendar (Please note: Meeting dates and times are subject to change. All meetings take place 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.) Board of Commissioners BOCC Meeting Agenda Monday, August 19, 2019 Page 3 of 3 ES co o Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - https://www.deschutes.org/ AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board of Commissioners BOCC Meeting of August 19, 2019 DATE: August 8, 2019 FROM: Chris Doty, Road Department, 541-322-7105 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Snow Blower Procurement RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: Approval with suggested motion: I move to approve purchase of an RPM 220 Snow Blower in the amount of $152,181 from Northern Truck Equipment. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: In the FY20 Budget, the BOCC approved the purchase of a mid-sized snow blower to allow for snow removal within space constrained areas. Several large scale snow events in 2017 and 2019 created safety issues (road narrowing to single lane) due to significant snow accumulation and lack of space to place snow within several neighborhoods as well as River Summit Drive. The proposed snow blower will be a valuable tool to maintain safety and mobility during heavy snow events and will be available for equipment sharing with other agencies via the Central Oregon Public Works Partnership.. Staff inspected several pieces of equipment at the APWA North American Snow Conference in April of this year and determined RPM.220 Snow Blower to be the preferred piece of equipment based on functionality, quality and price. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: Funds have been budgeted and approved in the FY 20 budget document for this purchase via the Sourcewell joint cooperative procurement agreement. ATTENDANCE: Chris Doty and Randy McCulley, Road Department Two Stage Loader -Mounted Snow Blower Uncompromising Performance and Reliability The RPM220 is a two phase loader -mounted snow blower for m to large size wheel loaders. This self-contained model provides performance and reliability than other available blowers of similar The RPM220 is equipped with an efficient power train provid outstanding snow -clearing rate of 3,000 tons/hour. The performance transmission system is designed to use the Tier engine's full power while minimizing energy losses and maintenan A Vigorous Engine The RPM220 is powered by a 225 kW (300 hp) Tier 4 Final Diesel engine equipped with particle post-treatment technology allowing fast engine recovery. ■ Uncompromising performance ■ Fuel efficient ■ Quiet RPM220 A High -Performance Transmission Designed with as few components as possible, the RPM220 transmission is very reliable and transfers maximum power from the engine. The transmission includes a single gearbox, which minimizes energy loss. Most blowers on the market have as many as three gearboxes and thus require a more powerful engine to compensate for performance. ■ Highly reliable ■ Optimal power transfer ■ Fewer critical parts ■ Low maintenance costs Belt Drive System The RPM220 belt drive system provides many advantages over a chain drive as well as greater shock resistance. ® Transfers up to 98% of engine power ■ Longer service life ■ No oil bath ■ No risk of leaks ■ Reduces replacement of shear bolts ■ Minimizes interruptions and down time An Effective Impeller With its large impeller casing featuring an unrestricted intake, more snow is fed to the impeller blades thus better productivity. ■ Blows a higher volume of snow ■ Makes full use of engine power Optional color screen Intuitive Operation The large display screen gives the operator a fast read of the blower's operating parameters. An easy-to-use joystick controls all functions. Easy Maintenance The tilt -up engine cowling, swing doors and well -thought-out mechanical design provide easy access to main components or parts requiring regular maintenance, such as: ■ Oil and fuel filters ■ Hydraulic oil tank ® Radiator ■ Shear bolts ® Gear box Emergency Clutch Engagement In the event of a clutch failure, a lever allows for its manual activation to let you finish the job. The Most Rugged Frame The triangular frame design composed of two (2) oversize beams on each side, maintains the structure integrity during hard work and makes it more resistant to impacts. RPM Tech's snow blowers are built to last! Up to 3,000 tons/hour capacity' Casting': Up to 46 m (150 ft) Clears fresh, heavy, and hard -packed snow DIMENSIONS ■ Cutting width: 2795 mm (110 in.) ■ Overall height: 3442 mm (135'V2 in.) with standard telescopic chute retracted ■ Overall length: 2279 mm (89% in.) with steering vanes and without female coupler • Working height: 1321 mm (52 in.) ■ Weight: 4500 kg (9920 Ib) approx. with full fuel tank. Complies with SAAQ classes 1 and 6 AUGERS ■ Two (2) interchangeable 510 mm (20 in.) diameter full flight augers welded in one piece IMPELLER AND IMPELLER CASING ■ 990 mm (39 in.) diameter impeller ■ Five (5) bolted concave blades ■ Impeller casing: ■ Inside diameter: 990 mm (39 in.) ■ Intake diameter: 972 mm (38'/4 in.) ■ Depth: 349 mm (13% in.) ■ Hydraulically activated with a worm gear 145° rotation ■ Casting': Up to 46 m (150 ft) STANDARD TELESCOPIC CHUTE ■ Adjustable height from 3442 to 3899 mm (135'/2 to 153'Y2 in.) ■ Extension: 457 mm (18 in.) hydraulically activated ■ Rotation: 300" minimum ■ Casting': 1 to 16 m (3 to 50 ft) ENGINE ■ Certified 225 kW (300 hp) C7 CaterpillarR Tier 4 Final, turbocharged Diesel engine ■ 1000 W block heater FUEL TANK ■ 300 L (79 gal) steel tank TRANSMISSION ■ Belt transmission system with no oil bath ■ Twin Disc clutch ■ One (1) gear box ■ Two (2) shear bolt assemblies protect the gear box and transmission shaft. Depending on snow conditions Contact your representative for full details "EC ISO 9001:2015 2220 Michelin Street Laval QC H7L 50 Canada RPM220 brochure 2018-05-28EN Tel 1.450.687.3280 1.800.631.9297 (North America) info@rpmtechgroup.com CHASSIS ■ Fully welded sturdy steel construction FIXED STEERING VANES ■ Height: 2,438 mm (96 in.) ELECTRICAL SYSTEM ■ Sealed 12 V, 100 A alternator ■ Two (2) maintenance -free 2250 CCA batteries CONTROLS AND INSTRUMENTATION • Heavy-duty Sauer Danfoss PLUS+1 control system ■ High resolution LCD grayscale display screen ■ Joystick with integrated functions SKATES AND SCRAPER BLADES ■ Eight (8) abrasion resistant Trimay skates ■ Two (2) 44W steel reversible scraper blades OPTIONAL EOUIPMENT • 2946 mm (116 in.) cutting width steering vanes ■ LCD color display screen • Arctic lubrication kit for constant temp. below -25'C (-137) • Battery and/or hydraulic oil heater ■ Bolted -on ice breakers • Non-reversible carbide scraper blade ■ Variable air flow fan ■ Complete female quick coupler system ■ Bolted Racor filter with heating water separator ■ Wireless remote control system ■ Wireless remote engine emergency stop system ■ Working floodlights on chute and/or body ■ Inclinable hydraulic tilt chute for easy unclogging RPM Tech Inc. reserves the right to modify or discontinue any design, specificatior` 1 ^"^ +orlc+irc .,,WADI nr nrroccnry—ifhnuf n fire Randy McCulley review notes to file: While attending the 2019 APWA North American Snow Conference, I was able to see the Larue D50 and the RPM220 snow blowers. Both blowers fit our application. There are some notable design differences that in my opinion make the RPM2.20 a greater value for the cost. $157,235 Without wireless controls $152,181 With wired and wireless controls The exhaust after treatment system is located near the ground exposed to outside impact on the D50. The RPM220 has the exhaust contained internally at the top of the engine protected under the hood. We have experienced equipment damage due to large chunks of ice from previously plowed snow along the roadway. D50 RPM220 The outside supports of the D50 are made from small square tubing. The RPM220 has large I-beam construction providing a straight line of support to the outside edges of the blower. D50 RPM220 The D50 has a chain drive. The RPM220 has a belt drive. The belt drive is a more modern system and has been very successful for us on our Kodiak LMSC4444 snow blower. D50 RPM220 • The fan housing on the D50 is considerably smaller than the RPM220. ME RPM220 \)I ES CO c) Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - https://www.deschutes.org/ AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board of Commissioners BOCC Meeting of August 19, 2019 DATE: August 15, 2019 FROM: Kathleen Meehan Coop, District Attorney's Office, TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of Grant Application for the 2019 Illegal Marijuana Market Enforcement Attendance: Chief Deputy District Attorney Mary Anderson and Captain Deron McMaster 17MM Date: 8/14/2019 To: Board of County Commissioners From: Kathleen Meehan Coop, Management Analyst District Attorney's Office CC: Danielle Martell, Management Analyst, Sheriff's Office Mary Anderson, Chief Deputy District Attorney, DA's Office Deron McMaster, Captain, Sheriff's Office Jason Maniscalco, Lieutenant, Bend PD Re: Agenda Request — Monday, August 19 2019 Illegal Marijuana Market Enforcement Grant application Action Consideration of Board Signature for a grant application to the Criminal Justice Commission (CJC) to fund the activities associated with addressing the illegal marijuana market within Deschutes County. We are requesting an opportunity to present our collaborative illegal marijuana market enforcement grant program to the Commissioners on Monday, August 19. Mary Anderson and Deron McMaster will be presenting. Background The Sheriff's Office in collaboration with CODE, the DA's Office, and Bend Police Department received a 2018 Criminal Justice Commission (CJC) Illegal Marijuana Market Enforcement grant. Throughout FY19, the Illegal Marijuana team made significant progress in understanding the illegal marijuana market within Deschutes County through improved data collection and analysis, and in implementing enhanced investigation efforts. These improved techniques led to 10 successful investigations. Plan Our goal with this new proposal is to continue the enforcement activities and investigations that had the greatest impact last year and to add in a new efforts and resources that will help us increase the number of illegal marijuana leads that will ultimately result in even more successful investigations. The new grant will continue to cover the overtime and staffing provided last year, but will also include several enhancements such as the hiring of a contractor to assist with financial analysis; additional funding for a third investigator's overtime; a web portal for submitting illegal marijuana complaints; a community education and local business stakeholder engagement/outreach piece; and continued program evaluation. With the grant funding the team will also continue to track and analyze specific data points that will provide our community and the State with an even stronger understanding of the illegal market, and how best to address the issue. The proposal application is officially due August 28, 2019. Due to other applications due the same day, we will be submitting this proposal on August 27tH For additional information about the please see the attached program summary. Staffing We will be requesting grant funds to cover overtime for Detectives Kloss and a to be determined detective from the Sheriff's Department and the Detective Davis from Bend PD. Funds will be requested to increase Kathleen Meehan Coop's hours, moving her from a 0.25 FTE to 0.35 FTE with the additional hours being used to implement the outreach/education component of the program. In addition, funds will be requested to keep Danielle Martell on as a 0.75 FTE through the duration of the grant. Budget We are still working on the two year budget, but we anticipate that it will be around $350,000 per year or $700,000 for two years. Our primary cost centers will be staffing, evaluation, staff training & travel, the website/submission portal, development and printing of education materials. Illegal Marijuana Market Enforcement Project Summary July 1, 2019 to June 30, 2021 The Deschutes County's 2019-2021 Illegal Marijuana Market Enforcement Grant Project focuses on the investigation and enforcement of activities related to illegal marijuana. Over the course of the next two years (July 1, 2019 to June 30, 2018) the illegal marijuana team in Deschutes County will use a combination of enforcement, prosecution, interdictions, and community outreach to actively identify, develop, and investigate leads of illegal marijuana activity. We will continue to track our progress and the program's impact toward reaching the four priority areas (rural, large scale, organized crime and diversion out of state) through careful data collection and analysis. Enforcement and Interdiction The Deschutes County illegal marijuana team grant project will improve our ability to identify, investigate and interdict illegal marijuana activity through additional staffing, streamlined investigation processes, new partnerships, trainings, enhanced enforcement efforts, and the integration of comprehensive financial analysis. Enforcement Objective: Increase the number of tips that lead to investigations and arrests related to the illegal marijuana market in our rural community, including large scale illegal grow operations, organized crime activity, and the diversion of illegal marijuana out of state. Enforcement Goals: • Improve the investigation of our money laundering and the diversion of marijuana out of state, by incorporate the use of financial banking software and contracting with a financial analyst. • Educate and create an active network of business stakeholders in the areas of transportation, shipping and legal marijuana businesses to report illegal marijuana activity (e.g. shipping marijuana out of state). • Increase parcel -shipping interdictions by 20%. • Receive at least 30 new leads related to illegal marijuana from business stakeholders. • Identify illegal grows in Deschutes County • Establish a baseline of data to track the changing landscape of legal marijuana, hemp and illegal marijuana grows within the county. Working with the analyst, the three illegal marijuana investigators will continue to follow-up on calls for service, complaints and tips of illegal marijuana activity. They will work with the governing agencies such as OLCC, OMMP, ODA, local code enforcement and local law enforcement to determine legal verses illegal sites. Investigations into these locations and/or individuals is an involved process and can take anywhere from a few weeks to several months or years. The investigators will continue to partner with Updated 8/15/2019 7:57 AMBP4/"'"��,:, 9-4 4 other jurisdictions to coordinate efforts on dismantling and disrupting groups that are trafficking marijuana to other locations. The investigators will also assist the outreach manager in developing the outreach content for the education materials to ensure the information is accurate and that the business engagement pieces identify the most critical issues that will help the enforcement team to develop good leads. For example what should trucking and shipping companies look for in packages and share with law enforcement verses what behavior or items should tip off a TSA agent during a screening that might indicate the person is engaging in illegal activity. In addition, engaging legal marijuana growers to notify the illegal marijuana team when they see new grows sprouting -up off of rural dirt roads, where previously no crop had been grown. Prosecution The illegal marijuana team now has a dedicated deputy district attorney (DDA) assigned to assist the team, review cases, and prosecute marijuana cases. This DDA will work closely with the illegal marijuana investigators to participate in the investigations earlier than done before and will be able to provide guidance on the type of evidence needed to ensure the elements of each offense are met, while also providing guidance on the statues, rules and regulations that should be followed. This enhanced relationship will improve our ability to successfully prosecute more illegal marijuana crimes in the future. Prosecution Objective: Increase the number of illegal marijuana cases prosecuted in our rural community as related to large scale operations, organized crime activity, and the diversion of marijuana out of state. Prosecution Goals: • Provide guidance to the illegal marijuana investigators on how to conduct investigations to improve the immiscibility of evidence. • Collect and maintain additional marijuana tracking data on all marijuana cases to help potentially identify additional leads into illegal marijuana cases. • Decrease the amount of time from referral of cases to initiation of prosecution of cases by being engaged throughout the investigation. Working directly with the illegal marijuana team and participating in regular meetings with the team, the illegal marijuana DDA will gain greater insight into current cases, and will be able to provide guidance on what evidence is needs and how best to procure that evidence. For example, for large commercial grows, law enforcement can't store maintain all the plants seized, the DDA can work with and advise law enforcement on how to ensure that our randomized testing on the limited store of plants maintained will meet the standards for admissibility in court. By actively working with the investigators on cases at an early stage the DDA will have a fuller understanding of the investigation resulted in a DDA being more prepared to prosecute the case. In addition, the assigned illegal marijuana DDA will review all marijuana cases and will track information on these cases to help the investigators identify potential connections between legal and illegal Updated 8/15/2019 7:57 AM [2019 4:41 PLM marijuana cases. This data will also be a significant resource to our researcher in helping us better understanding the entire illegal marijuana market in Deschutes County, which we haven't had previously. Community Outreach To support the illegal marijuana team's enforcement and prosecution efforts, Deschutes County will be including a request in the grant funds to support an outreach component. The team believes this education and training piece is critical in helping our community combat the illegal marijuana market for multiple reasons: 1) currently the majority of calls for service are for activities that are either not illegal or are of very low priority from a law enforcement perspective, and 2) local businesses are encountering illegal activity, but don't have the knowledge or resources to know what to do with that information so critical leads into illegal activity are being missed. To address these issues our outreach efforts will take a multifaceted approach that will include a public education piece and a business stakeholder- training/engagement component. Outreach Objective 1. Increase the number of illegal marijuana tips that lead to arrests related to large scale operations, organized crime activity, and the diversion of marijuana out of state by 30%. Outreach Goal 2. Develop a website that provides a comprehensive understanding of the differences between legal and illegal marijuana activities. 3. Create a central online submission portal that will: a. Allow residents to easily submit a tip (not a complaint or concern) related to illegal marijuana activity to one central location b. Ensure higher priority leads are immediately in the hands of the illegal marijuana investigators. 4. Improve our community's residents understanding of the differences between legal and illegal marijuana activities. 5. Train local business stakeholders and partners (shipping, transportation, distribution, legal marijuana, governmental agencies) that may have interactions with illegal marijuana activity on: a. Why the illegal market is detrimental, b. What is illegal, c. When and how to assess the situation, Who to contact if the situation is deemed potentially illegal, and What policies, regulations and/or procedures can be put in place to reduce the likelihood that legal permits are handed out for illegal activity? General public education The geographic size and rural nature of Deschutes County makes sharing information and educating the population challenging. Many residents don't have easy access to community facilities where public events/meetings are held, and many do not receive a daily paper. Although the news media is a significant information channel, it does not provide the time needed to effectively cover the depth and Updated 8/15/2019 7:57 AIVI8,11-41'n�°M breadth this issue requires. However more than 80.8 percent 1 of the population even in rural areas of Oregon has access to the internet, and for many it is the first and often primary source to gather information on a new topic. Given that, and the knowledge gained by the team over the past year, it became increasingly apparent that a website would be the most efficient way to inform a dispersed public on illegal marijuana issues, as well the most efficient way to improve the public's understanding of illegal marijuana and legal marijuana being used illegally (i.e., DUII, underage use). We are aware that the OLLC has the website and Facebook page, called What's Legal Oregon (http://whatslegaloregon.com/#!), which are an effective tools for individuals that are interested in gaining a marijuana related license and providing very general information on legal activity. However that website doesn't answer many of the questions the public is curious about, which the Deschutes County website will. The Deschutes County website will address illegal marijuana and some information on the illegal use of legal marijuana, as it would be remise to ignore that element of the issue, particularly in this type of forum. Examples of information that would be provided on the website include: • What is legal vs. illegal • Medical interactions • DUlls • What are high priority issues for law enforcement to investigate and what are not and why. • Differences between edibles vs. smoking marijuana • Why is it important to address illegal marijuana operations (funding terrorism, human trafficking, drugs, cartels, money laundering, lost tax revenue, competing with legal businesses) • Hemp vs. Marijuana • Marijuana v. CBD • BHO labs • Authorizing agencies (ODA, OMMP, OLLC) and their roles In addition to specific information on marijuana, this site will also include a decision tree how to submit a credible tip about illegal marijuana activity. The website development will be managed by the DA's Office, who will work in partnership with a web and marketing developer to create the site. For the content, the DA's Office will work closely with the illegal marijuana team, dispatch, front desk staff and officers at other law enforcement agencies, and will hold public focus group meetings. This site will become a key tool in the community for not only informing residents of marijuana related topics and issues, but with this improved level of knowledge we will see a decrease in calls for services related to legal activity, and increase the number of potential leads related to illegal activity. After the website has been tested it could easily be used by other counties and communities across the state to educate their residents. 1 September 2017. Ryan, C & Lewis J. Computer Use in the United States 2015. United States Census Bureau. U.S. Department of Commerce. Economics and Statistics Administration. 4 Updated 115/2019 7:57 AM419� 4PQ °44 41-P Web Portal Currently, illegal marijuana tips are being offered to law enforcement through a variety of different channels, most are coming in through dispatch. Unfortunately that means by the time the tip is directed to the illegal marijuana team it is often too late. To help with this, we want to create a central location for all tips on illegal marijuana to be submitted. To do that we will include a submission portal in the website that will allow community members the ability to submit tips related to illegal marijuana activity. These messages will then be routed to the data analyst on the illegal marijuana team directly allowing for the investigators to be able to follow-up immediately. The information received through these tips will also become a key piece in our overall data analysis. The development of this submission site will involve public focus groups, and our researcher who will work with us in designing decision trees that will help community members understand what type of submission they are making, and how to submit a useful tip out an illegal activity. The submission site will allow residents to include their name or submit anonymously. They will be able to include pictures, as well as addresses and detailed information that will aid the illegal marijuana team in following up any potential leads or knowing when the information provided is more appropriate for other law enforcement team. We will carefully track these submissions to determine the impact of the decision trees on the number of complaints for legal activity verses the number of tips on illegal activity received. Law enforcement is currently working in a bubble; trying to identify all the illegal marijuana activity with little help from outside sources, and the illegal market is taking advantage of this situation and manipulating everyday operations and systems without getting caught. By encouraging local business to take action against the illegal marijuana market, law enforcement will have a network of stakeholders that understand why the illegal market is detrimental to their business and their community. This future network of business advocates will provide additional sets of eyes and ears that will help the illegal marijuana team to successfully identify more leads and help us to reduce this growing problem. To do this; however, we have to understand the business models of these companies from shipping agencies (UPS, USPS and FedEx), and truck/vehicle rental companies (Uhaul, Budget, Avis), to transportation agencies (airlines, TSA, Greyhound), and legal marijuana business (retailer, growers and distributers). The stakeholder group also includes local government agencies (Bend and Redmond city counselors, Deschutes County Board of Commissioners). Through a series of focus groups we will gain an understanding of the issues they face, so we are able to develop training materials and informational tools that will be directly relevant to their industry and the challenges they face, which may range from customer privacy concerns to high staff turn -over. We will then develop a series of informational pamphlets relevant to each business type and run training workshops with the illegal marijuana investigators to provide staff members within each of these stakeholder industries the opportunity to ask questions and hear from the experts. Their staff members will be advised on how to spot illegal marijuana activity; how to appropriately respond; and what agency to contact with tips. With regards to local government agencies, a key element will be educating the officials on how the illegal market is using the permitting process to create a business that appears legal, but is engaging in illegal activity. Discussions on what they can do to help stem the problem with minor adjustments to the 5 Updated 8/15/2019 7:57 AM8/14/2019 4:411 PIMI entry process; checking past history on who has been denied a permit to grow legal marijuana, but is now applying to grow hemp; to how many licenses are reasonable to provide in one community based on capacity issues for the regulatory and enforcement agencies. Evaluation The previous external evaluators will continue to work with the illegal marijuana team to provide continuity and to assist with the continued tracking of criminal activity and the data points that were identified during the first grant cycle as key research elements. Under this grant, the external evaluators will also assist the illegal marijuana team in assessing the impact of our community outreach activities. Did the public education piece reduce the number of non -relevant calls for service related to marijuana? Did the web portal result in community members providing critical leads to the marijuana team that resulted in investigations? Did the trainings and informational brochures provided to local business stakeholders result in additional calls for service related to illegal marijuana activity and leads that resulted in illegal marijuana investigations? The researchers will: • Provide technical assistance for the Deschutes County illegal marijuana project • Identify and gain access to retrospective and prospective data sources in Deschutes county for tracking criminal incident reports involving illegal marijuana operations and marijuana -related criminal activity • Conduct analyses of applicable retrospective law enforcement data to current data • Provide guidance to program analyst and monitor data collection done by person • Conduct analyses of the website analytics • Establish a baseline data on legal marijuana, hemp, and potential illegal marijuana grows. • Implement a survey to assess the impact of the business stakeholder education training piece • Complete end -of -program evaluation (i.e., pre -post or interrupted time series) focusing on impact of illegal marijuana project on criminal report and investigations involving illegal marijuana operations and marijuana -related criminal activity. Communication The entire Illegal Marijuana team will meet at least quarterly to discuss program updates and plans. The entire CODE team meets weekly to discuss cases, which the DDA assigned to the illegal marijuana team will participate in starting this summer. As needed the illegal marijuana investigators, the data analyst and the financial analyst will meet to discuss cases. Also the data analyst and outreach manager will maintain frequent communication via phone, email, and in-person meetings to discuss program activities and plans related to the development of the outreach efforts and the program evaluation. The outreach manger will also arrange periodic meetings (at least monthly) with the investigators to help with the development and refinement of the outreach material content, and to coordinate with them when they are needed at a public meetings or a business training to answer questions. In addition, the illegal marijuana team will meet periodically with other local law enforcement stakeholders to share information and to ensure that efforts aren't being duplicated from an enforcement and outreach prospective. The data analyst will take the lead in coordinating these meetings. Updated 8/15/2019 7:57 AM911-A Ilnl a 1:4i ons Personnel & Responsibilities Deron McMaster Captain, Sheriff's Office– McMaster is a DCSO Captain. He will oversee the administration of the grant and served in this role for the previous illegal marijuana market enforcement grant. Jason Man iscalco, Lieutenant Bend PD– Maniscalco is stationed at the CODE Office, and has been a Lieutenant for the CODE team for three months. He has 21 years of law enforcement experience and will oversee the management of the cases the illegal marijuana investigators will be working on. Danielle Martell Management Analyst, DCSO – Martell joined the illegal marijuana team as an analyst in late January 2019. She has 21 years of experience as a crime analyst from working in two law enforcement agencies in Orange County, CA. She will assist the investigators in conducting research, organizing evidence for trial and in collecting, processing, analyzing and reporting on relevant variable related to the teams work on illegal marijuana. In addition, Martell will continue to support individual case work by performing target profiles, cell phone analysis, link analysis and financial analysis where needed. Todd Kloss, Detective, DCSO - Kloss has been with DCSO for five years, and was selected to serve as an illegal marijuana investigator for CODE at the start of the illegal marijuana project. He has 15 total law enforcement experience. Andrew Davis, Detective, Bend PD - Davis has been with Bend PD for six years, and was selected to serve as an illegal marijuana investigator for CODE at the start of the illegal marijuana project. He has eleven year of law enforcement experience. 2"d DCSO Detective – TBD Mary Anderson, Chief Deputy DA – Anderson is a Chief District Attorney. She has extensive experience in managing teams and programs that involve multiple partners. She will oversight of the DA's Office's programmatic activities, and will provide the legal perspective on illegal matters related to program implementation. Kathleen Meehan Coop, Management Analyst – Meehan Coop has worked for the DA's office for four years on the DeschutesSafe initiative. She has a Master's in Education and a MBA and will manage the development and implementation of the outreach components. Meehan Coop will work with the web and graphic design team to create the website and portal along with the training materials, and will implement the workshops in partnership with the investigators. She will also work with Dr. Henning to develop the education evaluation plan and to collect and organize the program data. Marc Miller – A former Assistant United States Attorney and currently a deputy district attorney will be assigned to review all the illegal marijuana cases, and will meet with the illegal marijuana team during their case review meetings. Financial Analyst – TBD, consultant investigator that has extensive experience with financial fraud cases, forensic accounting and money laundering. The person selected for this position should have a degree in accounting and a background in law enforcement, ideally at the federal level. This person will have the expertise to direct the financial analysis of cases providing direction on which accounts and financial records should be requested to ensure the most cost effective request of files, what investigators and Updated 8/15/2019 7:57 AM8114k20°-.44-P"4 the data analyst can assist with looking for in the files, and to ensure the most efficient use of his or her time. Researchers — Contracted evaluators, Dr. Kris Henning and Greg Stewart, part-time faculty member in the Department of Criminology at Portland State University and a Sergeant with the Portland Police Bureau. Year 1 Activities 2019 2020 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar 'Apr May Jun Entire Illegal Marijuana X X X X Team meetings Investigator/Outreach X X X X X X X X X X X X Meetings Illegal Marijuana case X X X X X X X X X X X X meetings Financial Case Analyst X X X X Meetings CODE Case meetings X X X X X X X X X X X X Legal MJ Ops X X o S Shipping X X N v Airports X X E Rental Co X X Business Informational X X X Brochure development Hire web/marketing X agency Meetings w/Other City X X agencies Website development X X X X (information) Website development X X X (submission site) Public focus groups X X Website launch X Community engagement X events Staff Training X X X Annual Evaluation Report X X 8 Updated 8/15/2019 7:57 AM9/14 /2019 4:414W v^Y Year 2 Activities 2020 2021 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec'' Jan Feb ' Mar Apr May Jun Entire Illegal Marijuana X X X X Team meetings Investigator/Outreach X X X X X X X X X X X X Meetings Illegal Marijuana case X X X X X X X X X X X X meetings Financial Case Analyst X X X X X X Meetings CODE Case meetings X X X X X X X X X X X X Legal MJ Ops X X CL 0 Shipping X X V) Airports X X Rental Co X X Business Partner X X X Evaluation Survey Initial Website /Portal X X Analysis & Review Staff Training X X X X Annual Evaluation Report X X Updated 8/15/2019.7:57 AM8r11��I' Jo n- —.,41 PM Budget Approximations 10 Updated 8/15/2019 7:57 AM 114/2^1° °:^' 4 Ove rti me for 3 Investigators - $1,500/month/detective; 0.35 FTE Personnel Management Analyst - Education $ 167,268 $ 190,582 $ 357,850 Manager; & 0.75 Management Analyst Data Manager Equipment Profiler II (mj tester), trailer (2 yrs) $ 30,586 $ 8,971 $ 39,557 Nik testing kits, marijuana testing Supplies labs, uline boxes, washer dryer $ 12,808 $ 12,000 $ 24,808 Travel and Trainings Conferences & Trainings $ 19,881 $ 10,000 $ 29,881 CODE office space, analyst cell Rent & Utilities phone $ 18,183 $ 18,953 $ 37,136 External evaluator ($100/hr * 2 researchers * 100 hrs each/yr), Contractual Services financial analyst ($100/hr *1 analyst $ 90,000 $ 90,000 $ 180,000 * 500hrs/yr), graphic design and web development (estimate $20,000) Printing, focus group meetings, Other website hosting, humidifier $ 5,975 $ 5,400 $ 11,375 Totals $ 344,701 $ 335,906 $ 680,607 10 Updated 8/15/2019 7:57 AM 114/2^1° °:^' 4 L�01 ES COG o� Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - https://www.deschutes.org/ AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board of Commissioners BOCC Meeting of August 19, 2019 DATE: August 15, 2019 FROM: Tanya Saltzman, Community Development, TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of Ordinances No. 2019-014 (Marijuana Opt Out) and 2019-012 (Repeal of Ordinance No. 2018-012, Marijuana Text Amendments) Staff offers two ordinances concerning marijuana to the Board of County Commissioners. Ordinance No. 2019-014 addresses the prohibition ("Opt Out") of future marijuana production and processing in Deschutes County until the next statewide general election; and Ordinance No. 2019-012 addresses the repeal of Ordinance No. 2018-012, marijuana production text amendments. MEMORANDUM TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners FROM: Tanya Saltzman, Associate Planner DATE: August 14, 2019 SUBJECT: Consideration of Ordinances No. 2019-014 and 2019-012 Staff offers two ordinances concerning marijuana to the Board of County Commissioners (Board). Ordinance No. 2019-014 addresses the prohibition ("Opt Out") of future marijuana production and processing in Deschutes County until the next statewide general election; and Ordinance No. 2019- 012 addresses the repeal of Ordinance No. 2018-012, marijuana production text amendments. 1. OVERVIEW OF PROCESS TO DATE A public hearing for the reconsideration of marijuana text amendments was held on July 3, 2019, after which the written record was held open until July 21, 2019. On August 7, 2019, the Board of County Commissioners (Board) held deliberations on the marijuana text amendments. Following deliberations, the Board directed staff to prepare two ordinances, outlined below, for potential emergency adoption on August 19, 2019. Non -emergency versions of each ordinance are also included. If. OPT OUT (ORDINANCE NO. 2019-014) During the public hearing and the written record period, a significant portion of testimony requested that the Board prohibit the establishment of new marijuana businesses ("opt out") rather than further proceed with the reconsideration and potential revision of the text amendments. As such, and following extensive discussion of the potential impacts, the Board directed staff to prepare an ordinance for an 'opt out" of marijuana production and processing, per Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 475B.968. This statute allows a county to adopt an ordinance prohibiting the establishment of any one or more of several categories of state -licensed or registered marijuana businesses; the opt out must then be brought to the voters in the next statewide general election—in this case, November 3, 2020. This ordinance appears as Attachments 1 and 2 (emergency and non -emergency). 111. REPEAL OF TEXT AMENDMENTS (ORDINANCE NO. 2019-012) In conjunction with the direction to opt out of future marijuana production and processing, the Board provided direction to repeal the marijuana text amendments that were adopted on October 24, 2018, appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on February 12, 2019, and withdrawn by the County on February 28, 2019 for reconsideration. This ordinance appears as Attachments 3 and 4 (emergency and non -emergency). IV. TIMELINE As noted in the August 7 deliberation session, the LUBA reconsideration deadline of September 3, 2019 presents significant time constraints with respect to adoption. If a proposed ordinance will not be unanimously supported by the Board, it may not be adopted by emergency and thus requires fourteen days between first and second readings. Consequently, the last possible day for a non -emergency vote on and first reading of an ordinance is Monday, August 19. If a first reading is conducted on August 19, the Board must conduct a session on the morning of Tuesday, September 3 (owing to the Labor Day holiday on the Board's regular Monday meeting date) for second reading and adoption. Adherence to this timeline is critical in order to file the decision with LUBA prior to its deadline. Attachments 1. Ordinance No. 2019-014 (Opt Out by Emergency) 2. Ordinance No. 2019-014 (Opt Out) 3. Ordinance No. 2019-012 (Repeal of Ordinance No. 2018-012 by Emergency) 4. Ordinance No. 2019-012 (Repeal of Ordinance No. 2018-012) Page 2 of 2 RE SEWED LEGAL COUNSEL BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON An Ordinance Prohibiting the Establishment of Certain Marijuana Businesses Within Unincorporated * ORDINANCE NO. 2019-014 Deschutes County; Referral to the Electors and Declaring an Emergency. WHEREAS, in November 2014, Ballot Measure 91 was passed by the voters of Oregon generally legalizing recreational use of marijuana within the state; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners (the `Board") adopted Ordinance No. 2015-009 on December 21, 2015, prohibiting the establishment of marijuana businesses within unincorporated Deschutes County ("Opt Out"); and WHEREAS, after securing legislative assurance in 2016 through the passage of Senate Bill 1598 that statutory right to farm protections would not override local governments' authority to adopt local time, place and manner regulations governing marijuana businesses, the Board adopted Ordinances No. 2016-013, 2016-014, 2016-015, 2016-016, 2016-017, 2016-018 and 2016-019 on June 1 and June 15, 2016, implementing comprehensive land use regulations for the marijuana industry in unincorporated Deschutes County, and subsequently adopted Ordinance No. 2016-012 on August 2, 2016, effectively "Opting In" by repealing Ordinance No. 2015-009; and WHEREAS, following their initial adoption, the Board committed to reexamine Deschutes County's marijuana land use regulations approximately one year post -implementation after gaining additional experience regulating the evolving marijuana industry; and WHEREAS, after hosting thirteen public meetings, work sessions, and hearings attended by state agencies, marijuana industry representatives, and concerned members of the community, on October 24, 2018, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance No. 2018-012, revising the original marijuana land use regulations; and WHEREAS, twelve petitioners appealed Ordinance No. 2018-012 to the Land Use Board of Appeals ("LUBA") on February 12, 2019, raising new arguments that were not previously presented to the Board; and WHEREAS, after reviewing the Petition for Review filed with LUBA and the new arguments and evidence contained therein, and upon recommendation of county staff, the Board directed the withdrawal of Ordinance No. 2018-012 for additional consideration pursuant to ORS 197.830(13)(b); and WHEREAS, the Board held a duly noticed public hearing on July 3, 2019, to take public testimony from the twelve petitioners (and others) regarding Ordinance No. 2018-012; and PAGE 1 OF 3 - ORDINANCE NO. 2019-014 WHEREAS, concerned members of the community testified during the public hearing that the new arguments raised by the twelve petitioners essentially tasked the County with defending the constitutionality of the State of Oregon's Recreational Marijuana program; and WHEREAS, further testimony noted that despite the provisions of Senate Bill 1598, authorizing local governments to adopt reasonable time, place and manner regulations (which provided the singular basis for the County to repeal its initial Opt Out and allow marijuana businesses), there have been numerous attempts to legislatively strip or limit that authority in the 2017, 2018, and 2019 Oregon Legislative Sessions; and WHEREAS, further testimony also noted that while the County has utilized extensive resources over several years to attempt to develop reasonable time, place, and manner marijuana regulations, there has been noticeable and vocal dissatisfaction from citizens on all sides of the issue consistently expressing doubt that these regulations have the ability to successfully harmonize ostensibly incompatible land uses in the rural County due to marijuana's classification as a farm crop; and WHEREAS, a significant portion of written and oral public testimony received during and after the July 3 public hearing requested that the Board prohibit the establishment of new marijuana businesses ("Opt Out") in unincorporated Deschutes County rather than further revising Ordinance No. 2018-012; and WHEREAS, an Opt Out imposed by Deschutes County will only be applicable within the unincorporated County and will not impact marijuana operations or businesses within any city limits; and WHEREAS, an Opt Out is not in conflict with the aforementioned Ballot Measure 91 wherein the voters of Oregon expressed no opinion or direction regarding marijuana's status as a farm crop, or the appropriate location of commercial grow sites and processing operations and WHEREAS, an Opt Out will only impact future recreational production and processing businesses and medical marijuana processing facilities; existing marijuana businesses will not be impacted nor will the Opt Out impact or prohibit future medical dispensaries or production sites, or future recreational retail or wholesale; and WHEREAS, disallowing future recreational production sites and future marijuana processing will not impact the availability of marijuana products from medical dispensaries or retail and wholesale outlets; and WHEREAS, for the foreseeable future, it is uncertain if recreational marijuana production sites can be established in the County due to newly -adopted Senate Bill 218 authorizing the Oregon Liquor Control Commission to establish a moratorium on recreational producer licenses until January 2, 2022; and WHEREAS, the State's moratorium enacted by Senate Bill 218 provides a unique opportunity to refer the matter to the Deschutes County voters while minimally impacting any would-be applicants seeking to establish new marijuana production or processing facilities; and WHEREAS, so long as referring the matter to voters at the next General Election, ORS 47513.968 authorizes the County to adopt an ordinance prohibiting the establishment of any one or more of the six categories of state licensed or registered marijuana businesses in the unincorporated area subject to the County's jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, based in substantial part on the testimony provided during and after the aforementioned July 3 public hearing, the Board prefers to immediately impose an Opt Out of new recreational marijuana production and processing businesses and medical marijuana processing facilities within the unincorporated county, and likewise refer the question of whether to continue the Opt Out to the Deschutes County voters at the next General Election on November 3, 2020; now therefore, PAGE 2 OF 3 - ORDINANCE NO. 2019-014 THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDAINS as follows: Section 1. In accordance with ORS 47513.968 the following are prohibited in the unincorporated area subject to the jurisdiction of Deschutes County: (a) Marijuana processing sites registered under ORS 475B.840; (b) Marijuana producers licensed under ORS 47513.070 (c) Marijuana processors licensed under ORS 47513.090; Section 2. This ordinance shall be referred to the electors of Deschutes County at the General Election on Tuesday, November 3, 2020. Section 3. The text of this ordinance shall be provided to (a) the Oregon Health Authority; and (b) the Oregon Liquor Control Commission. Section 4. EMERGENCY. This Ordinance being necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is declared to exist, and this Ordinance takes effect on its passage. Dated this of , 2019 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON ATTEST: Recording Secretary Date of I" Reading: Date of 2nd Reading: PHILIP G. HENDERSON, Chair PATTI ADAIR, Vice Chair ANTHONY DEBONE day of 72019. day of 52019. Record of Adoption Vote: Commissioner Yes No Abstained Excused Philip G. Henderson _ Patti Adair Anthony DeBone Effective date: day of 12019. PAGE 3 OF 3 - ORDINANCE NO. 2019-014 RTED LEG L COUNSEL BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON An Ordinance Prohibiting the Establishment of Certain Marijuana Businesses Within Unincorporated * ORDINANCE NO. 2019-014 Deschutes County and Referral to the Electors. * WHEREAS, in November 2014, Ballot Measure 91 was passed by the voters of Oregon generally legalizing recreational use of marijuana within the state; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners (the "Board") adopted Ordinance No. 2015-009 on December 21, 2015, prohibiting the establishment of marijuana businesses within unincorporated Deschutes County ("Opt Out"); and WHEREAS, after securing legislative assurance in 2016 through the passage of Senate Bill 1598 that statutory right to farm protections would not override local governments' authority to adopt local time, place and manner regulations governing marijuana businesses, the Board adopted Ordinances No. 2016-013, 2016-014, 2016-015, 2016-016, 2016-017, 2016-018 and 2016-019 on June 1 and June 15, 2016, implementing comprehensive land use regulations for the marijuana industry in unincorporated Deschutes County, and subsequently adopted Ordinance No. 2016-012 on August 2, 2016, effectively "Opting In" by repealing Ordinance No. 2015-009; and WHEREAS, following their initial adoption, the Board committed to reexamine Deschutes County's marijuana land use regulations approximately one year post -implementation after gaining additional experience regulating the evolving marijuana industry; and WHEREAS, after hosting thirteen public meetings, work sessions, and hearings attended by state agencies, marijuana industry representatives, and concerned members of the community, on October 24, 2018, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance No. 2018-012, revising the original marijuana land use regulations; and WHEREAS, twelve petitioners appealed Ordinance No. 2018-012 to the Land Use Board of Appeals ("LUBA") on February 12, 2019, raising new arguments that were not previously presented to the Board; and WHEREAS, after reviewing the Petition for Review filed with LUBA and the new arguments and evidence contained therein, and upon recommendation of county staff, the Board directed the withdrawal of Ordinance No. 2018-012 for additional consideration pursuant to ORS 197.830(13)(b); and WHEREAS, the Board held a duly noticed public hearing on July 3, 2019, to take public testimony from the twelve petitioners (and others) regarding Ordinance No. 2018-012; and PAGE 1 OF 3 - ORDINANCE NO. 2019-014 WHEREAS, concerned members of the community testified during the public hearing that the new arguments raised by the twelve petitioners essentially tasked the County with defending the constitutionality of the State of Oregon's Recreational Marijuana program; and WHEREAS, further testimony noted that despite the provisions of Senate Bill 1598, authorizing local governments to adopt reasonable time, place and manner regulations (which provided the singular basis for the County to repeal its initial Opt Out and allow marijuana businesses), there have been numerous attempts to legislatively strip or limit that authority in the 2017, 2018, and 2019 Oregon Legislative Sessions; and WHEREAS, further testimony also noted that while the County has utilized extensive resources over several years to attempt to develop reasonable time, place, and manner marijuana regulations, there has been noticeable and vocal dissatisfaction from citizens on all sides of the issue consistently expressing doubt that these regulations have the ability to successfully harmonize ostensibly incompatible land uses in the rural County due to marijuana's classification as a farm crop; and WHEREAS, a significant portion of written and oral public testimony received during and after the July 3 public hearing requested that the Board prohibit the establishment of new marijuana businesses ("Opt Out") in unincorporated Deschutes County rather than further revising Ordinance No. 2018-012; and WHEREAS, an Opt Out imposed by Deschutes County will only be applicable within the unincorporated County and will not impact marijuana operations or businesses within any city limits; and WHEREAS, an Opt Out is not in conflict with the aforementioned Ballot Measure 91 wherein the voters of Oregon expressed no opinion or direction regarding marijuana's status as a farm crop, or the appropriate location of commercial grow sites and processing operations; and WHEREAS, an Opt Out will only impact future recreational production and processing businesses and medical marijuana processing facilities; existing marijuana businesses will not be impacted nor will the Opt Out impact or prohibit future medical dispensaries or production sites, or future recreational retail or wholesale; and WHEREAS, disallowing future recreational production sites and future marijuana processing will not impact the availability of marijuana products from medical dispensaries or retail and wholesale outlets; and WHEREAS, for the foreseeable future, it is uncertain if recreational marijuana production sites can be established in the County due to newly -adopted Senate Bill 218 authorizing the Oregon Liquor Control Commission to establish a moratorium on recreational producer licenses until January 2, 2022; and WHEREAS, the State's moratorium enacted by Senate Bill 218 provides a unique opportunity to refer the matter to the Deschutes County voters while minimally impacting any would-be applicants seeking to establish new marijuana production or processing facilities; and WHEREAS, so long as referring the matter to voters at the next General Election, ORS 47513.968 authorizes the County to adopt an ordinance prohibiting the establishment of any one or more of the six categories of state licensed or registered marijuana businesses in the unincorporated area subject to the County's jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, based in substantial part on the testimony provided during and after the aforementioned July 3 public hearing, the Board prefers to immediately impose an Opt Out of new recreational marijuana production and processing businesses and medical marijuana processing facilities within the unincorporated county, and likewise refer the question of whether to continue the Opt Out to the Deschutes County voters at the next General Election on November 3, 2020; now therefore, PAGE 2 OF 3 - ORDINANCE NO. 2019-014 THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDAINS as follows: Section 1. In accordance with ORS 475B.968 the following are prohibited in the unincorporated area subject to the jurisdiction of Deschutes County: (a) Marijuana processing sites registered under ORS 475B.840; (b) Marijuana producers licensed under ORS 47513.070 (c) Marijuana processors licensed under ORS 475B.090; Section 2. This ordinance shall be referred to the electors of Deschutes County at the General Election on Tuesday, November 3, 2020. Section 3. The text of this ordinance shall be provided to (a) the Oregon Health Authority; and (b) the Oregon Liquor Control Commission. Dated this of 92019 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON PHILIP G. HENDERSON, Chair PATTI ADAIR, Vice Chair ATTEST: Recording Secretary Date of 1" Reading Date of 2nd Reading: ANTHONY DEBONE day of 12019. day of 12019. Record of Adoption Vote: Commissioner Yes No Abstained Excused Philip G. Henderson Patti Adair Anthony DeBone Effective date: day of 52019. PAGE 3 OF 3 - ORDINANCE NO. 2019-014 REV EWED LEG L COUNSEL BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON An Ordinance Repealing Deschutes County Ordinance No. 2018-012 and Declaring an Emergency. ORDINANCE NO. 2019-012 WHEREAS, on October 24, 2018, the Board of County Commissioners (the "Board") adopted Ordinance No. 2018-012, revising the Deschutes County Code pertaining to marijuana production in unincorporated Deschutes County after a duly noticed public hearing on August 28, 2018; and WHEREAS, twelve petitioners appealed Ordinance No. 2018-012 to the Land Use Board of Appeals ("LUBA") on February 12, 2019 raising new arguments that were not previously presented to the Board; and WHEREAS, after reviewing the Petition for Review filed with LUBA and the new arguments and evidence contained therein, and upon recommendation of county staff, the Board directed the withdrawal of Ordinance No. 2018-012 for additional consideration pursuant to ORS 197.830(13)(b); and WHEREAS, in furtherance of the County Commissioners' direction, staff timely filed a Notice of Withdrawal with LUBA on February 28, 2019; and WHEREAS, due to the time necessary to reconsider the amendments (including the associated new arguments and evidence) and pending outcome of marijuana bills introduced during the Oregon Legislature's 2019 session, LUBA granted the County180 days to reconsider the withdrawn ordinance rather than the standard 90 days; and WHEREAS, the Board held a duly noticed public hearing on July 3, 2019 to take public testimony from the twelve petitioners (and others) regarding Ordinance No. 2018-012; and WHEREAS, a significant portion of written and oral public testimony received during and after the July 3 public hearing requested that the Board prohibit the establishment of new marijuana businesses ("Opt Out") in unincorporated Deschutes County rather than further revising Ordinance No. 2018-012; and WHEREAS, the County Commissioners later determined that an Opt Out is the more prudent option at this time for numerous reasons, including that an Opt Out requires that the matter be referred to the Deschutes County voters at the next General Election on November 3, 2020; and PAGE 1 OF 3 - ORDINANCE NO. 2019-012 WHEREAS, an Opt Out allows the Board to repeal Ordinance No. 2018-12 rather than being forced to unnecessarily expend County resources defending the constitutionality of the State of Oregon's Recreational Marijuana program pending a vote of the Deschutes County voters; and WHEREAS, regardless of the Opt Out and subsequent results of the General Election, existing marijuana businesses within the unincorporated county established prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 2019-014 must continue to comply with all Deschutes County Code provisions in effect at the time of their land use approval; and WHEREAS, for the foregoing reasons, the Board chooses to repeal Ordinance No. 2018-012 in its entirety; now, therefore THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDAINS as follows: Section 1. Deschutes County Ordinance No. 2018-012 is repealed in its entirety. Section 2. All Deschutes County Code regulations adopted pursuant to Ordinance Nos. 2016-013, 2016- 014, 2016-015, 2016-016, 2016-017, 2016-018 and 2016-019 and in existence prior to Ordinance No. 2018-012 shall remain in effect. Section 3. EMERGENCY. This Ordinance being necessary to conserve Deschutes County resources litigating Ordinance No. 2018-012, and to coincide with Ordinance No. 2019-014 prohibiting the establishment of new recreational marijuana production and processing businesses and medical marijuana processing facilities within the unincorporated county, and being necessary for the preservation of public peace, health, safety and welfare, an emergency is declared to exist, and this Ordinance becomes effective upon adoption. Dated this of 12019 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON PHILIP G. HENDERSON, Chair PATTI ADAIR, Vice Chair ATTEST: Recording Secretary ANTHONY DEBONE Date of I" Reading: day of 52019. Date of 2nd Reading: day of , 2019. PAGE 2 OF 3 - ORDINANCE NO. 2019-012 Commissioner Philip G. Henderson Patti Adair Anthony DeBone Record of Adoption Vote: Yes No Abstained Excused Effective date: day of , 2019. PAGE 3 OF 3 - ORDINANCE NO. 2019-012 REVIEWED LEGA COUNSEL BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON An Ordinance Repealing Deschutes County Ordinance No. 2018-012. * ORDINANCE NO. 2019-012 WHEREAS, on October 24, 2018, the Board of County Commissioners (the "Board") adopted Ordinance No. 2018-012, revising the Deschutes County Code pertaining to marijuana production in unincorporated Deschutes County after a duly noticed public hearing on August 28, 2018; and WHEREAS, twelve petitioners appealed Ordinance No. 2018-012 to the Land Use Board of Appeals ("LUBA") on February 12, 2019 raising new arguments that were not previously presented to the Board; and WHEREAS, after reviewing the Petition for Review filed with LUBA and the new arguments and evidence contained therein, and upon recommendation of county staff, the Board directed the withdrawal of Ordinance No. 2018-012 for additional consideration pursuant to ORS 197.830(13)(b); and WHEREAS, in furtherance of the County Commissioners' direction, staff timely filed a Notice of Withdrawal with LUBA on February 28, 2019; and WHEREAS, due to the time necessary to reconsider the amendments (including the associated new arguments and evidence) and pending outcome of marijuana bills introduced during the Oregon Legislature's 2019 session, LUBA granted the County 180 days to reconsider the withdrawn ordinance rather than the standard 90 days; and WHEREAS, the Board held a duly noticed public hearing on July 3, 2019 to take public testimony from the twelve petitioners (and others) regarding Ordinance No. 2018-012; and WHEREAS, a significant portion of written and oral public testimony received during and after the July 3 public hearing requested that the Board prohibit the establishment of new marijuana businesses ("Opt Out") in unincorporated Deschutes County rather than further revising Ordinance No. 2018-012; and WHEREAS, the County Commissioners later determined that an Opt Out is the more prudent option at this time for numerous reasons, including that an Opt Out requires that the matter be referred to the Deschutes County voters at the next General Election on November 3, 2020; and WHEREAS, an Opt Out allows the Board to repeal Ordinance No. 2018-12 rather than being forced to unnecessarily expend County resources defending the constitutionality of the State of Oregon's Recreational Marijuana program pending a vote of the Deschutes County voters; and PAGE 1 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2019-012 WHEREAS, regardless of the Opt Out and subsequent results of the General Election, existing marijuana businesses within the unincorporated county established prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 2019-014 must continue to comply with all Deschutes County Code provisions in effect at the time of their land use approval; and WHEREAS, for the foregoing reasons, the Board chooses to repeal Ordinance No. 2018-012 in its entirety; now, therefore THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDAINS as follows: Section 1. Deschutes County Ordinance No. 2018-012 is repealed in its entirety. Section 2. All Deschutes County Code regulations adopted pursuant to Ordinance Nos. 2016-013, 2016- 014, 2016-015, 2016-016, 2016-017, 2016-018 and 2016-019 and in existence prior to Ordinance No. 2018-012 shall remain in effect. Dated this of 52019 ATTEST: Recording Secretary Date of 1St Reading: Date of 2nd Reading: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON PHILIP G. HENDERSON, Chair PATTI ADAIR, Vice Chair ANTHONY DEBONE day of 52019. day of , 2019. Record of Adoption Vote: Commissioner Yes No Abstained Excused Philip G. Henderson Patti Adair Anthony DeBone _ Effective date: day of , 2019. PAGE 2 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2019-012 ES CO �V' GZ Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - https://www.deschutes.org/ AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board of Commissioners BOCC Meeting of August 19, 2019 DATE: August 9, 2019 FROM: Nick Lelack, Community Development, 541-385-1708 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: 1999 Terrebonne Sewer Feasibility Study RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: Discussion Item BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Staff will summarize and provide perspectives on the 1999 Terrebonne Sewer Feasibility Study, vacant lands and current wastewater issues in the community, and options to engage the public to determine community support to initiate a new or updated study. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: To be determined based on Board direction. ATTENDANCE: Nick Lelack, Community Development Director, Chris Doty, Roard Dept. Director, Todd Cleveland, Environmental Soils Supervisor Deschutes County Community Development Department Planning Building Safety Environmental Soils Cede 1;nforcement P.O. Box 6605 117 NW Lafayette Ave., Bend, OR 97703 l'clephone: 541-388-6575 www.dcschutes.org/cd MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Nick Lelack, AICP, Director Chris Doty, PE, Road Dept. Director Todd Cleveland, Environmental Health Supervisor DATE: August 19, 2019 SUBJECT: 1999 Terrebonne Sewer Feasibility Study, Existing Conditions, Public Engagement The purposes of this memorandum are to summarize the: • 1999 Terrebonne Sewer Feasibility Study (attached); • Reasons, if known, the study was not implemented; • Vacant lands and current issues; and • Options to engage the public to determine community support to initiate a new or updated study. 1999 Terrebonne Sewer Feasibility Study Basic Findings & Staff Perspectives Please see the attached memorandum from Chris Doty, Road Dept. Director. Reasons the Study was not Implemented Based on conversations with CDD's former Environmental Health Director and others, there was overwhelming community opposition primarily due to the costs and lack of risk to the water system. Existing Conditions: Vacant Lands Septic System Failures/Repairs & Future Concerns The attached map and matrix below summarize vacant lands and existing private sewer systems in Terrebonne as of June 2019. Many of the vacant properties appear to be too small to install an on-site septic system, especially with required reserve space for future repairs and/or replacements. The vacant lands map also shows the boundaries of two private sewer districts for Terrebonne Estates and Angus Acres. These sewer districts were required to develop residential lots in areas not suitable for septic systems per Oregon Administrative Rules regulating septic systems. Table 1: Land Use Inventory Table 2 below provides the Community Development Department Environmental Soils Division's number of septic system major repairs per year from 1997 through the first seven months of 2019. The table does not include repairs of larger on-site wastewater systems permitted by the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). According to Division staff, the number of malfunctioning systems appears to be increasing requiring repairs as well as inquiries from residents and businesses regarding malfunctioning systems, development limitations, and overall aging systems that will require future repairs, if possible, and/or replacements, if possible. The biggest concern is that commercial properties will experience catastrophic failures of systems that cannot be repaired or replaced per state regulations. Table 2: Septic System Repairs 8 Terrebonne Land Use Inventory Zone Residential Units Commercial / Undeveloped Industrial Parcels Developments Total Number of Parcels TEC (Commercial) 16 18 18 49 TECR (Commerical Rural) 3 9 10 18 TER (Residential) 556 5 160 686 TERS (Residential 5 -Acre) 40 1 1 40 Total 615 33 189 793 Table 2 below provides the Community Development Department Environmental Soils Division's number of septic system major repairs per year from 1997 through the first seven months of 2019. The table does not include repairs of larger on-site wastewater systems permitted by the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). According to Division staff, the number of malfunctioning systems appears to be increasing requiring repairs as well as inquiries from residents and businesses regarding malfunctioning systems, development limitations, and overall aging systems that will require future repairs, if possible, and/or replacements, if possible. The biggest concern is that commercial properties will experience catastrophic failures of systems that cannot be repaired or replaced per state regulations. Table 2: Septic System Repairs 8 6 1' 3 4_ 8 8 7 7 7 6 6 66 64 63.:4 5 Z _ 4 .:334 3 34 44' 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � 1 0 h (,j m V1 l0 i- W m o N m �r Ln to I- co m O N m CY n l0 - co dl O - N m �' Ill lD h W U) (-1 W W W W W CO CO M M Ol M M M Ol Ol Ol M O O O O O O O O O O N N c -I N rI .-1 .-1 r1 c r 0 0 0 a> M M M M m M a> Ol M Ol Ol M M Ol 0) Ol M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N ci 1H r{ 1H 1_ i ,-y 1_� N 1-1 .1 1� 1-i N 1-H N N N N N N N N N N N N N N -2- Public Engagement Options Options to gauge Terrebonne community interest in updating the Sewer Feasibility Study include, but are not limited to, the following — which may be conducted by the County, Terrebonne residents/businesses, and/or other organizations: 1. Conduct stakeholder interviews and focus groups with selected residents and groups (i.e., businesses, home owner associations); and/or 2. Hold a town hall to briefly present basic information and invite public input; and/or 3. Hire a firm to conduct a survey of residents and businesses; and/or 4. All of the above; 5. Some of the above; or 6. Other. If the Board supports any of these options, staff will: • Prepare a scope, schedule, and budget/resources (staff time, budget) necessary to perform the tasks and prepare a report of the community input findings; and/or • Contact Terrebonne residents/businesses and/or other organizations who might perform one or more of these public engagement and reporting tasks; and/or • Contact consulting firms for cost estimates to conduct a survey. -3- Memorandum To: Nick Lelack, CDD Director From: Chris Doty, Road Department Director Date: August 1, 2019 Re: Review of 1999 Terrebonne Wastewater Feasibility Study (TWFS) Below is my summary and other observations related to the 1999 TWFS and other considerations moving forward related to a wastewater system in Terrebonne: The TWFS was funded via a state grant (Oregon Economic Development Department) on behalf of the Terrebonne Domestic Water District. a. Presumably, the District would be the operating utility of a future wastewater system. b. Question: Does the current appetite and/or capacity exist within the District to own/operate a wastewater utility? The TWFS recommended development of a STEP system (septic tank effluent pump) in which property owners retain the use and functionality of a septic tank and pump the tank effluent to a low pressure municipal collection system for treatment and disposal into either a local lagoon system or pumped to the City of Redmond's wastewater treatment plant. a. Note: The STEP system would probably remain the preferred recommendation today for collection of wastewater, however technological advancements in treatment may offer different options for consideration than those presented in the TWFS. 3. The TWFS assumes future growth —which has mostly occurred as estimated. This growth however has primarily occurred within several subdivisions (Angus Acres and Terrebonne Estates) which have constructed on-site systems and are therefore are not candidates to assist with or benefit from a municipal system. Some of the sewer rate and debt service estimates (and feasibility conclusion) in the TWFS may be inaccurate based on this outcome. 4. The TWFS leans heavily towards negotiating a deal with the City of Redmond for wastewater treatment and disposal. Given the growth in Redmond, a higher regulatory bar (since 1999) and many other factors, it is highly unlikely that Redmond will be interested in accepting Terrebonne wastewater — even if pre-treated. 61 150 SE 27th Street Bend, Oregon 97702 (541) 388-6581 road@deschutes.org www.deschutes.org 5. The TWFS uses 1999 construction cost data. If adjusted for inflation (per methodology recommended in the study), the cost estimates would be increased by 85% (or a factor of 1.85). The Consumer Price Index has increased by 54% over the same period of time, as construction cost increases have outpaced general inflation. 6. The TWFS assumed a significant portion (75 to 80%) of any option would need to be grant funded to achieve feasibility. Feasibility was estimated to be delivery of a sustainable wastewater utility and service at a residential rate of $40/month ($62/month in 2019), not including individual lot costs of $4,000 ($7,500 in 2019) to install a new septic tank and on-site effluent pump required of the STEP system. a. Staff is not familiar with current grant programs that may exist to subsidize construction. In review of the 1999 TWFS, I have the following opinion: 1. This report represents a snapshot in time related to what could have been feasible in 1999. Based on changes in treatment technology (which could conceivably lower costs) and the regulatory environment (which most definitely has increased cost), the TWFS cannot be relied upon for current decision making and will need to be updated. 2. Development in Terrebonne has occurred (since 1999) via localized wastewater systems. A future Terrebonne system will most likely be necessary to sustain existing development - perhaps with a similar localized strategy versus a centralized system. With approval of the US 97 Terrebonne Refinement Plan and subsequent paving and development of state highway and adjacent local roads in Terrebonne, it would be ideal to consider future Terrebonne wastewater system improvements with construction of the US 97 Project. Given the maturity of the US 97 project and the infancy of consideration of a wastewater system in Terrebonne, it is unlikely that any consideration of a future system (dry lines, conduits, etc.) can be reasonably designed and constructed to avoid future pavement cuts and other impacts. Given the potential for a STEP system (narrow trenching) and localized system consideration, future impacts can hopefully be minimized. Recommendation moving forward: 1. Conduct a new feasibility study with a scope that includes the following items: a. Evaluate the potential for a community system (with various options) that can be phased. b. Evaluate the potential for smaller, localized systems that can serve clustered areas. c. Evaluate existing records, failure reports and other local knowledge to determine which areas are prone to near term failure. 61 150 SE 27th Street Bend, Oregon 97702 (541) 38€3-6581 roan@deschutes.org www.deschtAtes.org Project No. 9942 WASTEWATER FEASIBILITY STUDY SEPTEMBER 1999 For: DOMESTIC WATER DISTRICT This Wastewater Facilities Plan is being financed with a grant from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development through the Oregon Community Development Block Grant program, administered by the Economic Development Department of the State of Oregon. Project No. 9942 Draft Report Prepared for: TERREBONNE DOMESTIC WATER DISTRICT 1110 C Avenue POBox 31 Terrebonne, Oregon 97760 September 1999 (Revised November 1999) Prepared by: t HGE INC., ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS & PLANNERS 375 Park Avenue/Coos Bay, Oregon 97420 (541) 269-1166 Fax: (541) 269-1833 Grant funding for this project was provided through the Central Oregon Rural Investment Fund grant program, funded by a grant from the Oregon State Lottery and administered by the Oregon Economic Development Department. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS HGE Inc., Architects, Engineers, Surveyors & Planners would like to acknowledge and thank the following persons for their assistance in the completion of this wastewater feasibility study. Terrebonne Domestic Water District Bill Tittle Sharon Struck M.R. "Buzz" Foley Kim Tittle William Clark Doug McLaughlin Deschutes County Susan Mayea Chairman Board Member Board Member Board Member Board Member District Manager Senior Management Analysist HGE Inc., Architects, Engineers, Surveyors & Planners Richard Nored, PE William Pavlich, PE Rick Stanley William Barlow Carolyn Wixey Project Manager Project Engineer Graphics Graphics Clerical TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose ......................... ............................. 1-1 1.2 Background...................................................1-1 1.3 Scope........................................................1-1 2-1 1.4 Authorization..................................................1-2 2-1 1.5 Basis for Opinions of Probable Cost .............. I ............ I ..... 1-2 2.4 1.5.1 General................................................1-2 2-2 1.5.2 Construction Costs ....................................... 1-2 1.5.3 Contingencies ........................................... 1-3 1.5.4 Engineering, Construction Observation, and Construction Management 1-3 1.5.5 Legal and Administrative ................................... 1-3 2.5 1.5.6 Opinion of Probable Cost Summary ....................... 1-3 1.6 Previous Studies and Other Documents .......... I ...... I ...... I ..... 1-4 SECTION 2: SUMMARY 2.1 Planning Area..................................................2-1 2.2 Population and EDU Summary.....................................2-1 2.3 Wastewater Characteristics ........................................ 2-1 2.3.1 Design Flows ............................................ 2-1 2.3.2 Design Influent Loadings ................................... 2-2 2.4 Collection and Transmission System ................................. 2-2 2.4.1 Collection System ........................................ 2-2 2.4.2 Transmission System ...................................... 2-3 2.4.3 Private Property Improvements .............................. 2-3 2.4.4 Collection and Transmission Cost Summary .................... 2-3 2.5 Wastewater Treatment and Disposal ................................. 2-4 2.6 Feasibility Analysis .............................................. 2-4 2.6.1 Project Option Cost Summary and Comparison ................. 2-4 2.6.2 Project Option Funding and Rate Analysis ...................... 2-6 2.7 Conclusions ...................... ............................. 2-9 SECTION 3: STUDY AREA CHARACTERISTICS 3.1 Planning Area .................................................. 3-1 3.2 Physical Environment ........................................... 1 3-1 3.2.1 Landscape and Topography ................................. 3-1 3.2.2 Climate................................................3-1 3.2.3 Soils .......... ........................................ 3-1 3.2.4 Water Resources .. ............ ...........................3-1 3.2.5 Agricultural Lands, Flood Plains, and Wetlands .................. 3-2 3.2.6 Endangered Species ....................................... 3-2 3.2.7 Public Health Hazards ..................................... 3-2 3.3 Socioeconomic Environment ...................................... 3-2 3.3.1 General .............. ........................ .......... 3-2 3.3.2 Population .............................................. 3-2 3.3.3 Land Use...............................................3-3 3.3.4 Equivalent Dwelling Units .................................. 3-3 SECTION 4: WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS 4.1 General .................................... .................. 4-1 4.2 Wastewater Flows ............................................... 4-1 4.2.1 Current (1999) Average Daily Flows .......................... 4-1 4.2.2 Inflow and Infiltration ..................................... 4-1 4.2.3 Wastewater Flow Peaking Factors ............................ 4-1 4.2.4 Design Flows ............................................ 4-2 4.3 Design Wastewater Influent Loadings ................................ 4-2 SECTION 5: COLLECTION AND TRANSMISSION SYSTEM 5.1 Collection System Types .......................................... 5-1 5.2 Design Constraints .............................................. 5-2 5.3 Discussion....................................................5-3 5.4 Recommended Collection System ................................... 5-3 5.5 Transmission Alternatives ......................................... 5-7 5.6 Collection and Transmission Cost Summary.................. ........ 5-10 SECTION 6: WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL 6.1 Alternatives - Preliminary Discussion ................................ 6-1 6.1.1 Discharge to Deschutes River ............................... 6-1 6.1.2 Connect to Redmond WWTP ............................... 6-1 6.1.3 Winter Holding and Summer Irrigation ........................ 6-2 6.2 Proposed Facultative Lagoon ...................................... 6-3 6.2.1 Effluent Irrigation ......................................... 6-9 6.2.2 Opinion of Probable Cost ................................. 6-11 6.3 O&M Requirements ............................................ 6-13 SECTION 7: FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS 7.1 Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Cost Summary ................ 7-1 7.2 Project Option Cost Summary and Comparison ........................ 7-1 7.3 Project Option Funding and Rate Analysis ............................ 7-3 7.4 Conclusions ................................... ................ 7-7 APPENDICES Appendix 3.1 Location Map Showing Terrebonne and Other Deschutes County Communities Appendix 3.2 Portion of USGS Map Appendix 3.3 Soil Conservation Service Soil Type Map and Soil Descriptions Appendix 3.4 Recent Biological Assessments for Selected Areas in Terrebonne Appendix 3.5 Public Health Concerns Appendix 3.6 Existing Land Use Information Appendix 6.1 Lagoon Water Balance Computations Appendix 7.1 Replacement Cost Computations SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this wastewater feasibility study is to provide the community of Terrebonne and Deschutes County with an evaluation of wastewater system needs and solutions and to discuss the feasibility of constructing a wastewater system in Terrebonne. 1.2 BACKGROUND Terrebonne is located in northeastern Deschutes County, approximately 6 miles north of Redmond and 22 miles north of Bend. Current (1999) population is conservatively estimated at 871 persons (see section 3.3.2). Development in Terrebonne is currently served exclusively by on-site wastewater systems (septic tanks with drainfields or drill holes, or sand filters). The area is characterized by shallow soils over bedrock. Most of the developed lots do not have an adequate reserve area for installation of an adequate septic system repair. Many of the lots are unbuildable because of limited lot size or inadequate soil/geological conditions. The Deschutes County Sanitation reports a septic system repair rate of over twice that of the rest of Deschutes County. Apparently, many residents have to use water carefully so as not to overload their on-site systems and cause them to fail. Both the County Sanitarian and DEQ agree that for Terrebonne, a community sewer is the only sound, long-term solution. A wastewater facilities plan for Terrebonne was completed in 1982 by Century West Engineering Corporation. The study advocated the continued use of disposal wells (drill holes) and noted that "there is absolute assurance that continued use of existing waste disposal wells will not eventually cause contamination of the underlying aquifer" The study further notes that "regular monitoring done by community water districts in the area will provide a basis for determining whether water quality is being degraded over time". Conclusions of the 1982 study are no longer tenable in the current regulatory environment. This study represents an effort on the part of Terrebonne and Deschutes County to further evaluate the feasibility of constructing a community wastewater system in Terrebonne. 1.3 SCOPE The scope of work for this wastewater feasibility study includes the following key elements: Population, EDU, and land use considerations for current (1999) and future (design year 2024) conditions. September 1999 1-1 HGE, Inc. • Evaluation and determination of current and projected future hydraulic and organic loadings. • Evaluate applicability of various wastewater collection and transmission system types and develop project options. • Evaluate potential treatment system and develop treatment options. • Develop opinions of probable costs and determine revenue requirements and sewer rates to cover debt service and operations, maintenance, and replacement costs. • Evaluate feasibility of selected projects based on possible funding scenarios. 1.4 AUTHORIZATION In May, 1999 the Terrebonne Domestic Water District contracted with HGE to prepare this wastewater feasibility study. 1.5 BASIS FOR OPINIONS OF PROBABLE COST 1.5.1 General Opinions of probable cost presented in this study include four components, each of which is discussed separately in this section. It must be recognized that opinions of probable cost are preliminary and based on the level of planning presented in this study. As specific improvements proceed forward it may be necessary to update the, costs as more information becomes available. 1.5.2 Construction Cost Opinions of probable costs in this plan are based on preliminary layouts of the proposed improvements, actual construction bidding results for similar work, published cost guides, and the author's construction cost experience within the state of Oregon. Future changes in the cost of labor, equipment, and materials may justify comparable changes in the opinions of probable cost presented herein. For this reason, it is common engineering practice to relate the costs to a particular index that varies in proportion to long term changes in the national economy. The Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index is most commonly used. It is basad on a value of 100 for the year 1913. All costs in this study are based on the August 1999, ENR Construction Cost Index value of 6091. Opinions of probable costs should be updated at the actual time of completing funding applications, and prior to a general obligation bond election. When the community secures financing, a "reserve factor" should be added at that time for an estimated increase in cost due to inflation. Since 1980, construction costs have increased an average of 3.3 percent each year. September 1999 1-2 HGE, Inc Opinions of probable costs can be prepared at any future day by comparing the future ENR Construction Cost Index with the index value of 6091; however, this approach is generally only considered valid for a 2 or 3 year period since construction techniques and materials change with time. If time has elapsed in excess of 2 or 3 years, opinions of probable cost should be updated by an engineer. 1.5.3 Contingencies In recognizing that opinions of probable cost are based on very preliminary design, allowances must be made for variations in final quantities, bidding market conditions, adverse construction conditions, unanticipated specialized investigations, and other difficulties that cannot be foreseen at this time. A contingency factor of 10 percent of the construction cost has been added for new facilities. 1.5.4 Engineering, Construction Observation, and Construction Management Engineering, construction observation, and construction management costs have been assumed at 20 percent of the construction cost. This includes costs for the engineering company to conduct preliminary surveys, perform detailed design analyses, prepare construction drawings, prepare construction specifications, advertise for construction bids, conduct construction stakeout surveys, provide partial construction observation during construction, administer construction related activities such as change orders, and to prepare record drawings for the project. 1.5.5 Legal and Administrative An allowance of 5 percent of the projected construction cost has been added for legal and administration. This allowance is intended to include internal project planning and budgeting, grant administration, liaison, interest on interim financing, legal services, review fees, legal advertising, and other related expenses associated with the project. 1.5.6 Opinion of Probable Cost Summary Opinions of probable costs presented in this study include a combined allowance of 35 percent for contingencies, engineering, legal and administrative costs. September 1999 1-3 HGE, Inc. 1.6 PREVIOUS STUDIES AND OTHER DOCUMENTS The following documents were reviewed and/or used in the completion of this study: Century West Engineering Corporation, Terrebonne Wastewater Facilities Plan, August 1982. KCM, Inc., City of Redmond, Advanced Wastewater Facilities Plan, February 1994. HGE Inc., Architects, Engineers, Surveyors & Planners, Terrebonne Domestic Water District, Water System Master Plan, February 1995. Deschutes County, Oregon, Ordinance No 97-001 ( amendment to Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan) June 3, 1997. September 1999 1-4 HGE, Inc. SECTION 2 SUMMARY SECTION 2 SUMMARY 2.1 PLANNING AREA The planning area for this Wastewater Feasibility Study consists primarily of the area within the existing Terrebonne Domestic Water District boundaries. Areas outside the District boundaries are also considered, as needed, to address treatment and disposal issues. 2.2 POPULATION AND EDU SUMMARY Population and equivalent dwelling units (EDUs) are summarized below: Population Year 1999: 871 persons Year 2024: 1,615 persons- forecast based on 2.5% average annual growth rate (AAGR) Ultimate Buildout: 3,080 persons ED Us Year 1999: 377 Year 2024: 699 2.3 WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS 2.3.1 Design Flows Design flows for both current and projected future conditions are summarized in Table 2.1. Future average daily flow is based on 2.5 % AAGR. Table 2.1 Current (1999) and Future (2024) Design Flows. 1 Population: 1999: 871 persons; 2024: 1,615 persons 2 EDUs: 1999: 377 EDUs; 2024: 699 EDUs 3 Computed flow based on EDU total and equation in Section 4.2.3 September 1999 2-1 HGE, Inc. Average Daily Flow Peak Instantaneous Flow3 Year (gpd) (gpcd)' (gpd/EDU)z (gpd) (gpcd)l (gpd/EDU)' 1999 65,000 75 172 300,000 344 796 2024 121,000 75 173 532,000 369 761 1 Population: 1999: 871 persons; 2024: 1,615 persons 2 EDUs: 1999: 377 EDUs; 2024: 699 EDUs 3 Computed flow based on EDU total and equation in Section 4.2.3 September 1999 2-1 HGE, Inc. 2.3.2 Design Influent Loadings Wastewater loads consisting of biochemical oxygen demand (BODS) and total suspended solids (TSS), are dependent on population and commercial/industrial customers. Therefore, it can be assumed that future loadings will increase with area growth. Standard unit design loadings and peak factors will be used in determining design loadings. Since a STEP collection system is recommended, the wastewater will be partially treated in septic tanks prior to being discharged to the system. Septic tank effluent has a BODS strength approximately 50% less than raw wastewater and a TSS concentration approximately 75 % less than raw wastewater. Design values for Terrebonne reflect these modifications. Table 2.2 summarizes BODS and TSS loadings for Terrebonne. The peaking factors are typical of small Oregon communities. Table 2.2 Influent BODS and TSS Design Loading Computation I.Mle>nt bili) Parameter Current (1999) Future (2024) Loading (ppd)1'3 Loading (ppd)2,3 Average Load 96 178 Monthly Maximum Load 161 299 Weekly Maximum load 222 412 Daily Maximum Load 270 501 tnfhtant TSS Parameter Current (1999) Future (2024) Loading (ppd)13 Loading (ppd)x,s Average Load 54 101 Monthly Maximum Load 94 174 Weekly Maximum load 126 234 Daily Maximum Load 152 283 t Based on current population: 871. 2 Based on year 2024 projected population of 1,615 persons. 3 Loadings for septic tank effluent. 2.4 COLLECTION AND TRANSMISSION SYSTEM 2.4.1 Collection System Collection system types considered included: conventional gravity system, septic tank effluent gravity (STEG) system, grinder pump (GP) system, septic tank effluent pump (STEP) system, vacuum system, and hybrid systems. Design constraints (topography, relatively low density development, and shallow soils over bedrock) largely limit the selection to a STEP system with potential for limited STEG service. For planning purposes a STEP only system is considered. Two alternative layouts (Figure 5.1 and Figure 5.2) are presented and differ primarily in the location of the main pump station that will convey all District wastewater to the treatment facility. Collection system alternative #2 locates the pump station off Highway 97 at the south end of Terrebonne. September 1999 2-2 HGE, Inc. 2.4.2 Transmission System Treatment alternatives include construction of a facultative lagoon with integrated winter holding or use of the Redmond wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). Transmission alternatives (Figure 5.3)considered include three potential routes (alternatives 1A, 113, and 1C) to the Redmond WWTP and two potential routes (alternatives 2A and 213) to the proposed facultative lagoon. 2.4.3 Private Property Improvements Private property improvements include: a new building sewer, a new septic tank and effluent pump, a service lateral from the effluent pump to the service lateral constructed as part of the public system, and the abandonment of existing on-site facilities (septic tanks, drill holes, etc.). For purposes of this study, a cost allowance of $4,000 per EDU is used. 2.4.4 . Collection and Transmission Cost Summary Table 2.3 presents an opinion of probable cost summary for collection, private property improvements, and transmission components of the overall collection and transmission system. Table 2.3 Collection and Transmission Cost Summary Description Collection System Alternativel #1 11 1 #2 #1 #1 Transmission Alternative 1A 1B 1C 2A 2B Collection System $2,947,800 $2,947,800 $2,964,400 $2,947,800 $2,947,800 Private property improvements $1,508,000 $1,508,000 $1,508,000 $1,508,000 $1,508,000 Transmission $1,416,000 $1,436,400 $1,231,200 $51,300- $51,300- $769,500 $769,500 TOTAL' $5,871,800 $5,892,200 $5,703,600 $4,507,100- $4,507,100- $5,225,300 $5,225,300 ' See Section 2.4.1 for description. 2 See Section 2.4.2 for description. ' Includes: Construction, contingencies, engineering, legal, administrative costs. Total cost equals approximately 1.35 times the construction subtotal. September 1999 2-3 HGE, Inc. 2.5 WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL Wastewater treatment and disposal alternatives considered include: treatment and discharge to the Deschutes River, connection to the Redmond WWTP, and winter holding/summer irrigation with treatment provided by facultative lagoon, aerated lagoon, or a mechanical plant. Options were reduced to two: construct a facultative lagoon with integrated holding, or connect to the Redmond WWTP. The facultative lagoon option requires a lagoon/irrigation site of approximately 80 acres. Potential sites exist west of Terrebonne. An opinion of probable cost for the facultative lagoon is approximately $1,83 1,000 for construction alone. Total cost including construction, contingencies, engineering, legal, administration, and land acquisition is $2,666,000. In addition to the transmission facilities, connecting to Rcdmond will also require construction of an aeration/equalization basin to pretreat the septic flows from Terrebonne. An opinion of probable cost for this item including construction, engineering, legal, and administrative costs is $405,000. 2.6 FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS 2.6.1 Project Option Cost Summary and Comparision A general project cost comparison for the five project options is presented in Table 2.4. Overall project costs range from approximately $5,059,000 to $6,384,000 exclusive of the estimated $1,508,000 in private property improvements (septic tanks, STEP pumps, building sewers, etc.). Annual costs, including O,M,&R and service fees, are also tabulated and range from approximately $519,000 to $594,000. This cost comparison suggests the three options that involve connecting to Redmond as the most economical to construct initially. Note that in this computation there are no allowances for grants. Also, the cost of the lagoon option, if a lagoon is located near Terrebonne, is within the accuracy of this feasibility study, nearly the same as the "Redmond" option. September 1999 2-4 HGE, Inc. I e b.....--* /i—.*.- , r`net f—p--t. 'See Section 2.4.1 for description. 2See Section 2.4.2 for description. 3See Section 2.5 for description. 4Does not include $1,508,000 in private property improvement (septic tank, STEP pump, etc.). See Section 2.4.3 for description. SGeneral budget computation - assumes RD loan with no grant funding. 2.6.2 Project Option Funding and Rate Analysis September 1999 2-5 HGE, Inc. Description Collection System Alternatives' #1 Itl #2 lit 111 Transmission Alternatives' 1A 1B 1C 2A 2B Treatment Decription3 Redmond Redmond Redmond Lagoon Lagoon Collection and Transmission Total C osts4 $4,363,800 $4,384,200 $4,195,600 $2,999,100- $2,999,100- $3,717,300 $3,717,300 Treatment Disposal Total Cost $405,000 $405,000 $405,000 $2,666,245 $2,666,245 Redmond Treatment Connection Fee (SDC) ($1215/EDU for 377 EDUs) $458,055 $458,055 $458,055 $0 $0 Total Project Cost $5,226,855 $5,247,255 $5,058,655 $5,665,345- $6,383,545 $5,665,345- $6,383,545 Preliminary Annual Project Debt Service (25 year term, 4.75% interest, 10% reserve) Computations $397,783 $399,335 $384,982 $431,153- $431,153- $485,811 $485,811 Annual O,M,&R $45,600 $45,600 $45,600 $107,700 $107,700 Annual Redmond Service Fee ($19.60/EDU, 377 EDUs, 12 months) $88,670 $88,670 $88,670 $0 $0 $538,853- $538,853 - Annual Cost Total $532,053 $533,605 $519,252 $593,511 $593,511 'See Section 2.4.1 for description. 2See Section 2.4.2 for description. 3See Section 2.5 for description. 4Does not include $1,508,000 in private property improvement (septic tank, STEP pump, etc.). See Section 2.4.3 for description. SGeneral budget computation - assumes RD loan with no grant funding. 2.6.2 Project Option Funding and Rate Analysis September 1999 2-5 HGE, Inc. A project option funding and rate analysis is presented in summary form in Table 2.5. Table 2.5 notes the total project cost from Table 2.4. A minimum sewer rate of $40 per month per EDU is used and the entire table is based on the current (1999) EDU total of 377. O,M,&R and Redmond Service fee costs are deducted from the $40 rate. The result is the monthly revenue per EDU available for debt service. Because of the relatively high service fee ($19.60 per EDU per month) for connecting to Redmond, the "Redmond" options have significantly less rate revenue available for debt service than the lagoon options ($10.32 per EDU per month versus $16.19 per EDU per month respectively). This limits the RD loan to $613,476 for the "Redmond" options versus $962,420 for the lagoon options. RD matching grants have generally been limited by the amount of debt the community can service. In theory, the "Redmond" options may result in a lower grant award than the lagoon options. However the issue is largely moot since the magnitude of the grant dollars renders all the project options very difficult to finance in their present form. Table 2.5 Project Option Funding and Rate Analysis (Based on 377 EDUs) September 1999 2-6 HGE, Inc. Description Collection System Alternatives' #1 #1 #2 #1 #1 Transmission Alternative S2 IA I 1B 1C 2A 2B Treatment Decription3 Redmond Redmond Redmond Lagoon Lagoon Total Project Cost $5,226,855 $5,247,255 $5,058,655 $5,665,345- $5,665,345- $6,383,545 $6,383,545 O,M,&R Cost Per EDU per month $10.08 $10.08 $10.08 $23.81 $23.81 Redmond Service Fee per $19.60 $19.60 $19.60 $0 $0 EDU O,M,&R and Redmond Service Fee Total (Per EDU) $29.68 $29.68 $29.68 $23.81 $23.81 Assumed minimum sewer rate (for feasibility analysis) (per EDU) $40 $40 $40 $40 $40 Sewer rate revenue available for debt service (per EDU) $10.32 $10.32 $10.32 $16.19 $16.19 RD loan (based on rate revenue available for debt service, 3.25% interest, 25 yr term, general obligation bond) $789,978 $789,978 $789,978 $1,240,365 $1,240,365 Required grant to fund balance of project cost assuming $40 $4,424,980- $4,424,980 - sewer rate per EDU per month $3,986,490 $4,006,890 $3,818,290 $5,143,180 $5,143,180 Required grant as percentage 78.1% 78.1% of total project cost 76.3% 76.4% 75.5% 80.6% 80.6910 Potential grant funding sources include: Oregon Community Development Block Grant (OCDBG) September 1999 2-7 HUE, Inc. $750,000 (grant only). Rural Development (RD) Generally 50% maximum grant with matching RD loan. Water/Wastewater Program (W/WW) $500,000 grant with matching loan. Special Public Works Fund (SPWF) $500,000 grant with matching loan. Assuming the District can quality for all the above noted programs, there is a potential for $4,100,000 in grant dollars with a requirement to borrow at least $1,565,000. Debt service on $1,565,000 is computed below: RD loan (3.25 %, 25 yr term) : $1,565,000 Annual RD payment: $92,492 SPWF and W/WW (5.14%, 20 yr term): $1,000,000 Annual SPWF, W/WW payment: $81,198 Total annual debt service: $173,690 EDU'S: 377 Monthly revenue per EDU required for debt service: $38.39 The computation shows that Terrebonne would need 96 % of the $ 40 per EDU rate revenue just for debt service, unless Rural Development would increase the level of grants for Terrebonne. However, negotiations with Redmond could develop more favorable SDC rates for existing users and the potential for reduced O, M & Ro costs as a bulk user. The potential also exists that higher than normal grant opportunities may be available for Terrebonne. We recommend that the District pursue negotiations with Redmond and schedule a "one-stop" meeting to evaluate project feasibility. DEQ has expressed concern with proposed developments in Terrebonne as well as the continued use of on-site wastewater systems in the area. DEQ's position is that any new developments that manage to get constructed will be required to connect to a public sewer when one is constructed. The new prison in Madras may place considerable development pressure on Terrebonne according to local and County personnel. It may be possible, given the need for housing of prison workers and families (we understand that up to 1700 jobs are associated with the prison), and DEQ's concerns, to provide future capacity in the Terrebonne system to accommodate potential growth. Generally, funding agencies focus on existing EDU's when determining how much debt service the community can bear. Concerns with potential development is that it is unoccupied and therefore not counted in the EDU computation. However, since Redmond SDC's and usage fees would apply to the growth, this could be used as an offset for minimizing initial connection and operational costs. O, M, & R cost and the "Redmond" service fee cost would be paid by the 377 current EDU's which are actually connected at this time. Table 2.5 shows this figure at $ 29.68 per EDU per month. To construct a system and realize rates in the $ 40.00 range, these figures would need to September 1999 2-8 HGE, Inc. be substantially reduced or additional grant monies would be required. It may also be possible to reduce the initial O, M, & R cost since this is a new system and it could be operated by Terrebonne Water District Staff for initial maintenance and billing requirements. Then, as growth occurs within the District, additional maintenance staff could be retained. The projected $ 29.68 O, M, & R estimate assumes that Redmond would apply the standard Redmond service fee ($19.60) per month to Terrebonne. Such fees are always subject to negotiation. Redmond's $ 19.60 charge includes O, M, & R as well as debt service on their entire collection and treatment system. Since Terrebonne's connection would be direct to the Redmond WWTP, Terrebonne should not need to pay for costs attributable to the collection and treatment system. These would probably include costs associated with extra personnel, debt service, maintenance and pump station electrical costs. Administrative costs should also be lower since it is anticipated that Terrebonne would be treated by Redmond as a single customer and Terrebonne would bill its owns customers individually. A grant determination should be available through a "one-stop" meeting, and the ultimate cost for connection to the City of Redmond facility will be dependent on further negotiations with their representatives. If Redmond negotiations are possible, and if grant monies are available for system installation, funding for this sewer system project is feasible. These hurdles will necessarily be in addition to the proposed debt service fees of an estimated $ 38 per month. 2.7 CONCLUSIONS Based on the analysis provided in Section 2.6, a wastewater system for Terrebonne may be feasible. The feasibility is rather tenuous as it depends on securing maximum grant participation, and a significantly reduced cost from Redmond to interconnect with their facilities for wastewater treatment and disposal purposes. These hurdles are in addition to securing community support for the proposed system and the needed sewer rates to construct, operate and maintain the system, and the estimated $ 4,000 per EDU cost for private property improvements (septic tanks, STEP pumps, etc.) September 1999 2-9 HGE, Inc. SECTION 3 STUDY AREA CHARACTERISTICS SECTION 3 STUDY AREA CHARACTERISTICS 3.1 PLANNING AREA The planning area for this Wastewater Feasibility Study consists primarily of the area within the existing Terrebonne Domestic Water District boundaries. Areas outside the District boundaries are also considered, as needed, to address treatment and disposal issues. Appendix 3.1 shows the location of Terrebonne with respect to other communities in Deschutes County. Appendix 3.1 also includes a map showing both the Terrebonne Domestic Water District boundary and the Terrebonne Rural Community boundary that includes the water district. 3.2 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 3.2.1 Landscape and Topography Most of the Community lies on top of a relatively flat ridge bordered on the west, east, and part of the north, with a steep rimrock that drops to more gently sloped areas below. On the ridgetops, elevations generally range from 2860 ft. to 2880 ft. Lowest elevation of the existing Water District is approximately 2750 ft. A portion of the Redmond Quadrangle, 7.5 minute series USGS map is shown in Appendix 3.2. 3.2.2 Climate Terrebonne's climate is semi -arid with an average annual rainfall of approximately 10. 11 inches per year (Source: Oregon Climatology Service). Mean annual temperature is 47.7° F with temperature extremes ranging from near 0°F in winter to over 100'F in summer. (Data source: 1982 Facilities Plan) 3.2.3 Soils Soils in the planning area include the (Soil Conservation Service) Deschutes Series, Madras Series, and scabland or rough stony land. Much of the most densely developed parts of the community are on the scablands. Soils are of minimal depth - on the order of 6" to bedrock. While soil depths are greater in the Deschutes and Madras series soils, at 20-40 inches to bedrock, they can also be classified as shallow. A copy of the soils map and Soil Conservation Service descriptions included in the 1982 Facilities Plan is included in Appendix 3.3. 3.2.4 Water Resources Dominant water resources in the area are the Deschutes River to the west (approximately 3.5 miles) and the Crooked River to the east (approximately 1.5 miles). The planning area is also cut by several irrigation ditches. September 1999 3-1 HGE, Lac. Several aquifers underlie the Community. The upper aquifer is approximately 175 feet and flows in a northerly direction. Ground water provides all of the community water supply requirements. 3.2.5 Agricultural Lands, Flood Plains, and Wetlands Terrebonne is surrounded by agricultural land, most of which is in pasture or hay. According to the 1982 Facilities Plan, the planning area does not include flood hazard or wetland areas. 3.2.6 Endangered Species A biological assessment for recent water system improvements in Terrebonne was prepared February 17, 1997. A copy of the Study is included in Appendix 3.4. The 1982 Facilities Plan noted no known endangered species living in the study area. 3.2.7 Public Health Hazards Septic system facilities are common in the planning area. Some system failures have resulted in ponding of partially treated wastewater. Many still utilize drill holes for wastewater disposal. According to the County Sanitarian, many of the systems are marginal at best with frequent and reoccurring problems. The County's public health concerns are described in Appendix 3.5. 3.3 SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 3.3.1 General Demands on the proposed wastewater system within the study area are dependent on population, land use patterns, economic growth and seasonal variations. 3.3.2 Population Current (1999) Population. Review of 1999 Terrebonne Domestic Water System billing records indicate 313 active residential water connections plus 26 additional multifamily units resulting in a total of 339 active dwelling units. Residential density was estimated at 2.57 residents per dwelling for the Terrebonne Rural Service Center in 1995. Assuming this density is still applicable, the resulting current 1999 population of the planning area is 871 persons. District staff have noted an influx of younger couples with children replacing retirees and Terrebonne elementary school is the fastest growing in the Redmond school district (Source: Deschutes County Ordinance No. 97-007, Exhibit B). Given these observations, actual population may be significantly higher. Nevertheless, the figure of 871 persons will be used in this feasibility study. Future Population Growth. The 1995 Water System Master Plan used an average annual growth rate (AAGR) of 2.5 %. The Deschutes County coordinated population forecast for non -urban September 1999 3-2 HGE, Inc County areas (includes Terrebonne) is 2.55 % AAGR for the period 1995 - 2020. The 2.5 % AAGR figure will be used in this feasibility study even though it is very likely that it will be exceeded within the design period. Most of the funding agencies needed to implement a new sewer system have balked at allowing for growth in excess of the coordinated forecast regardless of the magnitude or certainty of future growth. The population forecast for the year 2024, based on a current estimated population of 871 and a 2.5 % AAGR, is 1,615 persons. Ultimate Buildout Population. The 1995 Water System Master Plan estimated the ultimate buildout population at 3,080 persons. This assumes the presence of a wastewater system and rezoning. 3.3.3 Land Use Current Land Use. In 1997, Terrebonne was reclassified from a "rural service center" to a "rural community". The County defines a rural community as: "An unincorporated community which consists primarily of residential uses but also has at least two other land uses that provide commercial, industrial, or public uses (including but not limited to schools, churches, grange halls, post offices) to the community, the surrounding rural area, or to persons traveling through the area." (Source: Deschutes County Ordinance No. 97-001, Exhibit B) Terrebonne has several churches, an elementary school, and numerous small businesses along Highway 97. Nevertheless, Terrebonne is primarily residential. Residential water usage accounts for approximately 88 % of annual metered water sales. Existing land use is further discussed in Appendix 3.6. Future Land Use. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan envisions present land use characteristics to continue into the future with the notable exceptions of a commercial expansion area allowing good pedestrian access (and to discourage strip -commercial development) and higher density residential development that will be possible when a sewer system is constructed. Future development that is currently in various stages of planning includes three large residential developments: 60 units, 80 units, and 300 units. Advent of a new prison facility in Madras with 1700 new jobs is likely to fuel development interest in Terrebonne. Provision of adequate and approveable sanitary facilities is a major hurdle that all of the proposed developments must overcome. 3.3.4 Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU's) Overview. In the past, population has been used as the primary factor for sizing public facilities. The use of equivalent dwelling units, or EDU's, is another method of forecasting current and future needs of the District. In addition to year-round residents, the wastewater facilities must also serve the needs of part-time residents, businesses, and tourists. These uses can change or vary at different rates than the service population. For small communities such as Terrebonne, it is convenient and, with no evidence to the contrary, practical to assume that overall community September 1999 3-3 HGE, Inc. growth and composition (the mix of residential, commercial, and other customers) will be more or less even and proportional within the design period. The primary purpose of the EDU determination is to convert all the existing customer water usage to equivalent residential usage. Doing so provides a basis upon which funding and regulatory agencies can compare usage per EDU with other communities to determine both if the usage is reasonable and the proposed improvements are reasonably sized and eligible for any particular funding program. In addition, funding agencies use the total current EDUs in conjunction with user rates as an indication of what the community can afford to pay for capital improvements. The assumption is that each EDU results in the equivalent of one residential billing. Multiplying the number of EDUs by the average residential billing yields the total anticipated revenue for the system. Current (1999) EDUs. Metered water use for the period May 1998 to April 1999 was tabulated for each Terrebonne Domestic Water District account. Inactive accounts, and the few irrigation only account, were omitted. The results are summarized in Table 3, 1. Water usage during the non -irrigation period is reflective of probable wastewater generation. EDUs computed on probable wastewater generation (or non -irrigation period water usage) are slightly less (377 EDUs) than when computed on the average annual water usage basis (384.5 EDUs). The slightly lower figure of 377 EDUs will be used in this study as a conservative estimate of current (1999) EDUs. Table 3 1 Metered water Usage (May 1998 - April 1999) Customer Number of Annual Avg. Non -irrigation EDUs based on EDUs based on Category Accounts Daily Usage Period Avg. Annual Avg. Non -irrigation (gpd) Daily Usage Daily Usage Period Avg. (gpd)' Daily Usage' Residential 313 75,735 51,821 3392 3392 Commercial 18 7,711 3,883 34.53 25.44 Institutional5 9 2,465 1,923 113 12.64 Total 340 85,911 57,627 384.5 377 1 Non -irrigation period: November to April. 2 313 accounts plus 26 additional multifamily units. Residential EDU total is independent of actual water usage - by definition. 3 Annual EDUs based on 223.4 gpd/edu. 4 Non -irrigation period EDUs based on 152.9 gpd/EDU. 5 Institutional customers include: post office, school, 2 halls, and 5 churches. September 1999 3-4 HCE, Inc. Future (2024) EDUs. For purposes of this feasibility study, future (year2024) EDUs are forecasted to be 699 based on 377 current EDUs and an average annual growth rate of 2.5 %. This does not include any special considerations of the three large developments with a potential of 440 new EDUs. Generally, the funding agencies that can provide significant grant dollars have balked at funding projects that are significantly oversized to accommodate anticipated residential growth. They argue that growth should generate systems development charge (SDC) revenue that can then be used to expand the system. Nevertheless, it may be possible, to work with the funding agencies and the developers to rench some kind of compromise arrangement. This possibility is discussed in Section 7. September 1999 3-5 LIGE, Inc. SECTION 4 WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS SECTION 4 WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS 4.1 GENERAL Wastewater characteristics for general planning purposes include flow parameters, BODS, and TSS loadings. Based on considerations discussed in Section 5, flow parameters and loadings are for septic tank effluent. 4.2 WASTEWATER FLOWS 4.2.1 Current (1999) Average Daily Lows Current (1999) average daily flows are considered, for planning purposes, to be equivalent to the current metered water usage during the non -irrigation season. Wastewater flows through the year are (probably) fairly even, with increased commercial use in summer being balanced by decreased water use at the school during summer recess. Metered records for individual residential accounts suggest very few part-time residents. Table 3.1 indicates an average daily non -irrigation period (November to April) usage of 57,627 gpd. Conversations with District staff and the County Sanitarian indicate that some people are currently using less water than they would like to in order to not overload their septic systems. For planning purposes, a current (1999) average daily flow of 65,000 gpd will be used to provide an allowance for the anticipated increased water consumption. 4.2.2 Inflow and Infiltration Inflow 'and infiltration (1/I) refer to extraneous water (rainfall and/or groundwater) entering the collection system through defects in the system. Precipitation in Terrebonne is minimal and most of the community is elevated well above the surrounding plain. Groundwater is generally not present in the pipe zone. With new building sewers and septic tanks, and a septic tank effluent pump (STEP) collection system, the potential for I/I is negligible and, therefore , no additional allowance has been made for 1/I. 4.2.3 Wastewater Flow Peaking Factors For purposes of this feasibility study, the two most important flow parameters are the average daily flow (ADF) and the peak instantaneous flow (PIF). As previously noted, the community is composed primarily of full-time residents, and, with a STEP collection system, 1/I is not anticipated to be a problem. Significant weekly or monthly peaking of flows is therefore not anticipated. Some peaking will invariably occur; however, it will not be as marked as would be the case in communities with many part-time residents, significant and seasonal commercial development, and/or high I/I potential. The peak instantaneous flow parameter is an estimate of September 1999 4-1 HGE, Inc. the short term peak flow that can occur as a result of normal diurnal flow variations. Assuming a STEP collection system is used, the PIF can be computed using the equation': Q = 0.5N+20 Where N = number of EDUs and Q = design flow (gpm) For Terrebonne, this computes to 208.5 gpm (300,240 gpd) for the current (1999) EDU total of 377. 1 Source: Alternative Wastewater Collection Systems, EPA 1991. 4.2.4 Design Flows Design flows for both current and projected future conditions are summarized in Table 4.1. Future average daily flow is based on 2.5 % AAGR. Table 4 1 Current (1999) and Future (2024) Design Flows. Year Average Daily Flow Peak Instantaneous Flow' (gpd) (gpcd)' (gpd/EDU)Z (gpd) (gpcd)' (gpd/EDU)2 1999 65,000 75 172 300,000 344 796 2024 121,000 75 173 532,000 329 761 'Population: 1999: 871 persons; 2024: 1,615 persons 2 EDUs: 1999: 377 EDUs; 2024: 699 EDUs 3 Computed flow based on EDU total and equation in Section 4.2.3 4.3 DESIGN WASTEWATER INFLUENT LOADINGS Wastewater loads consisting of biochemical oxygen demand (BODS) and total suspended solids (TSS), are dependent on population and commercial/industrial customers. Therefore, it can be assumed that future loadings will increase with area growth. Standard unit design loadings and peak factors will be used in determining design loadings. Metcalf & Eddy suggest 0.18 ppcd BODS and 0.20 ppcd TSS, and Ten State Standards recommends minimum loading rate of 0.17 ppcd BODS and 0.20 ppcd TSS, without garbage grinders. Households with garbage grinders add to the strength of the wastewater and Ten State Standards recommend average loadings be increased to 0.22 ppcd BODS and 0.25 ppcd TSS in these cases. 0.22 ppcd BODS and 0.25 ppcd TSS will be used for determining average design loadings for Terrebonne. Since a STEP collection system is recommended, the wastewater will be partially treated in septic tanks prior to being discharged to the system. Septic tank effluent has a BODS strength approximately 50% less than raw wastewater and a TSS concentration September 1999 4-2 KGE, Lic. approximately 75 % less than raw wastewater'. Design values for Terrebonne reflect these modifications. Table 4.2 summarizes 130135and TSS loadings for Terrebonne. The peaking factors are typical of small Oregon communities. Table 4.2 Influent BODS and TSS Design Loading Computation nnn Parameter Unit Loading Peaking Factor Percent Current (1999) Future (2024) (ppcd) Reduction Loading (ppd)1,3 Loading (ppd)z,s for Septic Tank Effluent Average Load 0.22 1 50 96 178 Monthly Maximum Load 0.37 1.7 50 161 299 Weekly Maximum load 0.51 2.3 50 222 412 Daily Maximum Load 0.62 2.8 50 270 501 Influent TSS Parameter Unit Loading Peaking Factor Percent Current (1999) Future (2024) (ppcd) Reduction Loading (ppd)"3 Loading (ppd)2,3 for Septic Tank Effluent Average Load 0.25 1 75 54 101 Monthly Maximum Load 0.43 1.7 75 94 174 Weekly Maximum load 0.58 2.3 75 126 234 Daily Maximum Load 0.70 2.8 75 152 283 ' Based on current population: 871. Z Based on year 2024 projected population of 1,615 persons. 3 Loadings for septic tank effluent. 1 Wastewater Treatment/Disposal for Small Communities, EPA 1992. September 1999 4-3 HGE, Inc. SECTION 5 COLLECTION AND TRANSMISSION SYSTEM SECTION 5 COLLECTION AND TRANSMISSION SYSTEM 5.1 COLLECTION SYSTEM TYPES There are several types of wastewater collection systems - with key distinctions being the type of wastewater (raw sewage versus septic tank effluent) and the means of conveyance (gravity flow or mechanically assisted flow). Brief descriptions of the most common systems are discussed separately below: Conventional Gravity System. This is the oldest and most prevalent type of system. The system involves gravity collection and conveyances of raw wastewater. Pipelines may be deep to overcome topography or pump stations may be needed to "lift" the wastewater and thereby overcome any barrier to practical gravity flow. This system is generally most economical in situations that: have relatively dense development, topography that favors shallower burial depths and minimizes the need for pump stations and easily excavated soils (minimal rock and high groundwater). Conventional systems generally have the longest life and lowest O&M requirements of the various types of collection systems. However, in cases of poor design, poor construction, detective materials, settlement, poor tapping of new service laterals, or "modifications" or "improvements" to accommodate stormwater, this type of system can be one of the most problematic and expensive. Septic Tank Effluent Gravity (STEG) System. This system basically replaces the drainfield, in a conventional on-site septic tank and drainfield, with a community collection system. Septic tank effluent is conveyed from an on-site tank, via a small diameter gravity service line to the larger gravity collection system. Septic tank effluent has fewer solids; consequently, the lines can be smaller in diameter, and pipe grades can be less than with the conventional gravity sewers. This type of system is generally appropriate where connection spacing is sufficiently distant so as to offset the added cost of the septic tank. Because it is a gravity system, it is also constrained by topography. Burial depths are generally less than with a conventional gravity system; therefore, it is less influenced by depth of groundwater or rock. Any venting or pumping requires odor control considerations, and pumping must take into account the corrosive nature of septic tank effluent. Grinder Pump (GP) System. This system utilizes an on-site sump and pump with a grinder attached. Raw wastewater from the sump passes through the grinder and is pumped to a (low) pressure collection system. Since the solids have been ground, smaller pipe diameters can be used (compared with a conventional gravity system). The wastewater is not septic (as in the STEG system) so there is no special odor or corrosion concerns. Because of the high solids concentrations, adequate pipe velocities must be maintained to avoid solids deposition. This system is generally most economical in areas with relatively distant spacing between connections, and physical or topographical features such as high groudwater, rock, or areas requiring numerous pump stations for conventional systems. Systems costs are generally comparable to STEP systems September 1999 5-1 HGE, Inc. (see below); however, O&M costs are , generally, somewhat higher. GP systems have not been as popular as STEP systems in Oregon. Septic Tank Effluent Pump (STEP) System. This system is similar to the STEG system where the community collection system replaces the on-site drainfield. STEP systems utilize a pump located in the septic tank to pump septic tank effluent under pressure to the collection system which, in a STEP only system, is also pressurized. This is generally most economical in areas with relatively distant spacing between connections, and physical or topographical features such as high groundwater, rock, or areas requiring numerous pump stations for conventional systems. STEP systems are probably the most popular (in Oregon) of the various alternatives to conventional gravity service. Vacuum System. In this system, raw wastewater is collected in a sump fitted with a vacuum valve that typically serves two to four customers. As the sump fills, the valve opens, and flow is induced into the community collection system that is kept under vacuum conditions. Because flow velocities are up to 15 fps, smaller pipe Diameters can be used. The systems are best suited to relatively flat areas in order to minimize the number of vacuum stations required. The system is also well suited to areas where burial depths are constrained by high groundwater or rock. There are relatively few communities using this system; however, recent innovations in the technology will undoubtedly make it a more attractive option for many communities. Hybrid Systems. These systems involve the combination of any two or more of the systems discussed above. Generally, it is advisable to combine systems based on the type of wastewater handled: raw wastewater or septic tank effluent. Natural combinations are STEP and STEG or conventional and GP. The rationale for a hybrid system is to install the type of system that is appropriate and economical for any given area within the community. 5.2 DESIGN CONSTRAINTS Terrebonne is characterized by very shallow bedrock. Most of the community is reported to average approximately 6 inches of soil over the bedrock. Lower elevations have more soil, 20-40 inches according to the SCS soil series descriptions. Isolated areas have deeper soils. It is anticipated, for planning purposes, that all pipeline work will include rock excavation. The community is fairly spread out, reflecting both the presence of larger lots and the considerable number of lots that are currently unbuildable because of the inability of the lot to accommodate a legal on-site wastewater system. Topographic constraints include a relatively large and flat area, on top of the ridge, that includes most of the community. Rimrock borders much of this area with parts of the service area located at lower elevations surrounding the rimrock. Other constraints of note include Highway 97 and the railroad cuts through the eastmost part of the Terrebonne Domestic Water District. There are relatively few widely spaced dwellings east of the railroad. September 1999 5-2 HGE, Inc. 5.3 DISCUSSION The shallow depth to bedrock eliminates consideration of a conventional gravity system and also places severe limitations on the large-scale appliability of STEG system. While the relatively flat area on top of the ridge would be suitable for a vacuum system, the isolated lower areas, and the elevation differences of approximately 130 feet in the service area, argue against a vacuum system as an economic alternative. STEP and GP systems are well suited for the physical and topographical constraints present as well as the relatively low density of existing community development. The need for a boring under the railroad the relatively few and widely spaced dwellings east of the railroad argue against extending service to this area. 5.4 RECOMMENDED COLLECTION SYSTEM For general planning purposes, a STEP system is recommended. During design, when more detailed topographical information is developed and existing buildings are mapped, it should be possible to eliminate some of the STEP pumps The final result will be a hybrid STEP/STEG system. To provide a conservative opinion of probable cost, a STEP only system is presented here. A GP system would probably be comparable in construction cost and could be considered further during preliminary design if a treatment system is located fairly close to Terrebonne. It is more likely that a treatment facility would be located a few miles away or, in the case of pumping to Redmond, a distance of 5 miles away. Force main retention times could exceed one day - depending on the route taken - and would result in septic flows and possible problems with solids deposition. Since septic tank effluent does not need to flow as rapidly as raw wastewater to keep solids suspended, the main pump station for a STEP system could utilize smaller pumps and lower flowrates than the main pump station for a GP system. Lower flowrates result in lower pipeline headlosses which in turn result in lower operational costs. Layout of the proposed STEP system is shown in Figure 5.1 and Figure 5.2. Alternative #1 (Figure 5.1) shows routing to deliver all flows to a pump station located somewhere along NW 191h Street. 8 inch diameter lines are located to facilitate growth to the north where growth is most likely to occur and the three large planned developments (Section 3.3.3) are located. The area west of 5' Street has good potential for STEG service. Depending on the location of the treatment facility, the forcemain from the pump station could run either north or south along NW 19t1 Street. Alternative #2 (Figure 5.2) is similar to Alternative #1 except the pump station has been relocated to highway 97. Alternative #2 is only recommended if a transmission main to the Redmond WWTP is constructed along Highway 97. Alternative #2 has less potential for conversion of part of the system to STEG. It would also require higher head STEP pumps for lower elevations on the west side of Terrebonne. Opinions of probable cost for the Alternative #1 and Alternative #2 are shown in Table 5.1 and Table 5.2 respectively. September 1999 5-3 HGE, Inc. September 1999 5-4 HGE, Inc. September 1999 5-5 HGE, Inc. Table 5.1 STEP Collection System - Alternative #1 Ai - i- of Probable Cost' Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Extension Mains 2" and 4" Pressure Mains LF $40 29,000 $1,160,000 8" Pressure Main LF $43 7,500 $322,500 10" Pressure Main LF $45 2,700 $121,500 Service Line Allowance LF $20 18,850 $377,000 (50LF/EDU) Pump Station Sitework and Excavation LS $20,000 1 $20,000 Building SF $100 200 $20,000 Building Slab (concrete) CY $550 10 $5,500 Wetwell LS $10,000 1 $10,000 Pumps EA $20,000 2 $40,000 Miscellaneous Plumbing LS $20,000 1 $20,000 Controls and Electrical LS $50,000 1 $50,000 Construction Subtotal $2,146,500 Construction Contingencies $214,700 Engineering and Construction Observation $429,300 Legal and Administrative $107,300 Land and Easement Acquisition $50,000 Total $2,947,800 771 'Does not include: new building sewers, septic tanks, septic tank effluent pumps, and abandonment of existing on-site facilities. Table 5.2 STEP Collection System - Alternative #2 September 1999 5-6 HGE, Inc. A ti..:nn nr P—hahte r..nctr 'Does not include: new building sewers, septic tanks, septic tank effluent pumps, and abandonment of existing on-site facilities. In addition to the public collection system, there are on-site, private property improvements consisting of: a new building sewer, a new septic tank and effluent pump, a service lateral from the effluent pump to the service lateral constructed as part of the public system, and the abandonment of existing on-site facilities (septic tanks, drill holes, etc.). For purposes of this feasibility study, a cost allowance of $4,000 per EDU is used. Multiplied by 377 EDUs, the private property improvements construction total is $1,508,000. 5.5 TRANSMISSION ALTERNATIVES Treatment alternatives (Section 6) include construction of a facultative lagoon with integrated winter holding or use of the Redmond wastewater treatment plant. Transmission alternatives for these two treatment alternatives are shown in Figure 5.3. Table 5.3 provides a summary description of the five transmission alternatives. September 1999 5-7 HGE, 'ic, Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Extension Mains 2" and 4" Pressure Mains LF $40 28,200 $1,128,000 8" Pressure Main LF $43 10,100 $434,300 10" Pressure Main LF $45 1,200 $54,000 Service Line Allowance LF $20 18,850 $377,000 (50LF/EDU) Pump Station Sitework and Excavation LS $20,000 1 $20,000 Building SF $100 200 $20,000 Building Slab (concrete) CY $550 10 $5,500 Wetwell LS $10,000 1 $10,000 Pumps EA $20,000 2 $40,000 Miscellaneous Plumbing LS $20,000 1 $20,000 Controls and Electrical LS $50,000 1 $50,000 Construction Subtotal $2,158,800 Construction Contingencies $215,900 Engineering and Construction Observation $431,800 Legal and Administrative $107,900 Land and Easement Acquisition $50,000 Total $2,964,400 'Does not include: new building sewers, septic tanks, septic tank effluent pumps, and abandonment of existing on-site facilities. In addition to the public collection system, there are on-site, private property improvements consisting of: a new building sewer, a new septic tank and effluent pump, a service lateral from the effluent pump to the service lateral constructed as part of the public system, and the abandonment of existing on-site facilities (septic tanks, drill holes, etc.). For purposes of this feasibility study, a cost allowance of $4,000 per EDU is used. Multiplied by 377 EDUs, the private property improvements construction total is $1,508,000. 5.5 TRANSMISSION ALTERNATIVES Treatment alternatives (Section 6) include construction of a facultative lagoon with integrated winter holding or use of the Redmond wastewater treatment plant. Transmission alternatives for these two treatment alternatives are shown in Figure 5.3. Table 5.3 provides a summary description of the five transmission alternatives. September 1999 5-7 HGE, 'ic, September 1999 5.8 HGE, Inc. Table 5.3 Transmission Main Alternatives - Misc. Data NPP fioure 5.3 for Alternative locations) Item Alternates IA iB 1C 2A 2B Approx. Pump Station Elevation (ft.) 2750 2750 2860 2750 2750 Approx. Treatment Elevation (ft.) 2880 2880 2880 2760 2760 Force main length (LF) 27,600 28,000 24,000 1,000- 1,000- 15,000 15,000 Static head (ft.) 130 130 20 10 10 Dynamic head (ft.) (8" main, 2.0 fps) 52 52 45 2-28 2-28 Total head (ft.) 182 182 65 12-38 12-38 Total head (psi) 79 79 28 5-16 5-16 Force main detention (Gallons) 72,064 73,108 62,664 2,611- 2,611- 39,165 39,165 Force main detention (hrs.) Q 65,000 gpd 26.6 27.0 23.1 1.0-14.5 1.0-14.5 Force main detention (hrs.) pa 121,000 gpd 14.3 14.5 12.4 0.5-7.8 0.5-7.8 An opinion of probable cost for the five alternatives is provided in Table 5.4. Transmission alternatives are discussed further in Section 6 in conjunction with the treatment alternatives. Table 5.4 Transmission Alternatives Opinions of Probable Cost. September 1999 5-9 HGE, Inc. 5.6 COLLECTION AND TRANSMISSION COST SUMMARY Table 5.5 presents an opinion of probable cost summary for collection, private property improvements, and transmission components of the overall collection and transmission system. Table 5.5 Collection and Transmission Cost Summary Description Alternatives Description IA 1B 1C 2A 2B 8" Force main ($38/LF): 1A 1B 1C 2A 27,600 LF $1,048,800 Collection System $2,947,800 $2,947,800 $2,964,400 28,000 LF $2,947,800 $1,064,000 $1,508,000 $1,508,000 $1,508,000 24,000 LF $1,508,000 Transmission $912,000 $1,436,400 $1,231,200 1,000-15,000 LF $51,300- $38,000- $38,000- $769,500 $769,500 TOTAL' $5,871,800 $570,000 $570,000 Construction Subtotal $1,048,800 $1,064,000 $912,000 $38,000- $38,000- $5,225,300 $5,225,300 $570,000 $570,000 Contingencies $104,900 $106,400 $91,200 $3,800- $3,800 - Engineering and $57,000 $57,000 Construction $209,800 $212,800 $182,400 $7,600- $7,600 - Observation $114,000 $114,000 Legal and Admin. $52,500 $53,200 $45,600 $1,900- $1,900- $28,500 $28,500 TOTAL 1 $1,416,000 1 $1,436,400 1 $1,231,200 $51,300 $51,300- $769,500 $769,500 5.6 COLLECTION AND TRANSMISSION COST SUMMARY Table 5.5 presents an opinion of probable cost summary for collection, private property improvements, and transmission components of the overall collection and transmission system. Table 5.5 Collection and Transmission Cost Summary Description Collection System Alternative' #1 #1 #2 #1 #1 Transmission Alternative 1A 1B 1C 2A 2B Collection System $2,947,800 $2,947,800 $2,964,400 $2,947,800 $2,947,800 Private property improvements $1,508,000 $1,508,000 $1,508,000 $1,508,000 $1,508,000 Transmission $1,416,000 $1,436,400 $1,231,200 $51,300- $51,300- $769,500 $769,500 TOTAL' $5,871,800 $5,892,200 $5,703,600 $4,507,100- $4,507,100- $5,225,300 $5,225,300 ` See Section 5.4. 2 See Section 5.5. s Includes: Construction, contingencies, engineering, legal, administrative costs. September 1999 5-10 HGE, Inc. SECTION 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL SECTION 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL 6.1 TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES - PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION Options considered in this feasibility include discharge to the Deschutes River, mechanical treatment and disposal at the Redmond Wastewater Treatment Facility, and winter holding/summer irrigation. 6.1.1 Discharge to Deschutes River The "City of Redmond, Oregon Advanced Wastewater Facility Plan, February 1994" prepared by KCM, notes the environmental sensitivity of the Deschutes River and that discharged wastewater effluent would not be permitted to have any detrimental impact on water quality in the Deschutes. This level of treatment is not feasible for a small community with limited financial resources. No further consideration will be given to this option. 6.1.2 Connect to Redmond WWTP Preliminary discussion with Redmond indicate the City is open to the possibility of allowing Terrebonne to connect to the existing WWTP. Advantages to Terrebonne in connecting to Redmond include: no responsibility on Terrebonne's part for meeting discharge water quality requirements, effluent disposal, or sludge handling and disposal requirements. Disadvantages include: long pumping and transmission distance (approximately 5 miles), need for pretreatment at the WWTP site because of septic flows (pretreatment would consist of an aeration/equalization basins at the WWTP site), SDC costs of $1215 per EDU,and monthly costs per EDU of $19.60. In addition, Terrebonne would not have much, if any, say in any future fee increases. On the other hand, substantial growth in Terrebonne could be handled more easily through increased flows to Redmond than to expanding an alternate treatment and disposal system. Location of the Redmond WWTP and various transmission main alternatives are shown in figure 5.3. Costs for connecting to Redmond, based on 377 EDUs, and not including transmission costs detailed in Section 5.5, are shown below: SDC cost of $1215 per EDU for 377 EDUs, SDC cost equals $458,055. Monthly service fee of $19.60 per EDU. For 377 EDUs, Annual fee equals $88,670. (Note this is a preliminary figure and could potentially be reduced through negotiation with the City of Redmond). September 1999 6-1 HGE, Inc. Construction of aeration/equalization basin at Redmond WWTP to pretreat septic flows from Terrebonne and provide flow equalization. An opinion of probable cost for this item including construction, engineering, legal, and administrative costs is $405,000. Cost of this item could be reduced significantly if it is incorporated into an overall expansion of the Redmond W WTP rather than constructed as a separate project. 6.1.3 Winter Holding and Summer Irrigation This option requires a site with sufficient land to accommodate both storage of approximately 6 to 8 months of accumulated flow and the disposal (irrigation) of the total annual flow with allowances for rainfall accumulation and pond evaporation. Conventional treatment options compatible with winter holding and effluent irrigation include: facultative lagoon treatment, aerated lagoon treatment, and mechanical plants. Facultative Lagoons. Water in the facultative lagoon naturally stratifies into zones with particular characteristics and treatment functions. The surface zone is aerobic, with oxygen levels that can exceed saturation during sunny days. Oxygen is generated by algae in the near surface zone and by surface reaeration. Aerobic bacteria utilize the oxygen to stabilize organic materials. The lowest layer is anaerobic. Larger solids settle and form a sludge layer where anaerobic bacteria thrive and decompose the accumulated solids. This middle layer is termed "facultative" and is characterized as partly aerobic and partly anaerobic. Facultative bacteria decompose organic wastes entering this zone. Multiple cells are typically used to achieve the desired level of treatment, minimize short circuiting, and facilitate maintenance. Treatment is "natural" and requires no mechanical equipment or chemicals. Facultative lagoons are much larger than aerated lagoons for treatment; however, with winter holding, the treatment and holding functions can be integrated into a single 3 -cell (minimum) lagoon. Maximum lagoon depths for treatment are 6 to 8 feet in the primary cell with greater depths permissible for the secondary cells. Effluent quality is adequate for irrigation of pasture and hay crops. O&M costs are minimal because of the lack of mechanical equipment. Aerated Lagoon. Aerated lagoons utilize deeper (10-15 feet) water depths to better optimize oxygen transfer from air provided by mechanical equipment. The increased oxygen content allows for much smaller treatment cells than those required for a facultative lagoon; however, winter holding requirements significantly reduce this benefit since the holding requirement is the same regardless of the treatment process. Aerated lagoons can produce a higher quality of effluent than a facultative lagoon; but this is not necessary for the type of irrigation described in the previous paragraph. O&M costs are higher for an aerated lagoon because of the additional mechanical equipment and utility costs. September 1999 6-2 HGE, Inc. Mechanical Treatment Plant. A properly sized mechanical plant will provide excellent effluent quality and require much less area than either a facultative lagoon or an aerated lagoon for treatment. Winter holding requirements significantly reduce this benefit since the holding requirement is the same regardless of the treatment process. O&M costs are relatively high because of the level of mechanization, cost of utilities, and level of operator attention required. Recommendations. Because of the shallow depth to rock in the vicinity of Terrebonne, any lagoon system will probably need to be constructed of imported fill. This consideration, plus the cost of mechanical equipment and operational costs, eliminates the aerated lagoon option. Since there are no special effluent requirements, and no stream discharge, the high capital cost and O&M cost associated with a mechanical plant does not warrant further consideration of a mechanical plant at this time'. Of the winter holding/summer irrigation option treatment processes reviewed here, the facultative lagoon is the most promising and is recommended as an alternative to connecting with Redmond. The facultative lagoon is the most promising and is recommended as an alternative to connecting with Redmond. The facultative lagoon/holding and effluent irrigation option is discussed in detail in Section 6.2. 6.2 PROPOSED FACULTATIVE LAGOON The facultative lagoon option is conceived as an integrated treatment and holding facility to minimize construction costs. Such facilities are quite common in the Midwest, where climatic and topographic conditions are similar to Terrebonne's and where winter holding is commonly practiced. Biosolids (sludge) accumulation in such facilities is generally not a concern and can typically be accommodated for periods well beyond the 20 year design life. The proposed facility is presented schematically in Figure 6.1. A site plan is presented in Figure 6.2. The site plan is generic. After a site is selected and the appropriate soils work completed, the design can be modified as needed to optimize site utilization. A site appropriate design should be included in the predesign phase. Relative elevations of the dike top, pond bottoms, and water surface elevations are included on the site plan in lieu of a separate hydraulic profile. General features of the proposed facility include: 3 -cell series operation with capabilities for bypassing and isolating any cell. Isolated cells can be drained. Flow recycle capabilities to enhance treatment (should that be desired) and to allow supplemental water to be added (during initial pond filling and for additional water to meet crop needs during years of lower rainfall and higher evaporation). 'Engineers currently working with the developer of a 300 unit development in northeast Terrebonne are proposing to utilize a membrane mechanical plant with subsurface disposal. If they can prove to DEQ's satisfaction that the plant can consistently meet the stringent subsurface discharge requirements for nitrates and total nitrogen, then the mechanical option could be reconsidered. September 1999 6-3 HGE, Inc, • No headworks per se. Influent to the lagoon will be delivered to the destination cell under pressure from pump station. A flowmeter will be located on the influent pressure line. Grit accumulation in a facultative lagoon are not a concern. EPA's "Design Manual Number 36, Municipal Wastewater Stabilization Ponds, 1983," states that "pretreatment facilities should be kept to a minimum for pond systems." EPA's manual contains no design guidelines or recommendations for headworks facilities such as screening or grit removal. • Each cell is separated from the adjacent cell by a level control structure that includes an adjustable weir. • Duplex pumps, piping, and valving to allow simultaneous recycle and effluent irrigation with both pumps on. In simplex mode, either pump can be used for either effluent irrigation or recycle. • A pressure filter, actually more of a screen, with mesh openings of approximately 0.06 inches, on the effluent line from the pumps. The filter is needed to ensure non -clog operation of the irrigation system. Actual screen sizing will be based on the requirements of the selected irrigation system. • A supplemental water supply well is included in the design to provide water for the chlorinator, filter flushing, plant building, and supplemental irrigation water. Sizing of the well will depend on the availability and access of irrigation water rights associated with any land purchased for the lagoon/irrigation site. A construction budget of $20,000 has been allocated for supplemental water with the understanding that a more detailed description of what this entails will be development after a site is selected. Chlorine contact will be effected in an oversize transmission line. Sizing will vary according to length between the chlorine injection point and the first irrigation head with the intent of providing 30 minutes contact at the peak irrigation flowrate. The long pressure main will ensure thorough mixing of the chlorinated effluent. Irrigation equipment and setup will depend on the final site selected and sizing. Sizing could vary depending on whether or not the site can accommodate the full year 2024 design flow and whether or not water will be used by adjacent (or nearby) property owners. A construction budget or $100,000 has been allocated for irrigation equipment and piping with the understanding that a more detailed description of what this entails will be developed after a site is selected. September 1999 6-4 HGE, Inc. General design parameters are summarized below. Design Parameters Average Daily Flow (1999): 0.065 mgd Average Daily Flow (2024): 0.121 mgd Average Daily BODS (1999): 96 ppd Average Daily BODS (2024): 178 ppd Anticipated BODS Removal: 80-95% Liquid Depth: 2 ft. minimum, 8 ft. maximum Freeboard: 3 ft. Dike Top Width: 3:1 slopes (inside and outside) Dike Top Width: 10 ft. Liner: 60 mil HDPE Cell No. 1 (primary) Bottom Dimension: 325' x 726' Area: 5.42 Ac. 2 Foot Minimum Depth Water surface dimension: 337' x 738' Water surface area: 5.71 Ac. Surface loading rate (1999): 16.8 ppd BODS/Ac. Surface loading rate (2024): 31.2 ppd BODS/Ac. Volume: 11.1 Ac -ft. Average retention (1999): 56 days Average retention (2024): 30 days 6 Foot Depth Water surface dimension: 361' x 762' Water surface area: 6.32 Ac. Surface loading rate (1999): 15.2 ppd BODS/Ac. Surface loading rate (2024): 28.2 ppd BODS/Ac. Volume: 35.2 Ac -ft. Average retention (1999): 176 days Average retention (2024): 95 days 8 Foot Maximum Depth Water surface dimension: 373' x 774' Water surface area: 6.63 Ac. Surface loading rate (1999): 14.5 ppd BODS/Ac. Surface loading rate (2024): 26.9 ppd BODS/Ac. Volume: 48.2 Ac -ft. Average retention (19998): 242 days Average retention (2024): 130 days September 1999 6-5 HGE, Inc. Cell No. 2 and Cell No. 3 (secondaries) (Cells are identical -data provided below applies to one cell) Bottom Dimension: 325' x 325' Area: 2.42 Ac. 2 Foot Minimum Depth 106 days Water surface dimension: 337'x 337' Water surface area: 2.61 Ac. Volume: 5.0 Ac -ft. Average retention (1999): 25 days Average retention (2024): 14 days 6 Foot Depth 183 days Water surface dimension: 361' x 361' Water surface area: 2.99 Ac. Volume: 16.2 Ac -ft. Average retention (1999): 81 days Average retention (2024): 44 days 8 Foot Depth Water surface dimension: 373' x 373' Water surface area: 3.19 Ac. Volume: 22.5 Ac -ft. Average retention (1999): 113 days Average retention (2024): 60 days Lagoon Totals Site Acreage: 20 Ac. 2 Foot Minimum Depth Water surface area: 10.93 Ac. Volume: 21.1 Ac -ft. Average retention (1999): 106 days Average retention (2024): 58 days 6 Foot Depth Water surface area: 12.30 Ac. Volume: 67.6 Ac -ft. Average retention (1999): 338 days Average retention (2024): 183 days 8 Foot Maximum Depth Water surface area: 13.01 Ac. Volume: 93.2 Ac -ft. Average retention (1999): 468 days Average retention (2024): 250 days, 8.2 months Average retention (2024) (Vol. @ 8' minus vol. @ 2'): 192 days, 6.3 months September 1999 6-6 HGE, Inc, September 1999 6-7 HGE, Inc. September 1999 6-8 HGE, Inc. 6.2.1 Effluent Irrigation Irrigation Crop Requirements. Effluent, in general, can only be spray irrigated when there is a deficiency of water, i.e., when the amount of water consumed by vegetation and lost to evaporation exceeds precipitation. Also, the potential nutrient uptake of the crop must exceed the nitrate content of the treated effluent. The Department of Bioresource Engineering, Oregon State University published "Oregon Crop Water Use and Irrigation Requirements," in June 1992. Included in the publication are growing seasons for selected crop by region, and the net irrigation requirements for different recurrence intervals. Initially, alfalfa hay and pasture grass have been assumed as the crops for estimating irrigation requirements. Only hydraulic conditions have been evaluated, since hydraulics is generally the controlling factor rather than nutrient loading. Detailed soils work in conjunction with an effluent reuse plan will need to be conducted at the selected irrigation site to better determine crop suitability and needs. A hydrogeological investigation may not be required since the lagoons are to be lined and irrigation will not exceed the agronomic rate. Net irrigation requirements in Region 16 (Madras- Redmond) for alfalfa hay and pasture grass for a 5 out of 10 year event (average conditions) are listed below: Alfalfa Hay Pasture Grass Month Net Irr (inches) Percent of Seasonal Requirement April 1.85 7.59 May 3.58 14.69 June 4.37 17.93 July 6.26 25.69 August 5.00 20.52 September 3.31 13.58 Total 24.37 100 Month Net Irr (inches) Percent of Seasonal Requirement April 1.81 6.60 May 3.86 14.07 June 4.72 17.20 July 6.65 24.23 August 5.28 19.24 September 3.58 13.05 October 1.54 5.61 Total 27.44 100 September 1999 6-9 HGE, Inc. Monthly Precipitation and Evaporation Data. Average monthly precipitation and evaporation data for the Madras area was provided by the Oregon Climatology Service, Oregon State University (OSU). Field data was collected at the Madras Experiment Station. Average monthly values are listed below. Month Precipitation (inches) Evaporation (inches) January 1.39 13 February .89 11 March 76 April .63 5.26 May .94 7.25 June 92 8.70 July 29 1.017 August .46 9.06 September 48 6.15 October 63 3.29 November 1.32 1.80 December 1.40 Total 10.11 51.67 Note that average annual evaporation exceeds precipitation by 41.56 inches (3.5 feet). Restrictions on Land Use. Regulations pertaining to the use of reclaimed water (treated effluent) from sewage treatment plants are stated in OAR Chapter 340, Division 55. Usage restrictions depend on the level of treatment and disinfection provided. Facultative lagoon treatment (without effluent polishing) would generally be classified as Level I category. Size of the required buffer strip around the irrigation site is considered to be site specific, but typically would be a minimum of 70 feet. The primary reason for more restrictions with lagoon treatment is that pathogenic organisms may be shielded from the disinfectant due to algae or other solids within the effluent. It should be noted that lightly loaded facultative lagoons, as proposed for Terrebonne, naturally achieve a very high removal of pathogens. Land Requirements. Detailed water balances were computed (Appendix 6.1) to estimate land requirements for either pasture grass or alfalfa irrigation. Acres to be irrigated reflect a 25 % reduction due to typical inefficiencies in irrigation works utilizing overhead spray irrigation. Preliminary land requirements for irrigation of the selected crops are summarized below. Actual land requirements are greater because of buffer strip requirements (approximately 13 acres) and any allowances for future expansion and the approximate 20 acres required for the lagoon site. Crop Land Requirements (Acres)* 1999 2024 Alfalfa 13 35 Pasture Grass 11 31 * Acreage does not include buffer strip. September 1999 6-10 HGE, Inc. Overall land requirements total 68 acres; however, it would be prudent to acquire more to allow for additional irrigation area during years with higher rainfall and/or lower evaporation. An 80 acre site is recommended for this feasibility study. Location of the lagoon and effluent irrigation site will be somewhere in the shaded region delineated on Figure 5.3. The smaller parcels within this region would be unsuitable because of the limited utility and the proximity of residences. The most likely locations would be immediately west of Terrebonne on a large parcel or parcels of irrigated farmland. The shaded region farthest from Terrebonne (Figure 5.3) is BLM land. From the roadside, this area appears to be fairly rough and rocky; though smoother areas are reported farther away from the roads. Such an area could be difficult and costly to utilize. The ideal site is the farmland immediately west of Terrebonne. This also minimize forcemain construction costs and pumping costs. Site acquisition can be a slow and complicated process. Funding agencies generally have specific requirements that must be met. Typical requirements include appraisals and owner notification of rights. Generally, a funding agency will not allow the District to acquire land at higher than its appraised value. This limits the District in its ability to negotiate for an otherwise more desirable site. 6.2.2 Opinion of Probable Cost An opinion of probable cost for the proposed facultative lagoon and effluent disposal system is presented in Table 6.1. Total project cost (including contingencies, engineering, legal, administration, and land acquisition) in Table 6.1 is $2,666,245. September 1999 6-11 HGE, Inc. Table 6.1 Proposed Facultative Lagoon and Effluent Disposal Preliminary Opinion of Probable Cost Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Extension M ($) Mobilization 1 LS $75,000 $75,000 Dike construction 77,500 CY $5 $387,500 HDPE Liner (60 mil), Mat, and Anchors 670,000 SF $0.80 $536,000 Inlet Structure 1 EA $20,000 $20,000 Outlet Structure 1 EA $20,000 $20,000 Transfer Structures 2 EA $35,000 $70,000 Transfer Piping 1 LS $60,000 $60,000 Staff Gauges 3 EA $1,300 $3,900 1/a "-0 Road Surface Course (6") 850 CY $17 $14,450 Building (office, lab, restroom, pumps, chlorine 1,200 SF $120 $144,000 room) 1 LS $50,000 $50,000 Chlorine Equip. 2 EA $15,000 $30,000 Pumps 1 EA $20,000 $20,000 Effluent (fine screen) Filter 2 EA $8,000 $16,000 Flowmeters 1 LS $25,000 $25,000 Misc. Site Piping and Plumbing 1 LS $30,000 $30,000 Controls and Electrical 1 LS $30,000 $30,000 Alarm Telemetry 1 LS $10,000 $10,000 Lab Equipment 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 Office Equipment 1 LS $75,000 $75,000 Chlorine Contact Line 1 LS $100,000 $100,000 Irrigation Equip. and Piping 1 LS $20,000 $20,000 Supplemental Water Well 2,000 LF $20 $40,000 Electrical to Site (allowance) 300 CY $21 $6,300 Access Road and Parking (gravel allowance) 1 LS $6,000 $6,000 Seeding (outside dike slopes) 4,000 LF $6 $24,000 Fencing 12 EA $200 $2,400 Signs 4 EA $2,500 $10,000 Monitoring Wells Construction Subtotal $1,830,550 Construction Contingencies $183,055 Engineering and Construction Observation $366,110 Legal and Administrative $91,530 Hydrogeologic Characterization and Effluent Reuse Plan $30,000 WPCF Permit Application $5,000 Land Acquisition 80 AC $2,000 $160,000 TOTAL $2,666,245 September 1999 6-12 HGE, Inc. 6.3 O&M REQUIREMENTS Some of the operation and maintenance associated with a wastewater treatment system include: a) energy costs b) treatment facility c) laboratory analysis d) permit fees e) maintenance • daily inspection • general upkeep and maintenance • cleaning as needed • emergency repairs • painting f) education and operator certification g) administration h) equipment replacement/depreciation fund The proposed facultative lagoon will not require substantial attention. Effluent irrigation will require extra labor; however, this is commonly contracted out to a farmer for all, or share, in the harvested crop. The estimated annual O&M costs are presented in Section 7 for both the facultative lagoon option and the connection to Redmond WWTP option. September 1999 6-13 HGE, Inc. Table 6.10 Proposed Facultative Lagoon and Effluent Disposal Preliminary Opinion of Probable Cost Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost ($) Extension ($) Mobilization 1 LS $75,000 $75,000 Dike construction 77,500 CY $5 $387,500 HDPE Liner (60 mil), Mat, and Anchors 670,000 SF $0.80 $536,000 Inlet Structure I EA $20,000 $20,000 Outlet Structure 1 EA $20,000 $20,000 Transfer Structures 2 EA $35,000 $70,000 Transfer Piping I LS $60,000 $60,000 Staff Gauges 3 EA $1,300 $3,900 '/a"-0 Road Surface Course (6") 850 CY $17 $14,450 Building (office, lab, restroom, pumps, chlorine room) 1,200 SF $120 $144,000 Chlorine Equip. 1 LS $50,000 $50,000 Pumps 2 EA $15,000 $30,000 Effluent (fine screen) Filter I EA $20,000 $20,000 Flowmeters 2 EA $8,000 $16,000 Misc. Site Piping and Plumbing 1 LS $25,000 $25,000 Controls and Electrical 1 LS $30,000 $30,000 Alarm Telemetry 1 LS $30,000 $30,000 Lab Equipment 1 LS $10,000 $10,000 Office Equipment 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 Chlorine Contact Line 1 LS $75,000 $75,000 Irrigation Equip, and Piping I LS $100,000 $100,000 Supplemental Water Well 1 LS $20,000 $20,000 Electrical to Site (allowance) 2,000 LF $20 $40,000 Access Road and Parking (gravel allowance) 300 CY $21 $6,300 Seeding (outside dike slopes) 1 LS $6,000 $6,000 Fencing 4,000 LF $6 $24,000 Signs 12 EA $200 $2,400 Monitoring Wells 4 EA $2,500 $10,000 Construction Subtotal $1,830,550 Construction Contingencies $183,055 Engineering and construction Observation $366,110 Legal and Administrative $91,530 Hydrogeologic characterization and Effluent Reuse Plan $30,000 WPCF Permit Application $5,000 Land Acquisition 80 AC $2,000 $160,000 TOTAL $2,666,245 SECTION 7 FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS SECTION 7 FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS 7.1 OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND REPLACEMENT (0,M,&R) COST SUMMARY O,M,&R costs for both the facultative lagoon options and the connection to Redmond WWTP options are summarized in Table 7.1. Replacement cost computations are included in Appendix 7.1. OX, &R. costs are for Terrebonne only and do not include monthly service fees required by Redmond that, in part, pay for O,M,&R at the Redmond WWTP. Table 7.1 O,M,&R Cost Summary Item Facultative Lagoon Project Options Connection to Redmond WWTP Project Options Payroll Expenses $30,000 $15,000 Office $3,000 $3,000 Insurance $3,000 $3,000 Vehicle Expenses $2,000 $2,000 Education $1,000 $1,000 License and Fees $1,000 $1,000 Materials and Utilities $30,000 $15,000 Replacement $37,700 $5,600 Total $107,700 $45,600 7.2 PROJECT OPTION COST SUMMARY AND COMPARISON A general project cost comparison for the five project options is presented in Table 7.2. Overall project costs range from approximately $5,059,000 to $6,384,000 exclusive of the estimated $1,508,000 in private property improvements (septic tanks, STEP pumps, building sewers, etc.). Annual costs, including O,M,&R and service fees, are also tabulated and range from approximately $519,000 to $594,000. This cost comparison suggests the three options that involve connecting to Redmond as the most economical to construct initially. Note that in this computation there are no allowances for grants. Also, the cost of the lagoon option, if a lagoon is located near Terrebonne, is within the accuracy of this feasibility study, nearly the same as the "Redmond" option. September 1999 7-1 HGE, Inc. Table 7 2 PrniPet notion Cost Comparison Description Collection System Alternatives' #1 #1 #2 #1 #1 Transmission Alternatives 1A 1B 1C 2A 2B Treatment Decription3 Redmond Redmond Redmond Lagoon Lagoon Collection and Transmission Total Costs $4,363,800 $4,384,200 $4,195,600 $2,999,100- $2,999,100- $3,717,300 $3,717,300 Treatment Disposal Total Cost $405,000 $405,000 $405,000 $2,666,245 $2,666,245 Redmond Treatment Connection Fee (SDC) ($1215/EDU for 377 EDUs) $458,055 $458,055 $458,055 $0 $0 Total Project Cost $5,226,855 $5,247,255 $5,058,655 $5,665,345- $5,665,345- $6,383,545 $6,383,545 Preliminary Annual Project Debt Service (25 year term, 4.75% interest, 10% reserve) Computations $397,783 $399,335 $384,982 $431,153- $431,153- $485,811 $485,811 Annual OXAR $45,600 $45,600 $45,600 $107,700 $107,700 Annual Redmond Service Fee ($19.60/EDU, 377 EDUs, 12 months) $88,670 $88,670 $88,670 $0 $0 $538,853- $538,853 - Annual Cost Total $532,053 $533,605 $519,252 $593,511 $593,511 'See Section 5.4 for description. ZSee Section 5.5 for description. 3See Section 6 for description. 4Does not include $1,508,000 in private property improvement (septic tank, STEP pump, etc.). See Section 5.4 for description. sGeneral budget computation - assumes RD loan with no grant funding. 7.3 PROJECT OPTION FUNDING AND RATE ANALYSIS September 1999 7-2 HGE, Inc. A project option funding and rate analysis is presented in summary form in Table 7.3. Table 7.3 notes the total project cost from Table 7.2. A minimum sewer rate of $40 per month per EDU is used and the entire table is based on the current (1999) EDU total of 377. O,M,&R and Redmond Service fee costs are deducted from the $40 rate. The result is the monthly revenue per EDU available for debt service. Because of the relatively high service fee ($19.60 per EDU per month) for connecting to Redmond, the "Redmond" options have significantly less rate revenue available for debt service than the lagoon options ($10.32 per EDU per month versus $16.19 per EDU per month respectively; however, this is subject to final negotiations with the City of Redmond and could be significantly reduced in cost). This limits the RD loan to $613,476 for the "Redmond" options versus $962,420 for the lagoon options. RD matching grants have generally been limited by the amount of debt the community can service. In theory, the "Redmond" options may result in a lower grant award than the lagoon options. Table 7.3 Project Option Funding and Rate Analysis (Based on 377 EDUs) September 1999 7-3 HGE, Inc. Description Collection System Alternatives! #1 #1 #2 #1 #1 Transmission AlternativesZ IA lB 1C 2A 2B Treatment Decription3 Redmond Redmond Redmond Lagoon Lagoon Total Project Cost $5,226,855 $5,247,255 $5,058,655 $5,665,345- $5,665,345- $6,383,545 $6,383,545 O,M,&R Cost Per EDU per month $10.08 $10.08 $10.08 $23.81 $23.81 Redmond Service Fee per $19.60 $19.60 $19.60 $0 $0 EDU O,M,&R and Redmond Service Fee Total (Per EDU) $29.68 $29.68 $29.68 $23.81 $23.81 Assumed minimum sewer rate (for feasibility analysis) (per EDU) $40 $40 $40 $40 $40 Sewer rate revenue available for debt service (per EDU) $10.32 $10.32 $10.32 $16.19 $16.19 RD loan (based on rate revenue available for debt service, 3.25% interest, 25 yr term, general obligation bond) $789,978 $789,978 $789,978 $1,240,365 $1,240,365 Required grant to fund balance of project cost assuming $40 $4,424,980- $4,424,980 - sewer rate per EDU per month $3,986,490 $4,006,890 $3,818,290 $5,143,180 $5,143,180 Required grant as percentage 78.1% 78.1% of total project cost 76.3% 76.4% 75.5% 80.6% 80.6% Potential grant funding sources include: • Oregon Community Development Block Grant (OCDBG) $750,000 (grant only). • Rural Development (RD) Generally 50% maximum grant with matching RD loan. • Water/Wastewater Program (W/WW) $500,000 grant with matching loan. • Special Public Works Fund (SPWF) $500,000 grant with matching loan. Assuming the District can quality for all the above noted programs, there is a potential for $4,100,000 in grant dollars with a requirement to borrow at least $1,565,000. Debt service on $1,565,000 is computed below: September 1999 7-4 HGE, lnc. Description Collection System Alternatives) #1 #1 #2 #1 #1 Transmission AlternativesZ IA 1B 1C 2A 2B Treatment Decription3 Redmond Redmond Redmond Lagoon Lagoon Total Project Cost $5,226,855 $5,247,255 $5,058,655 $5,665,345- $5,665,345- $6,383,545 $6,383,545 O,M,&R Cost Per EDU per month $10.08 $10.08 $10.08 $23.81 $23.81 Redmond Service Fee per $19.60 $19.60 $19.60 $0 $0 EDU O,M,&R and Redmond Service Fee Total (Per EDU) $29.68 $29.68 $29.68 $23.81 $23.81 Assumed minimum sewer rate (for feasibility analysis) (per EDU) $40 $40 $40 $40 $40 Sewer rate revenue available for debt service (per EDU) $10.32 $10.32 $10.32 $16.19 $16.19 RD loan (based on rate revenue available for debt service, 3.25% interest, 25 yr term, general obligation bond) $789,978 $789,978 $789,978 $1,240,365 $1,240,365 Required grant to fund balance of project cost assuming $40 $4,424,980- $4,424,980 - sewer rate per EDU per month $3,986,490 $4,006,890 $3,818,290 $5,143,180 $5,143,180 Required grant as percentage 78.1% 78.1% of total project cost 76.3% .4% 75.5% 80.6% 80.6% Potential grant funding sources include: Oregon Community Development Block Grant (OCDBG) $750,000 (grant only). Rural Development (RD) Generally 50% maximum grant with matching RD loan. Water/Wastewater Program (W/WW) $500,000 grant with matching loan. • Special Public Works Fund (SPWF) $500,000 grant with matching loan. Assuming the District can quality for all the above noted programs, there is a potential for $4,100,000 in grant dollars with a requirement to borrow at least $1,565,000. Debt service on $1,565,000 is computed below: September 1999 7-4 HGE, Ine. RD loan (3.25%, 25 yr term): $1,565,000 Annual RD payment: $92,492 SPWF and W/WW (5.14%, 20 yr term): $1,000,000 Annual SPWF, W/WW payment: $81,198 Total annual debt service: $173,690 EDU'S: 377 Monthly revenue per EDU required for debt service: $38.39 The computation shows that Terrebonne would need 96% of the $ 40 per EDU rate revenue just for debt service, unless Rural Development would increase the level of grants for Terrebonne. However, negotiations with Redmond could develop more favorable SDC rates for existing users and the potential for reduced 0, M & R costs as a bulk user. The potential also exists that higher than normal grant opportunities may be available for Terrebonne. We recommend that the District pursue negotiations with Redmond and schedule a "one-stop" meeting to evaluate project feasibility. DEQ has expressed concern with proposed developments in Terrebonne as well as the continued use of on-site wastewater systems in the area. DEQ's position is that any new developments that manage to get constructed will be required to connect to a public sewer when one is constructed. The new prison in Madras may place considerable development pressure on Terrebonne according to local and County personnel. It may be possible, given the need for housing of prison workers and families (we understand that up to 1700 jobs are associated with the prison), and DEQ's concerns, to provide future capacity in the Terrebonne system to accommodate potential growth. Generally, funding agencies focus on existing EDU's when determining how much debt service the community can bear. Concerns with potential development is that it is unoccupied and therefore not counted in the EDU computation. However, since Redmond SDC's and usage fees would apply to the growth, this could be used as an offset for minimizing initial connection and operational costs. 0, M, & R cost and the "Redmond" service fee cost would be paid by the 377 current EDU's which are actually connected at this time. Table 7.3 shows this figure at $ 29.68 per EDU per month. To construct a system and realize rates in the $ 40.00 range, these figures would need to be substantially reduced or additional grant monies would be required. It may also be possible to reduce the initial 0, M, & R cost since this is a new system and it could be operated by Terrebonne Water District Staff for initial maintenance and billing requirements. Then, as growth occurs within the District, additional maintenance staff could be retained. The projected $ 29.68 0, M, & R estimate assumes that Redmond would apply the standard Redmond service fee ($19.60) per month to Terrebonne. Such fees are always subject to negotiation. Redmond's $19.60 charge includes 0, M, & R as well as debt service on their entire collection and treatment system. Since Terrebonne's connection would be direct to the Redmond WWTP, Terrebonne should not need to pay for costs attributable to the collection and treatment system. These would probably include costs associated with extra personnel, debt service, maintenance and pump station electrical costs. Administrative costs should also be lower since it is anticipated that Terrebonne would be treated by Redmond as a single customer and September 1999 7-5 HGE, Inc. Terrebonne would bill its owns customers individually. A grant determination should be available through a "one-stop" meeting, and the ultimate cost for connection to the City of Redmond facility will be dependent on further negotiations with their representatives. If Redmond negotiations are possible, and if grant monies are available for system installation, funding for this sewer system project is feasible. These hurdles will necessarily be in addition to the proposed debt service fees of an estimated $ 38 per month. 7.4 CONCLUSIONS Based on the analysis provided in Section 7.3, a wastewater system for Terrebonne may be feasible. The feasibility is rather tenuous as it depends on securing maximum grant participation, and a significantly reduced cost from Redmond to interconnect with their facilities for wastewater treatment and disposal purposes. These hurdles are in addition to securing community support for the proposed system and the needed sewer rates to construct, operate and maintain the system, and the estimated $ 4,000 per EDU cost for private property improvements (septic tanks, STEP pumps, etc.) September 1999 7-6 HGE, Inc. APPENDIX 3.1 Location Map showing Terrebonne and other Deschutes County Communities. (Source: Deschutes County Ordinance No. 97-001) Terrebonne Domestic Water District Map. (Source: Deschutes County Ordinance No. 97-001) Map C3: Redmond School District #2J AL MI7NLLL#4WfWArl W K rs", rrracouatrVOWHOMr 0 r 14 MIM. lao C06w/M1r OW1 6pJWARY aCNDOL 171atRKrgJ Map Cnabd: $41147 APPENDIX 3.2 Portion of USGS Map (Redmond Quadrangle, 7.5 minute) APPENDIX 3.3 Soil Conservation Service Soil Type Map and Soil Descriptions (Source: Century West Engineering Corporation, Terrebonne Wastewater Facilities Plan, August 1982.) TERREBONNE FACILITIES PLAN DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON FIGURE 3-11 SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE SOIL TYPE DESIGNATION ry^o errI r_, 1 t ROAD o I I Cinder n O ( Pil A t s TERREBONNE FACILITIES PLAN DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON FIGURE 3-11 SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE SOIL TYPE DESIGNATION ok-SOILs- 1 12/72 40Ii, INTERPRETATIONS FOR OREGON U.S.D.A. SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE FILE COUh; SOILS 12 DATE:_, 173 A`D-G Madras SERIES Sol LS: I. uadAn6 Bandy Loam, 0 .to 3 peAce)Lt 6 Pope.6 The Madras aeries consists of well drained sandy loam or 2, Madhab bandy Loam, 3 .to 7 peAcent loam over clay loam soils formed i..n colluvium. These upland 6P.ope6 coils have 0 to 40 percent slopes, Elevations range from 3, Madkv bandy Loam, 7 to 12 peAve)Lt 2000 to 3300 feet. Vegetation includes bluebunch wheatgrass, 6xope6 big sagebrush, gray rabbitbrush and juniper. Average annual 4. MadAaz6 Yoam, 0 .to 3 peACCILt d�opeb 1,r'ciritation is 9 to 12 inches: mean annual. air temperature 5, MadAa6 Loculi, 3 .to 7 peA.ce.ltt 4&P"is 4b�' to 500 1:, Tlrc average frost -free period (320 F.) is 6. Madna3 Loam, 7 .t0 12 peAC(Uid. dfapc.6 50 to 80 drys rind 280 F, is 100 to 130 days. 7. Madnat 6o4tt, 12 .to 40 peACe0 6Lope6 Typically, the surface laver is light brownish -gray loam about Il inches thick. The subsoil is pale brown or brown clay loam about 9 inches thick. Depth to hardpan is 20 to 30 inches and depth to bedrock is 25 to 40 inches. Permeability is moderately slow. Available water capacity is 3 to 6 inches. Water -supplying capacity is 7 to 9 inches. Effective rooting depth is 20 to 30 inches. Runoff is slow on units 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and medium on unit 7 The water erasion hazard is slight on units 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and moderate on unit 7. Madras soilsare used for dryfarm small grains, hay, pasture, irrigated crops, range and wildlife. These soils occur in central Oregon (136)(B10). The Madras series is a member of the fine -loamy, mixed mesic family of Xerollic Durargids. UI: p' 11AAVAIL. SOIL - SURL':K CLASSIFICATION COARSE 2 OF MATERIAL P1.AS- PGRME:A- WATER REACSWhLI. FROM FRACT. PASSING SIEVE. SUR- USDA IMI_ OVER --w-- LIQUID TICLTY ]iIl.1Tl' CAP. TION TIAPOTL TEXTURE FIED .AASHO 3 IN, 114 1110 f140 11200 LIMIT INDEX (in/hr) (in/in) (pH) TIAL (in,} _ 0-11 sandy Toa+ SM -2,A-4 U 95-10 95-10 55-70 36-40 No.Pla,tic 2.0-6.0 .11-.13 +.1-7. Law 0-11 loam SM, ML A-4 0 80-10 65-10 55-95 40-75 25-30 0-5 .6-2.0 ,13-.18 .1-7. low 11-20 clay loam SC,CL A-6 0-20 65-10 55-10 50-10 40-80 25-40 11-15 .2-.6 .14-.19 6-8,4 moderate 20-25 hardpan 25 tuffaceoul sandst ne _ ,..—.1._..r -1_ .I--- --- lilt;il 1,',lT'fi: TAtil.t. nru+u, EROSION WIND FLOODING LOGIC DEPTH CONDUCTIVITI' CORROSIVITY' T22 EROU. DEPTH K1'I MONTHS(in.) (mmhos/cm) GROUPS FRE UENCY llURATION PfONTlIS (fC ) T _STEEL. CONCRETE Q GROUP _ - ... 6 C None 0-11 .1-.2 low low 3 CEMENT PAN IiLDi:Of.Kt0-11 1-.2 low low 5 FROSTDEPTH HARDNESS DEPTH HANGSS ACTION 11-20 .3 .4 mod. low - (in.) (in.) _ SEI11I ABSOR S E l-11 I_At SAN LAND C r �A T LAND __�1k U COV . S h, 1X(A\ S COMM t I P0 .1 SAN'TTARY FACILITIES AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REST S}; -SOCI. _, J RATING fc-TiVE ti:ATORLS C TANK 1,2, 3,4, Severe Cemented pan PTTON 5,6 percolates slowly (F 1,2 4 5 teve reCemented pail )Nf 3,6,7 evere Slope, cemented pan I ARy 1,23,4, ( Severe Cer n '. t. rd [,.'a)FII L 5. G 7 Severe Slnpe, cemented pan P:,RY 1,2 1 5 Slight FILL ....� 3,6 Moderate Slope tIA 7 Sin re lope ILY .. l 2 4 5 -_Fair Thin yer k POP. 'i,6 FaIr Thin aycr, slope +.tJFIW, ? ...._Poor Slc.ic ._ .._..._.-._.._., 1,2,1,4, Severe Ccme.nted pan \LL04 5,6 ('AT IOSSSe et Sl op e,, ._omen ted_pan_ _ 11'.1 1,� I - Mo is rate Cementad pan .+nth 3, 6 ^lode t +te Slope, cemented pan Stop.. ------- }_,,,, 1,2 �,S Severe Ccmen Ced pan 3,6 Severe Slope, cemented pan Severe-- tALL 1 4 Moderate CCmCn Cerl pan FACIAL. 2,5 Moderate Slope, cemented pan LL?itJ(,ti 3, 7 Seve ye _ Slope __� tr+•nbth ?(.AI 1 �,t 5_..,*todr.rate Shrink- will, low OS AND 3,6 ( Modorate S1yre, shtinli-swell, w streUrt}.___._.. - .,ovrr+ lope SOURCE MATERIAL AND WATEP. NA:;ACF.NENT 'Al URE', poor Area not reclaimable 1,2 ,3 4, ROADFILL 5,6 7 Excessive fines 2,3 4 Unsuited SAND1 5,6 ,7 GRAVEL. 1'2'3'4. Unsuited Excessive fines 5,6,7 __......`. ,._ t1,9,f '4,- .._ .... P or __ _,. _.,._. Area not reolatmabTe TOPSO 11. 7 . Poo- Sli+pu area lint. re+:ialm:rhlc fONO 3,4, Severe (uuuc pan I I SI RVOIR S,b Severe.-_ S1 ,C,, ,irerted pan_-- 7 -- EMBA4KMl"TS DIKES AND 1,23, Moderate Ciptng, low strength 74, 5,,6, - NoL needed DL.A I N„a F 5 6 7 ,,....__.._. -- — Fair — kc lit Lai ochtla 3,6 Fair hooting depth, slope IRRIGATi O.I 7 Poor Stupe — _ . TERRACES ... _-_. _. 1,�,�3,r,, _ ..... _..._._ Rode rate Roe asnq �D 516 c�tslly vERST ,S,_ 1?l__..a__..5?La 7 _i,-2�31,,'Tfoilcrarr Severe Slope-...._-- l(ociln{iicptl: C RAS SED 5 ti WATIRk AYS 7 Severe Shape Madras !aau Ckr: ;I II((;: `;llla_T OR - Sillll+-I 1-i .1 i ' I'ATfON - Id _- S01I 1: 111Ni ttil SDii- RATI NC' RI>STit1CP1 VI. YI AIUNY:S Util _ _ I-4 H�ceuL Ccmenla�l 3.`} 4 _5.... Mo ersteSrcalates aor, Y rco es slowly 6 Mo�erate ops pr rco.atrt I..AYGRnU?JU5�2,5 Moderate Sli�Ytilpercolates V t: AREAS slowly ii &,a } 7 Severe Slo c -- '�7 ...._._.._:_P�...._.�._...---- _. PATHS 1 2 3,4, Slight 1,2,4,5 Slight AND 5,6 Plt:'2lC: AREAS 3,6 Moderate Slope TRAILS 7 Moderate SIo e CAPABILITY AND PREDICTED YIELDS - CROPS AND PASTURE (111(;11 I,Fff1. HANA(-,EMFNT) —`Alfalfa Pasture W Potatoes inter Wtlea �� Itl;,1,1,,,;� 6 20 1 50 6 20 50 6 20 40 ...11151TINEftiiiiW N1RIt FIFH I>iIRR1 IRR WLNlltSKnAKJ HT. 1'fiRFOR_ 10. PL"RfOR- -------"-"—' H'I. PERFOR- SPECIES SPECIC.S SOILS SPECIES . AGE 20 MANCE AGF. 20 ACE 20 ,WJCE `'- 1,6'7,4,5 6None ' WILDLIFE HABITAT SUITABILITY fai _1'OTi_NTIAI, FOR HABITAT IiLEME;TS_SOI'. GRASS b WILD IIARDIJli CONIPER HRUBS 1JPLANTS LAND SWATERN WILD'LEGUME HERB. TREES PLANTS 1,4 (IFair Fair Good Fair Fair V,poorFaiGood 2,3,5,FairFair Good Fair Fair V.Poor V.pOor Good (Irrpoor Poor V.poor V.poor Fair 1,2,3,Fair Fair5,6(N., _ Ponr -�''pt .`'' ---- RANGELAND POTENTIAI. YIELDS_. RANGE SITE NAI`IE SOIL KEl' SPECIES A11D 7 COVER TOTAL USABLE Ib/Ac Ac/AUM Arid Rolling Hills 1,2,3,4, hluebuneh whtg 70 700 2-2,8 5,6 Thurbers ndlg Droughty Sou 4h bluebunch whtg 70 700 2-2.5 �/ i Thurbers ndlg TY;NTIA1, Ati I[ABt:AI_ rUK� IW,DI.AND WULAKD RAI4ULAFD WILDLIFE WILDLIFE WILDLIFE aw- Good Poor - Good V.poor - V. poorFair Y uoo ' F 1 --- GROWING CRAZING 3/1 - 6/15 411 - 12/1 2/15 - 611.5 3/15 - 12/1 C APA B l L I Tl' i.._...—i7D�- Srtl, NIRR -IRR _CID NT9R IRR _,. NIRN IRR -NI RR II _.,..1. _1 .. — 1 4 IVs IIs ._ _._.18 - - 4 2,5 IVe IIIc - 18 - 4 1 I 3,6 IVe IVe - 16 I - 4 1 7 �lVIIs Not e plic le 6 20 1 50 6 20 50 6 20 40 ...11151TINEftiiiiW N1RIt FIFH I>iIRR1 IRR WLNlltSKnAKJ HT. 1'fiRFOR_ 10. PL"RfOR- -------"-"—' H'I. PERFOR- SPECIES SPECIC.S SOILS SPECIES . AGE 20 MANCE AGF. 20 ACE 20 ,WJCE `'- 1,6'7,4,5 6None ' WILDLIFE HABITAT SUITABILITY fai _1'OTi_NTIAI, FOR HABITAT IiLEME;TS_SOI'. GRASS b WILD IIARDIJli CONIPER HRUBS 1JPLANTS LAND SWATERN WILD'LEGUME HERB. TREES PLANTS 1,4 (IFair Fair Good Fair Fair V,poorFaiGood 2,3,5,FairFair Good Fair Fair V.Poor V.pOor Good (Irrpoor Poor V.poor V.poor Fair 1,2,3,Fair Fair5,6(N., _ Ponr -�''pt .`'' ---- RANGELAND POTENTIAI. YIELDS_. RANGE SITE NAI`IE SOIL KEl' SPECIES A11D 7 COVER TOTAL USABLE Ib/Ac Ac/AUM Arid Rolling Hills 1,2,3,4, hluebuneh whtg 70 700 2-2,8 5,6 Thurbers ndlg Droughty Sou 4h bluebunch whtg 70 700 2-2.5 �/ i Thurbers ndlg TY;NTIA1, Ati I[ABt:AI_ rUK� IW,DI.AND WULAKD RAI4ULAFD WILDLIFE WILDLIFE WILDLIFE aw- Good Poor - Good V.poor - V. poorFair Y uoo ' F 1 --- GROWING CRAZING 3/1 - 6/15 411 - 12/1 2/15 - 611.5 3/15 - 12/1 OR -SOILS -1 12/72 SOIL INTERPRETATIONS FOR OREGON U.S.D.A. SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE FILE CODE SOILS 12 1. DebelAwte.a bandy Corm, 0 .to 3 putcen.i A -D -g DESCHUTES SERIES solLs: bCapea DATE L_ 1 73 .. 2. Debchateb bandy .Conor, 3 to 7 peAcUl.t The Deschutes caries consist of wall drained sandy loam noun formed in mixed loamy materials and volcanic ash. btopeb De6C/ttt¢b bandy Foam, 7 to 12 pencC+At These soils have 0 to 20 percent elapse. Elevations 3 bCopeb t range from 2000 to 3800 feet. Vegetation includes hluebunch 4. Debeiluteb bandy .foam, )2 .to 20 Pe-"L'nt wheotgrass, sagebrush, rabbitbrush, Juniper, and forba. bt" s Average annual precipitationis8 too 12 inches; average .Annual air temperature in 47 to 50 F. Theaveragefrost- free period (320 F.) is 50 to 80 days and 28 F. is 110 to 140 days. brownish -gray (dry) sandy loam about 3 inches thick. The subsoil Typically, the surface layer is light is brawn (dry) bandy loam about 29 inches thick. Depth to basalt bedrock is 20 to 40 s. inches. 1 capacity is 3 to Permeability is moderately raPid. Available water caRunoff is pacity is 2.5 to 7 inches. Water2sand and yang on p Y G inches. Effective nrlooting depth iis 20ntunipsilcihes 2 and modarateoonounits t3 and s I n4.2 The wind `erosion ihazard nd hc ,ter zard 1s moderate. rpnge, and wildlife habitat. These soils occur in central Oregon (B6). Deschutes soils are used for irrigated trope, (classification: Xerollic Camborthids, coarse -loamy, mixed, mesic family.) SOURCE MATERIAL. AND WATER MANAGEMENT SANITARY FACI11 LITIES AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SOTL IL1TL2,L: RESTRICTIVE RAATUF USE SOIL. RATING RESTRICTIVE FEATURES USE - SEPTIC TANK 1 2,3 Severe Depth to rock .� 1,2,3,4 Poor Borrow area damage ABSORPTION 4� Severe Slope, depth to rock ROADFILL FTFLDS Severe — Dept% to roc seepage SEWAGE 3,4 Severe Slope, depth to rock, SAND LAGOONS _seepage _ -- SANITARY Depth to rock, seepage GRAVEL LANDFILL 1,2,3,4 Severe P - iTRENCII) _SANITARY 1,2,3 Severe Seepage TOPSOIL LANDFILL 4 Severe Seepage, slope (AREA )--I-�- —•r -'- r.pch co rock �� POND DAILY 3 Fair Depth to rock, elope RESERVOIR COVER FOR Sloe 4 Poor } 1 1ii0F'I I t._ - . - EMBANKKEIITI 112" Severe Severe Depth to rock DIKES AND SHALLOW 4 Severe Depth to rock, slope EXCAVATIONS DWELLINGS . _.1..�2--� ante _ ct -tTl to F-0-CE— Moderate oc cT- 3 Moderate Depth to rock, slope DRAINAGE WITHOUT Severe __1A.SL.ENL`i- De th to rock ol"ELLTNGS 1,2,3 Severe P IRRIGATION wi T11 4 Severe Depth to rock, slope _JVAI,VIMF.KT� 1 .� i —.___-Moderate Depth to roc TERRACES SMALL 2 Moderate Depth to rock, slope AND `CUNMERCIAL 3'1 Severe S1oPe 1Z1.''1LQ 11]l1Lll1iG: `derate 'Ilepi.i Iew'otrengE� LOCAL 3 Mid erste Dept lA to rock slope, GRASSED 1 RC ADS AND low atrengtt'i WATERWAYS gTREEI4. 112,3,4 IPoor IExcessive fines 1,2,3,4 Illnauited IExcessive fines 1,2 Good - - - ll �� it Poor Pnor --Seepage AVAIL. SOIL 5NRI1:K DLP7Ii CLASSIFICATION COARSE Seepage, '-'TOP'! X OF MATERIAL Pte_ PERMEA- WATER RF1 C- WELL FROM 1/ 1� FRACT. PASSING SIEVE LIQUID TI CITY BILITY GAP. TION (Pit) POTEN- TIAL SUR- USDA UNI OVER 04 610 %40 1200 LIMIT INDEX (in/hr) (in/in) FACE (in. ) TEXTURE FIED AASHO 3 IN. 20-45 nonpla tic 2.0-6.0 .12-.17 .6-7.3 low 0-32 sandy SM A-2, 5-15 75-90 70-95 40-85 loam A-4 32 basalt be rock HIGH WATER TABLE: HYDRO DEPTH CONDUCTIVITY EROSION CORROSIVITY FACTORS WIND EROD. FREQUENCY FLOODING DURATION MONTHS DEPTHLOGIC KIND MONTHS GROUP (in.) (mmhos/cm) STEEL CONCRETE K T GROUPS - ? _ - 0-32 .4 - .5 Aigh low .17 2 3 none - CEMENTED FAN FROST REMARKS�- PTH HARDNESS DEPAIiDOCK HARDNESS ACTION (inT) - liar mo Crat SOURCE MATERIAL. AND WATER MANAGEMENT SANITARY FACI11 LITIES AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SOTL IL1TL2,L: RESTRICTIVE RAATUF USE SOIL. RATING RESTRICTIVE FEATURES USE - SEPTIC TANK 1 2,3 Severe Depth to rock .� 1,2,3,4 Poor Borrow area damage ABSORPTION 4� Severe Slope, depth to rock ROADFILL FTFLDS Severe — Dept% to roc seepage SEWAGE 3,4 Severe Slope, depth to rock, SAND LAGOONS _seepage _ -- SANITARY Depth to rock, seepage GRAVEL LANDFILL 1,2,3,4 Severe P - iTRENCII) _SANITARY 1,2,3 Severe Seepage TOPSOIL LANDFILL 4 Severe Seepage, slope (AREA )--I-�- —•r -'- r.pch co rock �� POND DAILY 3 Fair Depth to rock, elope RESERVOIR COVER FOR Sloe 4 Poor } 1 1ii0F'I I t._ - . - EMBANKKEIITI 112" Severe Severe Depth to rock DIKES AND SHALLOW 4 Severe Depth to rock, slope EXCAVATIONS DWELLINGS . _.1..�2--� ante _ ct -tTl to F-0-CE— Moderate oc cT- 3 Moderate Depth to rock, slope DRAINAGE WITHOUT Severe __1A.SL.ENL`i- De th to rock ol"ELLTNGS 1,2,3 Severe P IRRIGATION wi T11 4 Severe Depth to rock, slope _JVAI,VIMF.KT� 1 .� i —.___-Moderate Depth to roc TERRACES SMALL 2 Moderate Depth to rock, slope AND `CUNMERCIAL 3'1 Severe S1oPe 1Z1.''1LQ 11]l1Lll1iG: `derate 'Ilepi.i Iew'otrengE� LOCAL 3 Mid erste Dept lA to rock slope, GRASSED 1 RC ADS AND low atrengtt'i WATERWAYS gTREEI4. 112,3,4 IPoor IExcessive fines 1,2,3,4 Illnauited IExcessive fines 1,2 Good - 3 Fair Slope - Poor Pnor --Seepage S 1,2,3 Severe 4 Severe Seepage, '-'TOP'! 1,2,3,4 (Moderate IPipiug, low strength 1,2,3,4 I- INot needed 1,2,3 Fair Rootiny, dcPth 4 Poor Slope 1,2 3,4 Not needed 1,2,3,4 - Not needed CONTINUATI CN SIIFET OR -`,OILS 1 12/12 _-_DESCHUTES __.m'RI['.S RECREATION USF SOIL RATING RESTRICTIVE FEATURES USESOIL RATING RISTRICTIVE FEATURES _...._.w._... _ _...._.,...._..___._._ -IT y "`"-_- Slgfit = '��-'� I`��- 1Tvderate � Depth to ruck CAMP AREAS 3 Moderate Slope P7.AYCROUNDS 2 Moderate Depth to rock, elope 4 Severe Slope 3,4 Severe She _.___......_...m...�._ .__...._..,...� ,.,,. _....._.._� �......_._.____.___ - 1,2 Slight -- _..____._ _--_..--- _ .__ . PATHS 1,2,3 Slight - PICNIC AREAS 3 Moderate Slope AND 4 - Moderate Slope 4 ISevere Slope TRAILS CAPABILITY AND PREDICTED YIELDS - CROPS AND PAS'PURE (H[Cll LEVEL MANAGEMENT) WOODLAND SUITABILITY SOIL SOIL CAPABILITY Potatoes (Tons) Il alfa Nay (Tons)(AUM) Pasture Wheat (Bu) NATIVE SPECIES POTENTIAL REXA1?J,S SOIL NIRR IRR NIRR IRR -W-RR 'IRR _ NIRR _ IRR NIRR IRR NIRR _ IRR NIRR IRR WATER 1 VIe IIs - 17 - 5 - 15 - 90 2 VIe IIIe - 17 - 5 - 15 - 90 Fair V.poor 3,4 Fair 3 VIe IVe - 15 - 5 - 15 - 80 (DRYLAND) 4 VIe IVe - 15 - 5 - 15 - 80 Fair - Fair Fair V.poor WOODLAND SUITABILITY SOIL SOIL PRODUCTIVITS' HT. AGE 20 WOOD SUIT. MANAGEMENT' PROBLEMS- ROBLEMS_ _ SEEDLING WINU'IHROtl PLAT NATIVE SPECIES POTENTIAL INDEX EROSION EQUIPMENT None SPECIES SITE GROUP HAZARD LIMIT. MORTALITY HAZARD COMPET. LEGUME 1,2,3,4 None PLANTS SHRUBS PLANTS WATER WILDLIFE WILDLIFE _ WILDLIFE WINDBREAKS SOILS SPECIES HT. AGE 20 PERFOR- MANCE SPECIES HT, AGE 20 PERFOR- MANCE SPECIES III. AGE 20 PERFOR- MANCE 1,2,3,4 None OPENLAND WOODLAND WETLAND RANGELAND GROWING SEED LEGUME HERB. WILDLIFE HABITAT SUITABILITY RANGELAND RANGE SITE NAME POTENTIAL FOR HABITAT ELEMENTS POTENTIAL AS HABITAT FOR: SOIL GRAIN 6 _ GRASS S WILD HARDWD CONIFEfi _ WETLAND _ 511AL1AW OPENLAND WOODLAND WETLAND RANGELAND GROWING SEED LEGUME HERB. TREES PLANTS SHRUBS PLANTS WATER WILDLIFE WILDLIFE WILDLIFE WILDLIFE ( IRR} needlegrasses 1,2 Fair Good Fair Poor Fair Fair V.poor V.poor Fair Fair V.poor 3,4 Fair Fair Fair Poor Fair Fair V.poor V.poor Fair Fair V.Poor (DRYLAND) 1,2,3,4 Poor Fair Fair - Fair Fair V.poor V.poor Poor Fair V.poor Fair RANGELAND RANGE SITE NAME SOIL KEY SPECIES AND X COVER POTENTIAL YIELDS NORMAL SEASON TOTAL USABLE _ lb/Ac Ac/AUM GROWING GRAZING Juniper Sand Hills 1,2,3,4 Idaho fescue 5-7 3/15 - 6/15 4/15 - 12/1 bluebunch whtg needlegrasses FOOTNOTES I/ Based on engineering test data in Soil Survey Prineville Area, Oregon issued FebrUary 1966. APPENDIX 3.4 Recent Biological Assessment for Selected areas in Terrebonne J. MARK PERKINS JOSTIUA R. PETERSON 2217 E. EMERSON AVENUE SALT FAKE CITY, UT 84108 1-S O 1-5 8 S-7909 E-NMIL=batsrusl@sisna.com At the requ%:st of HGE Inc. and Doug McLaughlin, of the Terrebone, OR Water District we conducted a biological assessment of the proposed water system improvements. The project consists of the siting of a proposed storage and pump station and two priority levels in distribution improvements (please see attached map). US Fish and Wildlife provided a list of flora and fauna of concern in regards to habitat or presence on the proposed project site (Table 1). On the 7 February, we surveyed the proposed project for habitat or presence of any species in Table 1. We divided the project into two portions: the pipeline and the reservoir site. We discuss both of them below. PIPELINE: the pipeline route is situated along roadside for all but one 1300' portion. The roadsides to be excavated are paved, graveled or packed dirt. This area contained no habitat for any of the species in Table 1. The 800' portion of the pipeline which is not located in the shoulder crosses under farm land that is dominated by agricultural grasses. RESERVOIR SITE: The lot proposed for the reservoir and pump station had paved road on two sides (WS), a fire station lot on one side (N), and school property (E). The east edge of the site borders school property that is highly disturbed. Past dumping of large rocks has obliterated any native habitat in that area. The rest of the lot was dominated by young (<8" dbh, <1(Y tall) junipers (luniperus occidentaBs) and at least three species of exotic grasses (one of which was cheet grass). There is no standing water to attract drinking or foraging bats, Black terns, caddisflys, trout, or Oregon spotted frogs. The open areas do not contain roosts for the larger avian raptors (Peregrine falcon, Bald eagle and Feruginous hawk). In addition, the urbanization of the area precludes use by Western burrowing owls and Feruginous hawks. Critical habitat components for Pygmy rabbits and Northern sagebrush lizards are absent on the reservoir site (sagebrush, rabbit brush, and other Steppe ecosystem native plants). It is our opinion that the proposed water system improvements will have little or no effect on any listed and candidate species, or species of concern. Table 1. Federally listed and proposed endangered and threatened species and species of concern in the vicinity of Terrebone, OR, water system improvement ra ect. _.__...-- COMMON NAMES SCIENTIFIC NAMES LISTED SPECIES Birds Bald Eagle Peregrine Falcon CANDIDATE SPECIES Amphibians and Reptiles Oregon Spotted Frog SPECIES OF CONCERN Plants Haliaeetus lelucocephalus Falco peregrinus Rana pretiosa Estes' artemisia Artemisia ludoWciana estesil Peck's milk vetch AR&aiagus peck i Invertebrates Deschutes ochrotrichian micro-caddisny Orchrotrichia phenosa Fish Interior redband trout Amphibians and Reptiles Northern sagebrush lizard Birds Oncorhynchus mykisw gibhsi Sceloporus g"e osus graciosus Western burrowing owl Athene cunicularua hypugea Feruginous hawk Buteo regalis Black tern Childonias niger Mammals Pygmy Rabbit Brachylagus idahoensis Small -footed myotis Myods ciiiolabrum Long-eared myotic M. evotis Long-legged myotis AL Volans Yuma myotis M. yumanensys Western big -eared bat Corynorhinus tovmsensM townsendii C toRpsendiipallescens APPENDIX 3.5 Public Health Concerns August 24, 1999 HGE, Inc. ATTN: Bill Pavlick 375 Park Ave Coos Bay OR 97420 Dear Mr. Pavlick: Subject: Terrebonne Community Sewer Dear Mr. Pavlick, 11;' N\N'Lafiayette, 0,Ve,f1UC. • Ber.J, Oregon . 9770 1-1 925 ['54',r :),L I h-657 5 FAX1L35-17E;r1 Planning Dn.i9ion iJuilding S;Yecj+ Uivisnn �m;ir•onnieru�i; N�eL':h Division The City of Terrebonne is facing a dilemma to which all growing communities in Oregon using on-site sewage disposal must eventually find a solution, Terrebonne is using a technology (on-site sewage disposal) developed for rural density lots in an urban density lot setting. A septic system, with proper maintenance, can be expected to adequately function for approximately 20 years where average household wastewater flows are generated. When it does fail, it must be repaired. The effectiveness of the repair is severely diminished when lot area is limited. Most of the developed lots in Terrebonne do not have a backup area in reserve to install an adequate septic repair. On smaller lots people cannot build on their property, modify their existing homes or expand their businesses because of a lack of room to install a to code minimum standard septic system, We have also required installation of costly sand filters for repairs and for new development where lots were too small for conventional gravity systems. In addition to the smaller lot sizes, Terrebonne has some geologic conditions that limit septic installation and affect the functioning of existing septic systems. Shallow soil to bedrock limits absorption of effluent and allows premature failure of the system. Volcanic activity has created large pockets of rapid draining cinder material, the underlying volcanic bedrock has cracks, crevices and voids that may allow sewage effluent to contaminate the groundwater. In the past, a common method of disposing of sewage effluent in Central Oregon was the waste disposal well. Sewage from the dwelling comes out to a septic tank and then is plumbed to a waste disposal well. These wells were installed by well drillers into the bedrock Quality Ser -vices Performed -with 1'ride (some up to 300') to a crack, crevice or void that would take the effluent. This affords no treatment and is a very definite contamination risk to the groundwater. There are many older dwellings in Terrebonne using this method. Enclosed are the statistics you requested on recent septic activity in Terrebonne, in the last 10 years 105 systems have been installed in Terrebonne, 48 of which were repairs. The rate of repair compared to alteration and new system installation in Terrebonne is 47%. This is over twice the repair rate compared to the rest of Deschutes County. Many of these lots have chronic conditions that create repeat septic failures. The periodic presence of untreated sewage on the ground surface from failing drainflelds is a health hazard and the residents should not tolerate this. Health hazards cannot be ignored or tolerated by the Environmental Health Division. Deschutes County does an excellent job of identifying and forcing repair of these failing systems. Nonetheless, this approach to sewage treatment and repair can only be considered a short-term solution. A community sewer system is the only sound, long-term solution. If we can be of any further assistance, feel free to contact our office. Sincerely ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION Roger W. Everett, Director Enclosure APPENDIX 3.6 Existing Land Use Information (Source; Deschutes County Ordinance No. 97-001, Exhibit "B") Exhibit L°B" B. Land Use Planning 1. Existing Land Uses The predominant land use in Terrebonne is single-family residences, including a manufactured home park with 26 single-family units. Commercial land uses include supermarkets, a gas station, trucking companies, farm equipment sales and service, restaurants, a hardware store, a veterinarian and various other small-scale retail businesses located along Highway 97. 'There is a grange hall, a post office and an elementary school. There are also several churches. A significant recent development in Terrebonne is a large new supermarket. Land bordering Terrebonne is zoned Exclusive Farm Use Terrebonne Subzone (EFU-TR), Multiple Use Agriculture (MUA-10 acre minimum lot size), and Rural Residential (RR -10 acre minimum lot size). The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan designates EFU land for agriculture uses and WA -10 and RR -10 land for rural residential uses. The EFU land around Terrebonne is employed in a range of small- to large-scale irrigated agricultural uses, while the MUA-10 and RR -10 land is parcelized and developed with rural residences and small-scale agricultural uses. According to a county land use inventory conducted in 1994, the estimated maximum number of potential new lots in Terrebonne was 1,233, based on the availability of community water service. A land use inventory compiled in 1997 using the County Assessor's data base is shown in Table B 1 below. Table 131: Land Use Inventory - Terrebonne Rural Community Deschutes County PW Gly Parcel Basemap, November i�, IYYO PAGE 4 OF 33 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE No. 97-001 (6/3/97) Exhibit "B" 2. Comprehensive Pian Designations The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan for the Terrebonne Rural Community has the following five comprehensive plan designations (See Map B 1 and Table B2 and 133 on the next two pages): 1) Residential. The land designated Residential on the Terrebonne comprehensive plan map includes the highest density area of Terrebonne, corresponding with the boundary of the old Hillman Plat. It is intended to accommodate higher density residential uses, served by community water. 2) Residential 5 Acre Minimum. The land designated Residential -5 Acre Minimum includes the larger parcels of land in Terrebonne located to the north and south of the Hillman Plat. The Residential -5 Acre Minimum designation is intended to maintain the rural character of the community by retaining large lots where community water is not available. 3) Commercial. The Commercial plan designation was created to accommodate existing non -conforming commercial uses on the east side of Highway 97 and to in -fill between commercial uses on both sides of 11th Street. The Commercial designation is intended to encourage development of a pedestrian -friendly commercial center on both sides of 11th Street and to discourage highway strip -commercial development. 4) Commercial Expansion Area. The Commercial Expansion Area designates the only area for future expansion of die Commercial plan designation and Commercial zoning district. The Commercial Expansion Area is intended for future expansion of the Terrebonne commercial center with a connected road network and good pedestrian access, directed away from the highway to discourage highway strip -commercial development. 5) Commercial - Rural. The Commercial -Rural plan designation was created to accommodate existing non -conforming, small-scale, low -impact truck and heavy equipment uses, not generally compatible with a pedestrian friendly commercial center. The businesses listed below in Table B3 were not required to go through a conditional use permit process or site plan review when the Commercial -Rural zone was applied to the properties. The business owners provided some specific information about the operating characteristics of each businesses on a questionnaire, recorded in county File No. TA -96-13 and in the county address file for each primary property. Applying the Commercial -Rural zone to these properties did not validate them as legal uses. The new zone gives the existing uses an opportunity that did not exist before to apply for and receive site plan and conditional use permit approval for a listed use. If these uses change or expand, they will be subject to site plan review, conditional use permit requirements and to the provisions of Title 18, chapter 18.66 of the Deschutes County Code. PAGE 5 OF 33 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE No. 97-001 (6/3/97) Map 132: Terrebonne Rural Community Comprehensive Plan Map ropasod ,Qf munity Boundery N Parcels mprotansiv Pian w H Commarclal - Rural 0 0.25 O b Mlles LU CorrvuKdel 7 p. Commerdel Expansion Area x Residential Map Created: 418197 �� Residential 6 Acro Minimum Exhibit "B" Table B2: Terrebonne Comprehensive Plan Designations and Zoning Districts .. t / IjYf' ,'ii. \ ,t air � _ijffs .�� IS i� t^•. J I,�iCylf � J� Zoning Distrcets ' Comdr he lft PIah DesjgnaUons �; v <,Cor s a ctit'ng Yc ik?,, c ? U. t t``�• � 'JF AY '8xr �` t,4,y Y'�F C'Ai�'1+l �.� � �, n {� �,m ,�*y: + � ...#}°� n Residential Residential (TeR) District Residential - 5 Acre Minimum Residential -S Acre Minimum (TeR5) District Commercial Commercial (TeC) District Commercial Expansion Area Residential (TeR) District Commercial - Rural Commercial -Rural (TeCR) District Table B3: December 1996 - Businesses in the Commercial - Rural District PAGE 7 OF 33 - EXHIBIT `B" TO ORDINANCE No. 97-001 (6/3/97) Exhibit "B" 3. Land Use Policies a. General Land Use Policies 1) Land use regulations shall conform to the requirements of OAR Chapter 660, Division 22 or its successor. 2) County plans and land use regulations shall ensure that new uses authorized within the Terrebonne Rural Community do not adversely affect agricultural uses in the surrounding Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) ones. Zoning regulations shall require any new structure on land contiguous to EFU-zoned land which is receiving special assessment for farm use to be set back 100 feet from the common property line. 3) All zoning districts in the Terrebonne community shall allow residential uses. 4) The county shall encourage the preservation of historical structures in the Terrebonne Rural Community, such as the Ladies Pioneer Club (1911), the Grange Hall (1925) and the Oregon Trunk Railroad Depot (1911). b. Residential Area Policies 1) Areas designated residential on the comprehensive plan map shall be designated a corresponding residential district on the zoning map. 2) The county shall plan and zone for a diversity of housing types and densities suited to the capacity of the land to accommodate water and sewer facilities. 3) The land designated Residential -5 Acre Minimum is intended to maintain the rural character of the community by retaining large lots where community water and sewer are not available. 4) Lands designated Residential -5 Acre Minimum shall not be redesignated and rezoned to accommodate higher densities until public water is provided. 5) Livestock shall be permitted in both residential districts subject to use limitations. c. Commercial Area Policies I) Allow small-scale, low -impact commercial and industrial uses in conformance with the requirements of OAR Chapter 660, Division 22, and larger commercial uses, if such uses are intended to serve the community and the surrounding rural area or the travel needs of people passing through the area. 2) The commercial district shall limit the size of all industrial buildings and the type of industrial uses to assure that the industrial uses are small-scale, low -impact and do not dominate the character of the commercial district. 3) Design standards in the commercial districts should encourage new development that is compatible with the rural character of the community. 4) Where there is a choice to use a road other than Highway 97 for access, access shall not be taken from Highway 97. PAGE 8 OF 33 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE NO. 97-001 (6/3/97) Exhibit "B" 5) Approval standards for conditional uses in the Commercial -Rural District shall take into account the impact of proposed uses on the nearby residential and commercial uses and on the capacity of the transportation and other public facilities and services to serve the proposed use. 6) The land designated Commercial -Rural shall not be considered for expansion into the surrounding land designated Residential or Commercial, except at next periodic review. 7) Stand-alone residential uses or residences in conjunction with uses listed in the commercial districts shall be allowed, but they are not intended to predominate or set the development standards for other uses in the area. 8) Land divisions or replatting for residential purposes shall not be allowed in the commercial districts. 9) Livestock shall not be permitted in the commercial districts. c) Commercial Expansion Area Policies: 1) The Commercial or Commercial Rural plan designations shall not expand on the west side of Highway 97. 2) The area designated Commercial shall only expand to the designated Commercial Expansion Area on the Terrebonne comprehensive plan map (See Map B1). No expansion of the Commercial Expansion Area shall be considered until next periodic review. 3) Rezoning the Commercial Expansion Area from Residential District to Commercial District shall be allowed only if no land currently zoned Commercial District can reasonably accommodate the proposed use. 4) Rezoning the Commercial Expansion Area from Residential District to Commercial District may be done without a Plan Amendment and shall be allowed only if the Terrebonne Domestic Water District facilities provide, or will provide, adequate water quantity and pressure for commercial or domestic use to serve the area being rezoned; and the road rights of way serving the area being rezoned have been, or will be, improved to applicable county right of way standards for the Terrebonne Rural Community. An applicant for a zone change must be able to demonstrate that: ® Road right of way improvements and public water facilities to the property are in place or will be in place when the development occurs; or w Road right of way improvements and public water facilities to the property are under construction when a permit is issued; or ® Road right of way improvements and public water facilities to the property have been included in a local government or special district budget. These standards shall apply in place of the county standards for rezoning contained in Title 18, section 18.36.020 of the Deschutes County Code. PAGE 9 OF 33 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE NO. 97-001 (6/3/97) APPENDIX 6.1 Lagoon Water Balance Computations M W in N tom. M N M r r M 0 N N M 4 'V' 6 6 d' 4 M N N L 11 f` CD t() Ct T N O ti m q V' Lq LO r Mr- O �Dz1' M N p) N m M ' u) (0 N E v 2 li > O 0 0 0 0 0 0 (O T N m T t^- t`; C 2) O 0 O 0 0 0 N CO 00 N't O M Cl) tD 0 0 0 0 0 0 LO CO h- (O o— r– c a 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 00 M CO N O M M O 0 0 0 0 0 0 r M CP 0 M M "t co •j N EM 6 ^ O ti 0 0 0 0'It V' CO T M t` O M r C7 O O C) U7 N M O M U') O T u) 7 Q W 0 0 0 0 0 0 (p Cn O t- (O to 00 N o0 O O O O N N (-- T O r (D M- 0 0 0 0 l() t- OD CD CA (O r cu r t(i tU ^ 7 C W 00 (O ti r- r W 00 r T d' CD cO d' O r r T r 0 0 r r O 0 0 N ' Co C � r ( 4 mNornrn(om�Nrncflao+- ( O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C C ^ i 0 N O N N w N O N (D N N C) c0 u [n (D (O (O (O u7 CO CD (Q CD CD (U CD N ti (u C:D 3 c CL 0 c Q E ((�coO v_• N 00 oOoOOOOOOOOO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 tiO C o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U') W) t.() m u) m C[) 0 In u7 LO LO � (v T 3 a O (O (O (0 M O CO (O (O (D (D co O C1 U O d' 'q O t- V 'q M M N f� C .s. O M 00 C[) r N m N I -- `m { (1)rf C' 40 Cn tr C• M N N N U tL' 0 + 0 �y � r (X3 !Z CL O O ,C O T U) T 0) N Ir T 0)v 0 d' L N N m m I' C!') to t(7 l[) N U U > U [ C Q •� C Cro 1c�. C> O g U O N m 0 0zO--5 LL ��<U) -- M E M O CO N — P- O — C`'l O N N M d' Nf 0 N N r_ c a^ M ti (D LO N M� Lq O N Nr N N M U WU�l N N N N Nr LO � O U iz Q N Cn O O O O O M 00 O M CO U) �- C 2) a- C7 O O CD O N 'Ct U7 M tD d' O @ x � t � CD U Q i �l 0 0 0 0 0 — (0 N 0 O M C b to CD 0 0 CD 0 m O r- O N u) @ •� N O O O V' rt CO Cl O n 1` O O C) O (fl f-- CIO O M to O Q c r @ U W W o O O 0 0 CD u) O r- O to M N M 0 0 0 0 N N r, — O — (D co — 0 0 0 0 LO c`- O O m (D r r C(] CL Wm ^ > C LU CO (D Il- ti OA CR r c- d' CO CD d' C) c-- — —- O O s- � O 00 N i w C r" C U C M N d O M M M ti' N O Co M c O M "t ai OR c -h (D O O N 'c7 IT CD .- -- C> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i C i c cNp CV O N N U0 N O N O N N (D to CO O to (0 (0 M CD CO (O (0 N N E-�5 ti CL C L.t ( _ ` N O dO O O O 0 O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD 0 0 0 0 w0 r' r-' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N C LO to to ( Lo LO to Lo to c() C) L (1 7 0 (D (D (D (D (D (D (D to (0 (D CD y O a - S CA O O h q — h- h- Q CO U-) (n M C O CO M O 0 r r (D O O M N N N N N o i V d Cn tri �t d M N U Cn Q ^ o N LO CL N co co r O t[7 N M S Ct) O N I- O O M O r— 6 N M M M CD 4 LO N N N M;r Uy to to (c) v M N C Q � C 7. 0 c[1 '> U C C C T =) Q. 0z0AU-2<2��<U)I� M r- Morn to m r m m (o o N M 4 66 M r-_ ti LO M N CV s C 4 '. u. O r r M LI) O to co 0) N (9 M r N in M O N r r rl- T CO r O M LO O M 0) O 00 (D V N N E � � U d O O O O O O O N OA O Mlz� 0) CO c OF O M C) 00 0 co t- v O) fV 14- .0 CZ♦ r r N r r 0 M .In N Q Cl 0 0 00 0 (n M N M O r Iti c ,o 0 0 0 0 0 0 C0 O M N O M M Ocr N ^ O r- 0 0 0 0 m T Ln 1- O M to O M c- O O O O to M O O M LO tM � U W rnoo000(flu)or`(otnM N M O O O O M r 0 0 0 0 Lo S M Oto 0 r r Ln CL to ^ > C LLJ _ M (0 1�- rP- OT r 0 0 •-- •- O O O N JT T t t. � ti. V M N O (n O) (D M t7 N O CD M r C O r- s- .- 0 0 0 0 0 0 (D 0 0 � (6 f U) r In LO 14- Ln �- Ln r In 10 �-- U,i �( �- .- O .- r .- T r LO < C C CL Q i M o O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 N O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i }. O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O T (6 M tp N N N N N N N N N N N N i a r r r r C � m U O t� M In f C C .6 O h- ti o7 0 CA CA M O 00 O to ti M N N U CV (V M 0 O Il- 1- 0 (V d b ..0., n co r r M Ln O Ln M M rl- 0 M i !Z. Q. Ri O O @ r r N 1f') M O N r '- h• ter' O N M 'd' Ln O w O O) M w V N .� p C Q f t O J O N C s N fp C 7, cb N 7 tll O 2 (p 7 0z0�LL��C��'Lfn l- M M 'q U") LO LOU') C10 N O O O N M CO N ti CO 6 M CJ CV L CL ^. LL 0 N GO O M N N T "t O "t q O {!7 CD O m [t' I- N 00 0 M C0 N N Cl) In CD r M w 1` 0 IT N N E � � U C ll > N M09999" M M 0> N M to C C7I LO O O O CJ 0 0 M 0 N 00 N�T o ro r r N r r O) Q rf O O o 0 0 r CO N W MC a Ln O O O O O 00 co N CD N LO 7 Cr _ Cn W C O N 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 d' O O CO r r CO) o0o0000Mo00uiM m � W `L rna0000cDuOoN0LO00 N co O O O O N N N T O CD M - 0 0 t7 O th N 00 O CA (D e- T Lo Q n 7 C LLQ v - co N N r 0) CO r r ',1: CO CD rl' O r r T r O O r r O 0 0 N C � r Q C V CD M d' M 00 N CO O G1 n O D O 0 0 0 r C i v t Lo r LO to -gP u> r Iii [- 0 Ln T LO � ami r r r 0 r T T r T r r lfJ t t i{ G CCU s L ¢ O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 too r •- C. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ca 0 CO 0. N CO C N r r T r r T T T T r N N N N N N N N N N N N y 3 o m r r r r r r r r r r r T { c _ EL 0 r Ot M N 0) CD M CD { M N m �� t[7 to N co 00 to t N N .V M CV .z -O o ` .2 LO N CL�r' DD N O O M N N 1 { t1 l 2) O O M d' N N 00 U7 M M Q o . V O N N M 0 N 00 CO N CD r1 N U L) U C ¢ { f C) I i U O Q C Q M a C 5 7) CD O 0z0 LL "2 Q��-,QC1)H tl APPENDIX 7. Replacement Cost Computations TERREBONNE WASTEWATER PROJECT Project no. 9942 August 30, 1999 Replacement Costs and Revenue Requirements Item Replacement Cost (1999 dollars) 16th year 110th year 116th year 120th year Collection System Pump Stations Pumps $40,000 $40,000 Controls $15,000 $15,000 Misc. $15,000 $15,000 Treatment, Holding, and Effluent Disposal Screening $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 Flowmeters $16,000 HDPE liner $536,000 Pumps $30,000 $30,000 Building $10,000 $30,000 Chlorine equipment $20,000 $50,000 Lab equipment $2,000 $10,000 Controls and telemetry $60,000 Irrigation equipment $100,D00 Misc. $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $50,000 Total Revenue Required $15,000 $147,000 $15,000 $957,000 Total Revenue Required per Replacement Cycle 5 year cycle $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 10 year cycle $132,000 $132,000 20 year cycle $810,000 Total $15,000 $147,000 $15,000 $957,000 Annual Replacement Revenue Required per Cycle (@5% accrued interest) 5 year cycle $2,715 10 year cycle $10,495 20 year cycle $24,496 Total Annual Replacement Revenue Required $37,706 Total Monthly Rate Increase (per EDU) Required (based on 377 EDUs) to Fund Each Replacement Cycle 5 year cycle $0.60 10 year cycle $2.32 20 year cycle $5.41 Total Monthly Rate Increase Required to Fully Fund Replacement Cost $8.33 TERREBONNE WASTEWATER PROJECT Project no. 9942 August 30, 1999 Replacement Costs and Revenue Requirements Item Replacement Cost (1999 dollars) 5th year 110th year 115tFyear 120th year Collection System Pump Stations Pumps $40,000 $40,000 Controls $15,000 $15,000 Misc. $15,000 $15,000 Treatment at Redmond VW TP Assume replacement costs included in monthly fees paid to Redmond. Total Revenue Required $0 $70,000 $0 $70,000 Total Revenue Required per Replacement Cycle 5 year cycle $0 $0 $0 $0 10 year cycle $70,000 $70,000 20 year cycle $0 Total $0 $70,000 $0 $70,000 Annual Replacement Revenue Required per Cycle (@5% accrued interest) 5 year cycle $0 10 year cycle $5,565 20 year cycle $0 Total Annual Replacement Revenue Required $5,565 Total Monthly Rate Increase (per EDU) Required (based on 377 EDUs) to Fund Each Replacement Cycle 5 year cycle $0.00 10 year cycle $1.23 20 year cycle $0.00 Total Monthly Rate Increase Required to Fully Fund Replacement Cost $1.23 Terrebonne - Vacant Lands V = 600' =10- 774� Preliminary Engineering Report for Terrebonne Sewer System June 25, 2019 Tom Anderson Deschutes County 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 206 Bend, Oregon 97703 Re: Terrebonne Sewer System Proposal for Preliminary Engineering Report Tom, Terrebonne residents and businesses currently rely on onsite wastewater treatment systems. Certain areas near the Hillman Plat rest on a rocky plateau, where soils are shallow above impermeable rock layers. Due to these unfavorable conditions, many septic systems and drill holes are failing. Additionally, many of these systems are old and don't meet current treatment and disposal requirements. This can cause contamination of drinking water wells and in some cases, wastewater effluent rises above the ground surface. Alternative onsite treatment systems are necessary in these circumstances for building additions or new development. Deschutes County's Comprehensive Plan and zoning codes for Terrebonne restrict the type and density of allowed uses to those that can be served by an onsite wastewater system. Minimum lot sizes are based on the capacity of the land to treat and infiltrate wastewater. Due to the limitations of onsite wastewater treatment there are several lots in Terrebonne that cannot be developed to their full potential or at all. The Terrebonne Water District received a grant from the Central Oregon Rural Investment Fund to complete a sewer feasibility study in 1999. The study explored several concepts for wastewater collection and treatment systems, as well as strategies to fund the construction and operation of the infrastructure. However, Terrebonne residents did not reach consensus and the Water District never obtained funding to implement the study. Now, twenty years later, some citizens still express unwillingness to pay for the added cost of operating and maintaining a centralized wastewater treatment system. Meanwhile, others recognize the importance of a public sewer system to protect public health and water quality, and to allow development at desired densities. It has become increasingly evident to some residents with failing septic systems that a construction of a public sewer system should be reconsidered by the (unincorporated) community of Terrebonne in earnest. Deschutes County June 2019 Terrebonne Sewer System PER SCOPE OF WORK & FEE ESTIMATE (continued) A group of concerned citizens have initiated meetings with Deschutes County, Oregon DEQ, and Parametrix to discuss a path forward for building a public sewer system in Terrebonne. The following agencies have been identified as potential funding sources for the planning, design, and construction of public sewer systems: • Business Oregon - Water/Wastewater Fund • United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) - Rural Development Loans • Rural Community Assistance Corporation • Oregon Department of Environmental Quality These funding agencies require preparation of a preliminary engineering report (PER) These four entities co - published Wastewater Facility Planning Guide that outlines the process and contents involved with this planning document. Our scope of work outlined below is based on these requirements. Before obtaining construction funds, this document must develop a viable solution that the community is willing to pay for in the form of connection fees and monthly rates. The Infrastructure Finance Authority (Business Oregon) offers technical assistance financing for preliminary planning, engineering studies and economic investigations. Grants up to $20,000 and loans up to $60,000 may be awarded to each project. Per our discussion, we anticipate that Deschutes County would act as the project sponsor, responsible for receiving funds from the IFA and disbursing funds to Parametrix for preparation of the PER. SCOPE OF WORK 1. Hold Kickoff scoping meeting with DEQ stakeholders, and funding agencies. 2. Present information and gather community input at townhall meeting, facilitated by Deschutes County. 3. Review the existing Sewer Feasibility Study performed by HGE Inc. in 1999 for the Terrebonne Water District. Determine which portions of the existing study can be referenced or incorporated into the new Preliminary Engineering Report. 4. Subcontract and coordinate with Tracy Cork (Vision Engineering) to develop preliminary designs and cost estimates for wastewater treatment and disposal. 5. Prepare a draft (30%) Preliminary Engineering Report based on the outline below, per the Wastewater Facility Planning Guide: A. Project planning • Location • Environmental Resources Present • Population Trends • Community Engagement B. Existing facilities • Location Map Deschutes County June 2019 Deschutes County SCOPE OF WORK & FEE ESTIMATE (continued) • History • Condition of Existing Facilities • Financial Status of any Existing Facilities • Water/Energy/Waste Audits C. Need for project • Health, Sanitation, Environmental Regulations and Security • Aging Infrastructure • Reasonable Growth D. Alternatives considered • Description • Design Criteria • Map • Environmental Impacts • Land Requirements • Potential Construction Problems • Sustainability Considerations • Water and Energy Efficiency • Green Infrastructure • Other • Cost Estimates E. Selection of an alternative • Life Cycle Cost Analysis/Cost and Effectiveness Certification • Non -Monetary Factors F. Proposed project (recommended alternative) • Preliminary Project Design • Project Schedule • Permit Requirements • Sustainability Considerations • Water and Energy Efficiency • Green Infrastructure • Other • Total Project Cost Estimate (Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost) • Annual Operating Budget • Income • Annual Operations and Maintenance Costs • Debt Repayments • Reserves G. Conclusions and recommendations 3 June 2019 SCOPE OF WORK & FEE ESTIMATE (continued) 6. Submit draft copies of PER to DEQ, County, Water District, and funding agencies for review. 7. Prepare (60%) Preliminary Engineering Report per review comments. 8. Coordinate with Deschutes County to provide opportunities for public comment to the 60% PER. 9. Prepare (90%) Preliminary Engineering Report per public comments and submit to Deschutes County and DEQ for final review & approval. 10. Finalize (100%) Preliminary Engineering Report per any final comments and publish for public use. FEE ESTINANTI-E Parametrix can complete the above described scope of work on a time and materials basis, for an estimated fee of $57,329. This cost range depends largely on the extent of reviews and public involvement. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or comments to be sure this proposal fits your needs. Specific Exclusions • Planning and organizing public outreach efforts. Public involvement will be facilitated by others. • Geotechnical investigations, such as borings, test pits, infiltration testing, etc. • Specialized demographic and economic research. Parametrix will utilize publicly available data. • Environmental studies and biological surveys. • Topographic land surveys and boundary surveys. Parametrix will utilize publicly available property and elevation data for preliminary engineering. Sincerely, Parametrix Ryan Rudnick, PE Civil Engineer Jim Frost, PE Senior Project Manager Deschutes County June 2019 4 0 -(ES CSG Q Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - https://www.deschutes.org/ AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board of Commissioners BOCC Meeting of August 19, 2019 DATE: FROM: Timm Schimke, Solid Waste, 541-317-3177 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: PRESENTATION: Solid Waste Management Plan U GBB n0LID wa ' I �..s.�, s ,..�,�.!!�.,��: r 1. Purpose and Goals 2. Planning Process 3. What is in SWMP? 4. What does the SWMP Say? 5. Recommendations 6. Implementation Plan 8/19/2019 1 Purpose To assess the existing Solid Waste Management System, identify the needs and opportunities and to prioritize the steps/actions necessary to contifue to provide cost effective services to residences and ,businesses "To work cooperatively with Cities and service providers to offer citizens and businesses an intP-gratPrl cnlirl XniastA mnnnnomrant c ictcm that delivers guality and cost-effective services while achieving the best use of our resources and reducing waste disposed in landfills." 8/19/2019 2 1. To provide an integrated solid waste management system that addresses an effective combination of strategies and programs guided by the hierarchy adopted by the state. 2. To continue educating consumers in order to promote practices and methods to reduce the long-term per capita waste generation rate. 3. To develop programs and support implementation of system improvements that seek to ensure materials recovered from the waste stream attain the highest and best use and are recycled. 4. To develop a solid waste system that is based on sound financial principles, provides cost effective services and maintains rate stability over a long term, while allocating costs equitably to all users. 5. To maintain system flexibility to respond to changes in waste stream composition, waste management technologies, public preferences, new laws and changing circumstances. • r , , 8/19/2019 3 Building Block r ffown Name Representing CURRENT Jerry Andres Citizen at Large Brad Bailey Bend Garbage and Recycling Jared Black Citizen at Large Bill Duerden City of Redmond Paul Bertagna City of Sisters Catherine Morrow Citizen at Large Jake Obrist City of La Pine Cassie Lacy City of Bend Mike Riley The Environmental Center Erwin Swetnam Cascade Disposal Rick Williams Citizen at Large FORMER nsfer Gillian Ockner City of Bend Brant Kucera City of Sisters Smith Reese Citizen at Large ' Advisory Advisory Advisory ! Givup / ! Group ! I Group 6!� Aft Draft Ch6 Tflet#�Kg dxans .5 Ahema;ve #ettaan/ &thna3r�`es? �ipL alis Draf m s nsfer taodfigOptians AG AG t=,.ai SWMp To Board ; 8/19/2019 I1 8/19/2019 ➢ SWAC meetings open to the public (14) ➢ Announcements and updates on County website ➢ Routine mailings to interested parties ➢ Public workshops/meetings (2) • Waste Reduction and Recycling • Disposal Options ➢ Surveys/Questionnaires (3) 5 4. Are there proven and reliable technologies that would reduce the County's dependency on landfill disposal? 5. What is the best approach for providing for reliable and cost effective long-term disposal capacity? 6. What investments/improvements are needed at the County's transfer stations to address the long-term system needs and to provide convenient cost-effective services? 7. Consider regional approaches ' to provide cost effective services that benefit the greater Central Oregon region. Entire SW SyqteM • Generators V Residences V Bus-1-0--S.-S • Cofiection • Recycling • Composting • Transfer Stations • Disposal From Oregon DEQ ;AM First Step Reduce Waste and Recycle (Chapters 3 & 4) Resource %Rmwwl "WAIMUZ Technologies LI., Total1) Knott Landfill expected to close by 2029 (10 years). waste generated 4 1t1 TPY in 2016 to almost 300,000 TPY in 2030. 3) To meet recovery rate goal of 45% would require that 135,000 TPY are diverted from landfill or 55,000 additional tons (= 70% increase). i received at transfer stationst. 1 1 l TPY in 2012 to almost 100,000 TPY in 201785% • -' 11 111 • . • .- • •. •, �.. management Findings 1. The Current Solid Waste Management System works well and there are no major or immediate deficiencies in the current system Cities and County work cooperatively and effectively to deliver services v The County provides leadership and DSW working with franchised collection companies to provide and maintain the necessary infrastructure System is in compliance with standards and regulatory requirements Y Rates charged for collection services are comparable or lower for the level of services v The disposal rate of $55 per ton which included operations of transfer station is perhaps one of the lowest in the state 8/19/2019 VA 1F11,11111 11111111111111 F 1Z I 111 111 Primary Needs and Challenges ?. Expansion of Taste Reduction, Meuse and Recycling (WIRAR.' to achieve higher recovery rate and reduce waste disposed i. Distance to markets and uncertainty in markets ii. Expanding multifamily program to capture these consumers iii. Impacts of tourism on waste stream 2. Growth i. Deschutes County has and is expected to grow faster than rest of the State ii. Transfer Stations and composting facilities will need to be upgraded/expanded a i _ ^AW AN 3. Identifies the need for capital improvements for infrastructure to support new services and meet challenges of growth i. Transfer Stations will need to be upgraded/expanded ii. Orcanics orocessina/comoostina facilities will need he unnraded 4. Considers potential alternative technologies that might be feasible In the future 5. Establishes need for a new disposal site to be available when Knott Landfill closes (expected in 10 years) 6. Provides recommendations and set of actions to be implemented over the next 10 years 8/19/2019 0 8/19/2019 1. SWMP 2099 provides a comprehensive examination of the system and alternatives 2. Identifies a set of actions for expanding services considering a logical and timely approach to increase the recovery rate/reduce waste disposed I. Continue to maintain education and promotion programs II. Expand basic WR/R to increase participation and address multifamily recycling opportunities III. Target expansion of food waste/organics collection & processing — can be developed locally independent of out of region markets IV. Develop alternatives for managing construction/demolition waste W 8/19/2019 2019 1 2020 1 2021 1 2022 1 2n23 I gn2A I 9117s Recommendations that apply to Commercial Rucineeoae Expand business 3.3 education/promotion focusing rack Fore _- hplei�nt Proan on tourism :Start a recycling food waste i '...-. [ ..... '._ 4.5 collection program targeting hotels/resort communities Planni lemen[ Program Recpmmendatipne that anoly to Construction ane- ne.....rt:,.., runt n.,. orators . Expand and deeelop new 3.5 'oroarams aimed at increasing Plannin_ _ _ _ _ _ T tr le_nt Praaram e _ recycling C/D materials ' 'Deeelop program to provde 4.7 : incentites for recycling C/D Planning r Implement Program ,materials I(Blue - Signifies actions involving multiple stakeholdersRed-Signifies actions initiated by county 10 8/19/2019 11 8/19/2019 � 5 M, ��4rr 2019 2020 1 2021 1 2022 2023 1 2024 2025 Administration and Financial Management !County to meet with cities to j 8.1 :reaffirm commitments and tin . update interlocal agreements I 'Establish process that 82 (implements the ,<: ,:�� Imp �ntargn recommendations ofthe ......., - ISWMP Determine the resources Review Bud et n _ Ie nation 1 T F _ 9 8.3 'needed to implement SWMP � _ � � � _"',� � _ _ o v o recommendations Prepare financial study of the t I. I I (. I € I - SWMP and develop a capital Rapers Study/Ran _ ircplerrentatan (UedW. Annual) y e 8.4 '.. improsement plan (CIP) for 5.7 e year period, maintaining I financial stability ' Blue -Signifies actions involving multiple stakeholders'. Red -Signifies actions initiated by county SWMP provides roadmap for enhancing services, making capital investments in infrastructure and addressing long term disposal of waste Changes to collection programs/services ® Expand residential food waste collection • Development multifamily programs ® Expand recycling for businesses for food waste/recvclables e Establish oftNrvgrair$v J ar ru services ® Deveiop Alternative for construction%demolition (CID) waste _Changes/improvements for facilities ® Evaluate options/upgrade compost facilities ® Upgrade transfer stations — capacity/efficiencies/future disposal system ® Develop facilities for managing CID waste • Implement new disposal system 12 Deschutes County SWMP 2019 Implementation Schedule Recommendations T 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Recommendations that Apply to All Generators Set up standard waste 3.1 reduction and recycling Task Force Im lementation® program for single/multifamily and businesses Expand education to 3.4 single/multifamily and Plannin Task Force implementation businesses to promote reducing/recycling food waste 4.8 Complete a waste Im lementation characterization study Recommendations that apply to Residential Single Family Households Expand current collection of Continue Pilot Pro ram Implement Full Pr2 ram — — — 4.1 residential food waste with yard — — — — — — waste Recommendations that apply to Multifamily Units Develop standard for Task Force im lement Pilot Pro cram implement Full Program 3.2 multifamily recycling promotion and education program Develop a multifamily recycling Task Force Implement Pilot Pro ram — Empiement Full Program 4.6 and food waste collection program Recommendations that apply to Commercial Businesses Expand business Task Force implement Prram 3.3 education/promotion focusing on tourism Start a recycling food waste Plannin — ®I le—ment Pr2 ram — — - - - 4.5 collection program targeting — — — — hotels/resort communities Recommendations that apply to Construction and Demolition (CID) Generators Expand and develop neLv Plannin — Impl®ment Pro�c ra—m — — — — — — — — — 3.5 programs aimed at increasing — — recycling C/D materials Develop program to provide Planning Implement Prog- - — — — — — — — — 4.7 incentives for recycling C/D — — — — — — materials Compost Facilities Assess markets for compost Assess 4.2 products resulting from expanded organics program Evaluate alternatives to expand Evaluation 4.3 composting facilities involving optimal locations Upgrade organics processing Planning Implement Program —— 4.4 from residential and — i — — commercial sources Transfer and Recycling Stations Develop and implement plan Desi n Construction— — — — Op®ration — — — — — — — — — 5.1 for Negus Transfer Station — - improvements Develop and implement plan I Plannin Desi n Construction — Operation 5.2 for Southwest Transfer Station— improvements Develop plans for Knott �Planning 5.3 Transfer and Recycling Facility improvements 5.4 Establish a capital Implementation — — — — — — U2date An u2L]y — — — — — — — — improvement program I Technologies/Solid Waste Disposal 6.1 Assess status of alternative I I I Assess I I L Assess technologies 1(� Deschutes Counity SWMP 2019 Implementation Schedule Recommendations 20192022 —� —'� 2021 2020 �_ 2023 I 2024 �— 2025 Landfill Disposal Options Proceed to site and permit a 7 1 new County landfill to be Deveio shin Process — operational before Knott Landfill reaches capacity 2 Begin formal process to site 7. and permit new landfill sitin Permittin Administration and Financial Management County to meet with cities to 8.1 reaffirm commitments and update interlocal agreements Meetin s I Review Establish process that — 8.2 implements the recommendations of the SWMP Task Force mple�meoiation i� Determine the resources 8.3 needed to implement SWMP recommendations Review Bud etin �� Impl®me®talioFn _ Prepare financial study of the SWMP and develop a capitalPrepare 8.4 improvement plan (CIP) for 5-7 year period, maintaining financial stability �— Study/Flan ® I Implerrrie®tatiion (UgdattEt AnnuW1 ®' •. • July 2019 Prepared by JRMA, Inc. In Association With GBB, Inc. ESI G. Friesen, Associates Barney & Worth July 2019 Document has been Printed on Recycled Paper Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC) Recognition The Board of County Commissioners would like to recognize the members of the Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC) for their dedication of time and effort to participate in preparing the 2019 Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP). The SWAC held monthly meetings to review and comment on the SWMP as it was developed. At each meeting, they provided time for members of the general public to comment and offer suggestions. The SWAC also participated in two public meetings during the planning process. Their commitment of time and input made a valuable contribution to help shape the direction of the solid waste management system for the citizens and businesses of Deschutes County. Name Representing Note CURRENT Jerry Andres Citizen at Large Brad Bailey Bend Garbage and Recycling Jared Black Citizen at Large Bill Duerden City of Redmond Paul Bertagna City of Sisters Catherine Morrow Citizen at Large Jake Obrist City of La Pine Cassie Lacy City of Bend Replaced G. Ockner 2/12/19 Mike Riley The Environmental Center Erwin Swetnam Cascade Disposal Rick Williams Citizen at Large FORMER Gillian Ockner City of Bend Replaced by C. Lacy 2/12/19 Brant Kucera City of Sisters Replaced by P. Bertagna 8/21/18 Smith Reese Citizen at Large Resigned 7/12/18 Solid Waste nPlan Table of Contents Tableof Contents............................................................................................. i Glossary......................................................................................................... vi ExecutiveSummary........................................................................................... 1. INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................1 1.1 Context of the Plan Update............................................................... 1 1.2 Plan Purpose and Goals.................................................................... 2 1.3 Issues Addressed by the Plan............................................................ 4 1.3.1 Overview of Regulations for Managing Solid Waste .................... 5 1.4 Regulations Related to Local Authority ................................................ 5 1.5 Plan Organization.............................................................................7 1.6 Public Participation...........................................................................8 2. BACKGROUND AND WASTE STREAM ANALYSIS .................................. 2-1 2.1 Introduction................................................................................. 2-1 2.2 Characteristics of the Planning Area ................................................ 2-1 2.3 Description of the Current Solid Waste Management System .............. 2-4 2.3.1 Summary of Annual Solid Waste Generation .......................... 2-4 2.3.2 Refuse Collection................................................................ 2-6 2.3.3 Transfer Stations................................................................2-6 2.3.4 Disposal Facility - Knott Landfill...........................................2-9 2.3.5 Recycling Systems..............................................................2-9 2.4 Projected Waste Stream Quantities and Composition ....................... 2-12 2.4.1 Historical Solid Waste Data ................................................ 2-13 2.4.2 Waste Stream Composition ................................................ 2-14 2.4.3 Waste Stream Generation Forecast ..................................... 2-16 3. WASTE PREVENTION, REDUCTION, REUSE & RECYCLING ANALYSIS.. 3-1 3.1 Introduction................................................................................. 3-1 3.2 Background....................................................................................3-1 3.3 Existing Waste Reduction and Reuse Programs....................................3-6 3.3.1 Existing Waste Reduction Programs ........................................ 3-8 3.3.2 Reuse Programs................................................................. 3-22 3.3.3 Recycling Programs/Services................................................ 3-24 3.3.4 Composting....................................................................... 3-25 3.4 Needs and Opportunities for Increased Waste Prevention, Reduction, Reuse, and Recycling Activities............................................................. 3-25 3.5 Alternatives for Increased Waste Prevention, Reduction, Reuse, and RecyclingActivities.............................................................................. 3-26 3.6 Recommendations for Increased Waste Prevention, Reduction, Reuse, and RecyclingActivities.............................................................................. 3-37 4. COLLECTION AND RECYCLING/ PROCESSING ..................................... 4-1 4.1 Background and Existing Conditions................................................4-1 4.2 Existing Collection and Processing...................................................4-4 4.2.1 Collection..........................................................................4-4 4.2.2 Processing....................................................................... 4-10 4.3 Needs and Opportunities for Collection and Recycling/Processing ...... 4-19 4.4 Recommendations for Collection and Recycling/Processing............... 4-35 Solid Waste Management Plan S. TRANSFER SYSTEM............................................................................. S-1 5.1 Existing Conditions........................................................................5-1 Waste Stream Projections.............................................................. 6-4 5.2 Transfer Station Operation Approach ............................................... 5-2 5.3 Waste and Vehicle Volumes to Each Transfer Station ......................... 5-4 5.4 Recycling at Transfer Stations........................................................ 5-5 5.5 Negus Transfer Station.................................................................. 5-9 6-30 5.5.1 Facility Needs................................................................... 5-10 5.6 Southwest Transfer Station.......................................................... 5-10 5.7 Northwest and Alfalfa Transfer Stations ......................................... 5-11 5.8 Knott Transfer Station................................................................. 5-12 Waste Stream Projections.............................................................. 7-6 5.8.1 Disposal at a New In -County Landfill ................................... 5-13 7.6 5.8.2 Disposal at an Out -of -County Landfill .................................. 5-13 7.6.1 Long -Haul Waste to Out -of -County Landfills ...........................7-7 5.8.3 Other Operation Related Requirements ............................... 5-14 7-13 5.8.4 Collection Considerations for Specific Wastes ....................... 5-14 5.9 Needs and Opportunities.............................................................. 5-14 5.10 Recommendations................................................................... 5-15 6. ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES AND SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ........... 6-1 6.1 Background and Existing Conditions...................................................6-1 6.1.1 Introduction....................................................................... 6-1 8.1 Introduction................................................................................. 8-1 8.2 Background and Existing Conditions ................................................ 8-1 8.2.1 Solid Waste Administrative Agencies ..................................... 8-1 8.2.2 Solid Waste Enforcement.....................................................8-4 8.2.3 Financing and Funding Sources ............................................ 8-5 8.3 Needs and Opportunities.............................................................. 8-11 8.3.1 Management Considerations .............................................. 8-12 6.1.2 Existing Landfill Disposal.....................................................6-1 6.2 Waste Stream Projections.............................................................. 6-4 6.2.1 Needs and Opportunities..................................................... 6-5 6.3 Alternatives and Evaluation............................................................ 6-5 6.3.1 Alternatives Technologies for Conversion/Reduction of Municipal SolidWaste..................................................................................6-5 6.3.2 Mixed Waste Processing......................................................6-6 6.3.3 Technology Summary ....................................................... 6-30 6.4 Findings and Recommendations.................................................... 6-32 7. LANDFILL DISPOSAL OPTIONS.......................................................... 7-1 7.1 Background..................................................................................7-1 7.2 County Authority for Waste Disposal ............................................... 7-2 7.3 Existing Landfill Disposal................................................................7-3 7.4 Waste Stream Projections.............................................................. 7-6 7.5 Needs and Opportunities................................................................ 7-7 7.6 Disposal Options...........................................................................7-7 7.6.1 Long -Haul Waste to Out -of -County Landfills ...........................7-7 7.6.2 Option - Site and Build a New In -County Landfill .................. 7-13 7.7 Evaluation of Disposal Options ...................................................... 7-17 7.8 Recommendations...................................................................... 7-21 S. ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT ............................ 8-1 8.1 Introduction................................................................................. 8-1 8.2 Background and Existing Conditions ................................................ 8-1 8.2.1 Solid Waste Administrative Agencies ..................................... 8-1 8.2.2 Solid Waste Enforcement.....................................................8-4 8.2.3 Financing and Funding Sources ............................................ 8-5 8.3 Needs and Opportunities.............................................................. 8-11 8.3.1 Management Considerations .............................................. 8-12 Solid WastePlan 8.3.2 Financing and Funding Considerations ................................. 8-13 8.4 Alternatives and Evaluation.......................................................... 8-13 8.4.1 Administration/Management.............................................. 8-13 8.5 Evaluation and Recommendations................................................. 8-20 APPENDIXA - RATES........................................................................................ APPENDIX B - PUBLIC PARTICIPATION INFORMATION .................................... List of Tables Table 2-1: Population and Housing, Deschutes County vs. State of Oregon.............2-2 Table 2-2: 2016 Estimated Population of Cities in Deschutes County, OR ...............2-2 Table 2-3: Deschutes County Economic Activity .................................................. 2-3 Table 2-4: Solid Waste Tons Per Year................................................................ 2-5 Table 2-5: 2008 Private Solid Waste Haulers and Service Areas ............................ 2-6 Table 2-6: Remote Transfer Station Tonnages .................................................. 2-7 Table 2-7: Deschutes County Transfer Station Hours of Operation ......................... 2-8 Table 2-8: Deschutes County Tonnage to Disposal Operations .............................. 2-9 Table 2-9: Annual Recycling Materials Recycled at Deschutes County Transfer Stations (2016 Tons per Year)..................................................................................... 2-10 Table 2-10: Commingled Recyclables Collected by Haulers in Deschutes County (Tons perYear)..................................................................................................... 2-11 Table 2-11: Deschutes County Historic Waste Stream Data (Tons, 2010 through 2016) ................................................................................................................... 2-13 Table 2-12: Deschutes County Per Capita Rates (Pounds per Year) ..................... 2-14 Table 2-13: Deschutes County Waste Stream for 2016 ...................................... 2-15 Table 2-14: Deschutes County Population Projections ........................................ 2-17 Table 2-15: Deschutes County Waste Stream Projections ................................... 2-18 Table 3-1 Collection of Recyclables in Deschutes County (2014-2016) ................... 3-5 Table 3-2 Required Elements for WR/R Programs and Status of County Programs ... 3-9 Table 3-3 WR/R Alternatives Analysis (EST ANNUAL DIVERSION: small >1K tons; medium 1K -10K tons; large >10K tons).......................................................... 3-33 Table 4-1: 2008 Private Solid Waste Haulers and Service Areas ............................ 4-5 Table 4-2 Deschutes County Commingled Recyclables Collected by Franchised Haulers 2014-2016 (Tons)......................................................................................... 4-10 Table 4-3 Total Commercial Recyclable Material Collected by Haulers 2014-2016 (Tons)......................................................................................................... 4-10 Table 4-4 Solid Waste Facilities in Deschutes County ......................................... 4-11 Table 4-5 C/D Composition Data from Monterey Regional Waste Management ...... 4-16 Table 4-6 Food Waste Disposed 2016 -2017 ...................................................... 4-18 Table 4-7 Can and Roll Cart Service Rates - As of January 2010 ......................... 4-21 Table 4-8 Collection and Recycling/Processing Alternatives Analysis ................... 4-32 Table 5-1: Deschutes County Transfer Station Operations .................................... 5-4 Table 5-2: Waste Volumes at Transfer Stations ................................................... 5-4 Table 5-3: Vehicle Traffic at Transfer Stations ..................................................... 5-5 Table 5-4: Recycle Only Vehicle Count at Transfer Stations .................................. 5-6 Table 5-5: Tons of Recycled Material Collected in 2016 ........................................ 5-8 Table 6-1: Deschutes County Tonnage to Disposal Operations .............................. 6-1 Table 6-2: Knott Landfill Expenses 2016............................................................ 6-3 Table 6-3: Total Annual Operating Expenses.......................................................6-3 Table 6-4: Deschutes County Waste Disposal Projections ..................................... 6-4 Solid WasteManagement ami t Table 6-5: Material Recovery Numbers from Zanker Demolition Facility ................. 6-8 Table 6-6: Most Significant AD Companies in the U.S......................................... 6-22 Table 6-7: Alternative Processing Technology Summary ..................................... 6-31 Table 7-1: Deschutes County Waste to Disposal Operations .................................. 7-3 Table 7-2: Knott Landfill Expenses 2016............................................................ 7-5 Table 7-3: Total Annual Operating Expenses.......................................................7-5 Figure 2-7: Deschutes County Waste Generation Per Capita Rates ................... Table 7-4: Deschutes County Waste Disposal Projections ..................................... 7-6 Table 7-5: Transfer Station Operation, Transportation and Disposal Costs............ 7-11 Table 7-6: Evaluation of Disposal Options......................................................... 7-19 Table 8-1: Actual and Projected Expenditures - FY 2016 -FY 2019 ......................... 8-7 Table 8-2: Allocation of Expenditures to Operations ............................................. 8-9 Table 8-3: Projected Reserve Fund Balances - FY 2019 ........................................ 8-9 Table 8-4: Actual and Projected Revenues - FY 2016 - FY 2019 .......................... 8-10 Table 8-5: Internal Financing (Pay -as -you -go) .................................................. 8-19 List of Figures Figure 1-1: Deschutes County SWMP Interactive Planning Process.....................1-8 Figure 2-1: Deschutes County Solid Waste System..........................................2-4 Figure 2-2: Graph of Annual Solid Waste.........................................................2-5 Figure 2-3: Transfer Station Locations in Deschutes County.............................2-7 Figure 2-4: Deschutes County Yearly Transfer Station Tonnages .......................2-8 Figure 2-5: Annual Wood/Yard Waste at Deschutes County Transfer Stations (Tons perYear)..................................................................................................... 2-11 Figure 2-6: Composition of Waste Disposed in Deschutes County .................... 2-16 Figure 2-7: Deschutes County Waste Generation Per Capita Rates ................... 2-19 Figure 3-1: Deschutes County Per Capita Waste Generation and Recovery ............. 3-2 Figure 3-2: Recovery Rate in Deschutes County..................................................3-3 Figure 3-3: Annual Marginal Rate of Generation in Deschutes County Since 2008.... 3-4 Figure 3-4: Material Recovery in Deschutes County from 2014 to 2016 (tons) ........ 3-6 Figure 3-5: Front Page of Bend Garbage and Recycling's Quarterly Newsletter...... 3-14 Figure 3-6: Deschutes Recycling Brochure........................................................ 3-16 Figure 3-7: Bend Garbage and Recycling's Preparation Guide ............................. 3-16 Figure 3-8: Bend Garbage and Recycling's Collection Schedule ........................... 3-17 Figure 3-9: Inset from Deschutes County Recycling Brochure ............................. 3-18 Figure 3-10: Inset from Deschutes County Secure Your Load Brochure ................ 3-20 Figure 3-11: Deschutes Recycling Thrift Store Brochure ..................................... 3-23 Figure 3-12: Habitat for Humanity Lumber Drop Off .......................................... 3-23 Figure 3-13: Kent County, Michigan "SORT it OUT" event container program ........ 3-28 Figure 4-1: Deschutes County 2016 Waste Flow Diagram (in tons) ........................ 4-3 Figure 4-2: Cascade Disposal's 2018 City Customer Calendar and Education Materials (front side on left, back side on right)................................................................ 4-6 Figure 4-3: Franchised Hauler Community Promotional logos................................4-7 Figure 4-4: View of the Truck Entrance at Mid -Oregon Recycling ......................... 4-13 Figure 4-5: Outside Page of Deschutes Recycling Customer Compost Tri -Fold Brochure ................................................................................................................... 4-17 Figure 4-6: Example of a Portable C/D System ................................................. 4-24 Figure 4-7: Example C/D Processing Infrastructure ........................................... 4-25 Figure 4-8: Integrated Mixed Waste and Commingled Conceptual Process Line ..... 4-28 Figure 5-1: Transfer Stations and Distances from Knott Landfill ............................ 5-2 iv Solid Waste Management Man Figure 5-2: Typical "Z -wall" Construction........................................................... 5-3 Figure 5-3: What Can You Recycle..................................................................... 5-7 Figure 5-4: Transfer Station Commingled Recycling Sign......................................5-8 Figure 5-5: Negus Transfer Station.................................................................... 5-9 Figure 5-6: Negus Transfer Station Safety Features ........................................... 5-10 Figure 5-7: Southwest Transfer Station............................................................ 5-11 Figure 5-8: Northwest Transfer Station............................................................ 5-12 Figure 5-9: Knott Landfill Recycling and Transfer Station .................................... 5-12 Figure 6-1: Newby Island Resource Recovery Park in Milpitas, California ................ 6-6 Figure 6-2: View of Zanker Demolition Processing Facility .................................... 6-7 Figure 6-3: Industrial Fluidized Bed Boiler..........................................................6-9 Figure 6-4: Pelletized EF/RDF......................................................................... 6-10 Figure 6-5: Shredded and Fluffy EF/RDF.......................................................... 6-10 Figure 6-6: Composting Process Flow Diagram .................................................. 6-12 Figure 6-7: Windrow Composting.................................................................... 6-12 Figure 6-8: Aeration Pipes for Aerated Static Pile Composting ............................. 6-13 Figure 6-9: Textile covered composting piles -GORE Cover for Organic Waste Treatment (Courtesy of Gore)........................................................................................ 6-14 Figure 6-10: In -Vessel Composting................................................................. 6-15 Figure 6-11: Approximate TS Ranges Suitable for Common Types of AD Systems . 6-16 Figure 6-12: Typical lagoon AD system............................................................ 6-17 Figure 6-13: Typical High Rate AD System ....................................................... 6-18 Figure 6-14: Typical CSTR AD System............................................................. 6-18 Figure 6-15: Typical Plug Flow AD System Schematic ........................................ 6-19 Figure 6-16: Plug Flow System with Mixing Shafts ............................................. 6-19 Figure 6-17: Typical Waste Stream Suitable for a High Solids AD system ............. 6-20 Figure 6-18: High Solids AD with Integral Composting Operation ........................ 6-21 Figure 6-19: Chamber of a High Solids AD with Integral ..................................... 6-21 Figure 6-20: Chamber of a High Solids AD with Integral ..................................... 6-22 Figure 6-21: WTE Process Diagram................................................................. 6-23 Figure 6-22: An Illustration of the Potential MBT Options ................................... 6-25 Figure 6-23: The Gasification Process.............................................................. 6-26 Figure 6-24: Gasification System Types........................................................... 6-27 Figure 6-25: Plasma Gasification..................................................................... 6-29 Figure 6-26: Enerkem Process........................................................................ 6-30 Figure 7-1: Location and Distances to Proximate Landfills and Transfer Stations ..... 7-9 Figure 8-1: DSW Organization..........................................................................8-3 Figure 8-2: Projected Expenditures for FY 2019 .................................................. 8-8 v Solid "$ . t Management Plan Glossary Alfalfa Transfer Station A recycling and transfer facility in Alfalfa that accepts recyclable materials to be loaded into roll -off bins for transport to a recycling facility and solid waste to be loaded into roll -off bins for transport to a landfill. Anaerobic biodegradation The breakdown of organic matter by natural processes that do not use oxygen. Btu British thermal unit C D Construction and demolition waste CCAR California Climate Action Registry CDL Construction demolition and land -clearing CED Covered electronic devices CNG Compressed natural gas Commingled Placement by residents of a variety of recyclable materials into a single container for curbside collection. Compare to source -se arated. Composting A process by which organic matter is decomposed under controlled conditions into its component parts, and subsequently used for mulching or as a soil supplement. Composting facility A facility designed to facilitate the controlled process of biologic conversion of some portions of municipal solid waste (i.e., yard waste) into material for landspreading and soil enrichment. DB Disposal Bans DEQ Oregon Department of Environmental Qualit DSW Deschutes County Department of Solid Waste A facility located at Knott Landfill that receives Knott Landfill Recycling recyclable materials, yard debris, wood waste Facility and food waste and composts these wastes to produce organic soil amendment. A transfer facility located at Knott Landfill that Knott Landfill Transfer Station accepts solid waste to be loaded into trailers for transport to a landfill. Disposed waste The total amount of waste delivered to a waste management facility (landfill, WTEF, etc.) in or out of the County, as reported to DEQ by the operators. EDD Oregon Economic Development Department EPA Environmental Protection Agency FTE Full-time equivalent position FY Fiscal year Franchised haulers See service providers GHG Greenhouse Gas Green waste Garden food and wood waste Generated waste The sum of disposed waste and recycled waste. vi Solid "'3 a f s, n Plan Heavy metals Any of a class of metals of high atomic weight and density, such as mercury, lead, zinc, and cadmium, which are known to be toxic to living organisms. HHV Higher heating value HHW Household hazardous waste see definition Household hazardous waste Products found in the home that present potential health and safety hazards. These products are often labeled as toxic, flammable, corrosive reactive infectious or radioactive. Host fee A fee charged for disposing waste at a solid waste facility and paid to the local city or county jurisdiction where a landfill is located. Knott Landfill The landfill owned and operated by Deschutes County where municipal solid waste generated in the county is disposed. kWh Kilowatt-hour LFG Landfill gas. LFG is generated through the decomposition of waste buried in a landfill. LNG Liquefied natural gas Landfill A solid waste facility or part of a facility for the permanent disposal of solid wastes in or on the land. This includes a sanitary landfill, balefill, landspreading disposal facility, or a hazardous waste, problem waste, special waste, wood waste, limited purpose, inert, or demolition waste landfill. Leachate Water or other liquid that has been contaminated by dissolved or suspended materials as a result of contact with solid waste or solid waste byproducts. Liners Materials used to prevent the passage of leachate from one part of the landfill area to another or to the environment outside the landfill liner. May be composed of soil or may be a synthetic material. MACT Maximum achievable control technology MRO Mandatory Recycling Ordinance MRF Material Recovery Facility — a facility that processes and separates materials for the purposes of recycling from incoming mixed solid waste stream, or from mixed source -separated recyclable stream. Msl Mean sea level MSW Municipal solid waste see definition MW Megawatt Municipal solid waste Waste generated by residences, offices, institutions, commercial businesses and other waste generators not producing special wastes. vii Negus Transfer Station A recycling and transfer facility in Redmond that accepts recyclable materials to be loaded into roll off bins for transport to a recycling facility and solid waste to be loaded into trailers for transport to a landfill. Northwest Transfer Station A recycling and transfer facility located on Fryrear Road between Sisters and Redmond that accepts recyclable materials to be loaded into roll -off bins for transport to a recycling facility and solid waste to be loaded into trailers for transport to a landfill. NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System OAR Oregon Administrative Rules OCC Old corrugated cardboard recovered and recycled- ec cledIDEA IDEA Oregon Office of Economic Analysis ORS Oregon Revised Statutes PAYT Pay -as -You -Throw see definition PGE Portland General Electric Pay -as -You -Throw Waste collection programs designed so that households are charged for the amount of waste they generate (by weight or volume) each week as opposed to each household paying the same collection fee. PVC Polyvinyl chloride RFP Request for Proposals RI FS Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Stud Recovery rate The percentage of materials recovered and recycled, reused and/or diverted from disposal in a landfill divided by the total waste generated. The recovery rate, as determined by the statewide goal, is calculated by DEQ. Recycling rate The percentage of materials recycled, divided by amount of waste generated (compare to recovery rate). Residuals Unrecoverable material received at the recycling centers. SWM Solid waste management SWAC Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee see definition SWMP Solid Waste Management Plan Service providers Privately -owned businesses that provide garbage collection services. Other terms used for service providers include: franchised haulers and waste haulers. Single -stream recycling A collection method where garbage and recyclables are mixed together in curbside disposal and taken to a facility for sorting. viii Solid waste As defined by the Resource Conversation and Recovery Act, a broad term which includes garbage, refuse (e.g., metal scrap, wall board, etc.), sludge from treatment facilities, and other materials including solids, semisolids, liquids, or gaseous material from industrial, commercial, mining, agricultural, and community activities. Exceptions include domestic sewage, industrial wastewater, irrigation return flows, nuclear materials, and mining material not removed during the extraction process. Solid Waste Advisory A committee comprised of cities, citizens, Committee businesses, and interested parties appointed to provide input and direction for developing solid waste programs. Source -separated Separation by residents of recyclable materials into several containers for curbside collection. Compare to commingled. Southwest Transfer Station A recycling and transfer facility located north of La Pine off Hwy 97 that accepts recyclable materials to be loaded into roll -off bins for transport to a recycling facility and solid waste to be loaded into trailers for transport to a landfill. Special waste Certain wastes which have disposal regulations that differ from MSW. Each special waste category has its own characteristics and handling requirements. Some examples of special waste are: incineration ash, fluorescent bulbs, hazardous waste, latex paint, Styrofoam, and appliances. TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure. Laboratory testing procedure for determining the levels of toxic constituents in a sample. TDF Tire -derived fuel TDR Tire Disposal and Recycling, Inc., a private company that owns facilities to collect and process used tires. TDR has two facilities in Ore on: one in Clackamas and one in Prineville. TPD Tons per da TPY Tons per year Tip fee The fee charged for disposing waste at a solid waste facility such as a transfer station/MRF, a landfill or incinerator. Transfer station A permanent facility that accepts waste and recyclable materials from self -haulers and/or franchised haulers. The waste is dumped into larger trailers for transportation to a landfill. Recyclables are typically loaded into roll -off bins for transport to a recycling facility ix Solid Waste Management Plan WCI Western Climate Initiative WTEF Waste -to -Ener Facility see definition Waste disposal The discharging, discarding, or abandoning of solid wastes, hazardous wastes, or moderate risk wastes. This includes the discharge of any such wastes into or on land, air, or water. Waste haulers See service providers Waste -to -Energy facility A facility that burns municipal solid waste and produces electricity. The facility reduces the volume of waste by 90% and results in producing ash residue. Waste recycling/transfer Any waste processing facility which collects, facility stores, or treats waste materials for reuse. This can include buy-back recycling centers, drop-off recycling centers, salvage yards, reclamation sites, and waste storage centers. Waste reduction To reduce, prevent, or eliminate the generation of wastes. Waste stream The entire spectrum of wastes produced by all waste generators. WR/R Abbreviation for Waste Reduction, Reuse and Recycling Introduction This Executive Summary provides an overview of the Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP) prepared by the Department of Solid Waste (DSW). The SWMP provides a roadmap for moving forward with actions to advance the solid waste management system in Deschutes County. It provides guidance for how resources should be spent to reduce waste, expand recycling services to divert waste from landfills and maintain efficient collection and disposal services over the next 20 years. The SWMP centers on the principal that waste be managed as a resource and to have a new disposal system in place when Knott Landfill closes. It includes a summary of the key strategies and recommendations as well as a schedule for implementing those strategies. State of the Solid Waste Management System Over the past 30 years, the County, working with cities, franchised collection companies and special interest groups has developed and operated a solid waste management system that provides efficient and cost-effective services to residents and businesses. During this period, new services to reduce waste and recycle materials that respond to State mandated programs and address local needs have been added. The County and each of the cities provide collection services to residents and businesses through franchise agreements with private companies. The system also includes Knott Landfill and several transfer stations located throughout the County that provide convenient locations for customers to drop off recyclable materials and solid waste. A key component of the solid waste system is to provide a menu of waste reduction and recycling programs and services. The County and the cities work cooperatively and effectively with the franchised haulers, the Environmental Center and others to provide these services, which are required by the State. In 2017 and 2018, approximately 33% of the waste generated in the County was diverted from disposal at Knott Landfill. This is less than the 45% recovery goal recently assigned to the County by the State. However, during this period, most communities in Oregon and across the country experienced a reduction in recycling due to a downturn in the markets for recovered materials brought on by China's new, more restrictive standards for purchasing recycled materials. Whereas several jurisdictions in the State have cut back on services and the materials collected due to these market conditions, the County, working with cities and the franchised collection companies, continues to maintain a full range of services to customers. Developing new strategies and expanding existing programs to increase the amount of waste diverted from landfills is a key issue addressed in the SWMP. The cornerstone of the system is Knott Landfill, operated by DSW, which provides a local resource for disposing of municipal solid waste (MSW) that cannot be recycled. Over the past 25 years, DSW has enhanced the landfill facility to meet or exceed State ES- 1 requirements for operation of a modern disposal site while maintaining a financially stable operation. All wastes collected by franchise collection companies and received at the County's transfer stations are delivered to the landfill. Within the next 10 years, Knott Landfill is expected to reach its designed capacity. At that time, a new long-term disposal system must be in place. Also, in 2017 the State of Oregon adopted regulations that resulted in establishing new goals for reducing the amount of waste disposed in landfills for all communities throughout the State. The focus of these new regulations is to manage waste as a resource and to reduce impacts of greenhouse gas emissions generated from landfills. These conditions led the Board of County Commissioners to direct DSW to prepare a comprehensive SWMP to evaluate options and make recommendations for managing solid waste in the future. Description of the Current Solid Waste System In the State of Oregon, counties and cities have the responsibility and authority to provide comprehensive services for managing solid waste. Deschutes County executes this mandate by placing the primary responsibility with DSW to oversee these services and operate necessary facilities. DSW functions as an enterprise fund where all revenues needed to operate the system are generated by fees charged for customer services and no general tax revenues are used. DSW currently operates four rural transfer stations and the Knott Landfill Recycling and Transfer Facility. The locations of these facilities are shown on the map below. TetreLmxine SisbiIrs rl,9gkt Braid id.M PILaT AU 81 !Alk" NT SAC+IEl1iR �} 9bE5 F I— tnc' 5iatriu�x .j�f( tAk'A' `�{* 4 HE.n bP CRI' %AT ZONA: P.AMI W7LCAHIC W)NJI4[%T �v k� AUT PM 'L'a2 Wxy?'? `r 1AD �avn d t.a Plrx FaF DESC H UTES COUNTY K Alfalfa w F. 5 r Leaend 1: Knott Landfill Recycling and Transfer Facility 2: Northwest Transfer Station 3: Negus Transfer Station 4: Alfalfa Transfer Station 5: Southwest Transfer Station The four rural transfer stations augment regular collection services by providing convenient locations in more rural areas for citizens to deliver waste and recyclables. ES -2 Over the past three years, Negus Transfer Station in Redmond and Southwest Transfer Station near La Pine have experienced increases in waste quantities of 23% and 19% respectively. The increases in the number of customers and the amount of waste received at these two transfer stations has created the need to expand them in the near future. The cities of Bend, Redmond, Sisters and La Pine are responsible for providing collection services within their jurisdictions and DSW is responsible for providing collection services to the unincorporated portions of the County. Collection services are carried out by four private companies operating under franchise agreements. Each jurisdiction is responsible for setting the service standards and the rates charged to residents and businesses. As stated previously, DSW estimates remaining capacity of Knott Landfill to be about 10 years. The landfill accepted over 180,000 tons of solid waste per year over the past two years and is one of only two modern disposal sites permitted to accept MSW in central Oregon. The other landfill, located in Crook County, accepts less than 40,000 tons per year. When Knott Landfill reaches capacity, a new disposal solution must be in place. The SWMP examines the options and presents a recommended approach to have a new in -County landfill operational when Knott Landfill closes. Growth in The County Waste disposed at Knott Landfill decreased by 3.3% between 2010 to 2011 as a result of the recession that occurred between 2009 and 2013. The decline in waste disposed was a result of a slower economy, reduced construction activity and perhaps a reduction in tourism. From 2010 to 2016, the population grew by almost 15% while the rest of the State of Oregon grew a little over 6%. The result of this growth and changes in the economy are reflected in the following table. Over the past three years, the amount of waste disposed at Knott Landfill has increased at a rate of 11% per year. Table ES -1 - History of Waste Disposed at Knott Landfill Year 12010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Annual Waste 114,307 112,751 113,611 119,682 130,956 144,067 161,087 182,095 Disposed tons % (1.4%) 0.9% 5.4% 9.4% 10.0% 11.8% 13.0% Change In 2018, DSW reported that 182,000 tons of waste was disposed at Knott Landfill. Population data prepared by the Center of Population Research at Portland State University in 2018 shows that Deschutes County is expected to continue to grow by almost 3.0% per year, while the rest of the State is projected to grow at just 1.3%. The SWMP includes projections for the amount of waste generated and disposed over the next 20 years. With the estimated remaining capacity of Knott Landfill at 10 years, it will be important to monitor the data to ensure that a new disposal site is permtted and ready to receive waste when it closes. The SWMP presents several strategies to reduce waste, recycle more materials and divert waste from landfill disposal. ES -3 Implementation of these programs will help reduce waste disposed at Knott Landfill, but will only aid in providing limited additional time before a new disposal solution is in place. Preparing the SWMP With the impending issues discussed above, the Board of County Commisioners allocated funds in fiscal year 2018/19 for DSW to prepare a comprehensive SWMP. DSW proceeded by first selecting a consultant team that specialize in the solid waste management industry to provide policy analysis and technical assistance and to draft the SWMP. A team of consultants, led by ]RMA, Inc. was retained. The County also appointed a Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC) and assigned them with the responsibility to review information and provide input and guidance into the formulation of the plan. The SWAC is comprised of representatives of the cities, franchised collection companies, the Environmental Center and technical experts in related areas. The overriding goal of the County is "to work cooperatively with cities and service providers to offer citizens and businesses an integrated solid waste management system that delivers quality and cost-effective services while achieving the best use of our resources and reducing waste disposed in landfills. " In preparing the SWMP, the County adopted several guiding principles or objectives to be used in evaluating and selecting recommended strategies. These objectives include factors such as enhancing services, using proven and reliable technologies, determining cost-effectiveness and considering environmental impacts. The specific objectives are: 1. To provide an integrated solid waste management system that addresses an effective combination of strategies and programs guided by the hierarchy adopted by the State of Oregon to first, reduce waste at the source; second, to reuse and recycle materials; third, to compost; fourth, to recover energy; and last, to dispose of waste in landfills. 2. To continue educating consumers regarding practices and methods to reduce the long-term per capita waste generation rate and to seek, through community outreach, a cooperative approach to individual responsibility for waste reduction. 3. To develop programs and support implementation of system improvements that seek to ensure materials recovered from the waste stream attain the highest and best use and are recycled. 4. To develop a solid waste system that is based on sound financial principles, provides cost-effective services and maintains rate stability over the long term, while allocating costs equitably to all users. 5. To maintain system flexibility to respond to changes in waste stream composition, waste management technologies, public preferences, new laws and changing circumstances. A primary objective of the State is to protect the environment by emphasizing waste reduction and reducing waste disposed in landfills. Therefore, each wasteshed or ES -4 county has been assigned a targeted recovery rate, which is the amount of materials reused and recycled divided by the total amount of waste generated. The State's goal established under Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 459A.010 sets Deschutes County's recovery rate at 45% by 2025. This target will be measured on an annual basis, and programs and facility assessments will be made on the County's progress towards reaching this goal. The SWMP addresses each component of the solid waste system according to the hierarchial management approach adopted by the State. As shown on the adjacent graphic, the SWMP considers strategies that first, reduce waste; second, reuse materials; third, recycle; fourth, compost; fifth, recover energy; and finally, dispose of waste that cannot be recycled or used to produce alternative energy resources. Over the past 17 months, DSW, the consultant team and the SWAC have examined existing conditions, identified waste management system needs and opportunities and evaluated alternatives to address these needs. The process included regular meetings with the SWAC to review the draft plan and provided valuable input into shaping the direction in the development of the solid waste system. DSW established a special webpage where people could access the plan as it was being drafted and reviewed by the SWAC. All SWAC meetings were open to the public for comments. Also, during the preparation of the SWMP, DSW held two public meetings to gain input. The outreach program included conducting several surveys to solicit input. After reviewing each component of the solid waste system, the SWAC reviewed and endorsed recommendations for the future system. A summary of the comprehensive public outreach and involvement program and results of the surveys are included in Appendix B. Summary of Key Issues Addressed in the SWMP The SWMP addresses several key issues related to managing solid waste in the County over the next 20 years. While these issues are a result of changing regulations, some are driven by the impending closure of Knott Landfill. The following is a list of some of the key issues addressed in the SWMP. 1. Currently, the County recovery rate is 33%. What strategies can be implemented that will increase the recovery rate to potentially meet the recovery goal of 45% by 2025? 2. What strategies can be implemented in the near term that might extend the site life of Knott Landfill? 3. Are there proven and reliable technologies that would be cost-effective to implement that would further reduce the County's dependence on landfill disposal? 4. What is the best approach for providing for reliable and cost-effective long-term disposal capacity and should a new landfill be sited in the County, or should the County transfer waste to an existing regional landfill? ES -5 5. What investments and improvements are needed at the County's transfer stations to address the long-term system needs and maintain convenient cost- effective services? 6. Are there regional approaches to work with Crook County and provide opportunities to provide cost-effective solutions? 7. What is the timeline for making needed investments in the solid waste system and when do facilities need to be operational? A full list of the primary issues is presented in Chapter 1, Section 1.3 of the SWMP. Highlights of the SWMP Deschutes County has the largest population and economy in the State east of the Cascade Mountains. In addtion to a growing commercial/industrial sector, the County is a regional and nationally recognized location for year-round tourism. As previously mentioned, the County is growing at a faster rate than other parts of Oregon. By 2030 the population of Deschutes County is expected to be 230,000, an increase of over 25% as projected by the Population Research Center at Portland State University. Because of the location of the County in relation to other large population centers, it was imperative that the County develop a cost-effective and reliable system for managing waste. As a significant economic center for central Oregon, the County, working with the cities, has developed a well managed and cost-effective integrated solid waste system. It provides a wide range of programs and services aimed at reducing waste and recovering materials for reuse and recycling. Knott Landfill has been upgraded over the past 25 years and provides a state of the art disposal site comparable to other major regional landfills operating in the Pacific Northwest. A focus of the SWMP was to examine the current system and evaluate what strategies can be implemented to not just maintain services, but to consider alternatives that can improve them in the future. The SWAC considered many alternatives for reducing waste, recycling more materials and diverting more waste from landfill disposal. They considered options to convert waste to renewable energy sources using new or evolving alternative technologies and other ways to maximize the use of waste as a resource. The result was a set of recommendations that set forth a strategy to reduce waste disposed in landfills by as much as 15% or more over the next 10 to 15 years. When combined with the current waste reduction and recycling programs, these strategies are designed to help the County achieve and possibly exceed a recovery, goal of 45% by 2025. However, it is important to acknowledge that recycling services provided by the County and cities are responsible for about 55% of the total recovery rate. The remaining 45% is a result of private business initiatives that recycle and report independently to the State. To address future needs, the SWMP recommends several actions to enhance the County's solid waste system infrastructure. This includes expanding existing transfer stations over the next several years to enhance services and meet the needs of the growing population in the County. It also identifies the need to site and develop a new landfill located in the County when Knott Landfill closes. Once the Draft SWMP was completed, a survey was conducted by Triton Polling and Research, Inc., an independent polling and research company. The purpose of the Triton survey was to obtain additional input on whether the County should pursue ES -6 siting a new landfill in Deschutes County, or transport waste to an out -of -County landfill when Knott Landfill closes. Results of this survey indicate that 84% of respondents support the position that waste generated in Deschutes County be disposed of in Deschutes County, with 93% supporting the recommendation to site a new landfill in the County. The following discussion presents a summary of the recommendations in the SWMP. It is important to recognize that the SWMP is a roadmap outlining a strategy for achieving the goals set by the County and cities. There are many details and future actions to be considered during the implementation phase over the next 10 years. In moving forward with these actions, there will be many opportunities for the public to comment and provide input to shape the services to achieve the desired results. Summary of the SWMP Recommendations Waste Reduction and Recycling Currently, about 33% of the waste generated in Deschutes County is recycled. In 2016, the State adopted new rules and established a new recovery rate goal of 45% for Deschutes County. Therefore, a significant focus of the SWMP is addressing how the County's residents and businesses can recover and recycle more materials and reduce the amount of waste disposed in landfills. The SWAC considered many options that can lead to a sustainable management approach to reduce waste and recycle more materials. In doing so, they examined each of the primary waste generators, what services are currently being provided, and how those services could be enhanced to increase recycling. Waste generators included: 1. Residential single-family households 2. Multifamily units 3. Commercial businesses 4. Construction and demolition (C/D) generators In considering these generators, the SWAC identified certain targeted materials for recovery. These include separating vegetative food waste and collecting it with yard waste, expanding collection of source separated materials from multifamily units, increasing recycling from commercial businesses and separating C/D waste for processing. The following are recommendations for achieving a higher recovery rate. Recommendations that Apply to all Generators Recommendation 3.1: Move toward establishing a standard waste reduction and reuse program throughout the County for single-family homes, multifamily units and businesses, which includes a comprehensive education and promotion program. Recommendation 3.4: Expand and develop additional materials to educate residents of single-family homes, multifamily units and businesses on how to reduce food waste and develop promotion of vegetative food waste collection with yard waste and consider universal service for vegetative food waste collection. Recommendation 4.8: The County should complete a waste characterization study to better understand the composition of its waste stream, which will aid in evaluating options for recovering targeted materials and designing the programs and facilities needed. ES -7 Recommendations for Residential Single -Family Households Curbside recycling for single-family households in the cities and urbanized unincorporated County is well established. Expanding and enhancing these services to more customers is an ongoing activity. Recommendation 4.1: Expand the current residential collection of vegetative food waste with yard waste to increase participation. Recommendations for Multifamily Units Collection of source separated materials is provided to many multifamily units by the franchise haulers; however, participation is very low. The SWAC considered establishing a task force to focus on a comprehensive program to expand recycling service to the ever-growing number of multifamily developments being constructed in the County. The task force would look at establishing standards for ensuring there is adequate space for recycling containers and providing consistent educational and promotional material for these residents. Recommendation 3.2: Expand and improve a standard for a multifamily recycling program that includes a comprehensive education and outreach program to expand participation at multifamily developments and increase collection opportunities. Recommendations for Commercial Businesses Collection of source separated recyclable materials is currently provided to some businesses in the County. However, it is desirable to increase their participation in recycling. Also, the County experiences many tourists year-round and the SWAC identified a need to increase efforts to expand opportunities to provide more recycling services to tourists and businesses that service the tourism industry. Recommendation 3.3: Expand business education and promotion to target expansion of recycling for businesses focusing on hotels and resort communities to reach the year-round tourist population. As part of the business education and promotion program, develop a program to target food waste recovery. Recommendation 4.5: Develop a recycling and vegetative food waste collection program tameteting businesses hotels and resort communities. Recommendations for C/D Generators The County estimates that 25% or more of the waste disposed at Knott Landfill is generated from C/D activities. This waste stream contains large amounts of wood, sheetrock and roofing as well as typical commodity materials such as metal, cardboard and plastics. Also, there is an inert residue component (i.e. dirt, grit, glass) that is being disposed in the landfill. Completing a waste composition study and examining options to process and recover C/D material to reduce waste disposed in Knott Landfill or a future landfill can be part of a long-term solution. Recommendation 3.5: Expand and develop new programs aimed at increasing recycling of CID material. ES -8 Recommendation 4.7: Develop a plan to provide incentives for recycling of CID material and programs to recycle these materials to minimize its disposal at Knott Landfill or future landfills. Infrastructure and Facility Needs The SWMP considered the impacts to existing County solid waste facilities and identified the need for new infrastructure to support the recommended strategies. These facilities are needed to continue to provide long term, cost-effective services. Recommendations for Compost Facilities One focus on reducing waste disposed in landfills is to recover food waste and other organics from the waste stream. This will result in possibly as much as a 50% increase in the amount of organic materials to be composted. The existing compost facility is located at Knott Landfill where there have been issues with odor. Given the fact there is increasing residential development in the area around the landfill, this site may not be well suited to handle the expected increase from food waste and other organics unless more advanced technologies that can process these materials faster and control odors are implemented. Also, there may be other locations more suitable for this operation that are closer to potential markets. The SWAC has identified several recommendations to address the need to process more organics. Recommendation 4.2: Conduct an assessment of markets for compost products resulting from expanded organics programs. Recommendation 4.3: Evaluate alternatives to enhance and expand composting facilities. The study should evaluate optimal locations considering proximity to c7enerators markets and surrounding land uses. Recommendation 4.4: Upgrade the organics processing capacity and technology to efficiently handle additional food and yard waste, including meats and dairy from residential and commercial sources and other organic waste streams. Recommendations for Transfer and Recycling Stations DSW operates four rural transfer stations to serve areas of the County that are remote to Knott Landfill. These transfer stations have been in operation since the early 1990s. Negus Transfer Station in Redmond and Southwest Transfer Station near La Pine are at capacity and need improvements. The following recommendations outline a phased, multi-year strategy to upgrade transfer station facilities. Recommendation 5.1: Develop a Facility Plan for Negus Transfer Station in 2019 for making improvements to the facility by 2021 or as needed. Recommendation 5.2: Develop a Facility Plan for Southwest Transfer Station within the next three years. Modifications to this facility can be made as the demand for enhanced services for managing increased waste volumes and traffic is required. ES -9 Recommendation 5.3: Develop a Facility Plan for the Knott Transfer and Recycling Facility as necessary to address long-term disposal options or within five years of closure of Knott Landfill. Recommendation 5.4: Establish a capital improvement program for making investments in transfer station modifications over the next 10 years. Recommendations for Alternative Technologies Over the past 10 years, there have been advancements in alternative technologies to recover and convert the energy value of solid waste into renewable energy. The SWMP includes a review of various technologies to determine if any may be practical for implementation in Deschutes County. The results of the review led to the following findings: 1. Alternative technologies for managing waste in Deschutes County do not appear feasible at this time. 2. Markets for renewable energy or fuel products are not currently available locally. 3. Knott Landfill is expected to reach capacity within 10 years. This provides an opportunity for the County to monitor the continued advancement of new technologies and to reassess the potential for implementing an alternative technology project in three to five years. 4. The County should only consider those technologies and vendors that have a proven record of successfully operating a commercial scale alternative technology facility. Recommendation 6.1: The County should continue to monitor and assess the status and feasibility of alternative technologies as a part of the solid waste system in three to five years. Recommendations for Landfill Disposal When Knott Landfill reaches capacity, the County must be prepared to have a new solution in place. Two primary options were considered in the SWMP: 1. Transport waste to regional landfills located between 135 and 185 miles from Deschutes County near the Columbia Gorge. 2. Site and build a new landfill in Deschutes County. DSW, working with the SWAC and the consultant team, completed an evaluation of the landfill options considering several factors. A public meeting was held to solicit additional input into which option was preferred. After examining the alternatives, the SWAC reached a consensus that the best approach for providing a long term and cost- effective waste management system was to site and construct a new in -County landfill. Some of the key factors supporting this recommendation include: ES -10 1. The ability to control decisions for managing the County's waste stream without having to consider impacts to a contract with an out -of -County service provider. 2. Environmental and other impacts resulting from transporting waste almost 250 to 300 miles (roundtrip) to a regional landfill located in the Columbia Gorge region are excessive when compared to disposing of waste in Deschutes County. Depending on the effectiveness of waste reduction and recycling programs, there will be about 25 to 30 large transfer trucks that need to make this trip each day. Vehicle emission impacts are substantially greater with the out -of -County disposal option. Additionally, these trucks must travel through several towns along the route and the number of trips is expected to increase as the population grows. 3. With an average depth to ground water of over 500 feet and an arid climate with less than 14 inches of precipitation annually, conditions in Deschutes County are conducive to siting a new, environmentally safe landfill operation. These conditions are similar to those prevalent at other regional landfills. 4. The cost to build and operate an in -County landfill is expected to be less than the alternative to transport waste over long distances and dispose in a regional site that is also obligated to pay host fees, which in turn would likely be paid by the County. 5. The County has demonstrated its ability to effectively build and operate a modern landfill complex in an environmentally safe and cost-effective manner. There was much discussion on the difficulty of siting a new landfill and the possibility of a protracted process to successfully obtain permits. However, the geographic and demographic conditions in the County are favorable in comparison to locations west of the Cascade Mountains where siting has not been successful. It was noted that prior to expanding Knott Landfill in the late 1990s, the County did conduct a siting process and was able to identify sites that were environmentally suitable. The SWAC considered the impacts of greenhouse gases from landfills and concluded these impacts are the same whether the waste is landfilled in the County or disposed at another site. However, avoiding the emission impacts of transporting waste over the required distances was a distinct environmental benefit. Recommendation 7.1: The County should proceed to site and permit a new in - County landfill to be operational when Knott Landfill closes. The landfill should be capable of handling all waste streams generated in the County. Recommendation 7.2: The County should begin a formal process to site and permit a new landfill by 2021. Recommendations for Administration and Financial Management The County has provided a leadership role in developing much of the infrastructure that supports the management of solid waste. Day-to-day management and operations of the transfer stations and Knott Landfill are carried out directly by DSW ES - 11 staff. DSW also contracts out certain operations to private franchise companies, primarily to provide collection, transportation and recycling services. This also includes a license for Deschutes Recycling to operate the recycling and compost facility at Knott Landfill. As part of the SWMP, it is important to consider the recommended strategies and what impact they could have on the current administrative responsibilities of DSW, or if changes in the management structure are needed. Likewise, the SWMP identified needed investments to site, permit and construct a new landfill as well as necessary upgrades and expansions to existing transfer stations. Currently, the County and the cities of Bend and Redmond have entered into intergovernmental agreements that commit to disposal of waste at Knott Landfill. These agreements state the commitment to work together for managing solid waste. In addition, each jurisdiction has a franchise agreement with private companies to provide collection and recycling services. Upon review of the current management structure, no major changes were suggested. Regarding the financial management of the system, DSW operates as an enterprise fund where revenues generated from disposal fees are used to provide direct services. DSW also provides several dedicated reserve accounts used to fund routine capital improvements at the landfill, thus avoiding the need to borrow money. This approach provides for stability in the rates charged to customers. Also, the County has been able to procure low cost funding using the County's bonding capacity for larger capital investments when required. The last time bonds were required was in 2005 when the Knott Landfill Recycling and Transfer Facility was constructed. Recommendation 8.1: Given the need to implement the necessary changes to the solid waste management system over the next 10 years, the County should meet with the cities to reaffirm commitments and update, as necessary, the intergovernmental agreements. The agreements should also address the cities' participation in the process for implementing the recommendations adopted in the SWMP. Recommendation 8.2: The County should establish a formal process that provides for continued involvement of cities, other stakeholders, businesses and the general public in implementing the recommendations of the SWMP. This process may include establishing an ongoing advisory group and/or assigning task force committees to oversee development and implementation of specific programs. Recommendation 8.3: The County should consider the current DSW organization and determine the resources that are needed to carry out the implementation of the recommendations adopted in the SWMP. This will require perhaps some additional staff as well as financial resources. Recommendation 8.4: DSW should prepare a financial study of the current rates to determine the impacts of implementing the improvements identified in the SWMP and develop a capital improvement plan for a five to seven year period aimed at maintaining a stable financial strategy for facility improvements. Implementation Schedule The SWMP provides a roadmap for guiding the future development of the solid waste management system. It consists of 24 recommendations; several are related actions while others are dependent on the time when certain policies or facilities are ES -12 completed. Also, certain actions are a priority while others can be delayed. The implementation schedule provides a comprehensive summary tool to help coordinate and manage the timeframe when actions should occur and be completed and when others may begin. It is important to recognize that public participation and input for implementing new programs is essential. While there is flexibility in the schedule, there are, however, certain actions that have identified key dates that will need to be considered. ES - 13 Deschutes County SWMP 2019 Implementation Schedule Recommendations 1 2019 1 2020 1 2027 1 2022 1 2023 1 2024 2025 Recommendations that Apply to All Generators Establish a standard waste reduction and recycling Task Force ,„� I�,plan:ntatlon vm - „�, ,6, — 3.1 for single/multifamily and businesses and Expand education to 34 single/multifamily and raanninr Tasks rte „a mb In enk.nt.bo" businesses to promote == ling clin food waste Complete a waste I lementatbn 4.8 characterization study Recommendations that apply to Residential Single Family Households Expand current collection of Continue Rbt Pr ram line int Full Rogram v 4.1 residential food waste with yard waste Recommendations that apply to Multifamily Units Expand and improve a standard for multifamily In >len�ot I�bt r�oora�» , , Inenm F.11 3 2 recycling promotion and HT.�kr.— education Prociram Develop a multifamily recycling Task torte n lF11 III o",n "`"" '""' mralon�m aN Rmouran, "'" "` 4.6 and food waste collection ' •R program Recommendations that apply to Commercial Businesses Expand business Im>k:n»ot aor, �,ra�n 3.3 education/promotion focusing Task r-orce on tourism Start a recycling food waste Fannin mplement Progrraam� 4.5 collection program targeting _ hotels/resort communities Recommendations that apply to Construction and Demolition (CID) Generators Expand and develop new Plannin s _ _ _ lemont Program 3.5 programs aimed at increasing a — recycling CID materials Develop program to protide Plannin ImplerczM Ro ram 4.7 incentives for recycling CID v v — materials Compost Facilities Assess markets for compost Assess 4.2 products resulting from expanded organics program Evaluate alternatives to Evaluation 4.3 expand composting facilities involving optimal locations Upgrade organics processing Pla❑nmg Inplement Program from residential and — e _ ® 'y commercial sources Transfer and Recycling Stations Develop and implement plan Construction oyeration — e v 5.1 for Negus Transfer Station improvements Develop and implement plan R..mn Des' n Constructbn Operation 5.2 for Southwest Transfer Station improvements Develop plans for Knott Plannm 5.3 Transfer and Recycling Facility improvements Establish a capital lementation _ _ o m Annually m e � I 5.4 improvement program L I TaIe T ES -14 Recommendations 1 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Alternative Technologies/Solid Waste Disposal Assess status ofaltemathe ns_eas ns�es_� 61 technologies Landfill Disposal Options Proceed to site and permit a new County landfill to be neem suu v,00ess 7.1 operational before Knott Landfill reaches ca acit Begin formal process to site Silin Perrrittin 7.2 and permit new landfill Administration and Financial Management County to meet with cities to Meetin s Review 8.1 reaffirm commitments and update intedocal agreements Establish process that 8.2 implements the recommendations of the SWMP Determine the resources 8.3 needed to implement SWMP Bude Review tin _ _ _ _1,Tlen�ntatlon_ recommendations Prepare financial study of the SWMP and develop a capital Pre re Stud IRan e _ _ _ _ _ _ I tatbn (Ued 8.4 improvement plan (CIP) for 5-7 year period, maintaining financial stability Blue -Signifies actions involving multiple stakeholders Red - Signifies actions initiated by county ES - 15 Chapter I 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Context of the Plan Update Solid waste management is a system that provides for waste storage, collection, transportation, processing, recycling, recovery, conversion to fuel/energy products, and disposal of what is left. It also provides for the accumulation and appropriate management of special wastes and materials like household hazardous waste, oil, electronics, bulky materials, and construction demolition (C/D) materials. Deschutes County, has operated Knott Landfill as the primary solid waste disposal facility for the County since 1972. The County has also been responsible for providing the necessary facilities for managing solid waste generated by residents and businesses in the cities and unincorporated areas of the County. Working with the cities, franchised collection companies and local recyclers, the County has developed the infrastructure needed to meet the challenges of providing comprehensive waste reduction and recycling services while ensuring adequate capacity for safely disposing of waste in a most cost-efficient manner. In anticipation of the eventual closure of Knott Landfill, the County is taking the lead role to evaluate the options for managing waste in both the near future and after Knott Landfill is closed. This Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP) is the first comprehensive assessment of the solid waste system in many years. The timing for this project is most advantageous because of two important factors: 1. Based on current projections, it is anticipated that Knott Landfill will be at full capacity in about 10 years. It will require several years to plan, permit and build any facilities needed to continue providing constituents with infrastructure that is both reliable and cost-effective for long term use. 2. The State of Oregon passed SB459A that amends the Opportunity to Recycle Act and established new goals for all counties (also referred to as wastesheds) throughout the State. It requires jurisdictions to expand waste reduction and recycling programs to meet these goals by 2025. Preparing a SWMP entails engaging stakeholders, service providers and local jurisdictions to assess current conditions, determine needs and opportunities, evaluate options and make recommendations to set a course for continuing to provide a reliable and most efficient system. Solid waste is a heavily regulated industry in the United States and is governed by a combination of federal standards, state statues and mandates, and local ordinances. These ever-changing regulations continue to challenge local jurisdictions to prevent waste and recycle more to reduce waste disposed in landfills. Additionally, there are a number of private companies that are aggressively working to develop technologies to make the highest and best use of the resources yielded by processing out recyclables and converting waste to fuel and/or energy products. The adoption of new regulations and emerging technology has caused many communities to examine how best to manage solid waste in the future. 1-1 Chapter I This SWMP provides a forward look at the solid waste management system and identifies the needs and opportunities for the next 15 years. It provides decision - makers with general direction as to what facilities and programs are required to continue the success of the solid waste system. The County, together with stakeholders (local jurisdictions, private sector operators and the public), must continually review the progress made and assure the overriding values of the community and the overall solid waste system needs are being met. By following the direction and priorities adopted in this SWMP, Deschutes County will provide a road map for making changes to manage the solid waste system for meeting local service needs as well as address statewide goals. 1.2 Plan Purpose and Goals The SWMP examines each component of Deschutes County's solid waste system. It is designed to provide guidance and direction for developing policies and programs as well as the infrastructure needed to manage solid waste over a 15 -year planning period (2019-2034). It is important to acknowledge there are many stakeholders that are impacted by the direction and decisions made for managing solid waste. This includes generators such as residents, institutions and businesses, cities and service providers. As such, these stakeholders have been consulted and given opportunity to provide input as the plan was prepared. Gaining consensus and support for the direction of the services to be provided is important going forward with implementing the recommendations. It should also be recognized that solid waste practices, regulations, and technologies are dynamic in nature and will result in a need to routinely update the SWMP on a regular basis in the future. Thus, the purpose of the SWMP is to prioritize the steps necessary to continue to provide cost effective services, set a timetable for when decisions are made and identify the facilities needed for managing the required services. The plan provides the tool that communicates a strategy and implementation schedule to manage Deschutes County's recycling and waste management services. In developing a SWMP that will guide the decisions and direction for managing solid waste, the County has embraced several goals and guiding principles for how waste is managed. These guiding principles consider the emphasis of the State of Oregon's 2050 vision to reduce waste disposed in landfills and to recover more materials, consistent with a theme to have local jurisdictions manage waste as a resource. While these directives are an important consideration, the County will rely on strategies that can accomplish these goals with an understanding they are fiscally responsible and consistent with delivering cost effective services. The overriding goal for the County is "to work cooperatively with cities and service providers to offer citizens and businesses an integrated solid waste management system that delivers quality and cost-effective services while achieving the best use of our resources and reducing waste disposed in landfills. " This SWMP presents a comprehensive long-term approach to solid waste management in the County, designed around this resource conservation and management principle. WIA Chapters The SWMP provides citizens and decision -makers in the County with a guide to implement, monitor, and evaluate solid waste facilities and programs in the future to meet the above -stated goal. The guiding principle for Deschutes County's SWMP is that solid waste should be viewed and managed as a resource using the most cost effective and reliable strategies that are consistent with the policies as adopted by the State. The County will strive to conserve resources through behavioral changes and recognizes the integral link between solid waste management, the environment, and ultimately the quality of life. Recommendations developed for the SWMP not only guide local decision -makers but substantiate the need for local funds and State grants for local solid waste projects and new programs. When preparing this SWMP, there were several guiding principles or objectives that were considered in order to select the best approach from meeting the goals of the County and its partners. Achieving these objectives requires the plan consider and evaluate key factors such as programs to enhance services, proven and reliable technologies, cost effectiveness and environmental impacts. These specific objectives are: 1. To provide an integrated solid waste management system that addresses an effective combination of strategies and programs guided by the hierarchy adopted by the State to first, reduce waste at the source; second, to reuse and recycle materials; third, to compost; fourth, to recover energy; and last, to dispose of waste in landfills. 2. To continue educating consumers to promote practices and methods to reduce the long-term per capita waste generation rate and seek, through community outreach, a cooperative approach to assume individual responsibility to reduce waste. 3. To develop programs and support implementation of system improvements that seek to ensure materials recovered from the waste stream attain the highest and best use and are recycled. 4. To develop a solid waste system that is based on sound financial principles, provides cost effective services and maintains rate stability over a long term, while allocating costs equitably to all users. 5. To maintain system flexibility to respond to changes in waste stream composition, waste management technologies, public preferences, new laws and changing circumstances. A primary objective of the State is to protect the environment by emphasizing waste reduction and reducing waste disposed in landfills. Therefore, each wasteshed (or county) has been assigned a targeted recovery rate, which is defined as the amount of materials reused and recycled divided by the total waste generated. The statewide goal established under Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 459A.010 sets Deschutes County's recovery rate at 45% by 2025. This target will be measured on an annual basis, and programs and facility assessments will be made on the County's progress towards reaching this state goal. 1-3 Chapter I 1.3 Issues Addressed by the Plan With the commitment to produce a comprehensive SWMP, the County has taken the opportunity to fully assess all aspects of the solid waste system and, with its stakeholders, identify deficiencies and opportunities to make improvements. It also offers the opportunity to examine the current infrastructure and to plan for future investments strategically and develop a financial plan to implement improvements with the most cost-effective approach. Some of the key issues to be addressed in the SWMP are as follows: 1. Currently, the County recovery rate is 33%. What strategies can be implemented that will increase the recovery rate to potentially meet the 2025 recovery goal of 45%? 2. What are the impacts and changes needed, if any, to current collection services considering the potential for new recycling programs? Are changes needed to address population growth in the County? 3. What strategies can be implemented in the near term that might extend the site life of Knott landfill? 4. Are there proven and reliable technologies that would be cost effective to implement that would further reduce the County's dependency on landfill disposal and enhance resource recovery? 5. What is the best approach for providing for reliable and cost-effective long-term disposal capacity? 6. What investments/improvements are needed at the County's transfer stations to address long-term system needs and to provide convenient cost-effective services? 7. What is the best approach for funding the capital improvements required to meet the future solid waste system needs? 8. Are there regional approaches to work with Crook County and provide opportunities to provide cost effective solutions? 9. What is the timeline for making needed investments in the solid waste system and when do new facilities need to be operational? These represent some of the key issues and concerns addressed in the SWMP. As each component of the solid waste system was assessed, the consultant team working with the County and stakeholders identified and discussed the needs and opportunities pertaining to specific components of the solid waste system. As each component of the solid waste system was reviewed and updated, issues related to meeting the goals of the SWMP were addressed. 1-4 Chapter I 1.3.1 Overview of Regulations for Managing Solid Waste In preparing this SWMP, it is important to understand the regulations that pertain to the responsibility and authority of the County and cities. Deschutes County is the primary agency that manages solid waste disposal services for all generators in the County. The cities of Bend and Redmond have supported Deschutes County's role by entering into intergovernmental agreements. Also, both La Pine and Sisters have worked cooperatively to support the County -wide system. However, each of the cities has franchised agreements with private companies to provide collection and recycling services in their jurisdictions for both residential and commercial waste generators. This relationship has been in place for over 30 years as the County has owned and operated Knott Landfill. The Department of Solid Waste (DSW) has had the primary responsibility for planning and operating the County's solid waste system. DSW is also responsible for providing collection and recycling services for the unincorporated areas of the County. 1.4 Regulations Related to Local Authority In section 459.085 of the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS), the specific authority for solid waste management for each county in the State is spelled out. The section deals with a county's authority outside cities and the effect of annexation and interagency agreements. Some key highlights of the regulations are as follows: 1. With respect to areas outside of cities, a board of county commissioners may, by ordinance or by regulation or order adopted pursuant to an ordinance or regulation: a. Prescribe the quality and character of and rates for collection service. b. Divide the unincorporated area into service areas, grant franchises to persons for collection service within service areas. c. Prescribe a procedure for issuance, renewal or denial of a franchise to a person providing or proposing to provide collection service. d. Regulate solid waste management. 2. With respect to areas outside of cities, a board of county commissioners may adopt ordinances to: a. Own and operate disposal sites and may license of disposal sites as an alternative to franchising of service. b. Regulate, license or franchise salvage businesses or the operation of salvage sites where such action is found necessary to implement any part of a solid waste management plan applicable in the county. These primary authorities and responsibilities listed above are also applicable to cities. In summary, both cities and counties are responsible to ensure basic solid waste collection, recycling and disposal services are provided to all residents and businesses. Although local jurisdictions can operate collection services, the primary delivery method in the State of Oregon is through franchised agreements. There are several other citations, but those cited above represent the primary authority granted to local jurisdictions for managing solid waste. 1-5 The State supports local governments cooperatively working to prepare a SWMP and to coordinate services in the most efficient approach. ORS 459.065 states local governments may enter into intergovernmental agreements as follows: a. For joint franchising of service or the franchising or licensing of disposal sites. b. For joint preparation or implementation of a solid waste management plan. c. For establishment of a joint solid waste management system. d. For cooperative establishment, maintenance, operation or use of joint disposal sites, including but not limited to energy and material recovery facilities. e. For the employment of persons to operate a site owned or leased by the local government unit. f. For promotion and development of markets for energy and material recovery. g. For the establishment of landfills including site planning, location, acquisition, development and placing into operation. As part of preparing this SWMP, a key step was to review and update intergovernmental agreements, especially as it related to moving forward with implementation of recommendations. Therefore, the planning process was designed to obtain input from cities, other stakeholders and the general public as the SWMP was being prepared. ORS 459 has several citations that govern the management of solid waste. The ORS citations above describe the authority of local governments to manage solid waste within their jurisdictional boundaries and for local governments to work together on solutions and services. There are additional citations that relate to waste reduction and recycling and landfill disposal sites. First, through SB 263, the State's regulations for waste reduction and recycling were amended and codified in ORS 459A. This amendment to the original "Opportunity to Recycle Act" enacted new recovery rates for all wastesheds. For Deschutes County, the recovery rate was set at 45%. It also removed the recycling rate credits awarded to local jurisdictions: therefore, Deschutes County will need to consider approaches to increase the recovery rate from 33% in 2016 to 45% by 2025. This will be discussed in Chapter 3 Waste Reduction Programs. Second, listed in ORS 459 are the regulations related to new landfill disposal sites. In section 459.017 it states: The Legislative Assembly finds and declares that: a. The planning, location, acquisition, development and operation of landfills is a matter of statewide concern. b. Local government units have the primary responsibility for planning for solid waste management. c. Where the solid waste management plan of a local government unit has identified a need for a landfill, the State has a responsibility to assist local government and private persons in establishing such a site. 1-6 IMF 2. It is the intent of the Legislative Assembly that any action taken by the Environmental Quality Commission to establish a landfill under ORS 459.049 be recognized as an extraordinary measure that should be exercised only in the closest cooperation with local government units that have jurisdiction over the area affected by the proposed establishment of a landfill. Furthermore, Section 459.047 identifies how the State will work with local government to site, permit and implement any new landfill disposal site. In summary, the State recognizes the complexity and challenges in locating a new landfill disposal site and will offer assistance where needed. This overview is intended to provide background information necessary for understanding what regulations impact the preparation of the SWMP and its findings and recommendations. As each element of the solid waste system is presented and evaluated for future impacts, more details regarding the regulations that impact that element will be discussed. 1.5 Plan Organization The plan will consider the entire solid waste system by preparing a separate chapter for each component of the system. This introductory chapter provides information on the purpose of the SWMP and guiding principles for managing solid waste in Deschutes County. Chapter 2 Background and Waste Stream Analysis describes the current system and the types and quantities of solid waste generated in the County. The remaining chapters address each component of the solid waste system, including: • Waste Prevention, Reduction, Reuse and Recycling Analysis (Chapter 3) • Collection and Recycling/Processing (Chapter 4) • Transfer System (Chapter 5) • Alternative Technologies and Solid Waste Disposal (Chapter 6) • Landfill Disposal Options (Chapter 7) • Administration and Financial Management (Chapter 8) The information prepared for each Chapter and component includes the following subjects: • Review of current practices • Needs and opportunities • Discussion and evaluation of alternatives • Recommendations for future actions The process for completing the SWMP as illustrated in Figure 1-1 uses a building block approach to first examine the programs and services for reducing or preventing waste from being generated as well as services for reuse of materials. These programs affect the residents and businesses that generate waste. Next, the plan reviews the recycling programs to consider approaches to recover more materials. The chapters then progress to looking at ways to process and transform/convert waste to a useful resource. Finally, with waste that cannot be recycled or used, final disposal options are evaluated. 1-7 Project Kickoff DraftCh. 3 Project Goals Ch.1 &2- Draft Ch. 3 Revisions Waste Introduction Reduction & & Draft Existing Recycling Ch.4 Materials EReen- XAdvisory Advisory Group Recovery Process Advisory Group 1.6 Public Participation In preparing the SWMP, the County developed a comprehensive outreach program to solicit input and reaction from stakeholders, citizens and businesses. This included setting up a dedicated page in the County and DSW's website. This webpage was updated monthly. As shown on the process flow chart, there were several SWAC meetings to evaluate options of the different components of the solid waste system. Ir total during the preparation of this SWMP, the SWAC held 14 meetings, all of which were advertised and open for the public to attend. As the draft SWMP achieved certain milestones, the County sought to provide opportunity for additional public input by holding two public meetings. One meeting was held to obtain input and feedback regarding the draft recommendations of proposed actions for reducing waste and recycling more materials. A second public meeting was held to obtain input regarding future disposal options for the County's waste when Knott Landfill closes. To obtain additional input, DSW issued surveys to obtain feedback of various waste reduction and recycling programs, and also to gain some insight of public opinion on future disposal options. Finally, DSW expanded its outreach by conducting a phone survey using an independent firm to receive further input on whether the County should site a new landfill in Deschutes County, or consider transporting waste to a regional landfill located in another jurisdiction. A full description of the public outreach program is provided in Appendix B 1-8 Chapter 2 2. BACKGROUND AND WASTE STREAM ANALYSIS 2.1 Introduction This chapter provides the following information: • The physical and economic characteristics of the planning area (Deschutes County); • A description of the current solid waste management system; • An analysis of the current solid waste stream composition; • Trends in waste generation and recovery rates; and • A presentation of waste generation projections. 2.2 Characteristics of the Planning Area Deschutes County is located in Central Oregon and comprises 3,055 square miles bounded to the west by the Cascade Mountains and lies within the central high desert plateau. It is bounded by Jefferson County to the north, Crook County to the east, Klamath and Lake Counties to the south, and Lane and Linn counties to the west. Topography is above mean sea level ranging from 2,411 feet at the lowest elevation to over 10,000 feet at South Sister, located in the Three Sisters Wilderness of Central Oregon's Deschutes National Forest. The Forest Service owns 51% of the land within the County's boundary. Since most of the region is located at a higher elevation (average elevation is 4,575 feet), the climate tends to be cooler most of the year. In the summer, the average high temperature is 84 degrees Fahrenheit and in the winter, the average is 24 degrees Fahrenheit. The County receives an average of 11 inches of rain per year and 22 inches of snow. On average, there are 266 sunny days per year.' Despite the slowdown in growth during the 2008 recession, the population of Deschutes County has been one of the fastest growing in Oregon. It grew 3% from 2014 through 2015 and has increased at an average rate of more than 3% per year and by a total of 57% since the 2000 Census.z According to the 2010 Census, the County had a population of 157,733 and was estimated to be 181,307 in 2016. According to 2016 estimates, this population resided in a total of 85,933 housing units, with an average household size of 2.49.3 County -wide population and housing figures from the 2010 US Census estimates are shown in Table 2-1. ' Source: US Climate Data, https://www usclimatedata.com/climate/bend/oreaon/united-states/usor0031 Accessed: November 17, 2017 2 Source: Coordinated Population Forecast: Deschutes County 2015-2016, Population Research Center, Portland State University, June 2015. 3 Source: US Census Bureau, www.census.gov 2-1 Chapter 2 Table 2-1: Population and Housing, Deschutes County vs. State of Oregon Category Year Deschutes Oregon County Wide Population 2010 157,733 3,831,074 Population Estimate 2016 181,307 4,093,465 Population percent chane 2010-2016 14.9% 6.4% Number of Housing Units 2010 80,139 1,675,562 Number of Housing Units Estimate 2016 85,933 1,732,786 Housing Units percent chane 2010-2016 7.2% 3.4% Population is generally concentrated in the City of Bend, which is located in the center of the County with 83,500 residents (Table 2-2). Most of the urbanized areas in the County are located along or near the major road corridors of Highways 20 and 97. Table 2-2: 2016 Estimated Population of Cities in Deschutes County, OR 3urisdiction Population Bend 83,500 Redmond 27,595 La Pine 1,675 Sisters 2,390 Un -incorporated Cities 66,147 Total 181,307 The Deschutes County seat is in Bend, which is considered the political and economic hub of Central Oregon. As the major population center for Central Oregon, Deschutes County has evolved into a diversified economic region. The main industries representing major employers include: • Leisure and Hospitality • Medical/Health Care • Industries Secondary Wood Products Aviation/Aerospace Renewable Energy Resources Recreation Equipment • Retail • Specialty Manufacturing • Office/Services • Government Also, agriculture is still a large part of the Central Oregon economy. Tourism brings many visitors to the County each year to the resort communities of Black Butte, Sunriver, Eagle Crest, Pronghorn, and Inn of the Seventh Mountain. Other attractions include Mount Bachelor ski area, the High Desert Museum, numerous golf courses, several lakes and rivers, and hiking trails. In general, the region experiences an influx of visitors year-round, especially to Bend and its surrounding communities. Data published by "Visit Bend" states there were an estimated 2.5 million visitor -trips to the City of Bend alone in 2015. If one assumes 4 Source: Population Research Center, Portland State University. 2-2 that each trip represents one person, that would translate to about 200,000 visitors each month. Comparing current data to information published in 2010 where it showed about 150,000 visitors per month indicates there has been an increase in tourist visits of 25%.5 This represents visitors to the Bend only and not the entire County. Acknowledging the large number of visitors is an important aspect of evaluating options for managing solid waste. It not only impacts the total waste disposed, but also the composition of the waste generated. Since the largest concentration of destination resorts in the Pacific Northwest is in the County, tourism and hospitality trade are an important sector of the economy. In 2007, the unemployment rate was 4.7%, dropping to 4.2% in 2017.6 The most common employment sectors are healthcare and social assistance, retail trade, and accommodation and food service.' Table 2-3: Deschutes County Economic Activity Category I Year Deschutes Oregon Median Household Income 2015 $51,223 $51,243 Median Value of Owner -Occupied Housing 2015 $253,400 $237,300 Unit Civilian Labor Force 2015 61.30% 62.10% Unemployment Rate6 Aug -17 4.20% 4.10% Full & Part Time employment 2015 60,309 1,498,727 Total Employment -Percent Change 2015 6.80% 3.800 0 Total employer establishments 2015 6,530 112,393 Buildinq Permits 2016 2,274 19,58 The City of Bend, working with civic leaders, industry representatives and other interest groups, prepared a comprehensive economic forecast report in August 2016 entitled "Bend Economic Opportunities Analysis". This report cites the recent trends in the growth for the City of Bend and the County, pointing to recent increases in employment. It supports the conclusion that the area is expected to continue to have stronger growth than other areas of the State. It also suggests the need for more multi -family housing as well as more land in the urban growth boundary to support growth. 5 Source: Oregon Visitor Trips, RRC February 2016; Estimation of Bend Oregon Visitor Trips and Visitor Days Prepared by RRC Associates, September 1, 2010, www.visitbend.com 6 Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, www.bls.gov Source: Data USA, https•//datausa io/profile/geo/deschutes-county-or/#economy 2-3 Chapter 2 2.3 Description of the Current Solid Waste Management System The current solid waste system in Deschutes County consists of storage, collection, transfer, waste recovery, recycling, household hazardous waste (HHW), composting and disposal facilities. Collectively, the facilities and programs in Deschutes County effectively manage all of the County's waste and recyclables. This chapter provides a description of the major components of the current solid waste management system in the County. Some of the smaller recycling facilities or specific programs that are currently in place within the County may not be included, but will be discussed in later chapters of this SWMP As mentioned in Chapter 1, the County and the cities, by State law, are empowered with the responsibility to ensure recycling services are provided and waste is managed in a safe and efficient manner. To meet the needs of citizens and businesses, solid waste and recycling services and programs are provided through a partnership of local jurisdictions with private service providers. A basic overview of the County's solid waste system is presented in Figure 2-1. Figure 2-1: Deschutes County Solid Waste System Deschutes County owns the four transfer stations, composting site, some of the recycling facilities and the landfill that serves the solid waste system. The processing facilities and some of the recycling facilities are owned by private companies or other local government agencies. 2.3.1 Summary of Annual Solid Waste Generation Over the past seven years, the County has experienced a continual increase in the amount of waste generated. Table 2-4 shows the amount of materials that were recovered, and waste disposed from 2010 to 2017 as reported by the Oregon 2-4 Cities+� ,_4 Caminaingl¢d Matcatals ..,..�.- .�--.��. ,.....-�Aila --_,. «..........6 TO Unincorporated su—� 6aM 0 County Pnatt�.asc Yawaste ------m.m.m�..7 Out a? [a3�ntY a C ty cydinc Raq'cl�roy caftelca 1 Canapart9es MSW ----- 61 § 1 r„.—y —d --------- J f P i 1 f B � AffaRa E 3 ;East Caygtiy) � ! 7 1 f f f t f 1 1 ww•tt u/ltlrsl RQtygttIq and Tonsicr l:aclmy County -Owned hent est Transfer Stations and{slrnr� 1 t DQW utcs Recycling 7 @ f RacysHng (acast) ��-- Center r eQcu: 1 fRcanwaetl7 fc rr...��,... �..�<. 11 5 SnutMv¢3t Rlwtt iaautlfln (La Pl,! Figure 2-1: Deschutes County Solid Waste System Deschutes County owns the four transfer stations, composting site, some of the recycling facilities and the landfill that serves the solid waste system. The processing facilities and some of the recycling facilities are owned by private companies or other local government agencies. 2.3.1 Summary of Annual Solid Waste Generation Over the past seven years, the County has experienced a continual increase in the amount of waste generated. Table 2-4 shows the amount of materials that were recovered, and waste disposed from 2010 to 2017 as reported by the Oregon 2-4 AChapter . 2 2 � Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ).8 The total waste generated is the sum of the waste disposed plus recovered materials. Table 2-4: Solid Waste Tons Per Year Total Solid 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Waste Generated 177,107 185,386 185,676 193,744 203,921 227,333 240,844 270,658 Disposed 115,030 112,751 113,611 119,682 130,956 143,952 161,087 181,095 Recovered 62.077 72,635 72,065 74,062 72,965 83,381 79,757 89,536 Waste disposed, includes what is received at the Knott Landfill and special waste including HHW that is recycled or disposed at designated sites. Waste disposal at Knott Landfill includes MSW and C/D waste. 300,000 Figure 2-2: Graph of Annual Solid Waste The data shown graphically in Figure 2-2 indicates that during the five years between 2012 and 2017, the County has experienced an increase of 46% in the amount of waste generated. 8 DEQ Annual Reports 2-5 Chapter 2.3.2 Refuse Collection Deschutes County has franchised agreements with four different private companies for the collection of municipal solid waste from residences and commercial establishments (see Table 2-5). Each of these companies is franchised by the city it serves and with the County for unincorporated areas, under authority granted by ORS 459.125. This same legislation also gives Deschutes County the authority to: "Regulate, license, franchise and certify disposal, transfer, and resource recovery sites or facilities; establish and collect license or franchise fees; and otherwise control and regulate the establishment and operation of all public or private disposal, transfer and resource recovery sites or facilities located within the County." Franchised agreements grant each company the sole right to collect solid waste and recyclables from a specified area. Waste haulers are obligated to provide a regular schedule for collection of waste in all areas of the County and recyclables in urbanized areas. Service charges by the waste haulers are regulated by cities and by the County. Table 2-5: 2008 Private Solid Waste Haulers and Service Areas Collection Service Provider Service Area Term of Contract Bend Garbage and Recycling North Bend Rolling seven9 Cascade Disposal South Bend and Sunriver Rolling seven High Country Disposal Redmond and Sisters Rolling seven Wilderness Garbage and La Pine Rolling seven Recycling Note: Deschutes County contracts with all four collection companies for service in the unincorporated areas of the County. 2.3.3 Transfer Stations DSW manages four transfer stations in the County. The transfer station system was developed in the 1990s to replace closed landfills and to offer convenient locations where residents and businesses in rural areas could take waste and recyclables. Waste is transferred for disposal at Knott Landfill and recyclables are taken to Mid -Oregon Recycling, located in Bend. The four transfer stations include Negus Transfer Station located in Redmond, Northwest Transfer Station near Sisters, Southwest Transfer Station between Sunriver and La Pine, and Alfalfa Transfer Station located off Walker Road near Alfalfa (Figure 2-3). 9 Denotes a continuously renewing 7 -year term for contracts, per franchised ordinance. 2-6 Chapter 2 !A5tffs i cvrc-bm1w, uaaK DESCHUTES COUNTY z< 0AW Bend LAM Alfalfa w 5 °aAkY.3 LA"Legend air: I.IN `UF xU(i !Aa NY Mc. eLoa 1: Knott Landfill Recycling & u lY, -MI P II.- Prr Transfer Station t srtuw Mi31it.,, t2, 2: Northwest Transfer Station tali 3: Negus Transfer Station [irod,ers 4: Alfalfa Transfer Station ©� 5: Southwest Transfer Station anyp t x A t Figure 2-3: Transfer Station Locations in Deschutes County �r.r« 2012 .UA'E cxsys {( N=iYtlCCA\' XATInNAI p.Q,�.,*i �i YO ICbWC NC NU NE FT 2017 Tons Tons Tons �" Enxrrra :.us Tons ti Negus 21,825 ti,tvt5 La altos Negus Transfer Station serves the largest population center outside Bend and receives the most customers since it is located near the city of Redmond, the second largest city in Deschutes County. Table 2-6 shows the tonnage of waste materials that flow into these facilities. Table 2-6: Remote Transfer Station Tonnages" Transfer Station 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Tons Tons Tons Tons Tons Tons Negus 21,825 23,510 25,444 28,502 31,309 34,948 Northwest 3,166 2,965 3,037 3,429 3,738 3,630 Southwest 6,491 7,074 7,386 8,203 9,193 9,788 Alfalfa 155 157 151 165 170 184 Subtotal Remote 31,637 33,706 36,018 40,299 44,410 48,550 Transfer Station Knott Transfer 22,838 25,349 25,444 28,501 31,509 45,020 Station Total Transfer 54,475 59,055 61,462 68,800 75,919 93,570 The amount of waste received at the County's four transfer stations has increased by 53% since 2012, while tonnages at the Knott Transfer Station increased 97%. Overall, transfer station tonnages increased 72% over this period. Most of this increase has occurred at the two largest transfer stations, Negus in Redmond and Southwest near La Pine respectively by 43% and 42%. This increase corresponds with the growth in population throughout the County. 10DSW Annual Reports 2-7 Chapter 2 In addition to these remote transfer stations, DSW operates a central transfer station at Knott Landfill. This station was built to receive waste delivered by self -haul customers and eliminated these users from unloading at the landfill working area for safety reasons. A recycling center is also located at Knott Landfill. The total amount of waste received at all transfer stations and Knott Transfer Station is shown in Figure 2- 4. 60,000 50,000 40,000 2015 2016 2017 Knott Transfer Station Figure 2-4: Deschutes County Yearly Transfer Station Tonnages The Knott Recycling and Transfer Facility and the Northwest, Southwest and Negus transfer stations accept items such as household refuse and construction debris, commingled recyclables, cardboard, glass, appliances, auto batteries, computer monitors, CPUs, printers, keyboards, TVs and other electronics, motor oil, tires, scrap metal, wood waste and yard debris. Knott Landfill also accepts asbestos and contaminated soil. The Alfalfa facility accepts commingled recyclables, cardboard, glass, auto batteries, computer monitors, CPUs, TVs, motor oil and scrap metal. 11 Table 2-7 lists the hours of operation for each facility. Table 2-7: Deschutes County Transfer Station Hours of Operation Transfer Station Days of Operation Hours of Operation November 1 -April 30 Knott Landfill Monday -Saturday 7:00 a.m.-4:30 p.m. Recycling and Transfer Facility May 1 -October 31 Monday -Sunday 7:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. Negus Monday -Saturday 8:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. Northwest Wednesday -Saturday 8:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. Southwest Wednesday -Saturday 8:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. Alfalfa Saturday 8:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. 11 Source: Department of Solid Waste Deschutes County Brochure from website November 2017, www.descutes.org/solidwaste 2-8 Chapter 2 2.3.4 Disposal Facility — Knott Landfill Landfill disposal is part of every solid waste system. There are different types of landfill facilities that are designed and permitted to handle different waste streams. The primary type of landfill is one that is designed to dispose of MSW. In Deschutes County, the only landfill permitted to accept MSW is Knott Landfill, which is anticipated to close in 2029. Data for recent waste tonnage received at Knott Landfill is shown in Table 2-8. Table 2-8: Deschutes County Tonnage to Disposal Operations 12 Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Annual Waste 114,307 112,751 113,611 119,682 130,956 144,067 161,087 182,095 Disposed tons % (1.4%) 0.9% 5.4% 9.4% 10.0% 11.8% 13.0% Change Knott Landfill has been the County's primary disposal site since 1972 and is projected to close in 2029 or in about 10 years. In 2017, over 181,000 tons of municipal and non -municipal solid wastes were disposed at Knott Landfill. About 75% of the waste received at Knott Landfill is delivered by franchised collection companies and self -haul customers. The remaining 25% of the waste is collected and transferred to Knott Landfill from the four rural transfer stations located in Deschutes County. The rural transfer station waste is delivered by truck, averaging approximately 15-25 tons of waste per load. Landfill gas (LFG), comprised primarily of methane, is a byproduct of waste decomposing in landfills. Collection and destruction of LFG is important to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and prevent LFG-related fires and explosions. Currently, the County collects LFG and operates a flare system to burn off the gas safely. In 2009, Deschutes County completed a study of options for using LFG generated by the landfill. Due to market conditions at the time, that study generally focused around electric generation options and included LFG recovery assessments based on 2009 conditions at the landfill. Since then, numerous factors have changed both internally within Knott Landfill's operations and externally within the LFG utilization industry as a whole. Since incorporation of leachate/condensate recirculation into the site operation in 2010, the landfill has seen a significant increase in LFG production, which necessitated the need for expanding the flare system in 2017. DSW is considering options for managing the LFG produced even after the landfill is closed. 2.3.5 Recycling Systems Deschutes County dedicates 2.5% of the annual budget to recycling education, which has helped to increase diversion numbers in the County. Many private collection companies and volunteer organizations participate in programs to recycle materials 120regon Department of Environmental Quality; 2017 Oregon Materia/ Recovery and Waste Generation Rates Report. NZ Chapter 2 from the County's waste stream. This section describes the primary facilities that receive, process, and market materials produced from collection services. The State requires that every jurisdiction with a population of 4,000 or more provide recycling programs and services. In Deschutes County, recycled materials are primarily collected from residences and businesses at the curb. Residents and businesses can also drop off recyclables at several locations across the County. In addition, a number of waste reduction and recycling education programs for residents and businesses are conducted by the County or its agents and the franchised collection companies. The following is an overview of the recycling facilities currently operating in Deschutes County. 2.3.5.1 Recycling at Transfer Stations All four transfer stations accept recyclable materials including comingled materials, cardboard (OCC), auto batteries, glass, electronics, motor oil, scrap metals and propane tanks. The transfer stations do not accept the following: • Dirt, sod, concrete, rocks, bricks, and other inert material (accepted at Negus Transfer Station) • Hazardous materials • Liquids • Manure • Ashes (dead or alive) • Asbestos • Bulky heavy items that may damage the transfer trailers or hinder unloading as determined by the site attendant Table 2-9 provides the amount of these materials received at each of the transfer stations. Table 2-9: Annual Recycling Materials Recycled at Deschutes County Transfer Stations (2016 Tons per Year) 2-10 Alfalfa Knott Negus Northwest Southwest Total Appliances 166 27 74 267 Batteries 7 2 4 14 Cardboard 114 24 63 201 Commingled 20 122 37 94 273 Electronics 100 100 Glass 8 78 27 45 158 Hazardous Waste 264 264 Motor Oil 23 2 11 37 Scrap Metal 9 4 230 71 138 451 Propane Tanks 0.84 0.84 Tires 0.06 43 4 14 1 61.06 Totals 37 269 883 193 4431 1,826 2-10 %7 Chapter 2 In addition to the recyclable materials listed in Table 2-9, the County's transfer stations receive yard debris, which is ground and transported to Knott Landfill for use as alternate daily cover. Wood waste is accepted at Negus Transfer Station which is ground and shipped to mills for use as boiler fuel for electricity production. Quantities of wood waste and yard debris managed through the County's transfer stations is shown on Figure 2-5. 10000 9000` 8000 7000 Ex 7 6000IN 2 5000 3 c 4000 o# -�R 3000 � g X ? 2000WEEK IN, LINE i. 1000 IN 0 x G 2012 2013 2014 201.5 N,,01' Wood Waste `$ Yard Debris 2016 Figure 2-5: Annual Wood/Yard Waste at Deschutes County Transfer Stations (Tons per Year) 2.3.5.2 Recyclables Processing Commingled recyclable materials are collected by the franchised hauler for each of the four cities and taken to Mid -Oregon Recycling's facility. Commingled recyclables are then baled and sent to processors outside of the County. Cardboard and scrap metal are also baled and shipped out of the County to be recycled. Table 2-10 shows the amount of materials collected for the past three years by the different franchised haulers. Table 2-10: Commingled Recyclables Collected by Haulers in Deschutes County (Tons per Year) Hauler: 2014 2015 2016 Bend Garbage and Recycling 4,289 4,480 4,753 Cascade Disposal 4,450 4,658 4,805 High Country Disposal 3,225 3,318 3,409 Wilderness Garbage and Recycling 54 58 50 Total 12,018 12,514 13,017 2-11 2.3.5.3 Household Hazardous Waste Facility (HHW) Deschutes County collects HHW at the Knott Landfill Recycling and Transfer Facility. Residents can drop off HHW during posted times. Motor oil (less than 5 gallons) and auto batteries (household only) can be dropped off at one of the four transfer stations or the Knott Landfill Recycling Center. In addition, the County conducts annual HHW collection events in Redmond, Sisters and La Pine. Motor oil can also be collected curbside by the franchised collection companies within Bend city limits if it is in a sealed container that is clearly labeled with the contents and set next to the glass bin on collection day. 2.3.5.4 Composting The Knott Landfill Recycling Center, operated by Deschutes Recycling, receives most of the yard debris and wood waste generated in the County. The facility includes a grinder and screen operation to produce various soil amendment and ground cover products. These products are available for sale at the facility. The compost sold at the facility is independently tested every three months by a U.S. Composting Council approved lab to ensure quality. The company offers three different types of compost, which vary by size and application use. One product contains 50% food -based compost, which helps enhance landscapes with much needed nutrients. The facility also offers spreaders, delivery of material and a place for customers to drop off yard debris, clean wood waste, stumps and sod. They do not accept rocks, dirt, garbage, plastic bags, or concrete. The facility is open seven days a week in the summer, six days a week in the winter and closed on major U.S. holidays. 2.4 Projected Waste Stream Quantities and Composition The following Waste Stream Analysis provides a summary of current waste stream generation and composition in Deschutes County, and forecasts future disposal and recycling levels. For the purposes of this projection, the total waste stream is defined as tons of solid waste generated in Deschutes County, which includes both disposed and reused/recycled materials. Most types of solid waste are landfilled, while others are reused, recycled, or disposed of at sites designated for a specific type of special waste. The waste disposed includes both MSW and C/D waste. MSW consists of waste generated by residences, offices, institutions, commercial businesses and other waste generators not producing special wastes. Special wastes have their own characteristics and handling requirements. Special wastes include industrial waste, hazardous waste, infectious waste, sludges and septic tank pumpings, tires, and recycled waste. C/D waste is generated by contractors on construction projects and by self -haul customers. This waste stream is a material that can be largely inert or may contain large amounts of wood. All operators that collect and/or process waste report the amount of recycled materials to DEQ each year. This includes specific generators that recycle their own waste, as well as all solid waste handling facilities. The result is an annual report, prepared by DEQ, which summarizes the recovery rate for each county. Recovery rates for each 2-12 county in Oregon are listed in DEQ's annual Material Recovery and Waste Generation Rates Reports. The recovery rate is defined as the total material recovered divided by the total material generated and pertains to the amount of material that is recycled, composted, or recovered for energy and not disposed in landfills. In the past, each wasteshed could earn up to six recovery credits for waste prevention, reuse and residential composting programs that were then added to calculated recovery rates. As a result of new legislation, counties or wastesheds will no longer receive these credits. The recovery rate (without the credits) is the value shown in the tables in this chapter unless otherwise stated. Estimates used in this SWMP demonstrate a distinction between "disposed" quantities and "generated" quantities. As used in this SWMP, disposed solid waste is considered to be all solid waste delivered to Knott Landfill as reported to DEQ, whether generated in or out of the County. Waste generation is calculated by adding the total waste disposed and the materials that are recovered, as reported to DEQ. 2.4.1 Historical Solid Waste Data Each year, DEQ compiles a report of the amount of materials recovered and disposed for each county or wasteshed. Table 2-11 provides a summary of this Deschutes County data over an eight year period between 2010 and 2017. The total waste generated is the sum of the waste reportedly disposed and materials recovered each year. DEQ then computes the per capita generation rate by dividing the total waste generated by the published population for that wasteshed. This provides a measurement of how much waste each person generates on a daily basis, whether at work or at home. The top priority of the State hierarchy is to reduce the total waste generated on a per capita basis. Similarly, the amounts of waste disposed and recovered are also divided by the population to produce per capita rates for those waste streams. This information is one method used to measure the success of waste reduction and recycling programs and is used to compare with other wastesheds. Table 2-12 provides the "Per Capita Rates" over the same eight year period. Table 2-11: Deschutes County Historic Waste Stream Data (Tons, 2010 through 2017)13 Waste 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Generated 177,107 185,386 185,676 193,744 203,921 227,333 240,844 270,658 Disposed 115,030 112,751 113,611 119,682 130,956 143,952 161,087 182,095 Recovered 62,077 Recovery 35% Rate* 72,635 72,065 74,062 72,965 83,381 79,757 88,563 39.2% 38.8% 38.2% 35.8% 36.7% 33.1% 32.7% *Does not include recovery credits that are no longer counted. 13 DEQ Annual Wasteshed Report 2-13 Table 2-12: Deschutes County Per Capita Rates (Pounds per Year) Per Capita 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Generated 2,243 2,334 2,319 2,384 2,451 2,663 2,727 2,959 Disposed 1,457 1,419 1,419 1,473 1,574 1,686 1,824 1,991 Recovered 786 914 900 911 877 975 903 968 The historic data shows that Deschutes County has experienced about a 33% increase in the amount of waste generated over the past three years. Other jurisdictions throughout Oregon also experienced larger than normal growth over a similar period. However, the average increase was between 7% in Lane County to as high as 10% in Marion County. Over this three year period, the State experienced an increase in the economy. It is assumed the increase in construction and the housing market in Deschutes County was a contributor to the higher generation rate as well as additional tourist population that is constant throughout the year. Waste that is not recycled requiring disposal in Deschutes County is delivered to Knott Landfill. It is anticipated that Knott Landfill will be at capacity and will discontinue accepting MSW in 2029. The amount of waste disposed at this site in 2010 through 2017 as reported to DEQ is shown in Table 2-11. 2.4.2 Waste Stream Composition It is important to understand the composition of the waste stream because it provides an estimate of the types and quantities of materials that are generated and disposed, including recyclable and compostable materials. This composition analysis uses the best available data to create a snapshot of materials that are being disposed at Knott Landfill. The amount of recycled materials shown represents the actual materials reported to DEQ in 2016. Composition data for waste disposed was developed from several sources, including past data from DEQ studies and detailed waste characteristic studies recently completed for other jurisdictions. This data was used to estimate the percentage of different materials that are being disposed. The total waste stream composition is the sum of that which is recycled and disposed. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 2-13. 2-14 Chapter 2 Table 2-13: Deschutes County Waste Stream for 2016 Waste Composition of Total Wastei Total Waste (Disposed + Recycalbes) (tons) Wasteo Disposed (tons) l0 Disposed Recycled Materials (tons)4 TOTAL PAPER 26% 62,198 40,272 25% 21,926 Cardboard/Kraft 8% 18,185 5,638 4% 12,547 Clean Mixed Paper/ONP 7% 15,822 6,443 4% 9,379 Mixed Paper 5% 11,276 11,276 7%` Coryvostable/Soiled 7% 16,109 16,109 10% TOTAL PLASTICS 6% 14,327 12,887 8% 1,440 ORGANICS 43% 102,654 67,657 42% 34,997 Yard Debris 14% 33,266 6,443 4% 26,823 Wood 9% 22,330 16,109 10% 6,221 Food 18% 42,701 41,883 26% 818 Other Orqanics 2% 4,357 3,222 2%; 1135 GLASS 4% 9,786 3,222 2% 6,564 METALS 8% 19,844 11,276 7% 8,568 Aluminum 1% 2,230 1,611 1% 619 Tin Cans 1% 3,549 3,222 2% 327 Other (scrap metal) 6% 14,065 6,443 4% 7,622 OTHERINORGANICS 9% 21,584 19,330 12% 2,254 Rock/ Concrete / Brick 3% 6,033 4,833 3% 1,200 Gypsum Wallboard 2% 4,833 4,833 3% Electronics 1% 2,663 1,611 1% 1052 Misc Orqanics 5% 11,278 11,276 7% 2 OTHERMATERIALS 4% 10,055 6,443 4%` 3,612 Motor Oil 1% 2,245 322 0.20% 1,923 Other Materials 3% 6,522 4,833 3% 1,689 Other Recyclables 0% 396 - 0010' 396 TOTAL WASTE 100% 240,844 161,087 100% 79,757 Although this total waste stream is comparable to results of other jurisdictions, it should be noted that it assumes the total waste disposed at Knott Landfill is largely comprised of MSW. However, the total of 161,000 tons disposed in 2016 does include C/D wastes. C/D data will be further evaluated later in the SWMP. This 2016 snapshot provides a starting point for discussing opportunities to evaluate various options for managing waste in the future. The options can be in the form of new policies that may impact generators to reduce or recycle more materials as well as considering new technologies to maximize reuse of resources and reduce waste 2-15 disposed in landfills. Figure 2-6 graphically depicts the estimated composition of the waste stream that was disposed at Knott Landfill in 2016. • 2% Plasfts 8% Figure 2-6: Composition of Waste Disposed in Deschutes County Based on the estimated quantities of materials currently being disposed at Knott Landfill, there appears to be several opportunities to increase the recovery rate. There is still an appreciable amount of recoverable commodities such as paper, plastics and metals that comprises about 40% of what is disposed. Not all of these materials can be recovered and marketed, but there may be options that can be evaluated to recycle more of these materials. Another observation is that an estimated 42% of waste disposed is comprised of organics, of which almost 60% is food waste. This too may present opportunities to recover more materials for composting and reduce the amount of waste disposed. This data represents a starting point to examine different alternatives for managing Deschutes County's waste. More detailed information may be needed as these alternatives are vetted. 2.4.3 Waste Stream Generation Forecast Estimates of future waste generation levels, which are used in solid waste planning, can be calculated by multiplying forecasted population numbers by per capita waste generation. Population forecasts developed by the Population Research Center (PRC) 2-16 at Portland State University assume variable annual growth rates for each five-year period at about 1.5%. U.S. Census figures indicate that the population in Deschutes County increased by 3% annually between 2000 and 2016 estimates. Information obtained from the Growth Management Department at the City of Bend that tracks census data and data from PRC support this conclusion. From 2014 to 2016, PRC projected annual growth rate in the City of Bend to increase an average of 2.18%. The census data demonstrates the City population grew an average of 3.9% over this same period. The result was that PRC showed an increase in population of 3,515 versus 7,106 in the census, more than twice of what was expected in the City, thus suggesting possibly a larger amount of growth is occurring in the County than originally projected. There is no information available to confirm whether this is the case or if the total growth in the County is greater than what PRC is projecting. At this time the best assumption is to rely on the PRC data that is accepted statewide. The projected population is shown on Table 2-14. Table 2-14: Deschutes County Population Projections PSU Population Annual Year Projections14 Growth of Period's 2015 170,606 --- 2020 190,734 2.4% 2025 210,826 2.1% 2030 230,412 1.9% 2035 249,037 1.6% 2040 267,798 1.5% According to DEQ, Deschutes County's per capita waste generation rate was 2,960 pounds per person in 2017, up from 2,319 pounds per person in 2012, an increase of almost 27% or about 5.4% per year. Much of this increase is a result of a recovering economy after the recession. In the period from 2010 to 2014, the increase averaged about 1.6%, lending some support for not expecting this kind of increase over a long period. In making projections for future waste generation, the average generation rate over the past five years was used. Recent data shows improved economic conditions where the GNP increased to about 3% suggests the economy catching up to pre -recession levels. This trend is also reflected in the construction industry. However, on a national level the average waste generation rate is projected to decline as a result of the increase in the amount of plastics or lighter materials and a reduction of less heavier materials such as glass and newspaper. 14 Source: "Coordinated Population Forecast 2015 through 2065, Deschutes County Urban Growth Boundaries & Area Outside UGBs". Population Research Center PSU. June 2015. 11 Source: Forecasts of Oregon's County Populations and Components of Change, 2010-2050, Office of Economic Analysis, Department of Administrative Services, State of Oregon, March 2013. 2-17 Chapter 2 The average waste generation rate over the five year period is 2,509 pounds per capita per year. One reason to discount the decrease in lighter weight materials of packaging experienced on a national level is the influence of the tourism industry in Deschutes County. These conditions are somewhat unique to the County and therefore, the waste generation trends are expected to vary from regional conditions. Table 2-15 shows the projected waste generation quantities for 2015 through 2040, which were calculated by multiplying the per capita generation rate by the projected population estimates from Table 2-14. The per capita rate is shown to decline from the current rate to one that reflects the average generation rate over the past five years. This approach discounts the impacts of the extended recession, which is considered to be an anomaly. Although recessions will occur in the future, the extent of such market changes cannot be accurately predicted. Table 2-15: Deschutes County Waste Stream Projections Waste Per Capita Year Population16 Generation (pounds)18 (tons)17 2015 170,606 227,333 2663 2020 190,734 246,619 2586 2025 210,826 264,481 2509 2030 230,412 289,052 2509 2035 249,037 312,541 2509 2040 267,798 336,086 2509 The projected generation rates were combined with generation rates experienced over the past 10 years in Figure 2-7. (Intentionally left blank) 16 Source: US Census Bureau, www.census.gov 17 Calculated using population estimates from 2010 census and projected waste volumes based on 5 -year average from 2012 to 2016. 18 The Per capita generation rate is projected to decline from high in 2017 to 5 yr. average from 2012 to 2016. 2-18 Chapter 2 Total Waste Generated 2006 2010 2015 2016 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Historic Projections Figure 2-7: Deschutes County Waste Generation Per Capita Rates The historic generation data represented by the blue line shows the impacts of the 2008 recession on the amount of waste generated between 2006 and 2016. Although the population in the County increased, factors such as slower growth in the housing market, a lower GNP and even lower market prices for recyclable materials contributed to this effect. In the past three years, the amount of waste disposed at Knott Landfill increased by 39%. This is not a trend that is expected to continue, thus the projected generation reflects that the waste stream will grow a rate commensurate with the growth in the population of Deschutes County. In 2016, the County reportedly generated about 240,000 tons of waste and disposed of 161,000 tons at Knott Landfill. By 2040, the amount of waste generated is estimated to grow to 336,000 tons. How much is disposed will be determined by how much can be recycled and/or converted to other resources. Using the projected waste generation rate, Deschutes County can plan for their solid waste management system to handle future quantities of materials. Although these projections will vary due to conditions outside the control of the County, they serve as a starting point to evaluate alternative strategies for managing waste and for planning the infrastructure to best serve citizens and businesses. Upon adoption of this SWMP it will be important to examine in more detail the quantities and composition of the waste stream and recyclable materials during the implementation phase. 2-19 Chapter 3 3. WASTE PREVENTION, REDUCTION, REUSE AND RECYCLING ANALYSIS 3.1 Introduction Over the last three decades, Deschutes County's waste prevention, reduction, reuse, and recycling programs have continued to expand. With a 57% population growth rate since 2000, Deschutes County now exceeds 180,000 residents, with an additional 200,000 visitors on average per month, as noted in Chapter 1. Correspondingly, waste disposed at the transfer stations has increased 40% since 2010, with a 22% overall waste generation increase since 2012. Of all the material brought to Knott Landfill, 75% is delivered directly to the landfill by franchised haulers and self -haul customers, while 25% comes from the rural transfer stations. With 10 years left in the life of Knott Landfill, now is the time to prevent, reduce and reuse waste while increasing recycling. Components of the County -wide waste prevention and recycling program are discussed in the following sections. After a description of existing programs, further program needs and opportunities in Deschutes County are evaluated. Alternative approaches to address needs in three categories are then investigated: • Improvements to current educational and support services • Targeting specific waste streams and generators • Enhanced recovery of new materials Within each category, specific areas are identified that can be targeted for greater waste prevention, reduction, reuse and recycling. 3.2 Background DSW's mission is to provide the customers of Deschutes County with an environmentally responsible and cost-effective system for reduction and disposal of solid waste, through quality services, education, and public involvement. With that mission at its core, the County has implemented a multifaceted, comprehensive reuse and waste reduction program in cooperation with environmental organizations, schools, residents and businesses, franchised haulers and private recyclers. Through SB 263, the State's regulations for waste reduction and recycling, which are codified in ORS 459A, were amended. This amendment to the original "Opportunity to Recycle Act" enacted new recovery rates for all counties and wastesheds. For Deschutes County, the recovery rate goal was set at 45%. The State also removed the recycling rate credits awarded to local jurisdictions; therefore, Deschutes County will need to consider approaches to catalyze the increase of the recovery rate from 33% to 45% by 2025. A primary component of Deschutes County's SWMP objective is to protect the environment by emphasizing waste reduction. The County will measure their 3-1 Chapter 3 progression toward this and their targeted recovery goal by establishing educational a.nd promotional programs and facility assessments on an annual basis. Since the inception of the Deschutes County recycling program in the early 1990s, the amount of waste generated on a per capita basis has fluctuated, with more recent year-to-year increases following the 2008 economic recession. Additionally, between 1992 and 2009, Deschutes County invested more than $1.8 million to expand its waste prevention and recycling educational program to try to keep pace. As mentioned in Chapter 2, this accounts for roughly 2.5% of the DSW annual budget. Figure 3-1 displays per capita generation and recovery in Deschutes County between 2006 and 2016 based on data derived from the DEQ 2016 Material Recovery and Waste Generation Rates Report. Similarly, sourced from the same report, Figure 3-2 displays the recovery rate in the County during that time. Figure 3-3 depicts the annual rate of change in waste generation in the County. M 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 Per Capita Wasteshed Rates 2006 2008 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Pounds Generated N Pounds Recovered Figure 3-1: Deschutes County Per Capita Waste Generation and Recovery Figure 3-1 indicates that per capita waste generation in the County peaked in 2006 at 3,376 pounds and declined through 2012 before rebounding, consistently increasing to 2,960 pounds in 2017. Considering that no substantive policy measure was enacted during this time coupled with the growing use of computer and mobile technologies to access information that would have significantly reduced per capita waste generation rates, it is likely that the observed decline is a result of the economic recession between 2008 and 2010. Likewise, the increase in per capita generation reflects a growing economy as well as a thriving tourism sector in Deschutes County. The latter point is critical to note as the rise in tourism may significantly exceed the rate of population growth in the County, and waste generated by tourists is counted in the waste stream in County -wide figures. 3-2 h Figure 3-2 illustrates the County's recovery rate (equal to the per capita recovery rate) from 2006 through 2016. It is difficult to ascertain a meaningful relationship between the generation and recovery rate, but it is notable that in 2006 when the County's generation peaked, it was also paired with the lowest rate of recovery rate (27%). During this time, the County's recovery rate in relative terms peaked at 39% in 2011 and 2012; however, 2015 saw the greatest amount of recovery in absolute terms with 975 pounds per capita being recovered versus 914 pounds per capital being recovered in 2011. However, the recovery rate in 2017, as reported by DEQ, was 32.7%, which is slightly less than 33% reported in 2016. 45% 40% 35% 39% 39% 38% 36% 37% 35%- 33% 32.7% 31% 30% 27% a 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 2006 2008 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Figure 3-2: Recovery Rate in Deschutes County Figure 3-3 displays the change in year-to-year waste generation in Deschutes County on a percentage basis relative to the previous year. Beginning in 2008 and comparing 2008 to 2006, a 20% decline in waste generation is observed over a one-year period. This is immediately followed by another significant drop in 2010 when generation in the County fell to 2,243 pounds per capita, compared to 2,475 pounds in 2008. Since then, there have been no year-to-year declines in waste generation. Between 2011 and 2012, generation was essentially equal. Since then, the County has seen an increase in waste generation on an annual basis, as reflected in Figure 3-3. As shown the marginal rate of growth in the generation rate increased over 12% in 2017. This growth rate is a result of the increase the total amount of waste disposed resulting from a much improved economy and new construction in the County. 3-3 Chapter 3 15% 10% 5% 0% -5% -10% -15% 20% -25% Annual Marginal Generation Growth Rate in Deschutes County 112 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Figure 3-3: Annual Marginal Rate of Generation in Deschutes County since 2008 Figure 3-4 shows the County's recovery of recyclable materials between 2014 and 2017. The totals in this table combine the annual materials reported to the County by the franchised haulers providing curbside collection, commercial generators, recycling depots and transfer stations. (Intentionally left blank) 3-4 Table 3-1 Collection of Recyclables in Deschutes County (2014-2016) 19 Recyclables Aluminum Animal Waste/Grease Antifreeze Cardboard/Kraft Composite Plastic Electronics Fluorescent Lamps Food Waste Glass Containers Gypsum Wallboard HHW Lead Acid Batteries Mixed Batteries Paint Paper Fiber Plastic Film Plastic Other Rigid Plastic Containers Roofing/Asphalt Scrap Metal Solvents Textiles Tin Cans Tires Used Motor Oil Wood Waste Yard Debris Total 2014 2015 (tons) (tons) 649 567 564 443 2016 2017 (tons) (tons) 627 800 503 198 142 159 152 165 14,578 13,228 13,337 15,022 3 3 3 4 1,014 1,140 1,064 951 2 1 3 10 644 790 819 720 5,470 6,618 6,681 7,119 _2 1 1 1 155 227 264 229 766 923 1,087 1,178 1 1 1 2 197 280 180 191 8,063 10,165 9,380 9,498 247 196 231 228 377 130 172 110 686 943 1,040 1,166 2 2.5 2 4 13,140 12,113 7,722 13,261 3 2 2 2 1 1 - - 110 317 327 326 498 1,040 633 370 1,400 1,455 2,484 2,422 3,855 7,037 6,221 6,189 20,396 25,487 26,823 28,393 72,964 83,270 79,759 88,562 Materials directly recycled by waste generators (i.e. not collected by waste haulers and/or not taken to County transfer stations) that may not be reported to the County but are reported directly to the DEQ are included in Table 3-1 as well. It should be noted that the estimated tonnage of collected recyclables in 2016 is slightly different than the DEQ report (by 2.0 tons), which is attributable to rounding. 19 Source: Oregon DEQ Material Recovery and Waste Generation Summary, Deschutes County (2016) 3-5 C'hapter 3 30,000 27,500 25,000 22,500 20,000 17,500 15, 000 12,500 10,000 7,500 5,000 2,500 Material Recovery in Deschutes County (2014-2017) Figure 3-4: Material Recovery in Deschutes County from 2014 to 2016 (tons) Based on Table 3-1 and Figure 3-4, it appears that, with a few exceptions, the general recovery rate of materials overall has remained consistent between 2015 and 2017. Noteworthy increases are observed in the amount of organic waste recovered as yard waste (32%), wood waste (61%), and food waste (27%) since 2014. The increasing prevalence of wood waste may be attributable to more construction and development in Deschutes County. Also, the increase in the total amount recycled between 2016 and 2017 is largely due to an increase in amount of scrap metal. Additionally, the recovery of household hazardous waste (HHW) displayed remarkable growth from 155 tons in 2014 to 264 tons in 2016, an increase of 70%. In contrast, the recovery rate of old corrugated cardboard (OCC) declined 10% during this time. With OCC increases in the waste stream overall given the popularity of online shopping, the tons have moved to the commingled residential stream and may be harder to track separately. Similarly concerning is a reduction in the recovery of scrap metal, down 41% from 2014 levels. Local haulers explain this change in metal being price driven. There could also be an impact from local scavenging activity, especially observed at Negus and Southwest Transfer Stations. 3.3 Existing Waste Reduction and Reuse Programs Oregon has established waste recovery goals for jurisdictions throughout the State. Waste generation quantifies the total amount of material generated, whether the used item was eventually discarded or recycled. While diverting materials to recycling 3-6 E v a E v a° c c "-2 v v c v E v N c v N v \ in 6 d UO @ 10)0- y 0- L LL i-+ U J U Q W c m Q - N c p p N Coco A l6 vii E a 2 A 5 ¢ x u 00 o (D a E E c u a 2014 1320152016 2017 Figure 3-4: Material Recovery in Deschutes County from 2014 to 2016 (tons) Based on Table 3-1 and Figure 3-4, it appears that, with a few exceptions, the general recovery rate of materials overall has remained consistent between 2015 and 2017. Noteworthy increases are observed in the amount of organic waste recovered as yard waste (32%), wood waste (61%), and food waste (27%) since 2014. The increasing prevalence of wood waste may be attributable to more construction and development in Deschutes County. Also, the increase in the total amount recycled between 2016 and 2017 is largely due to an increase in amount of scrap metal. Additionally, the recovery of household hazardous waste (HHW) displayed remarkable growth from 155 tons in 2014 to 264 tons in 2016, an increase of 70%. In contrast, the recovery rate of old corrugated cardboard (OCC) declined 10% during this time. With OCC increases in the waste stream overall given the popularity of online shopping, the tons have moved to the commingled residential stream and may be harder to track separately. Similarly concerning is a reduction in the recovery of scrap metal, down 41% from 2014 levels. Local haulers explain this change in metal being price driven. There could also be an impact from local scavenging activity, especially observed at Negus and Southwest Transfer Stations. 3.3 Existing Waste Reduction and Reuse Programs Oregon has established waste recovery goals for jurisdictions throughout the State. Waste generation quantifies the total amount of material generated, whether the used item was eventually discarded or recycled. While diverting materials to recycling 3-6 c UQE� � 6 on f0 0 � E v _N NV c c v H Q � D 6 v Figure 3-4: Material Recovery in Deschutes County from 2014 to 2016 (tons) Based on Table 3-1 and Figure 3-4, it appears that, with a few exceptions, the general recovery rate of materials overall has remained consistent between 2015 and 2017. Noteworthy increases are observed in the amount of organic waste recovered as yard waste (32%), wood waste (61%), and food waste (27%) since 2014. The increasing prevalence of wood waste may be attributable to more construction and development in Deschutes County. Also, the increase in the total amount recycled between 2016 and 2017 is largely due to an increase in amount of scrap metal. Additionally, the recovery of household hazardous waste (HHW) displayed remarkable growth from 155 tons in 2014 to 264 tons in 2016, an increase of 70%. In contrast, the recovery rate of old corrugated cardboard (OCC) declined 10% during this time. With OCC increases in the waste stream overall given the popularity of online shopping, the tons have moved to the commingled residential stream and may be harder to track separately. Similarly concerning is a reduction in the recovery of scrap metal, down 41% from 2014 levels. Local haulers explain this change in metal being price driven. There could also be an impact from local scavenging activity, especially observed at Negus and Southwest Transfer Stations. 3.3 Existing Waste Reduction and Reuse Programs Oregon has established waste recovery goals for jurisdictions throughout the State. Waste generation quantifies the total amount of material generated, whether the used item was eventually discarded or recycled. While diverting materials to recycling 3-6 Chapter 3 markets is important, reducing the overall generation of all materials will ultimately lessen the burden on natural resources, manufacturing, distribution, retail, collection, recycling and disposal infrastructures. To address waste reduction and prevention, the Oregon State Legislature enacted ORS 459A, most recently amended in 2015, which established several statewide waste generation goals. Specifically, section 459A.007-010 outlines the elements through which programs should achieve these goals, as follows: 459A.007 - Describes fee structures as a mechanism to reduce waste generation by lowering collection rates for customers who use smaller or lower volume waste bins 459A.008 - Describes the requisite educational and promotion programs that should be enacted to encourage more sustainable behavior regarding the generation and disposal of waste 459A.010 - Outlines the State's waste management policies, and establishes goals and recovery rates for various generators and material streams statewide, the primary waste reduction and recovery goals set forth in 459A.010 include: • Food waste recovery rate: 25% by 2020 • Plastic waste recovery rate: 25% by 2020 • Carpet waste recovery rate: 25% by 2025 • General solid waste recovery rate: 55% by 2025 • Total solid waste generation between 2025-2049 should be 15% lower than it was in 2012 • Beyond 2050, total solid waste generation shall be 40% lower than it was in 2012 • Deschutes County should maintain a 45% recovery rate by 2025 and beyond Also, in 2015, the Legislature passed SB 263 to further catalyze the effort of local municipalities in achieving the State's 2050 Vision. With respect to waste reduction and reuse programming, some of the objectives of SB 263 include: Increasing the number of recycling program elements available to local governments Expanding the education and promotion element to include contamination reduction Allowing local governments using a DEQ -approved alternative program to meet the recovery levels and goals of comparable communities These goals attempt to stop both the growth in per capita solid waste generation and the growth in total solid waste generation by the County as a whole. Therefore, the County will need to continue providing waste reduction and education programs to affect the generation rate within its borders. 3-7 at, 3.3.1 Existing Waste Reduction Programs Reduction of solid waste generated by residents and commercial establishments is a priority for the Deschutes County's solid waste management program. Overall, DSW estimates that it has spent approximately $1.8 million on recycling education and promotional efforts from 1992 to 2009 and in 2017 alone, the County budgeted $110,000 towards these efforts. A focus on increased education programming is reflected in the objectives adopted in this SWMP. The Deschutes County SWMP objectives pertaining to waste prevention, reduction, reuse and recycling are as follows: 1. To provide an integrated solid waste management system that addresses an effective combination of strategies and programs guided by the hierarchy adopted by the State to first, reduce waste at the source; second, to reuse and recycle materials; third, to compost; fourth, to recover energy; and last, to dispose of waste in landfills. 2. To continue educating consumers to promote practices and methods to reduce the long-term per capita waste generation rate and seek, through community outreach, a cooperative approach to assume individual responsibility to reduce waste. 3. To develop programs and support implementation of system improvements that seek to ensure materials recovered from the waste stream attain the highest and best use and are recycled. 4. To develop a solid waste system that is based on sound financial principles, provides cost effective services and maintains rate stability over a long term, while allocating costs equitably to all users. 5. To maintain system flexibility to respond to changes in waste stream composition, waste management technologies, public preferences, new laws and changing circumstances. Current Waste Reduction and Recycling Proarams and Services The newly adopted Oregon State law impacts the promotion and education programs that are currently provided. Table 3-2 details the Waste Reduction, Reuse and Recycling (WR/R) programming elements featured in ORS 459A.007(1) and their present status within Deschutes County. According to ORS 459A.007(4) subsection (e), as a municipality "with a population of more than 10,000... located more than 150 miles from the City of Portland," Deschutes County is obligated to implement either Elements A, B, and C and any additional element, or at least five elements. Table 3-2 Required Elements for WR/R Programs and Status of County Programs Element A: Provide curbside recycling Status: Cities and urbanized portions of the container County are meeting this requirement because the haulers provide residents curbside commingled recycling and glass separate, but these services are not offered in rural areas. Element B: Provide weekly curbside Status: Recycling services in all cities and recycling the urbanized portions of the County are offered every other week. This element is not satisfied. Element C: Expanded recycling education Status: The Environmental Center together and promotion program which includes a with local collection companies has contamination reduction education plan. implemented and expanded programing to promote reduction and recycling. All collection companies submitted plans to DEQ as to how they are reducing contamination. Element D: Provide multi -family recycling Status: Haulers provide recycling services to apartment complexes that request it. to those that request it; participation is not mandatory. Element E: Curbside yard debris collection Status: Yard waste is offered on is available to residential collection service subscription -only basis in Bend and customers at least once a month, and Redmond only and all but one recycling depots that accept yard waste are depot (Alfalfa) accept yard waste. In Bend conveniently located and Redmond where yard debris service is available, it is offered on a subscription -only basis. All customers in Sisters have yard debris service. Element F: Recycling is available to Status: All cities meet this requirement businesses and schools. since haulers offer this service. Element G: There is a recycling depot Status: With 181,000 residents and eight available for every 25,000 residents. recycling drop off centers located throughout the County for average of about 1 per 22,600 people. These are operated either by the County or other parties. Element H: Weight based collection rates Status: No cities use weight -based rates. that encourage reduction, reuse, and However, the current volume -based rates recycling provide incentives for customers to use smaller containers to reduce waste disposal. Element I: Food composting/anaerobic Status: Composting is available for digestion is available for businesses. commercially generated food waste. No anaerobic digestion is taking place. NEW Element 7: Cities (and county for the Status: No cities require businesses to UGB) require businesses that generate four recycle. or more cubic yards/week of garbage to have a recycling program in place. 3-9 Chapter e NEW Element K: Curbside food Status: All cities above 4,000 have composting/anaerobic digestion is available residential curbside food collection available. for residents. There is no food waste collected in the unincorporated County. Food waste is then composted. No anaerobic digestion is taking lace. NEW Element L: Cities require recycling Status: Source separated C/D waste is program for construction/demolition (C/D) recycled to the extent it is possible, however (6 cy for self -haul, 10 cy for collection a significant amount is brought directly to service) landfill. NEW Element M: Cities require food waste Status: No cities require large generators program for large generators (50 tons/yr). to divert food. A review of Deschutes County's programs suggests that the County is compliant with the direction of ORS 459A.007. In fact, the County satisfies several elements beyond what they are required. Some of the program elements that the County does not satisfy at the moment, which are intended to increase wasteshed recovery rates are further evaluated later in this chapter. Nonetheless, in keeping with the objectives of ORS 459A.007, the County, cities and franchised haulers have implemented several waste reduction initiatives described below. Fee Structures As described in ORS 459A.007, well-designed fee structures administered for curbside collection services are a critical component of reducing waste generation. Commonly referred to by resource economists as "unit -pricing," the notion of charging generators based on their disposal quantities is widely viewed as an optimal strategy for encouraging reduction efforts. To that end, a jurisdiction establishes a standard fee for the collection of containers sized 21 gallons or less. While residents are permitted to request larger or more containers, a jurisdiction is prohibited from offering lower fees or an adjusted price per unit that benefits larger generators. Additionally, to internalize the economic and environmental costs incurred in "providing the opportunity to recycle," municipalities are encouraged to include associated "net costs." According to the ORS, this includes costs including but not limited to "collecting, handling, processing, storing, transporting, and delivering to market recyclable material and for providing any required education and promotion or data collection services adjusted by a factor to account for proceeds from the sale of recyclable material." In Deschutes County, service charges by the waste haulers are regulated by the cities and the County with maximum rate schedules. As presented in rate schedules effective August 1, 2017, in Exhibits A through D, the County sets maximum solid waste rates for the following: • Unincorporated Rural (Cascade Disposal, Bend Garbage and Recycling, and High Country Disposal) 3-10 Chapter 3 • Unincorporated Distant Rural (Cascade Disposal, Bend Garbage and Recycling, High Country Disposal, and Wilderness Garbage and Recycling) • Rates for container rental and transfer services provided by Deschutes Transfer Company to DSW The County maximum rates are set based on a volume of solid waste basis. For a 35 - gallon can, maximum rates range from $17.75 to $18.40 per month. Bulky services are an additional charge paid by the customer. Backyard or non-curb/roadside rates are also set. The solid waste rate sizes include 20, 35, 65, and 95 -gallon cans. For refuse collection in the cities, a list of maximum service charges allowed for the different levels of service is contained in Appendix A. These rates include providing recycling carts and collection service. Recycling collection services are provided every other week using a 95 -gallon cart provided by the franchised hauler for the cities of Bend, Redmond, La Pine and Sisters. Yard waste service in a 95 -gallon cart is subscription only in the cities of Bend and Redmond. Residents can add vegetative food waste to the yard service. Bend Garbage and Recycling notes that for city customers, yard debris curbside recycling is a yearly subscription service for $4.90 per month. Acceptable yard debris includes: grass clippings, brush, weeds, pine needles, plant prunings, branches no larger than 2" in diameter and 36" in length. Raw fruit and vegetable scraps are also acceptable such as apple cores, banana peels, potato skins, zucchini, pumpkins, coffee grounds and filters, tea bags, etc .20 Franchised haulers bill customers directly and pay the DSW 3% franchise fee, all disposal fees at Knott Landfill, as well as a 5% franchised fee to the City of Bend21 and the City of Redmond. Promotion Advertising Education Information, and Customer Service Programs (Including Reuse and Recycling Education) Enlisting residents, commercial businesses and institutions in waste recovery efforts is key to program participation and success. As such, providing businesses and citizens with the information necessary to appreciate and properly use the recycling services available to them is critical. Through partnerships with local environmental groups, citizen volunteers, schools, and companies involved in solid waste management, the County has developed a solid waste education outreach, promotion, and advertising program for recycling, composting and other waste reduction and reuse efforts. In following the guidelines of ORS 459A, the County has implemented education and promotion efforts that emphasize the environmental benefits of reducing waste generation along with useful guidelines to achieve these goals. Specifically, brochures and promotional materials issued by the County and the franchised haulers at least 20 Commercial collection of food waste is being offered to interested customers, discussed in more detail below. 21 http•//www codepublishing com/OR/Bend/htmilBend11/Bend1116.htmi 3-11 Chapter 3 once per year outline which materials are collected, how to prepare them for collection and why separation is necessary. Customers are also notified of contamination in their collection cans, as collection companies will place a tag on carts noting the contamination. If unaddressed, customer service representatives from collection companies will call customers to inform them as well. Education and promotion efforts generally comply with ORS guidance as they target community and media events, highlight prevalent contaminants in the waste stream, and highlight energy -intensive and toxic materials as well as providing guidelines to reduce wasteful consumption habits. The existing County programs are multi -faceted and provide information to residents, teachers and students, businesses and institutions, and community groups. In addition, the County offers funding, technical assistance, and special events to collect materials that present difficulties when it comes to disposal. To align with future programming, the primary contaminants found in Deschutes County commingled materials are film and plastic bags and other rigid plastics that are not included in the County's recycling program. Local haulers also note that household garbage is a common contaminant in the recycling stream. The DEQ Contamination Education Reduction Plan further highlights the following materials as focus areas: hypodermic needles, ropes, wires and chains, and clothing 22. Discussed next are various programs and services that have been instituted in Deschutes County for waste reduction and recycling: Key Educational Programs The Environmental Center and Rethink Waste Project The Environmental Center is a grassroots environmental sustainability organization focused on Central Oregon and has taken the lead in promoting educational programs and technical support to schools in Deschutes County. Together with DSW and local waste and recycling service providers, The Environmental Center launched the "Rethink Waste Project" in 2011. This was initially circulated as a print guide to offer Deschutes County residents information about the needs and ways they could more sustainably manage their waste. A corresponding website, www.rethinkwasteproject.org was assembled as well, and in 2015 the site was updated with the assistance of a local design company to improve marketing efforts. The informational website, sponsored by The Environmental Center, provides students and teachers with comprehensive waste prevention and recycling information. The site informs generators of ways to reduce, reuse, recycle and compost, as well as the benefits, and promotes the use of recycling services while also reducing contamination in collected recyclables. It is a key reference for local collection companies and environmental groups as an outlet for keen and digestible information about the importance of reducing and properly managing waste. 22 http://www.oregon.gov/deq/mm/Pages/Contamination-Reduction.aspx 3-12 Chapter 3 EarthSmart The Environmental Center also hosts the "EarthSmart" youth education program, offering information for grades K-12 on waste -related topics. The objective of this program is to educate young students about the environmental implications of their behavior, encouraging them to reduce their footprint whenever possible. In the 2016- 17 academic year, The Environmental Center gave 172 presentations in schools and community centers, reaching an audience of 5,029 students. Twenty-one classes and eight schools took part in the EarthSmart program that included six lessons and a field trip to the Knott Landfill. More than 450 students toured Knott Landfill as a result. In addition, funding from this program also enabled schools to have a guest speaker educate students about important and various ways they can reuse plastic bags. Students are also invited to take additional responsibilities as Sustainability Advisors in the EarthSmart program. Sustainability Advisors are encouraged to advocate for environmental reforms such as energy efficiency and recycling and are given promotional materials to distribute to peers. Additionally, Sustainability Advisors review programming with teachers and schools and take note of progress. Oregon Green Schools Oregon Green Schools, a nonprofit organization formed in 1997, is another education - oriented initiative that promotes environmentally sustainable behavior in schools across the State by offering varying degrees of certification. A key component of the Green Schools program is waste reduction and recycling. Schools in Deschutes County that want to become a certified Green School can work with The Environmental Center's educational program to achieve certification. Bend Garbage and Recycling also provides a scholarship to a local teacher yearly to participate in this program. Key Promotional Programs The general objective of promotional programming is to inform County residents and businesses on how and why to properly reduce, reuse, recycle and compost materials. The County provides several documents that outline these concepts. These promotional materials describe the general function of DSW, and key information about recycling, composting, hazardous waste, disposal, and fee information. All of these brochures are available on the County website www.deschutes.org/solidwaste and are distributed to residents and businesses multiple times throughout the calendar year. The Environmental Center and EarthSmart To expand its reach, The Environmental Center promotes the EarthSmart program by distributing information at gatherings for teachers, and through the school districts' email systems. Print ads in local media outlets are another avenue The Environmental Center uses to promote their campaign. Additionally, the Center's newsletters and programming all direct their audience to the Rethink Waste website. There is also a Facebook page and a Twitter account that disseminates updates to followers. The Environmental Center documents and analyzes their following and the'likes'they receive to monitor traction. 3-13 Chapter 3 Franchised Haulers As one of the largest franchised haulers, Bend Garbage and Recycling sends out quarterly newsletters to customers, as featured in Figure 3-5. Apart from highlighting noteworthy community developments they are associated with, Bend Garbage and Recycling markets special events such as half -priced yard waste disposal for residents at Deschutes Recycling. Also featured is advice about how to properly add compost for mulching or topdressing to prepare gardens and lawns for the winter season. Other recommendations present useful advice on reducing paper waste including providing information about opting out of mass -marketing materials that are paper -intensive such as marketing catalogs and phone books. DEQ's Waste Food campaign materials will be featured in upcoming issues. Figure 3-5: Front Page of Bend Garbage and Recycling's Quarterly Newsletter Independent Recyclers The Broomsman is an independent company operating in Deschutes County to provide hands-on event recycling and compost containers and outreach, as well as business recycling assistance. Starting first with weddings and other events, clients have grown to include the Les Schwab Amphitheater and the Cascade Lakes Relay. They provide hands-on support to increase recycling and composting at these public venues and 3-14 events. Clients also include businesses and local breweries who are looking to implement sustainable waste practices on-site. Other independent recyclers also operate within Deschutes County. However, no data is directly collected by DSW regarding their operations. Recycling from independent sources is gathered directly by DEQ and allocated to the Deschutes County recycling figures presented previously in Table 3-1. Recycling Brochures In line with ORS 459A.008 which outlines educational and promotional programming, DSW's recycling brochure specifies the materials collected, facility hours and collection schedules, how to prepare recyclables for collection so as to reduce contamination, and why source -separating materials is necessary. The brochure explains which recyclable materials can be commingled and that they are free to recycle. Other recyclable materials that can be collected for free but must be separated from commingled materials include auto batteries, OCC, electronics, glass, and HHW. Each franchised collection company in Deschutes County also offers promotional materials and programming to keep their customers aware of scheduling, how to prepare recyclables for collection, and to encourage participation. Figure 3-6 is taken from a section in the Deschutes Recycling brochure that highlights which items cannot be commingled. Figure 3-7 is an example taken from Bend Garbage and Recycling's collection brochure that outlines how residents can prepare recyclables for pickup and reducing contamination. Figure 3-8 displays the recycling schedule that is distributed between two and four times per year to customers. (Intentionally Left Blank) 3-15 Chapter t Glass - Recycle in designated location Corrugated Cad1board - Recycle in designated location Nes,spaper only. Anything that comes it, the Ile-spapar can he tee} sled %,till the new. ,paper. Yo f 1lstiz bags. string or bando, . Newspaper, magazines, Catalogs, Phonebooloi . Plastics - Rinse clear No liquid, motor oil or haznrdou, r ante in containers. No m�d to flatten_ YVS- Oniv'lhks,. I asfias: 111 ,0, bottles, tubs anis jug- (6 ounces or larger). nsdk jugs. ,,.Iter hottl— shampoo Ixxtle. Rigid plastiC U1111 such as Vc gm t contairnt s, sour ac un & "mat, dices, containal and hU Rfer tubs. Itil,i , nursvy plant pot., (4 in, he, orhng,ri, pi -it, hu.kcts (s gallons or less)_ NO- unacceptable Plastics: Lxarnples (bye not rnrbrsir,•t of"lwar ,eptable phw,, ; plastrc bap, plastic filln Garan wrap, said»vdt tap. i), lock bats), ctaaplasm , ho -11"11, (bakery and pro <6u<, rnrltal clr ), yak ont food cartairten, t ,, kagmy, 1 ubblr recap. Figure 3-6: Deschutes Recycling Brochure Recyc ina Preparation c�e Gu1No Heap Keep These out o� Elle Commt�iyte diol! Carl „ na . �tasiic. s� Figure 3-7: Bend Garbage and Recycling's Preparation Guide 3-16 Chapter 3 1011' Recycilling Schedule lk ozh,do,,d weeks are pick-up dates for commingle and glass recycling ti �r B as Tan highlighted weeks are pick-up dates for yard debris subscribers. Collection will occur on the same day your garbage is collected. p, s M T' K' T f S 7 $ 19 10 11 12 14 141 Is I 1.'+r, 1 i3 1 liB 201 21 22 23 24 25 26 2 28 N I W I 1 114-1 -� 5 � ►T. ? 3 1 t i 112 1_13114 115 1161171181 t9 a A ''.'t 1� 124125, 26 27 _ d .� 28 . J �_. l- 3 31 3 4 5' 6 7 8 9 110 111 a 47 118 19 20 21 22 2312425 i25 1 2 Tt++' .. t s;3. MW '1I 2 1 a 6171 8l i 9 10 11112 13. 74± I51 16 :' i ? `'> �27 21 2211 'dpi 24 25 26 28 29 S A7 7 W T I C 1 x, 3' 4 5 1 6 ]�l -S 9%# 112 13 15 16 17 18 19`�7 22 of 2x. 26; 29 ±0 33 I Figure 3-8: Bend Garbage and Recycling's Collection Schedule Recyclable materials that must be separated and can be recycled for a fee are listed as tires, wood waste, yard waste, certain kitchen appliances and electronics. There is also information about non -recyclable materials, such as polystyrene. The brochure encourages residents and businesses to avoid buying these non -recyclable materials, as well as provides keen insights into reusing consumable goods. Distinct information about each material, respective fees and at which facility they are accepted is also presented in the brochure. An inset from the brochure showing what materials are accepted at each facility can be found in Figure 3-9. The locations and operating hours of the various drop-off depots throughout the County, each of which are open during some weekend days (per ORS 459.007.a.) are also listed. Lastly, the brochure provides information about the DSW's office location and hours and features a link to The Environmental Center's website and phone number for more educational information about recycling opportunities. (Intentionally Left Blank) 3-17 Figure 3-9: Inset from Deschutes County Recycling Brochure HHW Brochure The HHW brochure includes information about residential and commercial HHW management in Deschutes County. The brochure includes details on the following HHW management topics: 3-18 • Information on the County's HHW facility including location, schedule, HHW accepted and wastes that are not accepted. Information on business hazardous waste management services offered by the County's HHW contractor is also included in the brochure. • Information regarding HHW that can be accepted at the County's transfer stations and the recycling center at Knott Landfill. These wastes include paints and stains, motor oil, rechargeable batteries, and automotive batteries. • Information on the State of Oregon's PaintCare program, including details on paint acceptance at the HHW facility and recycling center at Knott Landfill. The brochure offers tips and suggestions for being efficient in managing painting projects to avoid excess paint consumption, and advice about safely storing paint products so that they may be re -used. • Information on residential "sharps" management (described as needles and lancets). The brochure lists the County facilities that accept sharps and details the packaging requirements for the acceptance of sharps. For medical waste generated by businesses, the brochure makes clear that none of this can be accepted at any of the County's disposal facilities. The phone number for Bend Garbage and Recycling's commercial medical waste management service is provided for further information. Additional details encourage residents to take caution in how they manage HHW materials in their own homes, encouraging residents to shop for safe alternatives, follow information on labels carefully, properly store and re -use leftover products, offer them to neighbors or donate them to charitable institutions. Lastly, the HHW brochure encourages residents to be mindful of the environmental and personal health hazards associated with the improper disposal of HHW, including danger to landfill employees, home damage, and environmental contamination. Secure Your Load Brochure County Ordinance 13.36.040, the "Secure Load Ordinance," is outlined in a brochure that is distributed to residents and businesses in the County. The brochure lists several questions that one should pose prior to hauling waste anywhere, forcing drivers to consider the ramifications of an improperly secure load. For instance, one question asks drivers if they would feel safe following their own vehicle and another asks whether drivers feel like they need to drive extra slowly. Positive answers to these questions should reasonably raise alarm and suggest that a load may not be secure. The brochure includes pictures of secure versus unsecure loads and emphasizes the $10 rebate made available to those who securely deliver their waste (see Figure 3-10). 3-19 Chapter 3 S my t.oact consioerea securer M if it looks like the following...,... Sulky items that are not complelelY annained wlthln the Sldewahs of the Vehirle must he adr quately strappod low,) If maunol is being halved e, tied bag>, iI must : be hyped it [he begs extend above the slde wall, it a M, Il the tarp Is too 'mall'tern, or made Quately fled. the lead is nw Cmisidered S- - PROPERLY SECURED Figure 3-10: Inset from Deschutes County Secure Your Load Brochure Key Customer Services Programs Brochures from each Deschutes County franchised collection company offer recycling preparation guides to help residents and businesses prepare materials for recycling, and offer information about collection frequency, pricing for material disposal and contact information. As such, the County is in compliance with ORS stating that "all documents distributed by collection companies and the County include phone numbers and contact information." Bend Garbage and Recycling produces a quarterly newsletter (see Figure 3-5), Curbside News, which highlights community service efforts the company is involved with, information on discounts for select materials like compost products and yard waste disposal, upcoming scheduling changes due to holidays, advice to reduce and re -use waste, and how to prepare for recycling collection. Purchasing and Production Practices The Environmental Center offers grants for around $500 for projects targeting waste reduction and increased recycling. In many cases this funding goes toward the expansion of composting programs at schools, although a variety of creative initiatives has been made possible through these funds. The REALMS school was awarded $700 to facilitate a food rescue program whereby students purchased a refrigerator to store leftover food so that it can be donated to food rescue organizations. The same school also put together a "Rubbish Renewed" fashion show with students designing garments from reclaimed objects and textiles. After an audit was conducted by The Environmental Center to evaluate wasted recyclables, one school program aimed at collecting redeemable bottles and cans requested $100 to buy a sink to dispose of remaining liquids in these bottles and cans. 3-20 Commercial Programs Commercial waste reduction programming is designed to meet the needs of local businesses and industries and inform generators of the proper way to handle material so that it can be collected and recycled sufficiently. In addition, the environmental and economic benefits of recycling are promoted. Other promotional efforts such as waste characterization audits, and recognition or rewards programs are in place to encourage commercial recycling efforts. For example, Bend Garbage and Recycling offers commercial waste audits to help companies realize how they can reduce financial costs stemming from waste disposal. There is much progress for Deschutes County to realize in this sector. Per DEQ goals, commercial generators are expected to reach a 55% recovery rate from solid waste by 2025 while commercial generators of food waste or recyclables must source separate. Neighbor Impact, a food bank in Central Oregon, is largely responsible for salvaging consumable food in Deschutes County. Presently, it is estimated that they have partnerships with 50 customers, primarily local grocery stores and Neighbor Impact recently acquired a refrigerated truck with the goal of increasing these efforts. C/D Debris ORS 459A.007 states that jurisdictions provide a recovery program that requires C/D debris be separated at the generation site or sent to a materials recovery facility for processing and recovery of recyclable materials. The statute also directs communities to promote sustainable C/D management by encouraging contractors and improvement projects to consider planning for waste reduction and re -use in the pre - construction planning phases. Presently C/D is often directed straight to the transfer stations or Knott Landfill, making this stream an important area of focus for the County to consider moving forward. It is estimated that in 2016 perhaps as much as 31% of all waste received at Knott Landfill was from construction sites. Wood is one of the primary wastes that is generated from construction and demolition sites. Currently, clean wood waste (unpainted, untreated lumber) is accepted at the Negus Transfer Station in Redmond and Deschutes Recycling at Knott Landfill. This material is chipped and sent to boiler plants for use as fuel to produce steam and/or power. Additionally, Deschutes Recycling is working with a local wood waste processor for using chipped wood waste in the manufacture of sheet lumber products such as oriented strand board and particle board. Electronics Recycling State law mandates that provisions for the recycling of covered electronic devices (CEDs) be offered for free. CEDs include computer monitors, keyboards, mice, personal computers, laptops and monitors, which area illegal to dispose of with general solid waste or municipal solid waste (MSW). Non -covered electronic devices (NCEDs) generated by households can be recycled for a fee at the Knott Landfill 3-21 Chapter 3 Recycling Center. NCEDs include cell phones and telephones, microwaves, surge protectors, DVD and VHS players, stereos, speakers and cables, fax and copy machines. Any commercially generated electronics, covered or not, are considered to be hazardous waste, but can be accepted at the Knott Landfill Recycling Center for recycling. Households and small businesses (less than 10 employees) or non -profits can drop off CEDs at the County's transfer stations and the recycling center at Knott Landfill County, while NCEDs are accepted at the Knott Landfill Recycling Center for $0.25 per pound. Home Composting Presently the County provides disposal methods for yard waste and organic waste at all drop-off sites that accept organic waste. The County does not actively sponsor or provide compost or recycling collection bins at private events or community functions. Information regarding how households can compost is provided by the environmental center. 3.3.2 Reuse Programs In terms of reuse programs, Deschutes Recycling works in partnership with local thrift stores to salvage reusable materials. A reuse brochure available at the Deschutes Recycling facility lists recyclable items accepted at the facility but primarily highlights the various organizations and thrift stores and what materials they accept, as well as the materials that they most need. A copy of the backside of these brochures can be seen in Figure 3-11. Additionally, Deschutes Recycling has allowed Habitat Restore to park a small trailer at the wood waste drop area as an option for diversion of lumber so that it can be reused for building material (see Figure 3-12). Reuse and repair cafes are currently hosted by The Environmental Center through their Rethink Waste Project, usually twice per year; although there is discussion of expanding this to a quarterly service to encourage County residents to repair broken items rather than purchasing new ones superfluously. (Intentionally Left Blank) 3-22 M�f Chapter 3 Figure 3-11: Deschutes Recycling Thrift Store Brochure Figure 3-12: Habitat for Humanity Lumber Drop Off 3-23 Chapter a}'E 3.3.3 Recycling Programs/Services Residential Curbside Recycling Collection Residential curbside collection of recyclables is offered within the city limits of Bend, Redmond and Sisters as well as the urbanized communities in the unincorporated areas of the County. Expanding curbside recycling collection to the entire County is an option that is being explored and has been established in select, high-density areas in rural settings. In some communities, materials are collected separately, while other jurisdictions subscribe to commingled recycling services. Although collection frequency, container size and type, and setout instructions vary slightly, materials handled are uniform. The collection processes for single and multi -family residences, as well as the type of materials residents may include are described in greater detail in this SWMP in Chapter 4 covering Collection and Recycling/Processing. Commercial Recycling ORS 459A.007 directs jurisdictions to establish recycling programs for commercial businesses with more than 10 employees and occupying over 1,000 square feet of real estate. This can include providing at least weekly collection of source separated recyclables. However, Deschutes County does not maintain a mandatory recycling program for businesses. Despite this, many businesses in Deschutes County have a recycling program. The number of businesses recycling is estimated at 100 and the materials being collected varies. An estimated 40 businesses are currently diverting food waste as well. Generally, cardboard is a popular material to recycle, but franchised haulers do offer additional recycling options if they are requested. Franchised haulers work with businesses to specifically design programs that accommodate their needs. Haulers offer variable collection container services, ranging from 90 -gallon roll carts to 40 to 50 cubic yard drop boxes (also known as roll -off containers). Typically, drop box service is offered to construction companies to collect recyclable materials such as scrap lumber, scrap metal, OCC, construction and demolition material, asphalt and concrete, wood pallets, saw dust, sod and grass stripping, wood and cedar shakes, and yard material. Smaller containers are most often used inside and outside office buildings to collect corrugated cardboard, white office paper, mixed paper, newspaper, and metal, glass and plastic containers. It is also worth noting that ORS 459A.010.A-D states that industrial and manufacturing scrap materials that are immediately recycled or re -incorporated into new products do not count in recovery rates. This stream is sometimes referred to as "primary scrap," distinct from "secondary scrap" that refers to materials that have been recovered from the general waste stream. However, Deschutes County houses relatively few manufacturing or industrial plants, so this consideration is unlikely to have a significant bearing on the County's recovery rate. There is a business sustainability awards program currently coordinated by The Environmental Center. This could parlay into a business technical assistance program 3-24 Chapter 3 with waste audits which had been done in the past in the County, but not in the last five years. 3.3.4 Composting Deschutes Recycling operates the largest composting facility in the County, located at Knott Landfill. In 2017, it is estimated that Deschutes Recycling processed approximately 130,000 cubic yards (35,000 tons) of loose organic material, which yielded 26,000 cubic yards of marketable compost product. There is a well-balanced mix of commercial and residential consumers of Deschutes Recycling's compost product, which is almost entirely locally based. Commercial customers typically include landscaping companies and garden stores, and several local businesses sell compost bags produced by Deschutes Recycling. Sunriver also provides a composting facility for its residents. 3.4 Needs and Opportunities for Increased Waste Prevention, Reduction, Reuse, and Recycling Activities Deschutes County currently meets the requirements outlined in ORS 459A.007, which present the elements of a thorough waste reduction and recycling program. Those elements that the County currently satisfies should be maintained and continue to receive support. These include: 1. Continuing to develop and execute a coordinated promotion and education program with cities, franchised collection companies, The Environmental Center and other entities needed to support ongoing waste prevention, reuse and recycling efforts. 2. Continuing to fund these programs to, at a minimum, maintain the level of participation in reducing waste disposed in landfills. 3. Continue to evaluate program impacts and examine innovative approaches to inform the public and businesses to reach an ever-growing population and new employers. Education in solid waste serves two primary functions: instructing customers on how to properly participate in and receive services, and messaging to encourage efforts to reduce and recycle, and create engagement in these and other sustainability actions. As some jurisdictions have encountered budget constraints, there is pressure to reduce funding for the promotional services. However, without a continual and persistent emphasis on promoting and educating customers about waste prevention, reuse and recycling, the County risks a drop off in participation and the quality of the materials being recycled. With increasing pressure from markets for cleaner materials, outreach programs are essential to contributing the economic viability and sustainability of recycling in the County. With the new established goals for Deschutes County to achieve a recovery rate of 45% by 2025, expansion of the waste prevention, reduction, reuse and recycling 3-25 programs will be needed. Additionally, the need to reduce waste disposed in landfills is desirable for Deschutes County in the long run for several reasons. First and foremost is the fact that when Knott Landfill closes in about 10 years, the cost for disposal will certainly increase, whether a new landfill is sited in the County or waste is transported to an out -of -County landfill. Similarly, if more materials can be diverted from the landfill in the near future, the site life of Knott Landfill can be extended, which may have the effect of deferring cost increases to the solid waste system thus keeping rates from increasing. For these reasons and considering the need to raise the recovery rate from 33% to 45%, the County should make additional strides to achieve a recovery rate of 45%, as directed by ORS 459A.010. To that end, guided by the elements listed in Table 3-2, and to support the mission of the County's DSW to divert waste from Knott Landfill, extend its site life and defer cost increases to the system, there are several needs and opportunities on which the County can capitalize. Areas where there appears to be the greatest opportunity include: , 1. Target recycling program expansion in participation at multifamily developments23, including hotels and resort communities for targeting the year- round tourist population. 2. Expand collection of vegetative waste with yard waste from residential properties and consider universal service. 3. Expand and develop new programs aimed at increasing recycling by businesses or commercial generators, including C/D. 4. Implement County -wide residential curbside single -stream recycling collection for all. 3.5 Alternatives for Increased Waste Prevention, Reduction, Reuse, and Recycling Activities The specific waste prevention, reduction, reuse and recycling program alternatives outlined below must be coordinated with collection and processing as discussed in Chapter 4. • Standardize Waste Prevention Reduction Reuse and Recycling Messaging and Communications Recycle Right and other campaigns currently in place have made great strides in educating Deschutes County communities about solid waste issues; however, the rapid population growth coupled with the continual influx of tourists, makes consistent imagery, recycling container colors and messaging important to consider in making education investments. 23 Starting in July 2022, all tenants of multi -tenant residential and commercial properties within cities and urban growth boundaries over 4,000 people will have new opportunities to recycle. DEQ has numerous resources available on its website. 3-26 The industry standard is $3.00 per household per year for education efforts to effect change in behavior, which would be approximately $500,000 for Deschutes County annually. Given the environmental impact of printing along with the cost of print production, Deschutes County should expand its online and social media presence in its communications, thereby reducing the creation of printed materials in favor of creating dedicated web and social media portals. A web and social media update effort for the County and partner organizations could provide a comprehensive, easy -to -access platform for dynamic community engagement on recycling and waste diversion practices. Opt -in text messaging campaigns can also provide real-time access to residents with key program and event information. In this way, the County can utilize social media and neighborhood engagement platforms to promote information, tips, updates, and messages in a cost-effective manner. Franchised haulers should continue their customer newsletter efforts, perhaps offering a paper -free option for those customers who choose it and keeping up app -based communication options as well. Best practices in key outreach areas follow with viable opportunities for Deschutes County: Reducing waste generation: a. Material bans (for example plastic bags or yard waste/food waste). There are many national and international examples of plastic bag ban S.24 Notably in the US, Massachusetts has a successful commercial food material disposal ban 25. In 2019, the City of Bend will be implementing a plastic bag ban and the State of Oregon has established a plastic bag ban which will go into effect in 2020. b. Grasscycling and backyard composting. Marion County, Portland Metro, and the City of Seattle have successful programs in this regard, giving out backyard composting bins and providing information at events. c. Strong residential messaging such as waste -wise holidays, stop junk mail and opt out of phone books. Incorporated into newsletters and social media campaigns, these messages are important to reinforce. d. Food waste prevention and diversion through innovative food waste applications. Spoiler Alert is an application that allows food producers, wholesale and retail distributors to manage unsold inventory to enhance food recovery and waste diversion efforts and enables real-time food 24 International locations with plastic bag bans include: Bangladesh, Rwanda, China, Taiwan, Macedonia and Kenya. US cities with plastic bag bans include Austin, Cambridge, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Seattle. US Cities/Counties with plastic bag fees: Boulder, CO; Brownsville, TX; Montgomery County, MD; New York City; Portland, ME, and Washington D.C. The state of Hawaii has a plastic bag ban and California as a whole has a ban, labeling and recycling program requirements. 25 Massachusetts passed a commercial food material disposal ban in October 2014 such that any business which produced more than a ton of food waste per month was not allowed to put it in a landfill. A report for Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection found the disposal ban has created hundreds of well -paying jobs, increased the Gross State Product by some $77 million, and generated more than $5 million in state and local tax revenue. (https•//www mass aov/auides/commercial-food-material-disposal-ban) 3-27 donations and discounted sales. GoMkt is a web -based platform that helps food retailers reduce food waste and increase recovery efforts by posting unsold inventory to users and food banks at heavily discounted prices. 2. Stimulating reuse: Expand opportunities to partner with community resale organization for drop- offs and community clean-up events to include a reuse component. The current partnership with Habitat Restore having a trailer at Deschutes Recycling for reusable lumber could be staffed during peak times to further divert usable materials. Likewise, Goodwill or other community reuse organizations could be engaged in this manner at the transfer stations, especially during busy weekend drop-off times. 3. Ongoing education/community events: Both direct customer communication (primarily social media, as well as print media) and community outreach at public events are a fantastic combination for improving recycling and truly engaging the public in the benefits of household recycling/sustainability practices. Similar to the event efforts in Deschutes County, communities are making efforts to execute a "Zero Waste" program in conjunction with sporting venues, fairs or other special events. Kent County, Michigan, has a superior event recycling program called "SORT it out," shown in Figure 3-7, which grew out of their annual ArtPrize competition. Garbage, recycling and compost (optional as a third attachment) bins are attractive, light -weight, and economical. Figure 3-13: Kent County, Michigan "SORT it OUT" event container program 3-28 Chapter 3 Providing waste reduction and recycling opportunities and programs at public or private special events can be a boost to reduce waste and increase diversion tonnage as well as offer education for the community. These events allow the County a cost-effective means to get the message out about how to reduce waste and recycle more. They provide a key element of a comprehensive public awareness campaign. Lending County -owned recycling containers, signage, and training to local festivals and events may provide the tools needed by these groups to divert additional wastes as well as the awareness of recycling "away from home." Hauling services for event recyclables must be discussed and assured from franchised haulers to ensure that collected materials are delivered to appropriate processors and markets. Ultimately, a more coordinated program for all types of events would reduce County staff time in managing these periodic efforts and create a standardized system across many venues. Depending on the number and type of public events hosted by each jurisdiction in the County and the willingness to provide recycling opportunities, franchised hauler representatives could assist in planning standard recycling and/or composting collection for these events. Planning for event recycling requires understanding of vendor flexibility in the use of recyclable or compostable packaging and wares. Continue Waste Reduction/Recvclina Grants Grants can be effective in introducing pilot programs and/or starting new services. These can also be advertised to gain additional promotional benefits. Grant funding has generally been successful in allowing the expansion of waste- and sustainability -related events and programming. Waste -related grants provided to worthy community projects and educators have traditionally been made available by The Environmental Center, the DEQ, and D5W. Funding enables educators and program coordinators to implement additional recycling programs by providing capital to purchase bins or other tools and equipment. However, there may be additional constituents with ideas that can enhance the County's goals who simply lack the means or motivation to implement them. The County, DEQ, and The Environmental Center can dedicate a portion of their grant funding in future years towards individuals who present ideas or projects that help the County achieve waste related goals. In addition to offering a newfound motivation to execute these ideas, it may also inspire others to consider how they might improve their own waste management behavior. An evaluation of projects and initial seed monies to spur waste reduction/recycling efforts can provide years of waste diversion for enthusiastic participants in a recycling program, which the County may never have known was desired or possible without the grant application. Promote Increased Diversion of Electronic Devices from the Waste Stream Presently, electronic waste can be brought to the transfer stations or Deschutes Recycling. There is no charge for CEDs, which are collected at the transfer stations and Deschutes Recycling. Currently, Deschutes Recycling at Knott Landfill is the only facility that collects NCEDs for recycling and assesses a fee for the service. The Waste Wizard application currently utilized by Cascade Disposal may be a useful tool in 3-29 expanding diversion of electronic devices since residents can be directed to bring certain waste streams to specific locations. Encourage Hotels and Tourist Centers to Focus on Waste Prevention Reduction Reuse and Recycling Year-round tourism is a main contributor to the cities and County -wide economy, and with the number of tourists rivaling, if not exceeding the number of residents in the County at any given time, it can be expected that tourists account for a higher portion of the waste generated, than is typical with other jurisdictions. It can be difficult to maintain waste practices in an environment that is not one's home, which is often cited as a reason tourism and hospitality vendors struggle to enforce local sustainability initiatives among guests and their clientele. However, given the County's pristine natural environment, especially considering that it is the primary reason that Deschutes County exists as a tourist destination, encouraging this demographic of tourists to be mindful of the County's waste -related goals should be expanded. With the impact of tourists on food -service and hotel industries, looking to restaurants and hotels to source separate food waste in coordination with local haulers will simultaneously address a significant waste stream (food) as well as a challenging generator (tourists). Analogous tourist destinations such as Vail, Colorado and Whistler, British Columbia, face similar challenges. In Vail, it is mandatory for all special events to incorporate recycling into their planning and must display recycling bins. Understanding that tourists may not be as conscious about efforts to reduce contamination in the recycling stream, Whistler also sets out bins specifically for polystyrene and plastic bags. Park City, Utah, another tourist destination, became the first city in Utah to ban plastic bags altogether in May 2017. Another example is the Big Sky Resort in Montana that highlights its recycling initiatives at participating hotels on their website (https:/Zbigskyresort.co.m/corpora.te/sustainability). As an option to move forward in this area, the County could coordinate a meeting with Visit Bend stakeholders, the local hospitality sector and franchised hauling companies. Resulting from this meeting could be a call for waste audits, which can reveal potential issues with respect to individual generators and allow haulers to design and modify collection routes to target certain materials, maximizing the quality of OCC, for example. In addition, this can allow restaurants and hotels to consider how they might improve their own operations and capitalize on efficiencies, and potentially earn official recognition for their efforts that they can use for marketing (see commercial/ multifamily recycling award program discussion below). Expand Commercial/ Multifamily Recycling and Food Waste Recovery As evidenced in Table 2-13, food waste accounts for the largest portion of the waste stream in Deschutes County and was estimated to be 42,000 tons in 2016. While organic waste as a whole is an area that the County can target to enhance their recovery rate, given the rapidly growing tourist and hospitality sector in the County, directing commercial entities who produce a substantial amount of food waste to separate this material stream will likely have a marked effect. 3-30 Chapter 3 This effort would coincide with Element M in Table 3-2, which promotes such a requirement for nonresidential entities. Both commercial and multifamily program development and expansion would require enhancing current education and promotion programs aimed at commercial businesses and multifamily units to recycle more materials. It would be necessary to work with the franchised haulers to offer expanded collection of source separated materials. Together with The Environmental Center and coordinating with the franchised haulers and cities, the County could attempt to determine what barriers may exist in diverting additional tonnages for businesses and multifamily units not currently recycling or not able to utilize services for full recovery. Businesses could be directed to new services and connected with outlets like Habitat for Humanity, Secure Shred (for paper waste) and similar vendors who address materials commonly found in commercial waste streams. Additional programming may include an official County accreditation of The Environmental Center's sustainability certification and/or additional waste auditing/awards program to motivate commercial generators to work with local stakeholders to enhance their recycling efforts. Waste audits conducted in conjunction with The Environmental Center and local haulers can be beneficial for several reasons. In addition to informing businesses about what materials they are generating in excess and how that impacts their economics, haulers may design or modify collection routes based on businesses that discard high volumes of a specific material or commingled recyclables. This alternative requires additional resources and coordination to conduct audits and perform collections. To minimize the commitment of resources, target groups could be established for initial efforts. Certain types of businesses, particular waste generators, or specific geographic locations could be targeted to establish demonstration or pilot programs. Once a service has been shown to be successful, the program can be expanded to other businesses similar to the target. To accomplish these types of pilot demonstration efforts, the program requires close coordination between County resources and the franchised haulers as well as cooperation from businesses and multifamily units. As a successful Oregon example, Portland has an integrated commercial/multifamily program .26 Similarly, in Deschutes County, building from the commercial program, multifamily recycling outreach can tie into tourist destination resorts like Sunriver and Eagle Crest. The focus for all promotional materials should be on business/property permanent signage (metal signs, container labels), as well as yearly (at minimum) employee or tenant printed education materials and supplemented with a complimentary social media campaign. For multifamily units, special attention should be given to tenants at move -in. Cultivation of recycling champions on-site has also proven effective. 26 https://www I)ortlandoreaon.gov/bps/58975; httis•//www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/41466 3-31 Options for implementing the commercial/multifamily outreach work plan include the following staffing options, separately or in combination: 1. Hire a commercial/multifamily waste auditor as a staff person within DSW. 2. Expand The Environmental Center or other organization funding allocation to do program development and waste audits. For this option, County dollars can go directly to program work as it is presumed that staff are in place whose roles could be expanded. 3. Utilize students from the Oregon State University Cascade campus and/or Central Oregon Community College. Explore a Community Environmental Services (CES) partnership as implemented Portland State University27 to get experienced students as "boots on the ground" with businesses and multifamily property managers/management companies. Residential Yard Waste/Food Waste Discussed further in Chapter 4, residential yard waste collection should be made available regularly to all collection customers, accompanied by outreach and education to customers. Furthermore, this service should be provided to rural and urban customers alike. There are presently customers who are opting in to yard waste service in the urban areas and can add vegetative food waste; however, the service is not widely promoted. Optionally, the County could move to seasonal collection of yard waste and not require collection during the winter or summer seasons, but the County should aim to divert more yard waste to the Deschutes Recycling compost facility and away from Knott Landfill. Given that organics is the largest uncaptured segment of what is currently disposed and adding to the commercial collection of food waste discussed above, residential food waste should be added universally to the yard waste roll carts once facility upgrades are in place to handle the capacity. (Intentionally Left Blank) 27 https•//www.pdx.edu/ces/home: For the past 25 years, CES has provided research and service through Portland State University, giving students a chance to work in real-life waste management scenarios and prepare them for careers in the field, while providing excellent hands-on service to businesses, properties, and events managers in the Portland area. 3-32 11 N M M M O w .0 m E U c v u c o bi c a C: o LU c m @ 0 o 0 3 w Ln N Q% E N a m a n � 0 cu'o O In N N 7 y ~ m a+ do�^ O w "' E V w YO w rl ,- � w on E f1 E w > 10 r u o c m - w 4-- 3u V L C_ c R Y y N w ` L O L V @ 0 •c w Y W w m ft u a 3 c Z 3 w o E fr 0 f1 V) w Q C A d b N •-jam } } } Ln } LA } 0 } fn O O to N Y �= Y V Y E 7 N C w E N VI In V1 N w u L N N N N N N o d 3 3 d Z Z Z -1 — c o_ E O m m In C a 0 0 a C- u>'i w X a3i X d d w w Z Z w Z m N w ti O\ c Y E c C w a O w w O w O .0 Q O L w m u d kn w '^ C C v w C 3 N ++ m C .0 O '3 ri Y= nn = U v E w n o c 0 '0 a ate, ac 3 m m v). 0 0 0 v E w o w a.-aC7 O u O. w m C C7 H w 4' 3 Cm tr c O N m ` 0 w C u "d b4 u 0 C = O E w 3 m 3 E 0 3 a0 Y m N E o w CL H c = do u �� N ,o wto E on O m 3 w w N '� m m� Q a N c r -a c c 3 N u N m r`v c aui u 3 u O c Y w 3 O 3 "O w fr v� 3 w N CL "6 O -p i a>i -a w I'll v a ' E w a O> LL Z o m > C7 uu tY 0 a M M M El I I It El w Ln M M 1 y C o�v'° En G N fu �L m a, C E L E o v ciri �- �; rn c H ro ° E v ° rn i v o v a� 4- C o v y CM E Ln y ro u � L c V) V L°a ice+ ami c o ro L 3rn L o o W c v O.v v N y E 4 tro 41 c zm L � rn ac w ++ > ro 41 rp - N E E w G c Q) .n ro N + oN voi O V) n r wv 3 ro a; u U M'' o E 3 4, ami O o v mc ui L u yL a 4* QV) u)" o0 0 E ai 0 Vl a :: i u 70 'a 7 fE0 Uf V N O p L O . C N v __ N O C01 O w +, V 4+ C vO Wv�a a !m>' E A va"i 3yu E'pm— y m E� C 6. u von c — o o A-03: }, V k y C d.r N V@ A V n Om E v th(n '0i0u�� E.o 01w o ciycm c`—" m000> roO C +� O c u V c ro� o G �my i � `—° 4E 3 0E m aro L— = c Cowo in �ov,v4)3 3a � 4. to y U a +r L N y y 3>, 4)o, EC3�p 0 a .n ;Oio" o p vi 'u ro a o ��a�o0 o' a Ei�c y0 &Aawr.&J rA 0 'D N V Y C roN*'.pv H %C ) >='N 4+o ev c v G rco - NJ a E w ro ro c O _ U E i 1 Q ' +� L .LJ V (6 W .0 � ��+ L G= L O� 6 O y LnC V .0 Hd N ow o G a.ro a-- � Cd o o G i 0 ro o V > v ai y rn >_ O Q 2"0 a"aE�GN'aG)"o E> y �p V vCL o, u vi L du r o W 1� !� 01 3 1- f- v0- E N rr N M 4 ui N 0,4 m c U Ln M M El c=� 0 to Etna, cm in ay U U C V tlj CX N o u Z (n C C > N L N j O w C to��.,� O Qj u E� C �ctn oo �U c>tv '-U 4, o aj tn co E u o � E c U IS +�'N O N m�41 O u �' L C c '' '- .a+ c c a N 1 01 O c C0 .— 01 c C C O to to tdn — N _ U f 0 p� N i U E C N N d d V1 N -p_ O dj to CU a i N = �L tn 41 >.O >�U M N OY N d 3 C L .D :3L cay N Novo Ln yL., =L.+ in v Uv U u CM C td 'O .O 'O tQ)n O C +N-' Ca C_ o u C w occ •�' C ,u O 'a -NO` 0 jp m— C to c L C aj•o 3 c� c c(n o o w u C '- .u 01 ri Ln cteavo � _� xMa0 Cl vc > :3 u Lnaj ou �3o(a— u� >, a m e O c= 0 4� '^c —�'o>o oho C 0 C L- 7 M 'O O c G N t0 V U Ln O C •O N MMO -0O N N> L d >` w 4uj 4J t—On U O >, c X L C >, m y cu P y vo t4. — �� i E 3No Via; V Nim s= C o > �� O > cmc c >. G L y �O N C 0 7 L C E i M C O t0 t6 L w > t0 O C to u N w. c m �JiE- N tit 0> 41 to O � =0 ++ > c . 0 N M U to > o y v C c v@ c a; c c Y Qj o pi v to v� L iO4� yd.c�ov Y. �j N 4- L- L 41 y.,> --,oma > L N W 4j N- O w v� 4 o N N C > Lu ��, O O ~ Q c C N>> Aj ra Gj U a=+ M •— N O O c C N W 41 •— 41 u to 1- J- t c .i� U to N tp N a+ L(n� 0 H- O cuE �occ ) V�cto L - tin E (n d !=Cu=m N O .— 7 ra w E 'o ) C7 n� o �o a 0 L > •— N C E 4j O p y X W c 0 i u >_ N D .0 d 1n OL dj J 'O w> N M Chapter r . 3.6 Recommendations for Increased Waste Prevention, Reduction, Reuse, and Recycling Activities As noted, Deschutes County currently meets the requirements outlined in ORS 459A.007, which present the elements of a thorough waste reduction and recycling program. Those elements that the County currently satisfies should be maintained and continue to receive support. These include: Continuing to develop and execute a coordinated promotion and education program with cities, franchised collection companies, The Environmental Center and other entities needed to support ongoing waste prevention, reuse and recycling efforts. Continuing to fund these programs to, at a minimum, maintain the level of participation in reducing waste disposed in landfills. Continue to evaluate program impacts and examine innovative approaches to inform the public and businesses to reach an ever-growing population and new employers. For increased waste prevention, reduction, reuse and recycling, the new programs recommended and those sought for expansion through this SWMP include the following alternatives. All five recommendations listed below: • Are consistent with State hierarchical priorities and goals to reduce waste disposed in landfills; • Seek to attain highest use of resources to convert organics to soil amendment and enrichment; • Require minimal investment to reduce waste disposed at Knott Landfill and attain long term stability in managing waste versus transport to more distant landfills; • Do not rely on markets outside the geographical area; and • Are flexible to expand or contract with minimal impacts to system. Recommendation 3.1: Establish a standard WR/R program throughout the County for single family, multifamily and businesses that includes a comprehensive education and outreach program. Rationale — Consistency of messages, imagery and promotional tools will help to leverage program funding and deepen the impact of WR/R programming to all residents and businesses. Recommendation 3.2: Expand and improve standards for a multifamily recycling program that includes a comprehensive education and outreach program to expand participation at multifamily developments. Rationale — Multifamily recycling has traditionally been more challenging due to the transient nature of the population. Deschutes County is making strides in 3-37 this area, however a more robust program is needed. As a successful Oregon - example, Portland has an integrated commercial/multifamily program. Similarly, in Deschutes County, building from an enhanced business program, multifamily recycling outreach can tie into the tourist destination resorts in the area. Recommendation 3.3: Expand business education and promotion to target expansion of recycling, focusing especially on hotels and resort communities to reach the tourist population. As part of the business education and promotion program, develop a program to target food waste recovery (see also Recommendation 3.4). Rationale — Businesses generate more garbage and recycling than do residents, and year-round tourism is main contributor to the cities and County- wide economy. With the number of tourists rivaling, if not exceeding the number of residents in the County at any given time, it can be expected that tourists account for an appreciable portion of the waste generated. Furthermore, food waste is a large portion of the disposed waste stream; diverting food waste can produce a valuable soil amendment and also offset greenhouse gas generation. Recommendation 3.4: Expand and develop additional materials to educate households, multifamily residences and businesses on how to reduce food waste and develop promotion of vegetative waste with yard waste and consider universal service. Rationale — Discussed further in Chapter 4, residential yard waste collection should be made available regularly to all collection customers, accompanied by outreach and education to customers. Furthermore, this service should be provided to rural and urban customers alike. There are presently customers who are opting into yard waste carts in the urban areas and can add vegetative food waste, however, the service is not widely promoted. Recommendation 3.5: Expand and develop new programs aimed at increasing recycling of C/D materials. Rationale — ORS 459A.007 states that jurisdictions provide a recovery program that requires C/D be separated at the generation site or sent to a materials recovery facility for processing and recovery of recyclable materials. The statute also directs communities to promote sustainable C/D management by encouraging contractors and improvement projects to consider planning for waste reduction and re -use in the pre -construction planning phases. Presently C/D is often directed straight to the transfer stations or Knott Landfill for disposal, making this stream an important area of focus for the County to consider moving forward. Coupled with the corollary collection and processing recommendations in Chapter 4, these three changes could add the additional 30,000 tons of recycling needed to meet the County's 45% recycling goal by 2025. 3-38 Chapter ag ' ,'A.v 4. COLLECTION AND RECYCLING/ PROCESSING 4.1 Background and Existing Conditions This chapter focuses on the current refuse collection programs servicing the residents and businesses in Deschutes County. Deficiencies needs or areas where changes could be made to meet the goals presented in this SWMP are identified. Alternatives for addressing changes or deficiencies are discussed in relation to the objectives stated below. Based on analysis and input from staff, SWAC members (includes franchised haulers) and the general public, recommendations are presented. For purposes of this SWMP, "collection" and "waste transfer" refer to waste transport (by individuals or collection companies) directly to a disposal site or transfer station that subsequently processes or consolidates waste and delivers it to a disposal site. This chapter also reviews the current facilities in Deschutes County that receive and process materials for the purposes of recovering and marketing those materials. Deficiencies for meeting future needs are identified and the existing infrastructure, capacity and capabilities for processing additional materials to increase materials recovery are evaluated. In ORS 459.085, the responsibilities and capabilities of counties and cities with respect to the provision of collection services are outlined. Specifically, to county responsibilities, ORS states: "With respect to areas outside of cities, a board of county commissioners may adopt ordinances to provide for: (a) The licensing of disposal sites as an alternative to franchising of service. (b) The regulation, licensing or franchising of salvage businesses or the operation of salvage sites where such action is found necessary to implement any part of a solid waste management plan applicable in the county. Such an ordinance shall grant the same authority and prescribe the same procedures as provided for other franchises or licenses under this section." A priority of DSW is to provide services that meet the diverse needs of businesses and residences in urban and rural communities that are both effective and fair to all users. Providing convenience through a variety of services is a key part of attaining this goal. The County, cities and franchised haulers have various means for households and businesses to participate in recycling, including: • Curbside Collection - provided to most of the County • County Drop-off Centers - Five locations throughout the County (Knott Landfill and Negus, Northwest, Southwest and Alfalfa Transfer Stations) 4-1 Chapter 4 Other Drop-off Centers -Wilderness Disposal (La Pine), the City of Sisters, and Sunriver provide recycling drop-off facilities for their communities. Electronic waste is accepted at the Knott Landfill Recycling Center and all transfer stations. The transfer stations only accept CEDs. Deschutes Recycling at Knott Landfill will accept both CEDs and NCEDs. Special Material Collection Events - Twice each month, DSW offers HHW collection at Knott Landfill and annual HHW collection events in Redmond, Sisters and La Pine. Additionally, residents can bring yard debris to Knott Landfill and the transfer stations at no charge on designated dates at annual "Fire Free" collection events held each spring in preparation for the fire season. Figure 4-1 presents the current flow of waste and quantities in Deschutes County from the franchised haulers collection, direct haul, transfer and processing in 2016. (Intentionally Left Blank) 4-2 13 ON c O 41 c E �a L p1 f0 3 O FAd FA �o 3 O N c 3 O u FA 4) 2 s u FA d 0 3 a G GI a L o LL E M [h Chapter 4 It should be noted that the sum of MSW delivered to Knott Landfill from the franchised haulers and the transfer stations (164,786 tons) in 2016 is 3,159 tons greater than the 161,087 presented in the 2016 DEQ report. Yard waste and wood/lumber collected by Cascade Disposal were reported in cubic yards and were converted based on the EPA's "Volume -to -Weight Conversion Factors." Accordingly, compacted mixed yard, waste typically weighs 640 pounds per cubic yard, uncompacted mixed yard waste typically weighs 250 pounds per cubic yard, and wood and lumber were assumed to typically weigh 169 pounds per cubic yard.28 4.2 Existing Collection and Processing 4.2.1 Collection ORS 459.125 allows the County and cities to enter franchised agreements with public or private entities to manage the collection, disposal, processing and marketing of solid waste and recyclable materials. Additionally, this ordinance grants the County the authority to regulate and oversee these operations as they occur within the County. Franchised collection companies collect commingled materials, glass, organic waste (yard debris and food waste mixed with yard debris), and MSW from residences and businesses in Deschutes County and deliver them to facilities (as noted in Figure 4-1) within the County for intermediate processing. Within the County, these facilities organize and consolidate material streams so that they can be shipped out of the County for recycling. Other than disposal at the Knott Landfill, the only materials that are entirely processed within the County are yard waste and vegetative food waste, which are composted a County -owned facility at Knott Landfill operated by Deschutes Recycling. There are approximately 180,000 residents in Deschutes County, covering 85,000 households (an estimated single-family count of 55,000 households and multifamily count of 30,000 households), as well as 6,500 employers with 60,000 employees.29 The County has franchised agreements with four different private companies for the collection of municipal solid waste from residences and commercial establishments (see Table 4-2). Each of these companies is franchised by the city it serves and with the County for unincorporated areas, under authority granted by ORS 459.125. This same legislation also gives Deschutes County the authority to: "Regulate, license, franchised and certify disposal, transfer, and resource recovery sites or facilities; establish and collect license or franchised fees; and otherwise control and regulate the establishment and operation of all public or private disposal, transfer and resource recovery sites or facilities located within the County." 28 U.S. E.P.A. Volume -to -Weight Conversion Factors, April 2016. 29 https•//www census gov/quickfacts/fact/table/deschutescountyoregon/SB0001212#viewtop and https://www.huduser.gov/publications/`pdf/BendOR comp 15.pdf 4-4 MRS Curbside Collection Franchised agreements grant each company the sole right to collect all solid waste and recyclables from a specified area as noted in Table 4-1. Waste haulers are obligated to provide a regular schedule for collection of garbage in all areas of the County and recyclables in urbanized areas. Table 4-1: 2008 Private Solid Waste Haulers and Service Areas Collection Service Provider Service Area Term of Contract Bend Garbage and Recycling North Bend Rolling seven30 Cascade Disposal South Bend and Sunriver Rolling seven High Country Disposal Redmond and Sisters Rolling seven Wilderness Garbage and Recycling La Pine Rolling seven Note: Deschutes County contracts with all four collection companies for service in the unincorporated areas of the County. Service charges by the franchised haulers are regulated by cities and by the County with maximum rate schedules. As presented in rate schedules effective August 1, 2017, the County sets maximum solid waste rates for the following: Unincorporated Rural (Cascade Disposal, Bend Garbage and Recycling, and High -Country Disposal) Unincorporated Distant Rural (Cascade Disposal, Bend Garbage and Recycling, High Country Disposal, and Wilderness Garbage and Recycling) Rates for container rental with all franchised haulers and transfer services provided by Deschutes Transfer Company to DSW The County maximum rates are set based on waste container volume. For a 35 -gallon can, maximum rates range from $17.75 to $18.40 per month. Bulky services are available at an additional charge paid by the customer. Backyard or non-curb/roadside rates are also set. The solid waste rate sizes include 20, 35, 65, and 95 -gallon cans (see Appendix A for full schedule of collection rates). Along with solid waste, collection every other week for recycling in a 95 -gallon cart for the cities of Bend, Redmond, La Pine and Sisters is included. Yard waste service in a 95 -gallon cart collected every other week is subscription only in the cities of Bend and Redmond. Residents can add vegetative food waste to the yard service. Bend Garbage and Recycling notes that for city customers, yard debris curbside recycling is a yearly subscription service for $4.90 per month. Acceptable yard debris includes grass clippings, brush, weeds, pine needles, plant prunings, and branches no larger than 2" in diameter and 36" in length. Raw fruit and vegetable scraps such as apple cores, banana peels, potato skins, zucchini, pumpkins, coffee 30 Denotes a continuously renewing 7 -year term for contracts, per franchised ordinance. 4-5 Chapter 4 grounds and filters, tea bags, etc. are also acceptable.31 All customers in the City of Sisters have yard waste service every other week. Franchised haulers bill customers directly and pay DSW a 3% franchised fee, as well as a 3.5% fee to the City of Redmond and a 5% franchised fee to the City of Bend32, in addition to disposal fees at Knott Landfill. Cascade Disposal offers customers a tool called the "Waste Wizard" in which residents enter their address and find out what they should do with a certain material, as well as what their specific collection day is. As a convenient phone application, Waste Wizard is very popular with customers. Curbside Recyclables Cascade Disposal's promotional materials list the recyclables collected at the curb, collection calendars and other information as presented in 2. County -wide ReThink Waste and CAN Cancer logos also appear prominently on the Cascade Disposal website (Figure 4-3). City Recycling Schedule 2018 W+` nNY t016tu e. r..+ JULY SOf d f�Rlffi'ff3 6 Pta"8l7 itl4ti}3 CSi.26 t iftEl Stl tlt >al )L371 _..,Zh i9f°s)Il•i i.. .: 26 rt:6PVM\X16 �WUST 201d star t itR]1FA. tt li ati CiFi 31I i"l It l{.61 Htl1 t6 v a N •. '+ Tf MxFYn r ld 1111MM M. Hili ao 1 - 1 > • IJilI_iFt[ : 6 'lillYbiaCIS2 >o xMtft T016 - OCtO8tF 3011 b {813 fA)Ll1 f1 I atS.l3atJ t Y 5 It » D )T 6 ♦ fi]» it 3 tLLY_.16> » 7d Nr x HOVC I6tx ]010 3 d t$)Bil,iAl t2 FwSm`?Etl E10 j— M. t F4tMe R L0F8 h CB1 "6C34 kiWf}a'�1�3 i i> Ii) F E.71 161FEy34Y.:F Tu ,.,n. .,z 511 W16860 t a.eadr I)I,pilsat welcome to our service area! VI N ni/F' am hour nrw {wttrrrrxre (tv mmt o! {aw haysrhoM norti arx! rayelubin. N sine ttece C01141110 Phtea10al Crean t<`:;€ct t9etle! IMaealesal R to WYMP INWIll W we's the MOM ,f Your new 96 -gallon toll cart is for most of Your household r� yrlahks n .ru 1 u bt�xx..r.t �rn-<.�4tw Cv Y� 9�n :I' f1r �v- shall Blrl - Glass Only Blue Roll Cart — <ommingled Materials Ew;i+ Other Recycling Tips Figure 4-2: Cascade Disposal's 2018 City Customer Calendar and Education Materials (front side on left, back side on right) 31 Commercial collection of food waste is being offered to interested customers, discussed in more detail below. 32 http://www cod el3ublishing. com/OR/Bend/html/Bend11/Bend 1116.html 4-6 Figure 4-3: Franchised Hauler Community Promotional logos As a complete list, the following materials can be commingled into the recycling cart curbside in Deschutes County: PAPER • Newspaper • Junk Mail • Computer Paper • Wrapping Paper (no foil) • Shredded Paper (strips only) • Cereal/Cracker Boxes • Paper Egg Cartons • Soda and Beer Cartons PLASTICS • Plastic Bottles & Tubs (6 ounces or larger) • Rigid Plastic Plant Pots (4 inches or larger) • Plastic Buckets (5 gallons or less) • Milk Jugs (no need to flatten) METALS • Cans • Jar Lids • Beverage Cans • Foil 4-7 • Shoe Boxes • Paper Towel Tubes • Phone Books • Magazines • Catalogs • Paper Bags • Corrugated Cardboard Rates for Items Collected at Knott Landfill and the Transfer Stations Knott Landfill rates and accepted items include the following: Household garbage and construction debris <400 lbs - $22.00* Each additional 100 lbs - $3.00 Asbestos (Friable) <2000 lbs - $100.00 Each additional Ib - $0.05 Must have approved Special Waste Disposal Application prior to disposal Asbestos (Non -Friable) is charged at regular garbage rate Must have approved Non -Friable Asbestos Application prior to disposal Contaminated Soil $0.0175 per Ib Must have approved Special Waste Disposal Application prior to disposal Alfalfa, Negus, Northwest, and Southwest Transfer Stations rates and accepted items include the following: Household garbage or construction debris (limit of 4 cubic yards of construction debris) <1 cubic yard - $22.00* Each additional cubic yard - $8.00 Yard Debris (accepted as garbage at Alfalfa Transfer) Per cubic yard - $4.00 Wood Waste (accepted only at Negus Transfer Station) Per cubic yard - $4.00 Appliances (limit 4 per customer, not accepted at Alfalfa Transfer) Each - $8.00 Tires (limit 12 per customer) Passenger car, pick-up and light truck - $2.00 each Additional charge if on rim - $2.00 each Heavy truck or equipment tires are not accepted Sod is only accepted at the regular garbage rate at the Negus, Northwest and Southwest Transfer Stations (limit 1 cubic yard and is only accepted at 4-8 SoecialWaste Collection The Hazardous Waste Facility at Knott Landfill accepts a wide variety of hazardous waste, including paints and stains, solvents, fuels, antifreeze, aerosols, cleaners, poisons, pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, oil filters, rechargeable batteries, fluorescent tubes and bulbs, propane tanks, pool and spa chemicals, thermometers, mercury thermostats and switches, etc. HHW is accepted free of charge from residential users at the Knott Landfill Hazardous Waste Facility. The HHW Facility is open from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. on the second and fourth Friday and Saturday of each month. For the months of November and December, the facility is open on the 2nd Friday and Saturday only. Business Hazardous Waste is also accepted at the Hazardous Waste Facility from businesses regulated as Conditionally Exempt Hazardous Waste Generators (CEG). To qualify as a CEG, the business cannot generate more than 220 pounds of hazardous waste per month. CEGB must pre -register with the hazardous waste contractor by completing an application to participate. Fees are charged based on the type and amount of waste accepted. Commercial and Multifamily Collection There are an estimated 6,500 businesses and 30,000 multifamily households in Deschutes County.33 Similar to curbside service, franchised haulers offer commercial and multifamily solid waste and recycling collection services upon request in their geographic service areas based on the maximum rates noted above. Some businesses have also requested food waste collection for vegetative material. Approximately 85 businesses at present are managing food waste in this manner. An estimated range of 75% to 95% businesses in the County have recycling services depending on the area. Multifamily properties are offering curbside services to their tenants. Food waste is delivered to the compost facility at Knott Landfill. Summary of Franchised Hauler Collection Table 4-2 presents the 2014-2016 tons of commingled recyclables collected by the franchised haulers from residential accounts. Note that of the approximately 80,000 tons of recycling reported to DEQ, franchised collection represents approximately 16 percent of recycling collection (13,017 tons). 33 https•//www hud user. qov/publications/pdf/BendOR comp 15 pdf =6 Chapter 4 Table 4-2 Deschutes County Commingled Recyclables Collected by Franchised Haulers 2014-2016 (Tons) Franchised Hauler 2014 2015 2016 Bend Garbage and Recycling 4,289 4,480 4,753 Cascade Disposal 4,450 4,658 4,805 High Country. Disposal 3,225 3,318 3,409 Wilderness Garbage and Recycling 54 58 50 Total 12,018 12,514 13,017 In 2016, there was an approximate 8% increase in the amount of commingled recyclables collected in the County. Cascade Disposal and Bend Garbage and Recycling remained the leaders in collection of these materials, displaying a growth rate of 11% and 8% in this category respectively. High Country Disposal's growth was around 5% during this time while Wilderness Garbage and Recycling's collection rate fluctuated, maintaining an average of 54 tons per year. Table 4-3 presents the 2014-2016 tons of source-separated/commercial recyclables collected by the franchised haulers. This adds another 10,602 tons to the 13,017 commingled tons reported in Table 4-2, for a total of 23,619 tons, representing 30 percent of all recycling reported in Deschutes County for 2016. Table 4-3 Total Commercial Recyclable Material Collected by Haulers 2014- 2016 (Tons) Franchised Hauler 2014 2015 2016 Bend Garbage and Recycling 3,689 3,875 4,086 Cascade Disposal 3,198 3,608 4,165 High Country Disposal 2,067 2,319 2,124 Wilderness Garbage and Recycling 209 195 226 Total 9,163 9,998 10,601 4.2.2 Processing DSW owns and operates Knott Landfill, which is the only operating landfill in the County. Knott Landfill also serves as a recycling drop-off location and houses the HHW 4-10 Chapter 4 drop-off site and compost facility. Deschutes Recycling manages the recycling drop-off center and composting operations. In addition, the County manages four transfer stations: Negus Transfer Station, Northwest Transfer Station, Southwest Transfer Station, and Alfalfa Transfer Station. Addresses, hours of operation, and materials accepted at each of these facilities are listed in Table 4-4. Table 4-4 Solid Waste Facilities in Deschutes County Name Address Operating Hours Accepted Materials Knott Landfill 61050 SE 27th Street Nov. 1 -Apr. 30 MSW, C/D debris, Bend, OR 97702 Monday -Saturday asbestos, contaminated 7am-4:30pm soil May 1 -Oct. 31 Sunday -Saturday lam -spm Knott Landfill 61050 SE 27th Street Nov. 1 -Apr. 30 Commingled recyclables, Recycling Center Bend, OR 97702 Monday -Saturday cardboard, glass, paints (operated by 7am-4:30pm and stains, auto batteries, Deschutes motor oil, scrap metal, Recycling) May 1 -Oct. 31: appliances, tires, Sunday -Saturday electronic waste, wood 7am-5pm waste, yard waste, and cooking oil Knott Landfill 61050 SE 27th Street 2nd and 4th Friday and Paints, stains, fuels, Hazardous Bend, OR 97702 Saturday of month aerosols, cleaning Waste Facility 9am-3pm supplies, pesticides, fertilizer, batteries, (2nd Friday and fluorescent tubes and Saturday of month in bulbs, pool and spa November and chemicals, thermometers, December) propane tanks, fireworks, ammunition, residential sharps (hypodermic needles, lancets) Knott Landfill 61050 SE 27th Street May 1 -October 31: Yard debris, clean wood Compost Facility Bend, OR 97702 Monday -Sunday waste, sod, clean dirt, (Operated by 7am-5pm residential and Deschutes commercial program food Recycling) November 1 -April 30: waste only. Sunday -Saturday 7am-4:30pm 4-11 Name Address Negus Transfer 2400 NE Maple Station & Avenue Recycling Center Redmond, OR 97756 Northwest Transfer Station & Recycling Center Southwest Transfer Station Alfalfa Transfer Station and Recycling Center 68200 Fryrear Road Sisters, OR 97759 Operating Hours Monday - Saturday 8am - 4pm Wednesday -Saturday 8am-4pm 54580 Highway 97 La Wednesday -Saturday Pine, OR 97739 8am-4pm Walker Road, Alfalfa, Saturday OR 97701 8:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. Accepted Materials MSW, C/D debris, commingled recyclables, cardboard, glass, auto batteries, motor oil, scrap metal, appliances, tires, electronic waste, wood waste, yard debris MSW, C/D debris, commingled recyclables, cardboard, glass, auto batteries, motor oil, scrap metal, appliances, tires, electronic waste, yard debris MSW, C/D debris, commingled recyclables, cardboard, glass, auto batteries, motor oil, scrap metal, appliances, tires, electronic waste, yard debris MSW, commingled recyclables, glass, auto batteries, motor oil, scrap metal, tires, electronic waste As a supplement to residential and commercial collection service, each of the transfer stations in the County is also equipped with a recycling drop-off center. All transfer stations accept commingled recyclables, cardboard, glass, auto batteries, motor oil, scrap metal and electronic waste free of charge. Tires are accepted for a fee at all County facilities. Appliances are accepted for a fee at all County facilities with the exception of the Alfalfa Transfer Station. The following items are not accepted at any of the County's transfer stations: • Inert materials such as dirt, sod, concrete, rocks, and bricks* • Hazardous materials • Liquids • Manure • Ashes • Asbestos • Bulky items *These materials are accepted at Negus Transfer Station 4-12 Chapter 4 Other recyclables that are accepted for free at every disposal site but cannot be commingled include: • Automotive batteries • Barbeques (separated from gas tanks) • Corrugated cardboard • Glass bottles and jars • Lawnmowers (fuel and oil must be drained) • Motor oil • Propane tanks • Scrap metal Recyclables For recyclables processing in Deschutes County, franchised collection companies deliver commingled recyclables and glass directly to Mid -Oregon Recycling (located at 20835 NE Montana Way, Bend). Mid -Oregon Recycling is owned and operated by Bend Garbage and Recycling. This facility also receives recyclables (cardboard, glass and commingled materials) that are collected at the County's transfer stations and the recycling center at Knott Landfill. Mid -Oregon Recycling essentially functions as a transfer station and does not process recyclable materials. Rather, recyclables such as cardboard and commingled materials are baled and transported to material recovery facilities in the Portland area and the Willamette Valley. Presently some materials are being transferred to Pioneer Recycling Services located at 16810 SE 120th Ave, Clackamas, OR 97015. Glass is being taken to a recycling facility in Portland. Figure 4-4: View of the Truck Entrance at Mid -Oregon Recycling 4-13 _mow: Chapter 4 Markets for Recycled Materia Since curbside collection of source separated materials was universally established in Oregon in 1985, markets have continued to evolve and grow significantly in both the United States and abroad. Commingled materials collected from curbside programs include paper products such as corrugated cardboard, newspaper, mixed paper and various grades of plastics as well as tin and aluminum cans. Also, glass is collected and separated in bins or at drop off sites. China, more than any other country, has been the largest purchaser of recyclable materials from processors. Recently, China has initiated a new policy to require all recyclable materials contain less than 0.5% contamination (called the National Sword). This stringent requirement more or less restricts most materials from entering China markets. As a result, there is a glut of recyclable paper products on the market. This has caused the market price for mixed paper to fall to less than $20 per ton in early 2018. Most recycling companies can tolerate fluctuating market prices. However, the disruption in markets caused by China's new policies are unusually severe, which may lead to franchised haulers needing to increase program prices. With the significant reduction in the price for paper coupled with lower demand that may continue, processors may not be able to weather these conditions. In Deschutes County, the cost to collect, transport, process and ship recyclable materials to markets is built into the current collection rates. However, franchised collection companies rely on a certain amount of revenue for recycled materials.34 Without dependable and robust market prices, many jurisdictions in Oregon and elsewhere are evaluating options ranging from temporarily landfilling recyclable materials, to levying a temporary surcharge, to discontinuing collection services for recyclable materials. As of March 2018, DEQ granted waivers to at least 12 franchised haulers and/or jurisdictions to temporarily dispose of materials because of financial hardships due to current market condition S35. Like Deschutes County, many of these communities must transport recyclable materials long distances to be processed and then shipped to markets. The County and cities must work with the local franchised collection companies and Mid -Oregon Recycling to determine what actions might be taken to address this temporary condition. It is desirable to consider those options that continue curbside collection to existing customers. Although it is also desirable to expand programs to recycle more materials from multifamily and commercial customers, it may be necessary to delay expansion of such collection services until these market conditions improve. This is truly an unprecedented time in Oregon and nationwide recycling history. Based on the analysis by Dr. Jeffery Morris of Sound Resource Group, Inc., it seems that the effect of China's new more stringent policies on recyclables should have a limited impact on recyclable paper markets in Oregon as India has developed into a significant trading partner with brokers in the Pacific Northwest for this material. Although the 34 Since 2013, net revenue from all recyclables collected has been negative. Prior to 2013, with the exception of 2009, there had been commodity revenue to help offset collection costs. 35 htti)://www.oregon.govZdeg/FilterDocs/mm-disr)osalconcurr.pdf 4-14 global market suffers whenever a major trading partner like China is eliminated, subsequently reducing demand for recycled commodities across the board, the impact on certain material streams will vary depending on how substantially they are traded with China relative to other countries. Overall, the industry advocates that local governments take a long-term view of market conditions. Historically, there have been disruptions and large fluctuations in prices. The fact that there is great stability in the collection of recyclable materials provides a steady supply of materials, and there is demand for these materials in the United States and internationally. The largest challenge is reducing the amount of contamination in the various recyclable materials recovered from collection programs and Material Recovery Facilities (MRFs) to meet market specifications so these materials can be used effectively to make new products. C/D Waste It is estimated that about 30% of materials entering Knott Landfill are C/D waste. Presently, inert material (soil, rock, concrete, asphalt, etc.) can be taken to an inert fill site at the Negus Transfer Station in Redmond. Clean, unpainted and untreated wood waste can be taken to Deschutes Recycling and Negus Transfer Station for off-site use as boiler fuel and remanufactured wood products. However, there is no dedicated C/D landfill in the County and, with the exception of the clean fill and clean wood waste options noted above, these wastes must be disposed at Knott Landfill. There is no information available on the composition of C/D waste disposed at Knott Landfill. Data from the Monterey Regional Waste Management District (District) is shown below in Table 4-5. The District has some characteristics similar to Deschutes County in that most C/D waste is generated by the housing market and the area experiences a strong tourism industry and turnover from rentals and new ownership. It also serves a similar population. (Intentionally Left Blank) 4-15 Chapter 4 Table 4-5 C/D Composition Data from Monterey Regional Waste Management District Construction/ Demolition Composition Data Average Available Total C/D Waste Accepted - 70,000 TPY Materials to Recover Goal is z 70% Recovery Tons/Year % Salvaged Materials for Reuse 632 0.9% Rigid Plastics 1,417 2.0% Aluminum Scrap 165 0.2% Cardboard 1,517 2.2% Co -mingled Containers 292 0.4% Wood /Green Waste 12,116 17.5% Metal Scrap 3,553 5.1% Mixed Paper 1,313 1.9% Total Re -sellable 21,005 30.2% Asphalt /Concrete 2,498 3.60% Hazardous Waste 7 0.0% Mattresses /Carpets / Pads 275 0.4% Sheetrock 149 0.2% Roofing Material 505 0.7% Tires 79 0.1% Inerts and fines (Alternative Daily Cover) 23,909 34.5% Total Non -Re -Sellable 27,422 Adjustment to Non-Resellable 6,897 Total Sort Line Diversion 55,324 79.8% Landfill /Residue 14,046 Total Material Processed 69,370 This data suggests that as much as 30% of C/D waste is recyclable materials. Also, the District operates a processing line that recovers inert materials and fines. The District uses this material as landfill alternative daily cover, thus reducing the need for clean soil to provide daily cover for use at its landfill. Yard Waste/Food Waste Curbside collection of yard waste and vegetative food waste on a subscription basis is provided by the franchised hauling companies who deliver the material to the Knott Landfill compost facility. 4-16 Chapter a Negus, Northwest and Southwest transfer stations accept yard waste from the self - haul public. This material is ground several times per year and transported to Knott Landfill for use as alternative daily cover. Self -haul customers can also bring yard waste to Deschutes Recycling's compost facility at Knott Landfill where fees are charged at a volume -based rate (presently $4.00 per cubic yard). Rock, contaminated dirt, residential waste, plastic bags and other non -vegetative materials are not permitted at the compost facility. Deschutes Recycling is a member of the U.S. Composting Council and adheres to the standards listed in their Seal of Testing Approval Program to ensure quality compost output. Deschutes Recycling provides a promotional brochure (see Figure 4-5) which includes information about their various compost products. Bis &,ne RGro " S H TilB ui It f,Ywg pm r. Figure 4-5: outside Page of Deschutes Recycling Customer Compost Tri -Fold Brochure Changing from turned windrow composting to aerated static piles has decreased the processing time to approximately six weeks at Deschutes Recycling. Piles are temperature and moisture monitored. Compost products from the Deschutes Recycling facility are sold to the County, local retailers and residents. The following products are offered: • SoilBuilder® Compost (5/8" screen) • BioFine® Compost (3/8" screen) • ReGrow@ Compost (3/8" screen and contains composted food waste) • Ground Cover 4-17 ME Chapter,4 In 2016, Deschutes Recycling processed approximately 20,000 tons of yard waste, food waste and wood waste. At the Lake Penhollow composting site, owned and operated by Sunriver Environmental LLC, under Sunriver Resort Limited Partnership, yard debris (grass, pine needles, leaves, brush, limbs and tree materials) is accepted, for a fee ($5/yard), and compost, wood chips and mulch are sold at the facility.36 Utilizing an AgBag system for composting, the site serves the Sunriver, Crosswater, Caldera Springs and Vandevert Ranch communities of Central Oregon, and is open 25 hours per week, May through September, two hours per week in October, and is closed from November through April. Food Waste As presented in Table 2-13 in Chapter 2, it is estimated that about 42% of all waste disposed in landfills is made up of organics (food waste, wood, yard debris, soiled paper and miscellaneous items), of which over 50% is food waste. Overall, food waste represents 24% of all waste disposed. This information was been confirmed by the results of the recently published Waste Composition Report (2016-17) issued by DEQ in February 2018. The report contains additional details related to the sources and types of food waste disposed. Table 4-6 below presents the food waste data gathered by DEQ in 2016-17. Table 4-6 Food Waste Disposed 2016-2017 The data show on a statewide basis that food waste is about 24% of waste disposed by both residential and commercial customers. Also, the largest amount of food waste is categorized as non -packaged vegetative waste. This food waste category is what franchised collection companies are targeting to have residential customers place in with their yard waste. This material can then be processed at the Knott Landfill compost facility. In 2017, approximately 1,000 tons of food waste was collected and composted. However, as the data in Table 4-6 suggests, about 13% of all waste disposed or 23,000 tons in 2017 is non -packaged vegetative waste. Expanding food waste collection could be a potential program to increase the County's recovery rate. 36 htti)s://www..sunriverwater.com/Com1)ost-Site.htmI 4-18 Residential Commercial All Food 23.4% 24.6% Non -Packaging Vegetative Food 12% 13% Non -Vegetative (Meats /Dairy) 3% 4% Other Food /Packaging 8.4% 7.6% The data show on a statewide basis that food waste is about 24% of waste disposed by both residential and commercial customers. Also, the largest amount of food waste is categorized as non -packaged vegetative waste. This food waste category is what franchised collection companies are targeting to have residential customers place in with their yard waste. This material can then be processed at the Knott Landfill compost facility. In 2017, approximately 1,000 tons of food waste was collected and composted. However, as the data in Table 4-6 suggests, about 13% of all waste disposed or 23,000 tons in 2017 is non -packaged vegetative waste. Expanding food waste collection could be a potential program to increase the County's recovery rate. 36 htti)s://www..sunriverwater.com/Com1)ost-Site.htmI 4-18 Chapter 4 The other food waste categories include non -packaged, non -vegetative waste which includes dairy products and meat.. In Marion County and Portland, these wastes are also accepted because the facilities have been approved to compost these categories of food waste. Before these wastes can be accepted at the Knott Landfill compost facility, the compost methods would need to be refined and the DEQ permit would need to be revised. 4.3 Needs and Opportunities for Collection and Recycling/ Processing Following the review of collection and recycling/processing activities taking place in Deschutes County, the following needs and opportunities are evident. Target Certain Types of Generators or Waste Streams to Increase Diversion by Expanding Basic Services a) Expand collection of cardboard and scrap metal in the commercial and multifamily waste streams - In order to reach the DEQ target of 55% recycling in the commercial sector, Deschutes County needs to develop a commercial outreach and implementation program. Both of these commodities have an enduring market value and present great opportunity for targeted diversion from commercial and multifamily customers. b) Expand residential curbside services - Currently, curbside collection of commingled recyclable materials is offered in the cities and urbanized portions of the County. These collection programs can be expanded to serve rural areas. Likewise, yard waste/food waste and glass are not currently offered consistently in the rural areas. In Bend and Redmond where yard debris service is available, it is offered on a subscription -only basis. All customers in Sisters have yard debris service. Consideration of making recycling and yard debris service universal within the County -wide rate structures could be advantageous for meeting recycling goals and creating the most efficient routing. c) Expand the multifamily housing recycling program - More infill and multifamily dwelling units are being built to accommodate growth in the County and DEQ is requiring that all tenants have recycling services by 2022. Developing a focused education/promotion program in conjunction with enhanced methods to provide convenient services could contribute to achieving the County's recovery rate. This alternative has some key elements that are important to enhance the opportunity to make multifamily recycling successful. 1. Multifamily complexes must provide space to temporarily store recyclable materials generated by the individual units. These spaces must contain and secure materials and provide easy access for collection companies. To achieve this, design guidelines in the cities and County must be standardized to provide both space for containers and room for trucks to service solid waste, recycling and compost bins/carts. 4-19 Chapter 4 2. Regular educational materials will need to be distributed to inform existing and new tenants of recycling and waste reduction programs. 3. It is desirable to have some form of incentive built into the rates. Most complexes offer garbage service as part of the rent. Therefore, tenants are not typically incentivized. d) Expand tourism recycling opportunities — The significant tourism industry in Deschutes County makes it necessary to focus on hotel and tourist destinations in order to meet recycling goals. Tourists outnumber residents in the County every month of the year. There are a variety of programs that can be explored including the tie-in with any new food waste program since restaurants serve visitors extensively. In addition, targeted business outreach to hotels and destinations for business technical assistance and recognition, as discussed in Chapter 3, is imperative. Adjust Rates to Impact Behavior Changes and Fund Program Expansion As presented in Table 4-7, Deschutes County has set maximum rates that franchised haulers can charge for curbside waste and recycling collection, which is based on the volume of a household's refuse cart. For example, a 35 -gallon cart can range from $17.75 to $18.40 per month for collection (solid waste and recycling), but a larger cart comes with an increased collection cost. This is one mechanism through which the County can attempt to impact behavior change among residents. Increasing the cost of waste disposal with additional waste generated can have the effect of discouraging excess waste generation. In addition, offering similar disposal options for free or at a reduced rate generally motivates a household to utilize these services as well. Rate incentive programs can work symbiotically if well designed. For instance, adjusting collection fees such that they rise equally or greater than the marginal difference between the volume of a 35 -gallon container and a 65 -gallon container will have a greater impact than simply raising the monthly collection rate by an arbitrary amount as container size increases. (Intentionally Left Blank) 4-20 Chapter 4 Table 4-7 Can and Roll Cart Service Rates — As of January 2010 Cart Volume Rates for Weekly Pickup Cost per unit ($/gallon) 20 Gallon Curb or roadside $15.45 $0.77 Backyard or other $17.55 $0.88 35 Gallon Curb or roadside $17.75 $0.51 Backyard or other $20.15 0.58 65 Gallon Curb or roadside $29.20 $0.45 Backyard or other $33.80 $0.52 95 Gallon Curb or roadside $36.65 $0.39 Backyard or other $39.55 $0.42 At present, a 35 -gallon container has a monthly cost of $17.75, meaning that the price of waste collection for a single family using a 35 -gallon trash container is $0.51 per gallon. However, the monthly cost for a household with a 65 -gallon container, 85% larger than the 35 -gallon can, is $29.20. This translates to $0.45 per gallon, a per gallon rate that is approximately 12% less expensive than having a smaller cart. The County's current rate structure does have an incentive built in for smaller containers. Some cities use weight basis for setting rates and have resulting rates wherein a 65 - gallon container costs twice as much as a 35 -gallon, as in Seattle, Washington. Adjusting rates so they better reflect the environmental costs of waste generation given the economic costs of collection will generate more revenue for DSW. Additionally, it is well-documented that raising the costs of garbage collection relative to the generation of garbage, while also offering recycling and yard waste disposal options, has the effect of increasing diversion from landfills and reducing waste generation overall.37,38,39 37Dijkgraaf E, Gradus R. (2009). Environmental activism and dynamics of unit -based pricing systems. Resource and Energy Economics, 31, 13-23 38 Ferrara I, Missios P. (2005). Recycling and Waste Diversion Effectiveness: Evidence from Canada. Environmental and Resource Economics, 30, 221-238. 39 Pickin 1 (2008) Unit pricing of household garbage in Melbourne: improving welfare, reducing garbage, or neither? Waste Management and Research, 26, 508-514 4-21 M Target Recovery of New Materials a) Divert More Dry Waste Materials for Processing at a MRF This would require commercial businesses to separate food waste from dry, non-organic waste. The dry waste may be acceptable for processing along with the residential curbside materials at a MRF. b) Focus on Food Waste 40 Recent waste composition data published by DEQ shows that approximately 45% of materials disposed in Oregon landfills is comprised of organic material such as food waste, compostable paper, yard debris and wood waste. Food waste represents about 50% of all organics or 24% of the entire waste stream disposed. In 2017, 181,000 tons of waste was disposed at Knott and 43,000 tons of that waste was food waste. DEQ's 2016 statewide waste composition report indicates that half of food waste is not packaged (per DEQ waste sort categories), making it easier to collect since there is no plastic packaging to remove. According to the study, residential waste and commercial waste contain about the same amount of food waste on a statewide basis. This could vary in different wastesheds, and, perhaps due to the higher rate of tourism in Deschutes County, the commercial waste stream may contain a higher amount of food waste. However, for the sake of this evaluation it is assumed that both residential and commercial have similar percentages of food waste. Expand Residential Food Waste Recycling Program Based on DEQ's waste composition data, there may be as much as 21,500 tons of food waste in the residential stream. If more customers participate in placing food scraps in with yard waste, the material can be delivered to the compost facility instead of the landfill. As more food waste is received for composting at Knott Landfill, improvements to the compost facilities will be needed to more efficiently process the additional materials. With subscription - only yard debris program to which residents can add vegetative food waste, there is a great opportunity in Deschutes County for expansion by making yard debris part of universal service for all residents. Expand the Commercial Food Waste Recycling Program It is estimated that 21,500 tons of food waste is disposed by commercial customers at Knott Landfill. Expanding the commercial food waste program to more restaurants, cafeterias and other large 40 In all organics program discussions, the Department of Solid Waste should consider connections to the City of Bend's current anaerobic digestion interest at the wastewater treatment plant. 4-22 Chapter 4 0 generators can result in increasing the recovery rates and reducing what is disposed in the landfill. To do this will require programmatic changes to increase business technical assistance. The County is well poised to expand its current work with The Environmental Center and other organizations to increase investment in program design and deployment. The additional facility needs for organics are discussed below. c) Consider a Textile Recycling Program Textiles comprise part of the 4,800 tons of "other materials" disposed in Deschutes County in 2016, as presented in Table 2-13. Programs for textile recycling have wide public appeal and can be curbside or drop-off programs. In 2001, Fauquier County, VA became one of the first municipalities in the United States with a wide -scale municipal textile recycling program. In its first three years, approximately 125 tons of post -consumer textile waste (PCTW) per year were collected, generating more than $115,000 in revenue at market prices. From an industry report at that time, it was noted that PCTW was one of Fauquier County's highest recyclable revenue generators and resulted in a 10% decrease in overall recycling costs.41 A textile program can be explored with local organizations such as Salvation Army and Goodwill. The Secondary Materials and Recycled Textiles (SMART) Association is the organization of Wiping Materials, Used Clothing and Fiber Industries, operating since 1932. SMART maintains a searchable database by product category and state for textile collection programs.42 d) Investigate the C/D stream and target certain materials such as wood, metals and fibers It appears that perhaps as much as 30% of the waste disposed at Knott Landfill is generated from C/D activities. Developing alternatives for recovering more materials and locating a separate disposal site for inert materials and C/D could increase the site life of the Knott Landfill if implemented in the near future. It may also provide long-term benefits to the system by avoiding the transportation to a disposal site located further from where C/D is generated. It is critical that the County improve their efforts to divert C/D debris from the landfill. C/D debris is generally much heavier than MSW on a volumetric basis, and wood waste accounts for 10% of materials disposed.43 In addition to composing a significant portion of the County waste stream, C/D debris is often larger and more difficult to compact. As such, it occupies valuable space in Knott Landfill. As mentioned in Element L in Table 3-2, DEQ offers an approach that could help the County divert C/D from Knott Landfill, which 4'htti)://www..aiswmd.org/Resources/Documents/`Textiles.[)df 42 https•//www.smartasn.ora/ 43 See Table 2-13 4-23 Chapter 4 will likely extend the life of the landfill and enhance the recyclables recovery rate. Techniques can include differential tipping fees at the landfill for C/D loads as well as adding a C/D processing line, discussed in more detail below. One immediate recommendation is that DSW begin to track incoming C/D at its facilities to determine a more accurate estimate of its tonnage. However, assuming the 45,000 tons estimate is accurate, this may not be enough C/D material to justify a full-sized permanent processing facility. There are smaller, portable, manual picking lines specifically made for C/D recovery that may work well for this application. A picture of such a unit is shown in Figure 4-6. Portability may also be a benefit as DSW can experiment with its location within the County to target areas of substantial C/D activity. Figure 4-6: Example of a Portable C/D System Source: Krause Manufacturing Once the best location is determined and the actual amount of C/D materials is known, either incoming at the Knott Landfill or available in the region, a more permanent solution should be pursued. This could include DSW owning and operating its own C/D processing line at Knott Landfill, or establishing a public-private partnership with a private entity, wherein County land is utilized and leased for a given term to a private processor, giving the County a preferable rate for C/D processing. A recovery line to remove fines and inert materials would allow for automated recovery of ferrous materials and manual recovery of OCC, wood, and non- ferrous metals. At the facility shown in Figure 4-7, trucks dump on the right side of the facility and C/D material is processed from right to left. To begin 4-24 processing, an excavator pre-sorts bulk items and feeds the balance of the piled C/D waste onto an apron conveyor which is elevated by an incline conveyor. Material drops onto a finger screen separating up to 8 -inch sized material to be processed by magnet, star screen and manual sorting. Larger (8 -inch plus) material proceeds along the conveyor to be manually processed and dropped into underlying bunkers or containers and hauled for marketing. The facility shown has a grinding operation for residuals, and an area where reusable building materials are segregated for donation to a local charitable building reuse center. Figure 4-7: Example C/D Processing Infrastructure Source: Fauquier County, VA The facility depicted in Figure 4-7 was constructed in 2006 for a total cost of $4.5 million, including site work and bringing power to the site, and was designed to process 70 tons/hour (approximately 500 tons per day). Recovery of materials from new construction commonly ranges from 50-60%, and recovery from demolition projects varies up to approximately 50% depending on the type and quality of delivered materials. The facility has been able to support companies looking to construct Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certified buildings, as they can acquire LEED points by containerizing and hauling mixed C/D wastes to this facility. Many full-scale C/D systems are capable of processing more than 100,000 tons per year, so it is important to thoroughly understand the tonnage of C/D material generated in the region that can be diverted to such a facility before developing a permanent facility. Processing Alternatives for Recycling Services Currently, recyclable materials collected from curbside programs in Deschutes County are delivered to Mid -Oregon Recycling in Bend. Materials are reloaded and transported 4-25 0-/ to recycling facilities in the Willamette Valley and Portland area. Over the past three years, Mid -Oregon Recycling has shipped approximately 13,000 tons per year of baled residential commingled recyclables. Although market prices fluctuate, for the most part they were sufficient to pay the cost of transportation and process the materials .44 There are at least six MRFs in Portland that can handle the County's commingled materials. Having several MRFs vying for materials provides competition such that Mid - Oregon Recycling can negotiate for these services as needed. The key factor for securing the best market price is largely dependent on the quality of the materials being collected and the capability of the MRF to process the materials and meet specifications. One challenge the MRFs in Oregon have is ability to process commingled materials cost effectively and meet these specifications. As a result, Portland Metro is in the process of adopting new regulations aimed at setting minimum performance standards for MRFs. This is expected to result in MRF owners making investments in advanced processing technology to enhance the efficiency of operations and improve the quality of the materials recovered. Since a majority of the recyclable materials collected in the State are processed in Portland, outlying counties like Deschutes will most likely incur higher cost for processing recyclable materials due to transportation costs. At this time, the County must wait to see what new regulations will be imposed and what the effects will be on processing and marketing costs. Of the total 2.2 million tons of recyclable materials collected in the State of Oregon in 2016, it is estimated that 400,000 tons of commingled recyclable materials were processed. Because these materials contain less than 10% residue that is landfilled, the high quality ensures that surely once again, there will be processers and markets for the materials. Build a MRF in Deschutes County The County and its collection companies must rely on MRFs that are located in Portland or the Willamette Valley. One option is to consider building a MRF to process waste streams to recover materials in Deschutes County. There are two concepts that might be considered. One is to build a MRF that can process the commingled single streams collected from residential, multifamily and participating commercial customers. The second is to build an integrated mixed waste/commingled process line. Build a Commingled/Single Stream MRF The MRF technology used to process commingled recyclables from residential and commercial customers has continued to evolve over the past 25 years. Single stream processing systems still include conveyors, screens, magnets, and eddy current separators to separate containers and paper and recover materials. Whereas most older systems relied on manual sorting to pick recyclables or remove contaminants, new MRF technology has adapted to more reliable automated processing. Also, new screening equipment is designed to reduce plugging and wrapping from plastics, wire, cables, etc., and can be easily maintained. as Since 2013, net revenue from all recyclables collected has been negative. Prior to 2013, with the exception of 2009, there had been commodity revenue to help offset collection costs. 4-26 reGl�lr;, -� Advances are continually being made and new technologies developed to increase separation efficiencies and reduce labor costs. One such technology is optical sorters, which identify different grades of paper or various resin types in plastic and can instantly separate these from the other materials. Air density and flexibility separators are also used to sort two-dimensional and three-dimensional items. Figure 4-8 depicts key components of a typical MRF processing line. Deschutes County is currently collecting 13,000 tons per year of commingled materials. Based on recent feasibility studies, the cost of equipment for a smaller MRF processing system is estimated to cost between $5 million and $7 million. When added to the cost of the building to house the system, estimated to be $12 million, the total capital outlay is about $17 million to $20 million. It may be possible to use existing structures to reduce the capital outlay. In one recent study, the annual operating expense to process 20,000 tons including capitalized expenses (debt services) was $143 per ton. To process less waste would only increase this cost. The study concluded that to break even, considering average revenue for sales of materials of about $110 per ton, the MRF would need to process at least 30,000 tons of commingled materials annually, or more than twice as much as currently collected in the County.45 The benefits of processing materials in the County include providing more control over the system to supply materials that meet market conditions and creating local jobs to keep dollars within the County borders. However, materials would still need to be transported to markets or to an intermediate processor to consolidate for shipping. Thus, no transportation cost savings would be realized under this approach. In addition, the County and service providers would assume all market risk. Build an Integrated Mixed Waste/Commingled MRF An integrated mixed waste MRF system is designed to process both commingled single -stream recyclables and mixed waste. The mixed waste MRF system would use many of the same components as does a commingled or single stream recovery system. The main difference is that the integrated line would include additional screening in the front end designed to remove the wet organics fraction from the mixed waste stream. In a typical commingled waste stream, the amount of organics in the waste stream is minimal or none, so including screens to remove organics is unnecessary. However, in a mixed waste MRF, the waste streams have a significant amount of organics (estimated to be between 25% and 35%) that must be removed in the initial screening process to avoid contamination to fibers and containers that have a higher market value. Figure 4-8 also shows a typical mixed waste MRF with organics being removed immediately after the pre-sort screen. 45 This does not include additional commercial source -separated recycling tons from the franchised haulers which could also be processed. 4-27 Chapter 4 7710. NE.V K11 t^✓ASTF. M S 11 TO RAIT..M Figure 4-8: Integrated Mixed Waste and Commingled Conceptual Process Line Some mixed waste MRFs are designed to remove the dense fines made up of food waste and wet mixed organic materials prior to the pre-sort. By removing the heavy organic fraction first, the material on the sort line is less dense, making it easier for sorters to remove larger items such as metal, wood, or other bulky items. It also improves the screens' ability to separate containers from paper, minimizing contamination and improving the ability for optical equipment to read the signatures of materials. The industry has increased its interest in integrated mixed waste process lines to process more materials for several reasons. First, legislation is demanding higher recovery rates and targeting the commercial waste streams, which typically have appreciable quantities of paper and plastics that can be recovered. Second, the advanced mechanical and optical technology available today greatly reduces labor cost and is more reliable for producing quality materials. Third, advanced technology equipment increases the throughput or capacity of the system. This increased throughput rate or capacity allows more materials to be processed. As a result, mixed commercial and multifamily waste can be processed. There are a number of advanced mixed wastes MRFs operating in California and several more being planned. For this option, the County could build an integrated mixed waste MRF to process the 13,000 tons of commingled materials plus commercial and multifamily wastes. Recent waste composition data from DEQ suggest that these waste streams contain about 25% of recyclable materials such as OCC, clean paper, plastics and metals. In Deschutes County, about 60,000 tons of commercial and multi -family waste was collected in 2016. This assumes that roughly half of all waste collected is from these generators. It would result in potentially recovering approximately 15,000 tons of 4-28 FFO IMMIREIM recyclable materials. Considering the mixed waste MRF may recover 80% of available materials, this would yield 12,000 tons of additional recovered materials. This is a conservative estimate since more advanced equipment can recover a higher percentage of these materials. The cost of the equipment for a large mixed waste MRF processing system is estimated to be between $12 million and $15 million (in 2018 dollars). Also, the cost of the building is estimated to be closer to $24 million because the larger structure needed to receive and process more materials as well as house extensive equipment needed. The annualized debt service from an integrated mixed waste MRF would be $3.2 million. Operating cost may range from $4 million to $5 million annually. Total annual operating costs would average about $8 million to process 60,000 tons of commercial waste and 13,000 tons of commingled recyclables. The total unit cost is estimated to be about $110 per ton. This does include cost of disposal of the roughly 49,000 tons of residues from the MRF. Revenue from the sale of materials would vary based on market conditions. The average market price for materials is about $50 per ton in February 2018. It should be recognized that revenue from the sale of recyclables from mixed waste will bring lower revenues typically than if derived from source separated materials. This does not include cost to deliver to markets. This option is one approach towards increasing the recovery of materials and reducing waste disposed in landfills. However, with the cost to transport to markets and, as long as there is landfill capacity in the County, it does not appear to the best use of financial resources to build an integrated mixed waste MRF at this time. In the future, if the County were to dispose of waste out -of -County, this option may be considered. Explore Composting Options46 Deschutes County could generate an additional 20,000 to 30,000 tons per year of mixed organic materials that would be delivered to a central compost facility. The material would be generated from two sources. About 10,000 tons per year would be comprised of the mixed organic fraction separated from residential and commercial waste processed at an integrated mixed waste MRF if it were built. Another 20,000 tons per year would be concentrated food waste collected by the franchised haulers from select commercial generators. The result is that 120 tons per day of mixed organics are expected to be delivered to the compost facility. The material delivered to the compost facility will contain a certain level of contaminants that are not desirable for composting. To remove the primary contaminants, it is assumed some level of pre-processing will be needed. This system will vary depending on the characteristics of the materials being delivered. For the purpose of developing a conceptual plan and cost estimate, the pre-processing system will include the following: 46 The Department of Solid Waste should align with the City of Bend wastewater treatment plant/brewery waste conversation underway now, including anaerobic digestion of the brewery spent grains with sewer waste. 4-29 1. In -feed conveyor 2. Presort station (manual sorting) to remove larger plastics, metal and other larger items 3. A screen or trommel to screen fines (2" to 4") from large items; mostly plastics and larger fiber The larger items removed are expected to be landfilled but would most likely contain high BTU byproducts that could have energy value, which may be diverted if a waste - to -energy facility (WTEF) is available. It is expected that organic materials delivered from the integrated mixed waste MRF will be largely glass -free as the system is assumed to have a state of the art glass recovery system. However, if glass is contained in food waste collected from the commercial routes, the compost product will need further processing to remove glass in order to meet market specifications. A key element of the County's total recycling program is processing wood waste, yard debris and food waste at Knott Landfill. In 2016, about 30,000 tons of organic materials were composted. The compost facility processes incoming materials by grinding and screening the materials before placing them in windrows. The windrows are aerated and turned as needed to promote the composting process. Once the materials are composted, they are set out to cure and be screened to make different ground cover and soil amendment products. Some of the collection programs to increase recycling are intended to collect more food waste and additional yard debris. If the amount of material continues to grow, it may be necessary to use a more advanced compost system. These technologies are designed to greatly reduce the time to complete composting and, perhaps more importantly, control potential odors generated by the composting process. Aerated Static Piles System (AEP) This approach uses blowers and piping to move air through the piles to perform the primary composting step. For some systems, this step is estimated to take about 18 to 22 days. The cost of some aerated static pile systems is higher because they use stainless steel ducting and pipes and there are larger motors capable of moving air in both the positive and negative direction. The material is removed and placed in secondary aerated static piles to complete the compost process for another 22 days. Although the system can include a bio filter, the aerated static piles in the primary phase are not fully enclosed. Deschutes Recycling currently uses an aerated static pile system at the Knott Landfill compost facility. Processing time from placement in the aerated -piles to moving to curing piles is approximately six weeks. The system in use was relatively lower in cost than many systems as it uses high density polyethylene and PVC pipe and readily available low-cost blowers. 4-30 Chapter 4 In Vessel with Aerated Static Pile This approach uses a stationary fully enclosed vessel system for the primary composting operation. Materials are loaded into the vessel, which provides an air and temperature control system to compost materials for 18 days. Once completed, the material is moved to a secondary aerated static pile bunker system to finish out the compost process for 22 days. The system is used particularly in sites in close proximity to neighbors as it is designed to better manage potential odors if located properly. It includes bio -filter to treat the exhaust air. Both systems can be constructed on a 5 -acre site assuming the site is relatively flat and rectangular in shape, with about 2 acres for stockpiling compost product for distribution. If the material has ready markets, then this area can be reduced. The cost to operate the compost systems as described is estimated to be $17 to $25 per ton. This does not include costs to build the systems, which range from $5 million for the aerated static pile system to as much as $8 million for an in -vessel system. These costs are based on systems designed to process 35,000 to 40,000 tons per year. There may be other options that may be considered, depending on the types of material received and the size of the site. Table 4-8 presents the Collection and Recycling/Processing Needs and Alternatives Summary. (Intentionally Left Blank) 4-31 El Ri N M O j a U Mn d U c M E o, o c n_ K m O N N fo N MI. N :LU N T .O d C 'i O O m 602 N N N W z.� E �- �- * N N N d V 4 > G1 C C o o ++ 1F 7 J �+ v y O: `��k �0 y,i O N •� 'G Ul 0 0 t ;8 : �( axi C O N m y' A O C 1�0 U W 10 � 4- N O U V 8 N j u V U W c '; > m 7 0 (3 U V C Q N d p� O vi d in rn En ul =McoD ?m- Eo d 7 pi d c Z Ln OG J (7 Z Z } Z C 9� ++ v y t i Ci+ d v3= N } to to r QEn z d z C2 O SE 0 ci°� c M ch IMK v m a i Wdd Z a3i Z x W; Z i Z C m Op 4n C 0.= , O En U a+ �O © i O u v O 'o A2O y IL O U 41 _m am w G .° 0, 'n c CY E d L •N � Q) y m o .N 1� 7 I d u E m 27 Lo a E E o ami a� F m °v Ci. u°i Z E E O ami v O u C � 01 ,j4in w c d d d 0 Z w t- 7 F° E M a 5 1:t- p '' m ce m 1- 3 N M El m th E o L O� L .0 a „ C N fu M V) ,L C@C C 0 U N C L O C � E (0.1 v � V � G1 C u GJ N C Vf V) U N in7 Vf O Gl ZA N l0 41 C t+ 2 � � C ate+ y � 3 L0 " in dwv C 4 'W rosin �o � 40 U L � a.+ rn v � 0 N to > 0 L O� i L C L- O L L ro w 7 4. w ra O v o 0-70 E Mn I2 0 u c Q M M M" ai m N y u_ u 3 o a) C a HN L C 3 L Co ro o CU u C > u Ou iCl (ui a) *' O y NL- N 06 LW- L E Em m � rn +4+ a c y c i > @ C c E (u t 3 v u u m 'a' 'a p .i o Y ; +� = in & * O �w OL Vj * CLo y O06 �' = i u Z a) aci ,a o at0i U 41 :N E 4 � L > N �OoE•Cm u •- +! 41 u (U m m m o c m c L. 4 -Wp O u (0 � C pO p C O Zc o'r C 5 c mN OC K 4E E yam °ate u O a) a) y L yumw tru dl pt � �' c jo o 'O EcCU to+ =amu V m u Ln � in > C u y y k G y m Z N k JA CUC GI L d C m y C 4a u oCy G L> E > y M L 11L o 4a I� O1 f- N L N M 4 ui 'T Cl a) E LnEn� jmo U u cU4-r 0 out v SE c W — o wwwmw `� E' 0 c o o t/ in -� o N u+,u C L E >, :u u- C V1 •gyp C� C Y V) C O O'- 'i w w Ln a)O m -O+ tuv=n> L E C a C C N C C .N V a) a., L 7 0 Ln "d V +.+ p 3 C 0, v V 0 C O O V C p (n O LE m a to N- c NL C a) C` u tE ;s'x m p- L u c 1. Q a>iats- f Ln004, 3ca>C31CCL Exp +,L u N rn \O 43 M_ u3=ov cc � .o � m c `� (u :L � N c m C +'+ E E 'O E C a) O 'n C 3 c c •- iJ 4- L N� L- O W -- ora O oc�i� ao+ d �p �aL0@uuv - cn c c r°. o t' 6 o @(n O m E m c N cn fo > V (n a0+ CL` ate+ M p C cm N p L p Lnx cn c u N p C m Lam v a t/ c (m 0 t cu o y m L 3 f0 — E m0 w 0 0 O> L- a uu) o 41a) L c L = CM 0 3:'- 75 u c� v c L m N D O a) o E"' aL a) in o f C L u (NO a) m Z C a) > 41 L '8) 'p O in v��t E}'�cOa (U 0) E�V� Ln r >��C�' v0> Ea) m°3 t/0 0 E c N C X f0 a) .0 a=.+ N to - a) 'n @ i m a) L. c > > C a) p� 3 o = N N c C m L M� u > p� E IO i cy0 `0�rca.a>� Elm mac+ M C E > c'= (n 0 0 0 w-0 ++ c a) � L a) �° ro �: ~ 4 CL V) c o +o+ ,>-, t OE; c cam L> C 0 .0 Z a) M O O o H ±' > a >c u`n� m 0 =3M;; I— >_cc�>r L �Ev u L- m U o� C L C r d c m~ p Lc > 4-J > a= y u :G ;Nm.W W a)tNpowc +C>a) Os 0 `� (�n a) °gym o a) o 0 y +' i— O c v m U t � of :a W d ns u v� O L 4� !� t� c 4fa 41 O y O U)H y 0 Cn O v_ i O� C O O moc O L O um C 4 -J O) E H O C 7 ++ E m fo 41 ccoz 4j CL E in O O Ln > C i U fa E O o N X o N c u L a) U m (u d Mn 0 N J D w> 14 N M nP, 4.4 Recommendations for Collection and Recycling/ Processing The purpose of the Collection and Recycling/Processing evaluation is to examine the alternatives to increase the recovery rate and reduce waste disposed in landfills, consistent with the guiding principles identified in this SWMP. Based on the discussion presented and the assessment of the needs and opportunities, the following represent recommendations for meeting the goals of the Deschutes County solid waste management system. Notably, the recommendations presented in Chapter 3 -Waste Prevention, Reduction, Reuse and Recycling should be reviewed to ensure they are complimentary and consistent with the overall strategy to meet the goals of the SWMP. These actions will not only have short term impacts but will fit into long term strategies to manage waste effectively by reducing what would be transported to a new landfill located further from where waste is generated. All seven (7) recommendations below: • Are consistent with State.hierarchical priorities and goals to reduce waste disposed in landfills; • Seek to attain highest use of resources to convert organics to soil amendment and enrichment; • Require minimal investment to reduce waste disposed at Knott Landfill and attain long term stability in managing waste versus transport to more distant landfill; • Minimizes the reliance on markets outside geographical area; and, • Are flexible to expand or contract with minimal impacts to system Recommendation 4.1: Expand the current residential collection of vegetative food waste with yard waste to increase participation. Rationale - Establishing a consistent collection program in cities and urbanized unincorporated areas of the County will allow consistent program communication, give the County the ability to evaluate rate incentives to encourage participation and implement promotion and education programs to support the collection system. This recommendation can provide immediate benefits to reduce waste disposed at Knott Landfill. Targeting food waste collection represents an expansion of existing programs and the existing compost facility can manage these additional materials at least in the short term. At the same time, a long-term strategy to implement a more aggressive sustainable compost system is needed. The results will have immediate impacts on the County's recovery rate. Recommendation 4.2: Conduct an assessment of markets for products made from 4-35 compost resulting from expanded organics programs. Rationale - The study should confirm opportunities to market various soil amendment products that will result from expanding food and yard waste collection programs. The study can include other byproducts resulting from co - composting mixed waste organics with sludge from the City's Wastewater Treatment Plant and/or waste from breweries. Recommendation 4.3: Evaluate the alternatives to enhance and expand composting facilities. The study should evaluate the most optimal location considering proximity to generators, markets and surrounding land uses. Rationale - The current compost facility at Knott landfill has limited space to expand. Relocating and expanding the current compost operations is a long- term strategy to implement a more aggressive sustainable organics management system. Recommendation 4.4: Upgrade organics processing capacity and technology to efficiently handle additional yard waste/food waste, including meats and dairy, from residential and commercial sources and other organic waste streams. Rationale - Assuming permits are secured to process and compost meats and dairy waste, the composting facility can be upgraded and the organics collection program can be expanded. Recommendation 4.5: Develop a business recycling and food waste collection program targeting businesses, hotels and resort communities. Rationale - The significant tourism industry in Deschutes County makes it necessary to focus on hotel and tourist destinations to meet recycling goals. Tourists outnumber residents in the County every month of the year. There are a variety of programs that can be explored including the tie-in with any new food waste program since restaurants serve visitors extensively. In addition, targeted business outreach to hotels and destinations for business technical assistance and recognition can be included with a general commercial technical assistance program. Recommendation 4.6: Develop a multifamily recycling and food waste collection program. Rationale - More infill and multifamily dwelling units are being built to accommodate growth in the County and DEQ is requiring that all tenants have recycling services by 2022. Developing a focused education/promotion program in conjunction with enhanced methods to provide convenient services could contribute to achieving the County's recovery rate. 4-36 M6" Recommendation 4.7: Develop a plan to provide incentives for recycling of C/D material and alternatives to recycle materials from the C/D stream and minimize disposal of C/D wastes at Knott Landfill. Rationale - After assessing quantity and composition of C/D accepted at Knott Landfill, the County should consider alternatives to incentivize generators to reduce and reuse C/D materials. Currently, the only alternative for managing C/D waste is disposal at Knott Landfill. It is estimated that perhaps as much as 30% or more of what is disposed at Knott Landfill is classified as C/D waste. Although the cost to dispose C/D waste at Knott Landfill provides some incentive for generators to separate wood and inert waste, it is noted that an appreciable amount of C/D waste is being disposed at the landfill. Implementing a comprehensive C/D reuse, recycle and recovery program would reduce waste disposed at Knott Landfill in the short term, which will preserve space for disposal of MSW. Recommendation 4.8: The County should complete a waste characterization study to better evaluate options for recovering targeted materials and for designing the programs and facilities needed. Rationale - The assessment and evaluation of options in the SWMP are based on statewide waste characterization data. This data is typical of other jurisdictions and represents a reasonable estimate of potential impacts form implementing the recommended programs. However, information obtained in preparing the SWMP also suggests there are the unique characteristics of the demographics of Deschutes County where such a study will provide needed information to help prioritize and develop the most cost effective programs for meeting the County's goals. (Intentionally Left Blank) 4-37 Chapter k S. TRANSFER SYSTEM Over the past 25 years, Deschutes County has developed a system of facilities to receive waste and recyclable materials delivered by self -haul public and contractors throughout the County. The system provides convenient locations to serve more remote areas of the County. This chapter describes the existing conditions and considers what changes are needed to address long term needs of the system. 5.1 Existing Conditions The transfer station system is a key component of providing convenient service to all areas of the County. There are five transfer stations, four of which are remote to Knott Landfill, that receive and transfer solid waste, recyclables, wood waste, and yard debris from different areas within the County. The four remote stations are as follows: 1. Negus Transfer Station—Serves the City of Redmond, Eagle Crest and other unincorporated areas in the north region of the County. 2. Southwest Transfer Station—Serves the City of La Pine, Sunriver Resort, and other unincorporated areas in the southwest region of the County. 3. Northwest Transfer Station—Serves the City of Sisters, Black Butte Ranch, and other unincorporated areas in the northwest region of the County. 4. Alfalfa Transfer Station—Serves the eastern areas of the County. These four transfer stations were all built adjacent to closed landfills and have been in operation for about 25 years. At present, all of the transfer stations are operated by County personnel except for the Negus Transfer Station, which is operated by a private contractor under contract with the County. At that facility, the County staffs fee collection operations in the gatehouse. The 5th transfer station, the Knott Transfer Station, was placed into operation in 2007 as part of the North Area Development and is adjacent to the active Knott Landfill. This station only receives self -haul public and contractor vehicles. The waste is reloaded into transfer trailers and hauled to Knott Landfill for disposal. Franchised vehicles and large contractor vehicles go directly to the Landfill. Figure 5-1 illustrates the location of each remote transfer station and their distances from Knott Landfill. The County contracts with a private contractor, Deschutes Transfer, for the hauling of all solid waste and certain recyclables from the remote transfer stations. At present, all solid waste from the four remote stations is transferred to Knott Landfill for disposal. Commingled recyclables, corrugated cardboard, and glass collected at the remote transfer stations are hauled to Mid - Oregon Recycling in Bend by Deschutes Transfer for reloading and transfer to recycling facilities outside Deschutes County. Appliances collected at the remote facilities are hauled to the Knott Landfill Recycling Center by Deschutes Transfer for processing and transfer to scrap metal recyclers. Scrap metal collected at the remote transfer stations is hauled by Deschutes Transfer directly to Schnitzer Steel in Bend. 5-1 Chapter 5 Motor oil, wood waste, yard debris, automobile batteries, electronics and tires collected at the remote transfer stations are hauled off site for recycling by other recyclers under contract with Deschutes County. When Knott Landfill closes around 2029, solid waste collected at the remote transfer stations will have to be transferred to a new disposal site. Negus Sisters 25 miles Station Northwest to landfill Station Redmond 22 miles to landfill e "..'� 17 -miles I'll 7miles_ll Alfalfa Bend L, to landfill Station Knott Landfill 30 miles to landfill Southwest Station Figure 5-1: Transfer Stations and Distances from Knott Landfill 5.2 Transfer Station Operation Approach For the most part, the design and operation of the four remote transfer stations is similar. Customers arrive at the gatehouse where the attendant determines the fees based on the volume of waste being disposed. Vehicles are directed to unload at a stall where the customer then unloads over a barrier into a bin or trailer that is parked below at a separate grade. For recyclables, the attendant assesses fees if required (appliances, tires, wood waste and yard debris) and directs the customer to the appropriate area for unloading. In general, the four remote transfer stations, which have been in operation for approximately 25 years, are in need of miscellaneous repairs and updating to handle 5-2 increased customer traffic and waste flows; however, they continue to provide the service required. All the operations are performed outside with no weather protection except for some structures which provide cover for some recyclables. Figure 5-2 illustrates the "Z -wall" type of construction which provides the required elevation break necessary for loading transfer trailers by franchised and self -haul vehicles. .o111cl, Q i3 o'w4.-1-14Wu was___ dn. CU4d MO 11— ON IOP KOF S�.FIY Figure 5-2: Typical "Z -wall" Construction It is reasonable to say that this type of construction is not the standard for design and construction of new transfer stations in 2019. Concerns over safety for personnel and the public, weather protection and separation of wastes, have resulted in the type of transfer station using a flat floor for vehicles to unload onto. In 2007, the Knott Transfer Station was constructed using the flat floor design and operates in a fully enclosed structure. At the Knott Transfer Station, wastes delivered from self -haul vehicles are unloaded onto the tipping floor and then moved by a rubber -tired loader to the top -load area for placement into a transfer trailer. This same approach will also be utilized in the future when the franchised vehicles come to a transfer station to unload. Table 5-1 provides some detail about the County's transfer station operations, including locations, and hours of operation, based on a tour of the stations done in late 2017. 5-3 Table 5-1: Deschutes County Transfer Station Operations Transfer and Recycling Facilities Knott Transfer Station Negus Transfer Station NW Transfer Station SW Transfer Station Alfalfa Transfer Station Transfer County Joint County County County Operations Operated County/Contract Operated Operated Operated 3,630 6% Operations 8,203 9,193 9,788 19% Alfalfa (County staff 170 184 12% Subtotal Remote Transfer Stations 40,299 collect fees. 48,550 20% Deschutes Knott Transfer Station 28,501 31,509 45,020 Transfer staff Total Transfer 68,800 75,919 93,570 36% conduct all other on-site operations) Hours of Winter: Mon- Mon -Sat, 8-4 Wed -Sat, Wed -Sat, Sat, 8-4 Operation Sat, 7-4:30 8-4 8-4 Summer: 7 days/week, 7- 5 5.3 Waste and Vehicle Volumes to Each Transfer Station As mentioned in Chapter 2, the amount of waste disposed at Knott Landfill has increased by 22% over the past three years. This increase in customer traffic and waste volumes is evident at each of the transfer stations. Table 5-2 shows the annual weights of wastes managed at the transfer stations and the percentage increase over the past three years. Table 5-2: Waste Volumes at Transfer Stations Transfer Station 2015 2016 2017 % Change Tons Tons Tons Negus 28,502 31,309 34,948 23% Northwest 3,429 3,738 3,630 6% Southwest 8,203 9,193 9,788 19% Alfalfa 165 170 184 12% Subtotal Remote Transfer Stations 40,299 44,410 48,550 20% Knott Transfer Station 28,501 31,509 45,020 580/0 Total Transfer 68,800 75,919 93,570 36% As important as the increase in waste volume received at each transfer station is the number of customers using these facilities. Table 5-3 shows vehicle traffic at the 5-4 Chapter r Knott, Negus and Southwest Transfer Stations for 2015-2017. Traffic data for the Northwest and Alfalfa Transfer Stations are not provided because the volumes are significantly lower than the other three transfer stations. Northwest Transfer Station receives several loads weekly from High Country Disposal, the franchised service provider in Sisters. Most of the waste collected in Sisters by High Country Disposal is hauled to the Negus Transfer Station for reloading and transfer to Knott Landfill. Table 5-3: Vehicle Traffic at Transfer Stations Transfer Station Vehicle Type 2015 2016 2017 % Change Negus Franchised Self -haul 2,264 29,937 2,542 34,547 3,367 38,701 49% 29% Total 32,201 37,089 42,068 31% Southwest Franchised Self -haul 1,271 13,583 1,323 15,334 1,392 16,901 10% 24% Total 14,854 16,657 18,293 23% Knott Franchised Self -haul 0 87,870 0 97,084 0 110,991 26% Total 87,870 97,084 110,991 26% These increases have had a significant impact on both Negus and Southwest Transfer Stations. The additional traffic requires more space for queueing vehicles, as well as additional stalls for customers to unload. These facilities will need some upgrades in the near future because they were not built for these traffic or waste volumes. The Knott Transfer Station can handle the increases. Volume increases have been low at the Northwest and Alfalfa Stations and no upgrades appear necessary in immediate future. 5.4 Recycling at Transfer Stations All recyclables are received and collected separately at the remote transfer stations. As discussed in Section 5.1, Deschutes County contracts with Deschutes Transfer for the hauling of recyclables collected at the remote transfer stations. Commingled recyclables, corrugated cardboard, and glass collected at the remote transfer stations are hauled to Mid -Oregon Recycling in Bend for reloading and transfer to recycling facilities outside Deschutes County. Appliances collected at the remote facilities are hauled to the Knott Recycling Center for processing and transfer to scrap metal recyclers. Scrap metal collected at the remote transfer stations is hauled to Schnitzer Steel in Bend by Deschutes Transfer. Motor oil, wood waste, yard debris, automobile batteries, electronics (TVs, computers, monitors, printers) and tires are hauled off site by other recyclers under contract with Deschutes County. 5-5 Chapter 5 Table 5-4 provides the number of vehicles delivering recyclables only to the Negus and Southwest Transfer Stations over the past several years. Data on the Northwest and Alfalfa Transfer Stations are not included because of very low volumes. Table 5-4: Recycle Only Vehicle Count at Transfer Stations Transfer Station 2015 2016 2017 2018 Negus TS 10,766 8,969 10,813 31687* Southwest TS 4,884 1,038* *Data was not collected through the entire year The recyclables services provided at each transfer station are discussed in Chapter 3 and detailed in Figure 5-3. (Intentionally Left Blank) 5-6 Chapter 5 what co x] you recycle......... arld where? C`t,1-11p ttel palls, ctttt'lpeancnts and e ccirinlics bout a hnxrlle:ss are Wept ac:,Cplcd l6r i'cru call rc-:Vcle- thew Items at 9Dts4l-niles R-cvc•htig 14waled at knott Landfill l ianstcr and Recycling Facility - Figure 5-3: What Can You Recycle 5-7 Knott htegus Northwest Southwest Alfalfa Landfill Transfer Transfer Transfer Transfer RtcVciing fiuto Satl ries Corrugated .,. ... Cardboard .. ... C inmrnengled MateriaK d cc ` Computer M onn CM'S '�?�. ,.. :• .. .. n_ w CPUs t�D Glass 'CS C' 411Q Motor 0.1 Propane Tanks n. .. ,.. Swap Metal .. ... TVs. Antifreeze ?. Appliance's W to Computer O Parts 72 Coraroponent% r+ CL Tire% x. .. -. 4.1 Q Wood \Waste x. Yarm Debris _- C`t,1-11p ttel palls, ctttt'lpeancnts and e ccirinlics bout a hnxrlle:ss are Wept ac:,Cplcd l6r i'cru call rc-:Vcle- thew Items at 9Dts4l-niles R-cvc•htig 14waled at knott Landfill l ianstcr and Recycling Facility - Figure 5-3: What Can You Recycle 5-7 Chapter 5 Figure 5-4 shows the sign at the Negus Transfer Station, which provides information on materials acceptable for commingled recycling. The materials are temporarily stored under cover until they are transferred to Mid -Oregon Recycling. Figure 5-4: Transfer Station Commingled Recycling Sign Table 5-5: Tons of Recycled Material Collected in 2016 Hazardous Waste Alfalfa Knott Negus Northwest Southwest Total Motor Oil 23 2 11 37 Appliances 9 4 166 27 74 267 Batteries 0.84 7 2 4 14 Cardboard 0.06 114 24 63 201 Commingled 20 122 37 94 273 Electronics 100 100 Glass 8 78 27 45 158 Hazardous Waste 264 264 Motor Oil 23 2 11 37 Scrap Metal 9 4 230 71 138 451 Propane Tanks 0.84 0.84 Tires 0.06 43 4 14 61.06 Totals 37 269 883 193 443 1,826 5-8 Min Chapter 5 These transfer stations provide a convenient location for the public to drop off recyclables, however, the amount of materials received and transferred was less than 2,000 tons in 2016. 5.5 Negus Transfer Station Negus Transfer Station has been operating for over 25 years and serves the northeastern region of the County and the City of Redmond. The City and the area in whole has experienced significant growth over the last 10 years. As shown in Table 5-3, the number of vehicles using the facility has increased by 31%. Also, the franchised hauler serving the City of Sisters has been hauling wastes directly to Negus, further increasing the quantity of waste managed through this facility. In 2017, the facility transferred 35,000 tons of waste to Knott Landfill, which is an increase of 23% since 2015. The growth is such that the transfer station needs upgrading to efficiently manage the vehicle volumes and properly receive and transfer the waste delivered to the facility. Additionally, the age of the facility, coupled with the increases in traffic and tonnage have taken a toll on some of the facility infrastructure, necessitating some interim repairs. Figure 5-5: Negus Transfer Station The figure above shows the customers unloading into transfer trailers. The following pictures show the safety features to separate customers from the load out bays. 5-9 Figure 5-6: Negus Transfer Station Safety Features 5.5.1 Facility Needs As Negus Transfer Station has undergone some improvements over the years, based on current waste volumes and expected growth, the County will need to implement further improvements to maintain a safe and efficient level'of service. The following is a preliminary assessment of needs: a. Possible expansion of the recycling center, including improved separation from the waste receiving area. b. Separation of commercial vehicle traffic from the self -haul vehicles including separate unloading areas. c. Covered or enclosed areas for vehicle receiving and unloading. d. Improvements to facilitate inbound and outbound scales and a scale house. e. Areas on site for receiving and storing food waste, C/D wastes, yard debris, and wood waste. It is important to note that any upgrades must be done with no or minimal interruption to existing operations. The County should consider developing a facility plan to address the immediate needs as well as how this facility will operate in the future when the Knott Landfill is closed. These recommended upgrades to Negus Transfer Station should be done as soon as possible after adoption of this SWMP. 5.6 Southwest Transfer Station This transfer station, like the other remote transfer stations, has been in operation for over 25 years and services an area of the County which has experienced significant growth over the last few years. In fact, the growth in waste and vehicle volumes is up over 10% for franchised haulers and over 20% for self -haul vehicles. Southwest Transfer Station needs to be upgraded to properly serve the southwest region of the County for the next 25 years, and this upgrade should be done within the next 5+ years. The upgrade should have the same features as discussed for the Negus Transfer Station: 5-10 a. Possible expansion of the recycling center, including improved separation from the waste receiving area. b. Separation of commercial vehicle traffic from the self -haul vehicles including separate unloading areas. c. Covered or enclosed areas for vehicle receiving and unloading. d. Improvements to facilitate inbound and outbound scales and a scale house. e. Areas on site for receiving and storing food waste, C/D wastes, yard debris, and wood waste. As with Negus Transfer Station, all upgrades must be done with no or minimal interruption of the existing operations. Before the upgrade is done, it is noted that this transfer station is only open for public operations for 4 days per week. The County may consider opening this facility six days per week, similar to Negus Transfer Station. This may redistribute some of the traffic and tonnage to reduce congestion loading experienced under the current operating schedule. Figure 5-7: Southwest Transfer Station 5.7 Northwest and Alfalfa Transfer Stations These two transfer stations have been operating for well over 25 years and have experienced minimum growth over the last several years. More growth at the Northwest Transfer Station would have been seen if the franchised hauler for the City of Sisters was taking more of the collected wastes to this facility rather than directly to Negus Transfer Station. Northwest Transfer Station is constructed with a Z -wall system like the County's other remote transfer stations and uses transfer trailers for receipt and transfer of waste. Alfalfa Transfer Station has a 2 bay Z -wall and uses drop -boxes to receive and transfer waste. The County may consider if these transfer stations need to continue to be in operation as part of the long-term system. However, because they have been operating for many years and are established in their respective areas, there could be significant objection from the citizens in each area if closure were to be considered. This is a concern and could result in some illegal dumping in the future. If these stations remain part of the long-term system, there may be some safety improvements needed. 5-11 Figure 5-8: Northwest Transfer Station 5.8 Knott Transfer Station The Knott Transfer Station began operation in 2007 and since opening, has only managed self -haul waste. The transfer station is a 30,000 sq. ft. totally enclosed building with two top loading trailer bays. The design of the transfer station provides some flexibility to secure waste from franchised collection trucks as well as self -haul vehicles. Based on current operations, this transfer station will satisfy the needs of the County at least until the Knott Landfill closes. Assuming the Knott Landfill closes in 2029, there are some different options for the use of this facility. Figure 5-9: Knott Landfill Recycling and Transfer Station 5-12 Chapter 5 5.8.1 Disposal at a New In -County Landfill In the case where a new landfill is sited in the County, the function of the Knott Transfer Station may change, depending on the final location of the new landfill. The operation could include the following: a. All self -haul vehicles would continue to deliver waste to the Knott Transfer Station. b. All franchised collection vehicles servicing the Bend area would deliver waste to the Knott Transfer Station. Waste delivered by the franchised haulers would then be reloaded into transfer trailers and hauled to the new landfill if the landfill is more than 10 miles from the transfer station. If the new in -County landfill is closer than 10 miles from the transfer station, it is feasible that the franchised collection vehicles could haul directly to the new landfill. c. Transfer trailers from the remote transfer stations could haul directly to the new landfill unless volumes are minimal and need to be reloaded at the Knott Transfer Station to be more efficient. d. Most recyclables from the remote transfer stations would still be hauled to Mid - Oregon Recycling or the Recycling Center at Knott Landfill. 5.8.2 Disposal at an Out -of -County Landfill The other option that will impact future waste collection and transfer operations in Deschutes County is the disposal of the County's waste at a landfill located outside the County. To ensure waste is transported most efficiently, waste will be reloaded into larger trailers for transportation to the disposal site. This may require additional modifications to the Knott Transfer Station to receive and transport waste. These changes may include the following: a. Self -haul vehicles would continue to deliver waste to the Knott Transfer Station. b. Franchised vehicles servicing the Bend area would deliver waste to the Knott Transfer Station. c. Waste from Negus and/or Southwest Transfer Stations may be hauled directly to an out -of -County landfill. This assumes that some load densification, as is currently done at the Negus Transfer Station, would be performed at the facilities to maximize payload efficiency. d. Waste from Northwest and Alfalfa Transfer Stations may be hauled to the Knott Transfer Station for reloading. e. Most recyclables from the remote transfer stations would still be hauled to Mid - Oregon Recycling or the Recycling Center at Knott Landfill. In addition to the above, it may be cost effective to install a compactor at the Knott Transfer Station to achieve maximum payloads in trailers for the long haul to the out - of -County landfill. 5-13 5.8.3 Other Operation Related Requirements For either landfill alternative, there are some operational considerations, building revisions, and possible equipment additions which would be required if the franchised vehicles were to deliver waste to the Knott Transfer Station. Examples are: a. How to properly manage the tipping floor when both the franchised and self - haul vehicles are entering and unloading in the same building. b. Addition of some lighting to make it easier for vehicles coming directly in or backing in for safety purposes. c. Addition of a compactor to maximize the payload going into the transfer trailers. In Oregon, the gross vehicle weight for highway vehicles is up to 105,000 pounds, so transfer trailers can be loaded with up to 30-35 tons of waste. Maximizing payload reduces transfer costs by making the transfer haul as efficient as possible. d. Possible modifications or additions to the transfer station's structure to increase capacity. 5.8.4 Collection Considerations for Specific Wastes As the County considers other options as part of this SWMP, there is a possibility that some types of waste could be collected separately and segregated at the County's transfer stations for further processing. Food waste, C/D waste, yard debris and wood waste are examples of wastes that could be utilized for future use and/or processing. In the case of the C/D waste, which can be disposed in an unlined landfill, the volumes generated in Deschutes County have become so large that they are reducing the life of the Knott Landfill. C/D waste could be disposed in an unlined landfill that does not require large capital investments in liners and landfill gas control systems. For the other identified wastes, there are conversion technologies which can be considered and have proven to be successful such as composting and anaerobic digestion (A/D) to produce fuels and/or electricity. Therefore, consideration should be given to each transfer station site for space to receive and segregate these wastes as the facilities are being planned for upgrading. 5.9 Needs and Opportunities As discussed in the Existing Conditions section, the County's remote transfer stations have been in operation for over 25 years. These facilities have been a key component for providing cost effective services to citizens and businesses throughout the County. However, the two primary remote transfer stations, Negus and Southwest Transfer Stations, have both experienced significant increases in traffic and waste volumes. The assessment of these facilities indicates that improvements are needed. The level of improvements at each station requires a much deeper evaluation to determine the investments needed to address immediate operations and establish the investments for the future system. 5-14 5.10 Recommendations Preparing a new site development master plan for both the Negus and Southwest Transfer Stations will allow the County to better plan for the capital investments required at each station to continue to provide convenient and cost-effective services. The following are recommendations for addressing the needs to upgrade and expand the remote transfer stations. Recommendation 5.1: Develop a facility plan for the Negus Transfer Station in 2019 for making improvements to the facility by 2021 or as needed. Rational — Negus Transfer Station is a key facility for providing convenient and cost-effective services to the City of Redmond and northern portions of the unincorporated County. In keeping with the goals of the SWMP, improvements are needed to: 1. Receive and transport waste and recyclables more efficiently; 2. Provide convenient and accessible recycling services; 3. Provide flexibility for managing different waste streams; 4. Enhance safety for customers and workers; and, 5. Allow the County to plan for timely capital improvements to maintain long term rate stability. Recommendation 5.2: Develop a facility plan for the Southwest Station within the next three years. Modifications to the facility can be made as the demand for enhanced services for managing increased waste volumes and traffic is required. Rational - Southwest Transfer Station is a key facility for providing convenient and cost-effective services to the City of La Pine, the community of Sunriver and southern portion of the unincorporated County. In keeping with the goals of the SWMP, improvements are needed to: 1. Receive and transport waste and recyclables more efficiently; 2. Provide convenient and accessible recycling services; 3. Provide flexibility for managing different waste streams; 4. Enhance safety for customers and workers; and, 5. Allow the County to plan for timely capital improvements to maintain long term rate stability. Recommendation 5.3: Develop a facility plan for the Knott Transfer Station as necessary to address long-term disposal options, or within five years of closure of Knott Landfill. Rational - Knott Transfer Station is a primary facility for providing long term services for the entire County. Much of the infrastructure needed for managing waste over the long term is in place. The facility was designed to be expanded. 5-15 Chapter 5 How this facility fits into providing long term transfer services will depend on the location(s) of future disposal and/or processing facilities. A facility plan should be prepared to determine what improvements/modifications might be required to manage waste after the Knott Landfill closes. This plan should be implemented in time to be operational when Knott Landfill is closed. In keeping with the goals of the SWMP, improvements are needed to: 1. Receive and transport waste more efficiently; 2. Provide flexibility for managing different waste streams; 3. Enhance safety for customers and workers; and, 4. Allow the County to plan for timely capital improvements to maintain long term rate stability. Recommendation SA: Establish a capital improvement program for making investments in transfer station modifications over the next 10 years. Rational — The County has established a capital improvement fund within the DSW enterprise fund. It will be important for long term financial planning and maintaining rate stability to identify and schedule the necessary capital improvements needed at transfer stations for the next 10 years. (Intentionally Left Blank) 5-16 Chapter 6 6. ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES AND SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL 6.1 Background and Existing Conditions 6.1.1 Introduction Since the passage of the Resource Recovery and Conservation Act in 1976, nationwide, there has been an ongoing effort to recover commodities such as paper, cardboard, plastic and glass containers. The options to prevent waste being generated and to expand reuse and recycling programs and services to reduce waste disposed in landfills have been presented in Chapters 3 and 4. There has also been a persistent pursuit to develop alternative technologies that can recover energy value contained in the remaining waste stream for conversion into a renewable energy source. Alternative technologies include proven systems like mass burning similar to Marion County's Energy from Waste Facility (EfWF) and emerging technologies used to extract the energy from the waste stream. For the past 47 years, Knott Landfill has served as primary disposal site for all solid waste generated in Deschutes County. Based on current and projected quantities of waste disposed, Knott Landfill is expected to reach capacity and cease operations by 2029 or in 10 years. In keeping with the State's waste management priorities, this chapter describes alternative technologies that might be considered to further reduce waste disposed in landfills. These technologies target the value of managing waste that cannot be recycled and to extract energy value and/or convert it to a renewable energy resource. 6.1.2 Existing Landfill Disposal Knott Landfill is the only landfill in Deschutes County and is anticipated to close in 2029. It accepts both MSW as well as C/D waste as discussed in previous Chapters. The amount of waste received at Knott Landfill in recent years is shown in Table 6-1. Table 6-1: Deschutes County Tonnage to Disposal Operations47 Year 1 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Annual Waste 114,307 112,751 113,611 119,682 130,956 144,067 161,087 182,095 Disposed rh�n"e (1.4%) 0.9% 5.4% 9.4% 10.0% 11.8% 13.0% 47 Source: 2017 Material Recovery and Waste Generation Rates Report 6-1 MMM l�� The amount of waste disposed at Knott Landfill in 2017 was 181,000 tons, or an increase of 39 percent over the last three years. The growth in the amount of waste disposed can be attributed to several factors including population growth, increase in construction and overall improvement in the economy. Although Deschutes County continues to experience slightly higher population growth than the rest of Oregon, this increase in waste disposed is not expected to continue at this rate. To this point, the waste disposed through July 2018 is about the same amount as what was reported in 2017. Therefore, the waste projections to be used for planning purposes assumes waste generation will increase at a rate commensurate with the growth in population in Deschutes County. By 2040, the amount of waste generated is estimated to grow to 336,000 tons. How much is disposed will be determined by how much can be recycled and/or converted to other resources. In Chapters 3 and 4, the SWMP identifies new programs and services that can reduce the volume of waste disposed over the next 10 to 12 years which may result in extending the site life Knott Landfill. However, even if the County achieves its diversion goals by 2025 it may extend the site life of the Knott Landfill by one or two years. Extending the site life by reducing the amount disposed is desirable and can provide additional time to implement alternatives. Cost of Landfill Disposal The County has operated Knott Landfill for more than 45 years. In 1996, Cell 1, the first Subtitle D compliant lined cell was completed at Knott Landfill and MSW landfilling operations were moved to Cell 1 at that time. Non -MSW disposal operations continued in the unlined area at Knott Landfill through 2008. The new cells constructed from 1996 forward include bottom primary and secondary liners and a leachate collection and recirculation system. A landfill gas collection and monitoring system was installed in 2001. The landfill gas collection system is expanded on a regular basis as waste disposal operations proceed. When the landfill was converted to a Subtitle D compliant facility, the County established a closure and post closure fund as required by the State. This fund will ensure adequate funds are dedicated to properly close all active landfill areas and pay the expenses for monitoring the site for 30 years after closure or until the time the landfill is deemed stable. The cost to operate Knott Landfill is $35 of the $55 per ton tip fee charged by the County; the other $20 of the tip fee funds recycling, public education and other programs administered by DSW. In 2016 the Department's total cost to operate Knott Landfill was $5,962,000. The breakdown of the different expense categories associated with operating the landfill is shown in Table 6-2. M Chapter cv, Table 6-2: Knott Landfill Expenses 2016 Knott Landfill Operating Expenses 2016 (Actual) Operations $ 2,662,000 Fees and Permits (DEQ)/Insurance $ 400,000 Transfer to Funds $ 2,500,000 - Capital Reserves 2017 - Equipment Reserves $33.15 - Closure and Post Closure Contingency (7%) $ 400,000 Total Annual Operating Expenses $ 5,962,000 Depending on the quantity of waste disposed daily, the actual operating cost typically does not vary significantly. For example, if a landfill receives 600 tons versus 500 tons of waste per day, the operating expenses for placing and compacting the waste will not appreciably change. The reason is that fixed operating costs are a higher percentage of overall expenses and therefore the unit cost or per ton rate to operate is not greatly impacted by the amount of waste disposed. For instance, the capital expenses to build new landfill cells as well as the planned closure and post closure expenses are fixed costs and are already prorated on a per ton basis. Thus, when waste volumes increase, there is more revenue to pay for fixed costs resulting in lowering the unit cost to operate the landfill. For this reason, regional landfills that accept large amounts of waste can charge a lower tip fee compared to smaller landfills. The following table shows how the actual tip fees vary depending on the annual amount of waste disposed. Table 6-3: Total Annual Operating Expenses Total Annual Operating Expenses Year $ 6,000,000 $/Ton Annual Waste Disposed 2016 161,000 tons $37.27 Annual Waste Disposed 2017 181,000 tons $33.15 Average Disposal Cost $35.21 Each year, DSW prepares a budget and makes an estimate on how much waste will be disposed in the coming year. There are some inflationary expenses such as labor and fuel prices, but most expenses are relatively stable. In considering future disposal options, the County can compare the estimated cost to the current tip fee of $35 per ton for landfill operations. 6-3 Chapter 6 6.2 Waste Stream Projections In Chapter 2, estimates of how much waste might be generated and disposed were presented. This information represents background data that can be used to analyze alternatives and determine future disposal needs. Using the waste generation projections, estimates were made of the amount of waste that could be processed using an alternative technology and/or may need to be disposed in a landfill. In projecting the estimated waste to be disposed beyond 2030, the analysis will assume that the per capita generation rate will continue to be 2,800 pounds. This will be multiplied by the population projections using the latest growth rate for period leading to 2030 as prepared by the Population Research Center at Portland State University. Table 6-4: Deschutes County Waste Disposal Projections Year Population Per Capita Generated (tons) Waste Generated (tons) Waste Recycled (tons) Recovery Rate Waste Disposed (tons) 2015 1 170,606 2,663 227,333 83,381 36.7% 143,952 2016 174,701 2,727 240,844 79,757 33.1% 161,087 2017 178,893 3,022 270,326 89,000 32.9% 181,326 2018 183,187 3,000 274,780 90,677 33.0% 184,103 2019 187,583 3,000 281,375 92,854 33.0% 188,521 2020 190,734 3,000 286,101 94,413 33.0% 191,688 2021 194,739 3,000 292,109 96,396 33.0% 195,713 2022 198,829 3,000 298,243 98,420 33.0% 199,823 2023 203,004 2,900 294,356 97,138 33.0% 197,219 2024 207,267 2,900 300,538 99,177 33.0% 201,360 2025 210,826 2,900 305,698 100,880 33.0% 204,817 2026 214,832 2,800 300,764 99,252 33.0% 201,512 2027 218,913 2,800 306,479 101,138 33.0% 205,341 2028 223,073 2,800 312,302 103,060 33.0% 209,242 2029 227,311 2,800 318,236 105,018 33.0% 213,218 2030 230,412 2,800 322,577 106,450 33.0% 216,126 Table 6-4 shows that by 2025 the waste disposed is estimated to be over 200,000 tons and 216,000 tons by 2030. This assumes that the County's recovery rate of 33% does not increase over the existing rate. This assumption is conservative as it is expected that the expanded programs and services recommended in the plan will result in diverting more waste. For planning purposes, these conservative projections will be used for evaluating alternative technologies and planning for future facilities. 6-4 Y�r Chapter f1 6.2.1 Needs and Opportunities The County, working with cities and private collection companies, has provided the infrastructure needed to manage solid waste in a most effective manner. With Knott Landfill, the residences and businesses have become reliant on having an in -County disposal site that greatly supports a most cost-effective system. For example, the current tip fee at Knott Landfill is $55 per ton, one of the lowest rates in Oregon and perhaps the entire Pacific Northwest. One reason other counties have higher rates is because several jurisdictions have elected to transport waste from 50 miles to 200 miles to regional landfills. With Knott Landfill having a finite capacity, it will close in approximately 10 years. There are strategies that may extend the site life as mentioned, but eventually an alternative must be in place prior to the actual closure date. Looking at projections, the County will generate between 300,000 and 400,000 tons of waste per year. Making a conservative assumption that the recovery rate remains constant, the County will need to dispose almost 220,000 tons per year by 2030. While this presents a challenge, it also provides opportunities that may not be feasible in other parts of the State. Deschutes County is growing and besides the attraction to relocate to the area, the amount of tourism and annual visitors contribute to an active and vibrant economy. Therefore, the County is expected to experience a higher rate of growth than perhaps other parts of the State. The amount of waste that is forecasted to be generated may make certain alternatives more cost effective for Deschutes County compared to other jurisdictions that do not generate quantities of waste to pay for these alternatives. Many communities throughout the country have found themselves in a similar situation. The difficulty in locating a new landfill or having enough waste to support building a new landfill has led many jurisdictions to consider alternative technologies to manage their waste. Others have made commitments to manage waste as a resource and to reduce disposal at landfills. The amount of time before Knott Landfill closes provides an opportunity to examine the status of the technologies that may be practical in meeting the goals stated in this planning effort. In the following section, a review of the technologies that are in commercial operation will be discussed. Even if a technology is determined to be an option, a future landfill disposal alternative must also be identified. These future disposal alternatives will also be discussed. 6.3 Alternatives and Evaluation 6.3.1 Alternatives Technologies for Conversion/ Reduction of Municipal Solid Waste The following provides a description and status of the various technologies currently used for managing waste. Some technologies may not be cost effective or practical for Deschutes County. 6-5 Chapter >' 6.3.2 Mixed Waste Processing As discussed in Chapter 4, Mixed Waste Processing Facilities (MWPF) are designed to accept and process commingled recyclables (if a single -stream collection system exists) and the MSW stream itself. Many national manufacturers of separation equipment are recognizing the potential opportunities of MWPF systems and tout their MSW experience in their marketing materials. Figure 6-1 shows the conveyor layout of a MWPF in Milpitas, CA. Figure 6-1: Newby Island Resource Recovery Park in Milpitas, California (Source: Bulk Handling Systems) According to the latest yearbook (2010-2017) by the Governmental Advisory Associates, Inc. there are 28 MWPFs or MRFs with a mixed waste processing line in the United States. The primary focus of these facilities is to divert recyclable materials. Due to the regulatory requirements in California for waste diversion and reducing the amount of organics disposed in landfills, 21 of the operating MWPFs are in California. These facilities are generally highly automated and use similar equipment to that used for single stream MRFs, with a bag opening operation as an additional step. The processing system equipment sequence typically includes a pre-sort station for the recovery of inadvertently accepted non-processable materials, followed by a bag opener (shredder with a large product size on the order of 16 -inches), multiple screening operations, and separation operations that can utilize air separators, eddy current separators, magnetic separators, and optical sorters. The objective is to maximize the recovery of recyclable materials, including paper, aluminum, ferrous metals, and plastics. Depending on the proximity to a glass market or processor, a mixed glass product may also be recovered. In Chapter 4, it was determined the cost of building a MWPF in Deschutes County for the purpose of recovering more commodities from the commercial waste stream was not cost effective. However, processing mixed waste is also required to extract materials for feedstock for certain technologies. In other parts of the country and in Europe, these processing facilities are designed to create a renewable energy byproduct. Therefore, in considering alternative technologies to create bio -fuels, refuse Chapter 6 derived fuels and/or to extract energy value from the waste stream, some level of processing will be required. 6.3.2.1 Construction and Demolition Recycling In the effort to improve overall recycling or diversion percentages within jurisdictions or municipalities, the dense tonnages associated with C/D wastes have always been a prime target for recovery. This concept was introduced in Chapter 4, but the current section provides more context in terms of the technology as an alternative to disposal. The common C/D processing equipment of a screen or two and some manual sorters now includes more sophisticated air separation and even infrared optical units to better separate materials for more recovery or potential development of new markets. While the technology is improving to process C/D materials, most within the industry stress the importance of markets and outlets for the commodities that are targeted for recovery. One of the most sophisticated C/D facilities that has been recently constructed is the Zanker Recycling Demolition Processing Facility located in San Jose, CA. The system won the Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) gold award for recycling systems in 2016. The system is rated for 60 tons per hour (TPH) but consistently operates at 75 TPH. The facility serves an approximate population of 6 million people in an area with strict recovery regulations regarding all waste. A view of the facility is shown in Figure 6-2. Figure 6-2: View of tanker Demolition Processing Facility The system at the Zanker facility utilizes three types of screens, four different air classifiers and three separate magnets to achieve a material recovery of over 70 percent. The infeed stream consists mostly of materials from the demolition of local houses and businesses. The facility recovers clean fill, metals, concrete and brick, and wood as well as utilizing the fines as alternative daily cover (ADC). Table 6-5 presents the material recovery rates for Zanker with and without counting ADC. 6-7 Table 6-5: Material Recovery Numbers from Zanker Demolition Facility types CountingMaterial .. Daily Construction Waste 73.9% 54.4% Wood Waste 96.7% 94.7% Yard Waste Brush Demolition 73.6% 24.8$ Mobile Homes Wood shingles with paper Sheetrock 91.5% 89.1% Asphalt shingles 41.4% 13.4% Tar and gravel roofing Concrete 99.1% 94.5% Stucco and Plaster Miscellaneous 54.4% 8.5% Bulky Miscellaneous 6.3.2.2 Engineered Fuel Production Engineered fuel (EF) is a manufactured product created when MSW is processed through mechanical, biological, and/or thermal processes to produce a higher quality fuel. While similar in concept to Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF), EF is processed to meet a set standard for quality, which, when met, exempts the EF from further regulation as waste. EF is typically transported to an energy consumer located some distance from the EF production facility, and the energy consumer is not regulated as a MSW handling or disposal facility. The Federal Environmental Protection Agency regulates the use of waste -derived fuels under its Non -Hazardous Secondary Materials (NHSM) program. In this program, when non -hazardous waste is processed to produce an EF product, that product may be "de - wasted" when used as an alternative to conventional fossil fuels. Federal de -wasting does not, however, preempt applicable state solid waste regulatory requirements. Adoption of EF therefore has been slower in the United States. EF can be used in solid fuel industrial boilers as a substitute for coal. In addition to the potential for economic savings, the organic fraction of the EF creates greenhouse gas reductions. An industrial EF combustor/boiler will be very similar in design to a fluidized bed RDF boiler (see Figure 6-3). (Intentionally Left Blank) Superheated Fuel Steam FD Fan Bed Removal and Economizer Baghouse 11) Fan Stack Cleaning System Figure 6-3: Industrial Fluidized Bed Boiler (Source Outotec) Non -boiler applications for EF include using it as a coal substitute in cement kilns or other industrial thermal uses. In 2016, an EF/cement kiln project was announced in Berkeley County (Martinsburg), WV. The fuel production facility will be designed to process up to 120,000 tons per year (500 TPD) of MSW into an EF for use at the Essroc cement kiln located in the county. The fuel production facility will be owned and operated by Entsorga North America, a privately -held company. The reported construction cost of the fuel production facility is estimated to be $19 million dollars. The Essroc cement facility will undertake a modest capital project to construct an EF receiving, storage, and handling system, with tipping fees reported in the mid $50/ton range. Production of EF includes steps similar to a MRF to extract recyclables and non- combustible materials from the feedstock. An additional step would be shredding and/or pelletization to homogenize the fuel product. The final fuel product can be in the form of pellets (see Figure 6-4) or in the form of fluffy material (see Figure 6-5). (Intentionally Left Blank) Figure 6-4: Pelletized EF/RDF (Photo courtesy of WastAway) Figure 6-5: Shredded and Fluffy EF/RDF (Photo courtesy of neo -eco Recycling) 6-10 � O �; Chapter 6 Some of the companies making and installing EF/RDF processing equipment are as follows: — Vecoplan — Bulk Handling Systems — Stadler — Machinex — CP Group Some of the companies in the U.S. market that produce EF/RDF as a final product of their processing lines include: — Envision Waste Services — Repower South — Vexxor — SpecFuel — WastAway 6.3.2.3 Composting Also discussed briefly in Chapter 4, composting is a natural process whereby microorganisms break down organic matter in aerobic conditions. This section will cover the details on composting as an alternative waste processing technology for mixed waste processing and its connection to anaerobic digestion. The composting process starts with grinding the incoming material and mixing it with a bulking agent and composting inoculum. This material goes through three stages of processing: active composting, curing and screening, as outlined in Figure 6-6 below. The full cycle lasts up to 150 days. Five factors that influence the composting process are moisture, oxygen, temperature, carbon to nitrogen balance, and particle size. The type of waste used for composting determines the carbon to nitrogen balance and particle size. Large composting facilities must screen waste received to ensure non- organic material (contamination usually found in food waste deliveries) is not present. Prepared waste material then goes through the composting process where moisture, oxygen, and temperature are controlled to create a product. Yard waste such as green waste, plant material, and woody waste traditionally have been the most common feed materials for composting. The addition of food waste is now more prevalent, and more facilities have started to accept it into the process. Biosolids have also been used as a feed source for composting. (Intentionally Left Blank) 6-11 Bulking Agent tFilter Media to (evoodchips, S&EC Market sawdust) Overs Used as Bulking Incoming Feedstock Prep Active 4 Curing Screaning of Material (Grinding/ Composting (6-90 days) final product Mixing) (30.60 days) Compost Inoculum to Mixing Compost to Market Figure 6-6: Composting Process Flow Diagram48 Figure 6-7: Windrow Composting Traditional windrow composting utilizes piles that are placed in long rows, the size of which is determined by turning abilities (see Figure 6-7). For small facilities, piles must be turned manually using shovels, end loaders, top turners, or pull behinds. End loaders are not as efficient at mixing evenly and require a smaller pile size to be effective. For large scale facilities, either top turners or towed turners are ideal to allow for better mixing and larger piles. Top turners are driven over the pile and towed turners are towed at a distance behind a tractor over the pile. Proper mixing is important so that conditions are consistent throughout the pile to make sure that the whole pile reaches temperatures high enough to kill pathogens and to produce a consistent product. The pile size can also create concerns with the composting process. Smaller piles have less insulation, creating a concern that temperatures high 48 State of Composting in the U.S.- Institute for Local Self -Reliance, July 2014 6-12 enough to kill pathogens will not occur. Larger piles create a concern for anaerobic conditions near the center of the pile where it is harder for air to circulate, requiring more turning of the pile. Aerated turned piles are suitable for yard waste and some food waste. Due to the difficulties of maintaining aerobic conditions, turning the correct amount, and the limitations of traditional windrow composting, technology has shifted towards adding air to the pile using aeration systems. Aeration systems are advantageous because they require less space for similar throughputs since they don't need to be turned. When designed correctly, aerated piles will maintain aerobic conditions throughout the pile. Because of this, an aeration system also has a shortened composting duration compared to a traditional windrow system (see Figure 6-8). Figure 6-8: Aeration Pipes for Aerated Static Pile Composting Aerated static piles (ASP) require a system to supply oxygen to the composting pile, such as an aeration floor. There are multiple aeration floor systems that can be used including piping systems, trench systems, and a combination of piping and trenching. Aeration blowers are used to force air (positive aeration) or pull air (negative aeration) through the pile from the aeration floor. The feed waste moisture and porosity for ASP composting is important since it is difficult to alter moisture or porosity once the pile is created. The feed waste usually requires bulking so that the porosity is great enough that oxygen can get through the whole pile from the aeration floor. The amount of bulking agent used is dependent upon the particle size and moisture content of the feed stock; smaller particle size and greater moisture content both require the use of more bulking agent. Common bulking agents include woodchips, crop residue, bark, and leaves. Some composting systems utilize both forced aeration and turning. Feed material will be processed using an aerated static pile method. The compost will then be placed into piles for curing, where the compost is turned. Both forced aeration and turning can be used simultaneously, however, it is not very common. To incorporate both forced aeration and turning, a larger space is required. 6-13 Chapter 3`-. ASPs can remain open or be covered to help control the composting process. Insulation provided by a cover helps to ensure that a temperature high enough to kill pathogens is maintained throughout the pile. Two types of covers used are finished compost and textile covers. Finished compost, at least six inches thick, on top of piles can be used as coverage that reduces water infiltration, which reduces leachate generation while keeping moisture in the material and insulating the pile. The temperature of the pile is greatest in the center and decreases near the edges of the pile. ASP is the system used at Deschutes Composting, discussed further in Chapter 4. As a corollary national example of an ASP project, a California landfill recently converted its windrow composting operations to an ASP composting facility. Redwood Landfill previously accepted approximately 150 tons per day of green waste (yard clippings and residential food waste) but was permitted to increase its daily feedstock to 514 tons per day, which included green waste as well as commercial food waste. To increase production without substantially increasing area, composting time had to be dramatically reduced. The aeration system includes a system of pipes, blowers, and biofilters to force air into the composting and the ability to produce a vacuum. Figure 6-9: Textile covered composting piles -GORE Cover for Organic Waste Treatment (Courtesy of Gore) Textile covers provide additional benefits to finished compost coverage (see Figure 6-9). The textile covers shed water, reducing leachate and helping in storm water management, maintain a breathable environment to allow airflow into the pile, and capture odors. Several covers also offer oxygen -controlled systems and provide oxygen and temperature monitoring to aid in process control. Pile covers are a more economical option than full coverage structures such as canopies or buildings, particularly when odor and run-off are of concern. Pile covers can also be used on a temporary basis when rainfall, odor, or other events are anticipated for both static and turned piles. 6-14 Chapter 6 Figure 6-10: In -Vessel Composting Shipping containers, silos, rotating drums, tunnels, and trenches can all be used for in - vessel composting. Aeration is forced in the vessel to maintain aerobic conditions and proper decomposition. Forced aeration occurs through moving paddles or piping systems that bring air to the material. Depending on the system, the vessel can be covered or remain open. Co -composting is an example of an aerated in -vessel system where biosolids and wood waste are combined to make compost. The aerated in -vessel system is good for organics. Different qualities of composts have different certifications or grades. Three different composting products can be produced and sold. Each product has one of three grades: Grade 1, Grade 2, or Waste Grade. Each grade has different levels of standards that must be maintained. Grade 1 compost has the strictest level of standards, and the standards loosen as the product moves from Grade 1 to Grade 2 to Waste Grade. Waste Grade compost does not have set standards but is classified as compost that exceeds any Grade 2 standard requirements. Compost produced from biosolids has stricter standards, since it has a higher potential risk for odor, contaminants, and pathogens. Similar to grades, the different certification levels for compost are based on quality; the higher the quality, the higher the certification level. Each grade and certification of compost can be used for different uses including compost, stormwater management, and landscaping. Grade and certification specifications can be found through the U.S. Composting Council. Based on the report published by the Institute for Local Self -Reliance and Biocycle in October 2017, there are 4,713 composting facilities in the U.S. that process approximately 21.1 million tons of organic material annually. Most of these facilities are in California, Florida, Iowa, Washington and New York. The material processed at the existing composting facilities is predominantly yard waste, at 57% of the incoming feedstock. 6-15 Many policies on the state level have been enacted to encourage or require diversion of source separated organics. Back in the 1990s, more than 20 states instituted yard waste landfilling bans that resulted in more than 20 million tons of organic waste being diverted from landfills every year. More recently, a handful of states have instituted food waste disposal bans whose impact we are yet to see. In addition to landfilling bans, waste diversion laws and goals help increase the diversion of organics from landfills to composting or other processing facilities. As discussed further in the next section, composting is often used with anaerobic digestion as both processes can be designed into a complementary organics management system. 6.3.2.4 Anaerobic Digestion Anaerobic digestion (AD) is a biochemical process, facilitated by microorganisms, that decomposes organic material to biogas and digestate in an oxygen depleted environment. The performance of AD systems is sensitive to rapid changes in the environment, due to the specific needs of the living conditions that the microorganisms require. The composition of the organic material, the rate at which it is introduced to the microorganisms, and the temperature of the system must be maintained relatively consistent throughout the process. Frequent or rapid variation of these factors can reduce the efficiency of the biochemical conversion process and can result in damage or destruction of the microorganism population. AD is a technology developed for treatment of wide range of organic materials, including source -separated food waste, biosolids, organics from MSW, residues from food processing and packaging industry, manure, etc. The primary characteristics of the waste stream that must be defined to select the appropriate AD technology include the volume of the waste stream, the total solids (TS) content, the volatile solids (VS) content, and the chemical oxygen demand (COD). The volume and TS content of the waste stream primarily dictate the type of technology that is most appropriate to maintain uniform contact between the organic material and the microorganisms. Approximate TS content ranges for which the common types of AD system are appropriate are summarized in Figure 6-11. The VS content and COD primarily dictate the size of the system, and in some cases, the need to apply multiple AD technologies to properly treat the waste stream. The performance, operational requirements and cost of the waste treatment process vary significantly, depending on the characteristics of the waste stream and the type of AD technology. A brief description of several common types of AD systems is included below. LAGOON HIGH RATE CSTR PLUG FLOW HIGH SOLIDS 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% > 25% WAS I t S I KtAM I U I AL JULIUJ j I J) t,UN I M I Figure 6-11: Approximate TS Ranges Suitable for Common Types of AD Systems 6-16 Chapter < ;d Lagoon type AD systems can be considered the most simple type of AD system, comprised of an in -ground waste storage vessel, typically earthen, with a plastic or concrete liner and a flexible cover to contain the biogas. A photo of a typical lagoon AD system is shown in Figure 6-12. Depending on the characteristics of the waste stream, mixing devices may be installed to maintain contact between the waste stream and the microorganism population and prevent accumulation of solids on the bottom of the lagoon. These systems are most applicable to low TS liquid waste streams (typically less than 8%), and are typically installed in agricultural waste applications, such as the treatment of flushed swine or dairy.manure. These systems allow for the treatment of dilute waste streams at a relatively low capital cost. Lagoon systems are less efficient in cooler climates, as maintaining optimum temperature is inherently difficult due to heat loss to the surrounding soil and the amount of energy required to heat the water in dilute waste streams. Figure 6-12: Typical lagoon AD system (Photo courtesy Environmental Fabrics, Inc. www.environmentalfabrics.com) High rate AD systems are technologically more advanced and most suitable for low TS liquid waste streams (less than 8%) with higher VS content and COD. These systems are comprised of a tank or vessel containing a fixed population of microorganisms, typically attached to physical structures such as grates, baffles, or a bed of granules. An exterior view of a typical high rate digester is shown in Figure 6-13. The waste stream flow is directed through this vessel, and the organic material is converted to biogas as it flows through the microorganism population. Because the microorganism population is fixed in the vessel and is not removed with the waste stream, these systems allow for lower hydraulic retention time (HRT), thus they require smaller vessel volumes, relative to other types of AD systems. High rate AD systems are typically installed in industrial and municipal applications, for the treatment of waste streams including food and dairy processing wastewater and secondary treatment of municipal wastewater. These facilities can accept pumpable feedstock. 6-17 Chapter 6 Figure 6-13: Typical High Rate AD System (Photo courtesy Applied Technologies, Inc., www.ati-ae.com) The most ubiquitous type of AD system for liquid or semi-solid waste streams is the Continually Stirred Tank Reactor (CSTR) or "complete mix digester". CSTR AD systems are comprised of a tank or vessel with a gas-tight cover and a mixing or agitation system. Two typical CSTR vessels are shown in Figure 6-14. These systems operate over a range of about 5% to 15% TS, depending on the waste stream characteristics and specific equipment and mixing technology. These systems are also known as "suspended growth" reactors, as the waste stream and microorganisms are kept in suspension by the mixing devices. The mixing process serves to maintain uniform temperature throughout the vessel, keep the solids in suspension and assures that contact is maintained between the waste stream and the microorganisms to allow for efficient conversion. These systems are installed in a wide range of waste treatment and energy generation applications, processing materials including dairy manure, restaurant and grocery store food waste, and corn silage. There are more than 8,000 CSTR AD systems operating in Europe, packaged by many different vendors. Figure 6-14: Typical CSTR AD System (Photo courtesy BIOFerm USA, Inc., www.biofermenergy.com) 6-18 mwwo' Chapter 6 Plug flow type AD systems are suitable for the treatment of liquid or semi-solid waste streams with TS content of about 10% to 25%. These systems are comprised of a tank or vessel in which the waste stream is combined with the microorganism population, and the mixture is conveyed between distinct inlet and outlet points. A schematic of a general plug flow digester is shown in Figure 6-15. There are many configurations of plug flow -type AD systems with various devices for mixing and conveying the waste stream. Because the waste stream is not completely mixed in plug flow AD systems, care must be taken in the selection and design of these systems to avoid the accumulation of solids in the vessel. These systems are most effectively installed in higher TS applications such as municipal wastewater sludge treatment, where the waste stream is relatively homogenous, and the consistency of the material presents a challenge to the effective application of CSTR technology. Cover _,,.. —"'-- ''/ Biogas Storage Digester Digester Influent Effluent Effluent Structure Influent Structure Figure 6-15: Typical Plug Flow AD System Schematic (Photo courtesy of Renewable Energy Institute www.plugflowdigester.com) New advancements in the plug flow design have allowed processing mixed food and yard waste as a feedstock. These plug flow systems have shafts that turn and help the mixing of the materials and the movement through the digester. An example of plug - flow digester with shafts is shown in Figure 6-16. Figure 6-16: Plug Flow System with Mixing Shafts (Picture courtesy of Hitachi Zosen Kompogas) • MR Chapter High solids or dry -type AD systems represent a relatively new and emerging sector of AD waste treatment technology. These systems are being installed to process waste streams that form a pile, typically with TS values greater than 20%, including municipal organic waste, grocery and produce waste, and stackable agricultural waste. An example of a waste stream suitable for treatment in a high solids AD system is shown in Figure 6-17. High solids AD systems are operated as batch -type processes in which the waste stream is piled in vessels (also called chambers) with drains in the walls or floor using a bucket loader. The vessel is sealed and the waste pile is irrigated with liquid containing a microorganism population. During the AD process, some of the physical structure of the waste material breaks down, releasing liquid, which is used to irrigate the subsequent batches. Figure 6-17: Typical Waste Stream Suitable for a High Solids AD system (Photo courtesy BIOFerm USA, Inc.) Several high solids AD technology suppliers also offer, as part of their process, composting capabilities that can be installed within the same plant. Subsequent to the digestion process, the waste stream receives an aerobic treatment; in some cases, part of this treatment takes place in the same vessel/chamber where anaerobic digestion occurred. These solutions are very convenient when quality compost has the potential to provide a significant share of the revenue in addition to the biogas generated during the AD part of the process. Figure 6-18, Figure 6-19 and Figure 6-20 show AD systems overview as well as the interior of a chamber where anaerobic and aerobic treatment occurs in different steps of the process. 6-20 z Figure 6-18: High Solids AD with Integral Composting Operation (Image courtesy of Turning Earth, LLC) Figure 6-19: Chamber of a High Solids AD with Integral Composting Operation 1 (Images courtesy of Aikan) 6-21 Chapter 6 Figure 6-20: Chamber of a High Solids AD with Integral Composting Operation 2 (Images courtesy of Aikan) There are many AD technology vendors and project developers in the U.S. According to the American Biogas Council, there are 184 operating AD plants that process food waste as a feedstock. Table 6-6 provides a list of the most important ones, based on their experience and the number of operating plants in the U.S. and abroad. Table 6-6: Most Significant AD Companies in the U.S. Provider Processes Facilities Quasar Energy Group Wet Anaerobic 14 operational plants across the U.S. Di estion Zero Waste Energy Dry Anaerobic Monterey, San Jose, South San Digestion Francisco CA CR&R-Eisenmann Dry Anaerobic Perris, CA Di estion Wet Anaerobic Acquired Monsal technology with General Electric Digestion operating facilities in Europe BioFerm Wet and Dry 5 plants in North America AD Organic Waste Systems Dry Anaerobic 30 operating plants in Europe and Asia Digestion Thoni Dry Anaerobic Plants in Europe licensed to Martin Digestion GmbH Hitachi Zosen Kompogas Dry Anaerobic 75 facilities worldwide Digestion 6.3.2.5 Mass Burn Mass burn combustion technology, commonly referred to as waste -to energy (WTE), involves burning or incineration unprocessed MSW in the presence of oxygen, releasing heat, which is used to produce high temperature and pressure steam in a 6-22 YaGTrri�: Chapter 6 boiler. The steam is directed to a turbine generator, which produces electricity for plant operation and sale to the electrical grid or for industrial processing. Marion County Oregon's Covanta facility and Lee County, Florida's existing WTEF are both examples of a mass burn combustion unit. Large capacity units, generally greater than 250 tons per day (TPD), are referred to as commercial -scale facilities. Combustor and boiler components for these facilities are manufactured at remote fabrication shops into panels or sections. The sections are typically of the maximum practical size that can be economically transported to the project site. At the project site, the sections are assembled into complete and functional units. Due to the extensive amount of field work required, the unit ancillary subsystems such as fans, burners, air ducting, insulation, power and control wiring are also installed at the project site. The unit is first tested after it has been fully assembled, which can take 12 or more months to complete at a cost of several million dollars. The balance of plant equipment including air emission controls, power generation, and plant utilities are constructed simultaneously with the combustor/boiler. General process diagram for a commercial mass -burn WTEF is shown in Figure 6-21. *ft AM �� - A�. c � ,L:,H( Vis'& fs #�xk •. �, '. *°+ C y .,.�. � .... lit ..e vqv ,f «. � ................. POLLUTION CONTROL'SY TE 5MMM SY1311W Figure 6-21: WTE Process Diagram (Courtesy of ecomaine) Several U.S. and international companies sell field -erected mass burn combustion units as either an equipment supplier or as a full design, build, and operate WTEF 6-23 Chapter b„ services company. Several of the full-service companies will also provide for private facility financing and ownership. 6.3.2.6 Mechanical -Biological Treatment Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) facilities are widely relied upon in Europe. The impetus for the construction and operation of these types of facilities has been regulations and economic incentives. Significant taxes are placed on solid waste that is landfilled in Europe; therefore, solid waste must be processed to maximize the recovery of materials prior to landfilling any remaining material. These European MBT facilities involve both mechanical and biological treatment processes to recover recyclables and process the remaining material through three basic alternative approaches that rely on biological treatment of the material. The biological treatments can be grouped into the following categories: bio -drying, composting, or anaerobic digestion.49 The MBT plants in Europe process only residual waste remaining after source separation of recyclables and organics is completed. They can be configured in different ways to achieve different goals: increased recycling, diversion of organic material from landfills, and energy recovery through production of RDF. A generic illustration of a potential MBT facility is shown in Figure 6-22. The European facilities are constructed in conjunction with an energy user for the bio -dried fuel product or an established market for the compost product. The MBT facilities that incorporate an. anaerobic digester produce a biogas that is commonly used in a combined heat and power application. There is a higher cost of disposal where these facilities are constructed and operated in Europe. In the United States, the term MBT facility is a relatively recently used acronym. Certain aspects of an MBT facility have been constructed, such as a material recovery facility, mixed waste processing facility, an in -vessel composting facility, or an anaerobic digester. The application of MBT technology as a waste processing facility was introduced by Entsorga North America at an MBT facility being constructed in Martinsburg, WV that employs Entsorga's bio -drying technology. (Intentionally left blank) 49 "Mechanical Biological Treatment of Municipal Solid Waste", prepared in the United Kingdom by the Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs, February 2013. 6-24 E'n Figure 6-22: An Illustration of the Potential MBT Options (Source: DEFRA UK) In 2017, Fiberight LLC started construction of a 600 ton per day MBT facility utilizing its proprietary technology in Bangor, Maine. The facility is expected to begin commercial operations in the fourth quarter of 2018. A limited list of suppliers and/or operators of MBT facilities is as follows: • Biffa Group Limited • Entsorga Italia • Fiberight LLC • Shanks Group, LLC • Veolia • Sacyr Valoriza 6.3.2.7 Pyrolysis/Gasification Gasification and pyrolysis are thermal conversion technologies that operate with different amounts of air present in the system. Gasification occurs in the presence of limited amounts of air that allows partial combustion of the material. Pyrolysis occurs in the complete absence of air. Gasification leads to a mixture of combustible gases (hydrogen, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and some trace compounds) called syngas as a final product. Syngas is a valuable commercial product used to create synthetic natural gas, methane, methanol, dimethyl ether and other chemicals. It can also be used directly to produce energy as a surrogate for natural gas. Am" n Chapter 6 Pyrolysis leads to synthetic liquid fuel similar to crude oil and syngas. Synthetic liquid fuel can be mixed with crude oil and further refined to gasoline and other petroleum products. Both technologies have been successful in processing biomass and homogeneous industrial waste products. Their application in the field of MSW processing is under development. Gasification, in particular, has been applied worldwide on different feedstocks and shows potential for processing MSW. The basic stages of the gasification process are shown in Figure 6-23. MSW AIR/OXYGEN GASIFIES i ASHMAG BY-PRODUCT GAS CLEAN-UP SULFUR BY-PRODUCT CLEAN SYNGAS t i TO POWER TO PRODUCTS Figure 6-23: The Gasification Processso 6.3.2.8 Gasification for Electricity Production Gasification is the thermal conversion of any carbon -based material with a small amount of air or oxygen in a heated chamber, into syngas. The syngas may have a heating value of 200 to 500 Btu per cubic foot and can be either used as a fuel for energy production or further processed to a wide variety of fuels and chemicals. 50 Gasification Technologies Council, 2011. Wo In the gasifier, the feedstock is converted through several sequential processes. First, the feedstock is homogenized into smaller particles. Then it is inserted into the gasifier with a controlled amount of air or oxygen (and steam for some gasifiers). Feedstock passes through several temperature zones where a sequence of reactions occurs before the syngas is removed from the chamber. The temperatures in a gasifier typically range from 1,100 to 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit. Solid residue is removed from the bottom of the reaction chamber. Traditional gasification systems come in several primary variations, each with advantages for particular feedstock or product applications. The basic design of each system type is built around the reaction chamber with insertion of feedstock, but each has a different heating mechanism, air entry and syngas removal location, as illustrated in Figure 6-24. _--_ feedstock up -draft down -draft cross -draft Figure 6-24: Gasification System Types out Other gasifier types, including plasma gasifiers, do not rely on a different gasifier structure or arrangement of air inlets and syngas outlets, but rather on type of heat source used. Four different types of gasifiers are described in more details in the following sections. Updraft (counter -current flow gasifying agent and feedstock) An updraft gasifier has stacked zones clearly defined to dry, pyrolyze, gasify, and partial combust the feedstock. In this type of system, the air is introduced from the bottom of the chamber and rises counter -current to the downward movement of the waste through the conversion zones. The gases produced move upwards and are removed from the top of the chamber. This upward movement of the air and gas improves the efficiency as the rising hot gases help to control temperatures, aid in drying of the feedstock, and improve the mixing of the gases in the chamber. Possible disadvantages of updraft 6-27 Chapter 6 systems are having tar present in the raw gas (which causes blockages), and inefficient loading for some large or heterogeneous feedstocks. Fluidized bed gasifiers are one type of updraft gasifier. In these gasifiers, feedstock is suspended in oxygen -rich gas (effectively creating fluid-like movement of the gas and feedstock within the chamber). The suspension improves the heat transfer rate between the gas and the feedstock and allows ash to fall out of the suspension instead of being carried up with syngas. Fluidized bed systems can gasify feedstocks with potential to form corrosive ash without damaging the chamber. In addition, they support a higher fuel throughput than other gasifier types. This type of reactor may also be referred to as a circulating fluidized bed or transport reactor. Downdraft (co -current flow gasifying agent and feedstock) In downdraft gasifiers, the air is introduced at a mid or top part of the chamber and the syngas is removed from the bottom part of the chamber. Heat is added from the top of the chamber, and the gas temperature increases as it moves downward. The gas leaves the chamber at very high temperatures. This heat can be harnessed for use in heating the upper portion of the chamber. On the way out of the chamber the gas must go through the ash (in the form of char), which reduces the amount of tar in the syngas. Entrained -flow gasifiers are a type of downdraft gasifier. In these gasifiers, the feedstocks and air are introduced high in the chamber so the oxidant and the feedstock blend as they move downward. Gasifiers of this variety operate at high temperatures and are efficient for conversion of coal or other easily pulverized materials too low -tar syngas, because the reactions occur along the entire length of the chamber. Crossdraft In crossdraft gasifiers, the air inlet and the gas outlet are on the opposite sides in the middle of the chamber. This type of gasifier is less common as it produces high- temperature syngas at a high velocity that does not have as efficient CO2 reduction as other gasifier types. The types of feedstocks for these systems are limited by the system design to low ash fuels, such as wood, petroleum coke, and charcoal. Crossdraft gasifiers have several advantages, including the production of high carbon monoxide, low hydrogen and low methane syngas content when used on dry fuels, and a fast startup time desirable for some applications. Plasma Plasma gasification is used in industries that require disposal of hazardous wastes at high temperature. High temperature (up to 10,000 degrees Fahrenheit) is created by a plasma torch in the gasifier. Two different plasma gasification configurations are available, based on the part of the gasification process at which the plasma torch is applied. The first type is plasma - assisted gasification, and the second is the plasma coupled with traditional thermal gasification. The first type has the plasma torch(s) in the gasification chamber where the heat generated breaks apart the chemical bonds in the feedstock and forms gas. Inorganic, 6-28 rejected materials are collected at the bottom of the gasification chamber as a glass- like inert material potentially suitable for construction or other aggregate applications. Most plasma torch gasifiers are arranged similarly to an updraft system, as illustrated in Figure 6-25, where feedstock is inserted near the top of the chamber, air or oxygen inserted in the middle or bottom of the chamber, and syngas is removed from the top of the chamber. The feedstock moves downward and into the intense heating zones created by the plasma torches. This type of system helps to prevent tar formation, as the syngas remains at a very high temperature (upwards of 1000°C) as it exits the chamber. feedstock plasma torch heat plasma ma torch heat Figure 6-25: Plasma Gasification The selection of an optimal gasifier type for a particular application depends on variables such as the size, moisture content, and calorific value of the feedstock and the desired product type and quality. 6.3.2.9 MSW to Biofuels one promising solid waste management technology is use of MSW as a feedstock in the production of renewable transportation fuels (Biofuels). A leading company in this evolving sector is Enerkem. Headquartered in Montreal, Canada, Enerkem has developed a proprietary thermochemical process for commercial production of ethanol. Enerkem's process involves feedstock preparation, gasification, cleaning and conditioning of syngas, and catalytic synthesis. Figure 6-26 illustrates the Enerkem process. (Intentionally left blank) 6-29 Chapter 6 kk�,r Figure 6-26: Enerkem Processsi I �t;n14 I]?o;t al o iuc Is ( ",lvd I !Rico. Currently, Enerkem operates two research and development facilities, both of which produce ethanol: - Sherbrook, Quebec (Canada) - Pilot plant operating since 2003 - Westbury, Quebec (Canada) - Demonstration facility operating since 2009 with processing capacity of 1.3 million gallons of ethanol annually. Enerkem's first commercial production facility is located in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, and began initial operation since 2015 and produces methanol. 6.3.3 Technology Summary Of the multiple alternative processing technology options discussed in this Section, the following are recommended for further consideration by Deschutes County. Anaerobic Digestion with ASP Composting. The County could consider sponsoring or contracting with a facility that processes source separated food waste via AD and which further processes the digester digestate with other organic waste via composting to produce renewable energy and compost. Such a facility could produce valuable renewable energy and soil amendments and lessen the County's reliance upon landfill management options. AD is highly compatible with ASP composting operations as the digestate output is readily composted with woody organic material for a nutrient -dense compost product. Food waste can rapidly decompose in the landfill, converting into methane gas, a high potency greenhouse gas. While landfills, including Knott Landfill, are fitted with landfill gas capture and treatment systems, much of the methane generated from food waste may escape even with the landfill gas capture system installed. Mechanical Biological Treatment with Alternative Solid Fuel Production. The County could sponsor a facility to process its waste through an MBT facility. Such a facility could provide a second chance to recover traditional recyclable materials which were inadvertently discarded in the MSW stream while producing an alternative solid si Enerkem, 2011. 6-30 fuel suitable for industrial use from the non -recyclable waste. The County would need to find large scale solid fuel consumers such as cement kilns and industrial boilers willing to purchase the solid fuel. This could lessen the County's reliance upon landfills and could potentially reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions to the extent biogenic fractions of the solid waste fuel (wood, paper, organic textiles, etc.), offset the use of fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas and oil. MSW to Biofuels. The County could consider sponsoring an MSW to biofuels facility. Such a facility could produce cellulosic ethanol for use as a transportation fuel or fuel blending stock. The volume of MSW generated within the County is likely not sufficient to support a biofuels project by itself, but a recent study of the economically available forestry biomass waste52 indicates that the combined MSW and forestry waste streams would be more than sufficient to support such a facility. Such a facility could not only provide Deschutes County with a long-term waste management solution, but also provide an outlet for low value forestry waste which currently has no economically - viable market. The facility could spur hundreds of millions of dollars in private sector infrastructure investment creating hundreds of jobs in the solid waste management and forest products sectors. An MSW to biofuels facility would reduce Deschutes County's greenhouse gas emissions in multiple ways by reduced landfill methane and CO2 emissions and eliminating the need for long-haul trucking of MSW to remote landfills. Additionally, when used as a transportation fuel, cellulosic ethanol has a greenhouse gas profile at least 60 percent less than its fossil fuel alternatives, gasoline and diesel. Table 6-7 summarizes the capital cost and tip fee for the alternative processing technologies profiled above. The costs assume approximately 250,000 tons MSW per year, but further market analysis would be required to gather specifics for Deschutes County, including forestry waste assumptions. Table 6-7: Alternative Processing Technology Summary Alternative Technology Capital Cost Approximate Tipping Fee Organics (AD with ASP) $45 million $50-$70/ton $5 million pre-processing $35 million facility-(80,000tpy) 5 million post -processing MWP/EF $50 - $100 million $60-$70/ton MWP/Energy Recovery $250 - $300 million $60-$70/ton (Biofuels) Deschutes County's current cost for disposing of waste is $35 per ton. Comparing this cost to the approximate cost to operate the technologies at $50 to $70 per ton shown 52 TSS Consultants, CENTRAL OREGON BIOMASS SUPPLY AVAILABILITY ANALYSIS prepared for the Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council, June 2016. 6-31 Chapter 6 in Table 6-7, it does not seem practical to move forward with these alternatives. Also, for these technologies to be feasible, there must be a stable market for the energy produced by them. When Knott Landfill closes, the cost for disposal will most likely increase due to the transportation cost as any new disposal site will be further from the population centers. As communities across the country continue to build these alternative technologies, more experience will be gained for the County to draw upon. In addition, circumstances related to the price of energy or alternative fuels may change to where there will be opportunities to market the products locally. For example, California has an established renewable energy tax incentive credit program that has prompted the development of AD facilities to make compressed natural gas. Canada has a program that provides carbon emission offset credits from renewable energy. As such, the Durham Regional Waste Authority recently built a WTEF outside Toronto, Canada. These projects are beneficiary of the renewable energy programs. 6.4 Findings and Recommendations In recent years, there has been increased demand to recover more materials from the waste stream and to explore ways to turn waste into a resource. This effort has been supported by efforts to seek clean renewable energy sources. The result has been technologies that have been in operation in Europe for many years, like AD, that are now operating in the U.S. Also, several technologies that have been in the developmental stage for many years are now in operation or are being implemented. These technologies seek to transform the cellulose matter prominent in MSW into bio- fuels or to remove the glass, metals and other inert materials to make a clean fuel product. This Chapter examined the status of the alternative technology industry and whether these technologies may be viable options for managing waste generated in Deschutes County. The following represents the findings based on the review of these technologies and considering the information available to date. 1. Further study to include an alternative technology for managing waste in Deschutes County does not appear feasible at this time. 2. Markets for the renewable energy or fuel products are not readily available at this time. 3. Knott Landfill is expected to close in 10 years. This provides the opportunity for the County to monitor conditions and to reassess the potential of implementing an alternative technology in three to five years. 4. The County should only consider those technologies/vendors that have a proven record of successfully operating a commercial scale facility. Recommendation 6.1: The County should continue to monitor and assess the status and feasibility of alternative technologies as a part of the Solid Waste System in three to five years. 6-32 7. LANDFILL DISPOSAL OPTIONS Introduction This SWMP has identified strategies to reduce waste, recycle more materials and consider possible technologies to decrease the amount of waste disposed in landfills. However, there is still waste that must be properly disposed in a Subtitle D landfill. When Knott Landfill closes, which is anticipated to be in about 10 years, the County will need to have an alternative disposal option in place. The two primary options are to transport waste to existing regional landfills or to site and build a new in -County landfill. 7.1 Background When the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) was re -authorized in 1992, it adopted new regulations governing where landfills can be located and how they would be designed and operated. The part of the federal regulations pertaining to MSW landfills is section "Subtitle D". The state of Oregon adopted these regulations, which are defined in OAR 340-94-001. These regulations require landfills be designed with liner systems and leachate and landfill gas controls systems. They also require owners of Subtitle D landfills to set aside funds to close and monitor landfills during the post - closure care period, which is typically required to be 30 years. Existing landfills that continued to operate had to transition out of current operations and build new landfill cells that were compliant with the new regulations. The financial burden to make substantial capital investments in new landfill cells and set aside funds for closure and post closure care caused many smaller landfills to close. For many communities that did not generate large amounts of waste, the expense to meet new Subtitle D requirements was not cost effective. Therefore, to make it cost effective for a jurisdiction to comply with Subtitle D regulations, they needed to obtain long term commitments for wastes from other jurisdictions. Difficulty in securing long term agreements for waste prevented many communities from making the investment in new landfills. As landfills were closed, some jurisdictions were faced with the task to locate a new landfill site. Both Portland Metro (the regional solid waste authority for the Portland Metropolitan area) and Marion County spent several years siting new landfills on the west side of the Cascade Mountains, and neither jurisdiction was successful. It is important to note that, although both jurisdictions had located sites that were physically suitable for a new landfill, they were not successful due to public opposition or because of challenges related to State and local land use laws. The failure to site landfills in the more populated areas west of the Cascade Mountains encouraged support to building larger landfills designed to serve several communities in the and climate east of the Cascades. The new landfills were permitted along the Columbia River Gorge, which has favorable geologic and hydrologic conditions for building Subtitle D landfills. They also provided convenient access via alternative transportation methods such as rail and barge as well as by truck. 7-1 M M 5� By the early 1990s, larger communities, such as Portland Metro and Vancouver and Seattle, Washington chose to contract out the transportation and disposal of their wastes. As a result, several regional landfills were developed in the Columbia Gorge. Since the development of these landfills in the 1990s, there have been no new Subtitle D landfills sited in Oregon. There have, however, been many expansions to existing Subtitle D compliant landfills. 7.2 County Authority for Waste Disposal As presented in Chapter 1, ORS 459.085 designates authority to each county in the State. It specifies that both cities and counties have the authority to adopt ordinances and regulations regarding the management and execution of programs and services to collect recyclables and wastes in their jurisdictions. With respect to areas outside of cities, a board of county commissioners may adopt ordinances to: a. Own and operate disposal sites and license disposal sites as an alternative to franchising of service. b. Regulate, license or franchised salvage businesses or the operation of salvage sites where such action is found necessary to implement any part of a solid waste management plan applicable in the county. In summary, both cities and counties are responsible to ensure basic solid waste collection, recycling and disposal services are provided to all residents and businesses. The State supports local governments working cooperatively to prepare a SWMP and coordinate services in the most efficient approach. ORS 459.065 states local governments may enter into intergovernmental agreements as follows: a. For joint franchising of service or the franchising or licensing of disposal sites. b. For joint preparation or implementation of a solid waste management plan. c. For establishment of a joint solid waste management system. d. For cooperative establishment, maintenance, operation or use of joint disposal sites, including but not limited to energy and material recovery facilities. e. For the employment of persons to operate a site owned or leased by the local government unit. f. For promotion and development of markets for energy and material recovery. g. For the establishment of landfills including site planning, location, acquisition, development and placing into operation. As part of preparing this SWMP, a key step has been to review and update intergovernmental agreements, especially as it relates to moving forward with implementation of the recommendations. Therefore, the planning process is designed to obtain input from cities, other stakeholders and the public as it is being prepared. ORS 459 has several citations that govern management of solid waste. The ORS citations above describe the authority of local governments to manage solid waste within their jurisdictional boundaries and for local governments to work together on solutions and services. There are additional citations that relate to waste reduction and recycling and landfill disposal sites. 7-2 Chapter 7 First, through SB 263, the State regulations for waste reduction and recycling were amended and codified in ORS 459A. This amendment to the original "Opportunity to Recycle Act" enacted new recovery rates for all counties (also referred to as wastesheds). For Deschutes County, the recovery rate was set at 45% by 2025. Second, listed are the regulations related to new landfill disposal sites. In ORS 459.017 it states (bolded language emphasizes State responsibilities): 1. The Legislative Assembly finds and declares that: a. The planning, location, acquisition, development and operation of landfills is a matter of statewide concern. b. Local government units have the primary responsibility for planning for solid waste management. c. Where the solid waste management plan of a local government unit has identified a need for a landfill, the State has a responsibility to assist local government and private persons in establishing such a site53. 2. It is the intent of the Legislative Assembly that any action taken by the Environmental Quality Commission to establish a landfill under ORS 459.049 be recognized as an extraordinary measure that should be exercised only in the closest cooperation with local government units that have jurisdiction over the area affected by the proposed establishment of a landfill. Furthermore, ORS 459.047 identifies how the State will work with local governments to site, permit and implement any new landfill disposal site. In summary, the State recognizes the complexity and challenges in locating a new landfill disposal site and will offer assistance where needed. 7.3 Existing Landfill Disposal Knott Landfill is the only landfill in Deschutes County and is anticipated to close in 2029. It accepts both municipal solid waste (MSW) as well as construction and demolition waste (C/D) as discussed in previous chapters. The amount of waste received at Knott Landfill is shown in Table 7-1. Table 7-1: Deschutes County Waste to Disposal Operationss4 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Annual Waste 114,307 112,751 113,611 119,682 130,956 144,067 161,087 182,095 Disposed tons % (1.4%) 0.9% 5.4% 9.4% 10.0% 11.8% 13.0% Change 53 Emphasis added to acknowledge importance of SWMP 54 Source: 2017 Material Recovery and Waste Generation Rates Report 7-3 MMMRIMIM The amount of waste disposed at Knott Landfill in 2017 was 181,000 tons, an increase of 39% since 2014. The growth in the amount of waste disposed can be attributed to several factors including population growth, increase in construction activity and overall improvement in the economy. Although Deschutes County continues to experience slightly higher population growth than the rest of Oregon, this increase in waste disposed is not expected to continue at this rate. To this point, in 2018 DSW reported that 182,000 tons were disposed. Therefore, the waste projections to be used for planning purposes assume waste generation will increase at a rate commensurate with the growth in population in Deschutes County. By 2040, the amount of waste generated is estimated to grow to 336,000 tons. How much is disposed will be determined by how much can be recycled and/or converted to other resources. In Chapters 3 and 4, this plan identifies new programs and services that can reduce the volume of waste disposed over the next 10-12 years, which may result in extending the site life of the Knott Landfill by one or two years. In Chapter 6, several alternative technologies that can convert waste into resources and reduce that which is landfilled were evaluated. These technologies, however, do not appear to be viable today. Perhaps, in the future, conditions may change that the County can consider their feasibility. Cost of Landfill Disposal The County has operated Knott Landfill for more than 45 years. In 1996, Cell 1, the first Subtitle D compliant lined cell, was completed at Knott Landfill and MSW landfilling operations were moved to Cell 1 at that time. Non -MSW disposal operations continued in the unlined area at Knott Landfill through 2008. The new cells constructed from 1996 forward include primary and secondary liners and a leachate collection and recirculation system. A landfill gas collection and monitoring system was installed in 2001. The landfill gas collection system is expanded on a regular basis as waste disposal operations proceed. When the landfill was converted to a Subtitle D compliant facility, the County established a closure and post closure fund as required by the State. This fund will ensure adequate funds are dedicated to properly close all active landfill areas and pay the expenses for monitoring the site for 30 years after closure or until the time the landfill is deemed stable. The County charges a tip fee of $55 per ton for the cost to manage the solid waste system. Of this amount, $35 pays for the cost of operating Knott Landfill. The remaining $20 of the tip fee is used for operation of the four transfer stations and to fund recycling, public education and other programs administered by DSW. In 2016, the Department's total cost to operate Knott Landfill was $5,962,000. The breakdown of the different expense categories associated with operating the landfill is shown in Table 7-2. 7-4 Chapter 7 Table 7-2: Knott Landfill Expenses 2016 Knott Landfill Operating Expenses 2016 (Actual) Operations $ 2,662,000 Fees and Permits (DEQ) / Insurance $ 400,000 Transfer to Reserve Funds $ 2,500,000 - Capital Reserves 2017 - Equipment Reserves $33.15 - Closure and Post Closure Contingency (7%) $ 400,000 Total Annual Operating Expenses $ 5,962,000 Depending on the quantity of waste disposed daily, the actual operating cost typically does not vary significantly. For instance, if a landfill receives 600 tons versus 500 tons per day, the operating expenses for placing and compacting the waste will not appreciably change. The reason is that fixed operating costs are a higher percentage of overall expenses and therefore the unit cost or per ton rate to operate is not greatly impacted by the amount of waste disposed. The capital expenses to build new landfills cells as well as the planned closure and post closure expenses are fixed costs and are already prorated on a per ton basis. Thus, when waste volumes increase, there is more revenue to pay for fixed costs resulting in lowering the unit cost to operate the landfill. For this reason, regional landfills that accept large amounts of waste can charge a lower tip fee compared to smaller landfills. The following table shows how the actual tip fees varies depending on the annual amount of waste disposed. Table 7-3: Total Annual Operating Expenses Total Annual Operating Expenses $ 6,000,000 $/Ton Annual Waste Disposed 2016 161,000 tons $37.27 Annual Waste Disposed 2017 181,000 tons $33.15 Average Disposal Cost $ 35.21 Each year, DSW prepares a budget and makes an estimate on how much waste will be disposed in the coming year. There are some inflationary expenses such as labor and fuel prices, but most expenses are relatively stable. In considering future disposal options, the County can compare the estimated cost to the current tip fee of $35 per ton for landfill operations. 7-5 Chapter 7 7.4 Waste Stream Projections In Chapter 2, estimates of how much waste might be generated and disposed were presented. This information represents background data that can be used to analyze alternatives and determine future disposal needs. Using the waste generation projections, estimates were made of the amount of waste that could be processed using an alternative technology and/or may need to be disposed in a landfill. In projecting the estimated waste to be disposed beyond 2030, the analysis will assume that the per capita generation rate will continue to be 2,800 pounds. This will be multiplied by the population projections using the latest growth rate for period leading to 2030 as prepared by the Population Research Center at Portland State University. Table 7-4: Deschutes County Waste Disposal Projections Year Population Projections Per Capita Generated (tons) Waste Generated (tons) Waste Recycled (tons) Recovery Rate Waste Disposed (tons) 2015 170,606 2,663 227,333 83,381 36.7% 143,952 2016 174,701 2,727 240,844 79,757 33.1% 161,087 2017 178,893 3,022 270,326 89,000 32.9% 181,326 2018 183,187 3,000 274,780 90,677 33.0% 184,103 2019 187,583 3,000 281,375 92,854 33.0% 188,521 2020 190,734 3,000 286,101 94,413 33.0% 191,688 2021 194,739 3,000 292,109 96,396 33.0% 195,713 2022 198,829 3,000 298,243 98,420 33.0% 199,823 2023 203,004 2,900 294,356 97,138 33.0% 197,219 2024 207,267 2,900 300,538 99,177 33.0% 201,360 2025 210,826 2,900 305,698 100,880 33.0% 204,817 2026 214,832 2,800 300,764 99,252 33.0% 201,512 2027 218,913 2,800 306,479 101,138 33.0% 205,341 2028 223,073 2,800 312,302 103,060 33.0% 209,242 2029 227,311 2,800 318,236 105,018 33.0% 213,218 2030 230,412 2,800 322,577 106,450 33.0% 216,126 Table 7-4 shows that by 2025 the waste disposed is estimated to be over 200,000 tons and 216,000 tons by 2030. This assumes that the County's recovery rate of 33% does not increase over the existing rate. This assumption is conservative as it is expected that the expanded programs and services recommended in the plan will result in diverting more waste. For planning purposes, these conservative projections will be used for evaluating options and planning for future facilities. Chapter 7.5 Needs and Opportunities The County, working with cities and private waste collection companies, has provided the infrastructure needed to manage solid waste in a most effective manner. With Knott Landfill, residences and businesses have become reliant on having an in -County disposal site that greatly supports a most cost-effective system. For example, the current tip fee at Knott Landfill is $55 per ton, one of the lowest rates in Oregon and perhaps the entire Pacific Northwest. One reason other counties have higher rates is that several jurisdictions have elected to transport waste from 50 miles to 200 miles to regional landfills. With Knott Landfill having a finite capacity, it will close perhaps as early as 2029. There are strategies that may extend the site life as discussed in Chapter 6, but eventually an alternative disposal site must be in place prior to the actual closure date. Looking at projections, the County will generate between 300,000 and 400,000 tons of waste per year. Making a conservative assumption that the recovery rate remains constant, the County will need to dispose almost 220,000 tons per year by 2030. While this presents a challenge, it also provides opportunities that may not be feasible in other parts of the State. Deschutes County is growing and, besides the attraction to relocate to the area, the amount of tourism and annual visitors contribute to an active and vibrant economy. Therefore, the County is expected to experience a higher rate of growth than perhaps other parts of the State. The amount of waste that is forecasted to be generated may make certain alternatives more cost effective for Deschutes County compared to other jurisdictions that do not generate enough waste to pay for these alternatives. The amount of time remaining before Knott Landfill closes provides an opportunity to evaluate options and implement strategies to reduce waste disposed in the landfill. At the same time, given the time needed to site a new landfill or build facilities needed to support other options, it is prudent to develop a strategy for managing waste when Knott Landfill is closed. 7.6 Disposal Options 7.6.1 Long -Haul Waste to Out -of -County Landfills One option for handling waste from Deschutes County after the closure of Knott Landfill would be to export the waste to landfills outside of the County. There are several regional landfills currently operating in the States of Oregon and Washington. These regional landfills were developed in the 1990s in response to the requirements of RCRA Subtitle D. In both Oregon and Washington, there was also a push to develop new landfill capacity in arid climate areas east of the Cascade Mountains. The purpose was to reduce exposure to impacts from precipitation and the potential for contaminating groundwater if the landfill liner systems fail. Communities like Seattle, Washington also subscribed to the fact that the increased cost to transport and landfill waste east of the mountains would create an incentive to recycle more materials. Simply put, by recycling more material, communities would save money by avoiding the cost to transport waste long distances. 7-7 a� 4 Reaional Landfills Landfills are considered regional in the State of Oregon if they receive more than 75,000 tons per year from jurisdictions outside the local county. There are currently five regional landfills operating in Oregon and one in Washington. These are as follows: Landfills Located East of the Cascade Mountains 1. Columbia Ridge Landfill, Arlington, OR - Owned & operated by Waste Management 2. Finley Buttes Landfill, Boardman, OR - Owned & operated by Waste Connections 3. Wasco County Landfill, The Dallies, OR - Owned & operated by Waste Connections 4. Roosevelt Regional Landfill, Roosevelt, WA - Owned & operated by Republic Services Landfills Located West of the Cascade Mountains 5. Coffin Butte Landfill, Corvallis, OR - Owned & operated by Republic Services 6. Dry Creek Landfill, Medford, OR - Owned & operated by Rogue Disposal The combined capacity of these privately owned and operated landfills is well over a few hundred years. In addition to Knott Landfill, there are a few publicly owned and operated landfills. These landfills are located in Lane County and Crook County. Lane County only handles waste generated in their county including the cities of Eugene and Springfield. Crook County currently serves only its county residents but has expressed interest in receiving waste from outside their County. A key consideration for any community to dispose of waste is the cost of transporting waste to these regional sites. The locations of the five landfills considered in this discussion and their respective one-way distances from the Knott Transfer Station in Bend are shown in Figure 7-1. Not shown on the map are the two regional landfills located west of the Cascade Mountains. Both Dry Creek Landfill in Medford and Coffin Butte Landfill just north of Corvallis are approximately 200 miles from Bend. However, transporting waste over the Cascade Mountains, particularly in the winter months, may not be practical, so these two facilities have been excluded from this analysis. Negus Transfer Station is also shown in the figure because it is closer than the Knott Transfer Station to all existing landfills, making it possible to directly haul waste from Negus Transfer Station to the regional landfills. This would save transporting waste 22 miles from the Negus facility' south to the Knott Transfer Station that would otherwise be needed. 7-8 SPR, Figure 7-1: Location and Distances to Proximate Landfills and Transfer Stations Yakima Roosevelt Landfill Kkckitat County 180 mi Finley Buttes Landfill The Daues� "'"^+•`' ' *Pendleton 206 ml Portland ` Wl asco Landfill , Colum is Ridge Landfill 130 ml 185 Morrow Gdliam.� County Wasco County ., Negus Station Crook County Landfill 22 mi`,Redmond V 37 mi Bend Crook.._ Knott StatJorr county ' Deschutes _. }:....., County..._ 'The mila©es listed are distances from the Knott Station to . the Negus Station - and respective landfills The map shows the closest Subtitle D landfill is in Crook County. The closest regional landfill is 130 miles from Bend, located in Wasco County near The Dalles. Three other regional landfills, located near the Columbia Gorge, range in distance from 185 miles for Columbia Ridge to 208 miles for Finley Buttes There are several methods for transporting waste to landfills. The main transportation methods are: truck, rail and barge. For distances under 300 miles, transportation of waste by truck tends to be the most cost effective. Since the distances to all five landfills are around or below 200 miles from the Knott Transfer Station, this analysis will focus on the costs of transporting waste via truck from Deschutes County to the proximate landfills. In order to haul waste from Deschutes County to the out -of -County landfills, the transfer stations in Deschutes County would need to be renovated. For the purposes of this analysis, the cost to renovate the Knott and Negus Transfer Stations is $4,000,000 and $8,000,000 respectively. Additionally, the cost of operating these transfer stations would be $12 per ton each. The cost of transporting waste from these transfer stations will vary based on the landfill chosen. Recently, Metro received bids for transporting waste from their transfer stations in Portland to the Columbia Ridge Landfill in Arlington, OR. The contract Metro 7-9 V/" rz� has with a private hauler has a cost of $653 per container and using an average of 32 tons per container results in $20.41 per ton in transportation fees. The proposal includes a provision that Metro pay the cost of fuel at $4 per ton and therefore, Metro assumes risk for changes in fuel costs. This yields a total cost of $24.41 per ton for Metro to transport waste 175 miles to the Columbia Ridge Landfill. This bid price translates to about $0.14 per ton -mile and is based on traveling over 80% of the time on Interstate 84, a major freeway. Transfer trucks transporting waste from Deschutes County to regional landfills will use a combination of County, State and federal highways and will travel through small towns. This may increase the total haul time and impact costs, even though the total miles are similar. Regardless, this cost represents the most recent information from a public bid process and will be utilized to compare options for transporting waste from the Knott and Negus Transfer Stations to the prospective landfills. Actual cost will be established using a competitive bid process. At the Knott Transfer Station, it is probable that a compactor will be installed to maximize the payload for each trailer. With a transfer station compactor, waste is placed in a compaction unit where it is compressed to a high density before being loaded into a transfer trailer. With a compactor, payload can be precisely controlled to maximize transportation efficiency. Typically, a transfer trailer can be top loaded with a payload of 24 to 26 tons. However, a compactor can produce a payload of 30 tons to as much as 34 tons of waste in each a trailer, thus maximizing transportation efficiency and minimizing the total number of transfer trips needed. Using Metro's cost to transport waste of $0.14 per ton -mile which includes fuel, the cost to transport waste 185 miles from Deschutes County to the Columbia Ridge Landfill is estimated to be about $26 per ton The County could also transport waste from Negus Transfer Station to Columbia Ridge Landfill, a distance of about 165 miles. Using the $0.14 per ton -mile, transportation cost would be about $24 per ton. If the County did not use a compactor, the payloads per each trip would be 25 tons versus 32 tons in comparison with loads utilizing a compaction system. Disposal fees at the regional landfills will vary depending on how much waste is committed and the timeframe for that commitment. It is estimated the disposal fee will range from $22 to $35 per ton. In addition, most regional landfills are required to pay a host fee for out -of -County wastes. Host fees are a fee paid to the local city or county jurisdiction where a landfill is located. Metro is required to pay a $6 per ton host fee at Columbia Ridge Landfill. This cost will be added to the estimated cost of disposal. This represent the best information that is available and will be used for planning purposes and evaluating alternatives. The actual price to dispose will most likely be determined through a public procurement/bid process. The transfer station operating and renovation costs and waste disposal costs for both transfer stations to all five regional landfills are summarized in Table 7-5. For the Negus Transfer Station, only the Wasco and Crook County landfills are considered because hauling only 25 tons per trailer would be more costly for the other landfills being evaluated due to longer transportation distances. 7-10 ... Table 7-5: Transfer Station Operation, Transportation and Disposal Costs for Out -of -County Long -Haul Knott Transfer Station Landfill Disposal Total Transportation/ Landfill Transportation Costs ($/ton) Costs & Host Disposal & Host Fee Fee ($/ton) ton (1) Wasco Landfill $19.00 $28'00 $47.00-$50.00 (135 miles one-way) $31.00 Columbia Ridge Landfill $26.00 $30.00- $56.00-$59.00 (185 miles one-way) $33.00 Finley Buttes Landfill $29'00 $30.00- $59.00-$62.00 (206 miles one-way) $33.00 Roosevelt Landfill $25.00 $30.00- $55.00-$58.00 (180 miles one-way) $33.00 Crook County Landfill $8.00(2) $40.00(3) $48.00 (35 miles one-way) Negus Transfer Station Wasco Landfill $16.00 $28'00 $44.00-$47.00 (110 miles one-way) $31.00 Crook County Landfill $6.00 (2) $40.00 (3) $46.00 (18 miles one-way) (l) Assumes a host fee of $6 per ton for all regional landfills. Host fees may vary by jurisdiction. (2) The cost to transport from Deschutes County transfer stations was adjusted considering time to travel rural highways and through congested areas. (3) Crook County tip fee is based on the current published gate rate of $35 per ton plus a $5 per ton host fee. The closest regional landfill that can provide 50 years or more of capacity is the Wasco County Landfill at a distance of about 135 miles. However, the other regional landfills are all within 200 miles and therefore, the cost to transport waste is reasonably close in comparison. The cost to dispose at these landfills has two components. First, is the actual cost the operator will charge to accept a jurisdiction's waste, often referred to as a tip fee. This can vary depending on the volume commitment and the terms of the contract. A commitment to accept 200,000 tons per year for 20 years may have lower costs than the same tonnage for a shorter period of maybe five years. This is because the landfill has more certainty with the longer term and can better plan for the cost of the services with a longer commitment period. Also, a large portion of the costs to operate a landfill is fixed, thus more waste that is contracted for disposal may result in a lower 7-11 fee. The second component would be the host fee that is often a condition placed on the landfills. The current host fee is assumed to be $6 per ton, but this can vary from site to site. Also, host communities do have the ability to raise their fees without input from out -of -county users. This is a risk that can be negotiated as part of the disposal contract. Based on the distance to the regional landfills and using the most recent transportation cost produced from a public proposal (Metro), the cost to transport Deschutes County's waste to regional landfills ranges from $16 to $29 per ton from the Knott Transfer Station. Based on current data shown in Table 7-5, it is estimated that the cost to transport and dispose of waste at a regional landfill could range from $47 to perhaps $60 per ton. Each of the regional landfills are active in soliciting more wastes from jurisdictions. This market condition would appear to be advantageous to the County as these landfills would compete to provide the best price. Crook Countv Landfill Besides transporting waste to landfills located along the Columbia Gorge, another option is to dispose of Deschutes County's waste at the Crook County Landfill. This landfill is an approved Subtitle D landfill that currently receives all waste from Prineville and Crook County. In 2017, the landfill disposed of 36,000 tons of waste. Crook County is open to receiving waste from jurisdictions outside their jurisdiction. Previously, the landfill accepted waste from Jefferson County. In 2009, Jefferson County elected to transport their waste to the Wasco County Landfill. The current tip fee to dispose of waste at the Wasco County Landfill is $35 per ton plus a host fee of $5 per ton. This is similar to the cost to operate Knott Landfill and Deschutes County would need to transport waste almost 40 miles from the Knott Transfer Station to the Crook County Landfill. Another option could be to transport waste from Negus Transfer Station to Crook County, which is 15 miles. The option to dispose of some, but not all, of Deschutes County's waste at the Crook County Landfill would need to be evaluated further to determine how much waste could be disposed and for how long. This could also be a strategy that might help extend the site life of Knott Landfill beyond the anticipated 2029 closure date. Reducing waste disposed at Knott Landfill can extend the time before it reaches capacity, but the County would lose revenue and the unit cost to operate Knott Landfill would increase. For instance, if 30,000 tons each year were transported to Crook County at a cost of $40 per ton, the loss of revenue to Deschutes County would be about $1,200,000 per year, plus the cost to transport waste to Crook County. The cost to transport waste to Crook County may offset the current cost to haul from Negus Transfer Station to Knott Landfill, but this would need further analysis. Since the cost to operate a landfill has a large percentage of built in fixed costs, when the waste volume deceases, the unit price to operate Knott Landfill would most likely increase. From Crook County's perspective, sending more waste to their landfill could benefit their overall cost of operations and perhaps provide a lower tip fee. This option can be further explored, but only if Crook County is willing to accept an amount of waste from Deschutes County that is both practical for the overall Deschutes County system and beneficial for both jurisdictions. However, disposal of all of Deschutes County's waste at the Crook County Landfill is not a long-term solution as it would greatly impact the capacity and site life of the Crook County Landfill. 7-12 Chapter 7 7.6.2 Option - Site and Build a New In -County Landfill The County, in cooperation with the cities, has the option to site, design and build a new in -County landfill when Knott Landfill closes. For Deschutes County, siting a landfill in a more remote setting may be successful. In the late 1990s, the County conducted a preliminary search and located potentially suitable sites for a new landfill. However, this effort was discontinued when a further evaluation of expanding Knott Landfill was determined to be feasible. Now that Knott Landfill will be closing, this option is being considered. Sitina a New Landfill The rules and regulations for siting and permitting a new Subtitle D landfill are specified in the OAR 459. Based on these requirements, there are several steps in the process to be completed before a final permit can be issued by DEQ. Step 1 — Establish a need for the new landfill DEQ requires a jurisdiction to adopt a SWMP that formally establishes the need to site and build a new landfill to manage municipal solid waste and to serve its jurisdiction. DEQ will not accept an application without the need being fully recognized. Step 2 — Identify potential areas/sites that meet location criteria There are several approaches for proceeding with siting a landfill. The jurisdiction can identify potential areas and proceed to identify perspective sites based on established location criteria. A Phase 1 Site Characterization may also be conducted to identify sites that are suitable in this initial step. Also, as part of this step, a thorough review of the jurisdiction's land use regulations may also be conducted to establish those uses that are most suitable under the current zoning rules. Identifying the appropriate zoning to comply with local land use requirements is an important step towards receiving a Land Use Compatibility Statement (LUCS) that will be needed to obtain a DEQ permit. In this step, a public meeting might be held to gain input into the areas that are most suited for building a new landfill. Step 3 — Complete Phase II Site Characterization consistent with DEQ permitting requirements on the preferred site(s) Upon identifying areas that satisfy the location criteria, a jurisdiction can proceed to develop and carry out a formal siting study to identify preferred sites. The siting criteria should list the desired features and parameters for the new landfill. This process should include public input during the site selection process. A Phase II site characterization report will need to be completed to select a preferred site and provide sufficient data and site information to obtain permits. As this step is completed, the jurisdiction can submit information to DEQ and seek preliminary approval under OAR 340-093-0090. This step allows DEQ to provide comments or concerns prior to the jurisdiction spending funds on completing the detailed engineering reports. Preliminary approval does not prevent DEQ from denying or conditionally approving a completed permit application. Nor if denied, does it prevent the applicant from proceeding to complete the application and address the concerns of DEQ. 7-13 P-14 `°M I Step 4 — Complete permit documents and DEQ application After selecting the preferred site(s), the jurisdiction can move forward with preparing the permit application. This entails preparing detailed engineering plans, environmental monitoring and operations plans, closure and post closure studies and provide for financial assurance requirements. All the technical reports and studies will be part of the overall permit application submitted to DEQ. The jurisdiction must also provide a LUCS prior to DEQ approval. Step 5- Complete permit application process After the permit application documents are submitted to DEQ for review, DEQ will provide comments and the jurisdiction will need to respond within a specified time established in the statutory review process. This step will also entail public meetings to obtain comments prior to issuing a final permit. These represent the basic steps a jurisdiction must take to site and build a new landfill. Local jurisdictions can develop an approach that includes public involvement and completion of the permit documents that satisfy their local conditions. It is important to work closely with DEQ and other agencies that may be impacted or other stakeholders in obtaining a permit. Siting Criteria In siting a new landfill, there are certain restrictions on the location that are required to be addresses prior to spending resources on an extensive siting process. The Subtitle D location restrictions address the following: • Airports and airport safety • Flood plains • Wetlands • Fault areas • Seismic impact zones • Unstable areas • Critical habitat • Sensitive hydrogeologic environments A preliminary review of these criteria appears to indicate that there are areas within the County that will satisfy these location restrictions. A formal review should be conducted prior to proceeding with an extensive siting process. Another key siting criteria is protection of groundwater. An analysis of potential impacts to groundwater will be required as part of the site characterization process. As an example, groundwater at Knott Landfill is over 700 feet deep, which could be considered a desirable attribute for groundwater protection. The overall geologic conditions present in parts of Deschutes County are more favorable for siting a landfill than other areas. Based on the requirements and various steps a jurisdiction must complete, the process to site a landfill is quite extensive. It requires field investigations to characterize the site and several technical and engineering studies to be completed and approved by DEQ and perhaps other agencies that may have jurisdiction. When documents are submitted, they are reviewed in house by DEQ and appropriate state agencies. DEQ also provides time for public comments and conducts public meetings. During this 7-14 process, appeals can be made to higher authorities or decision makers for a final action. Thus, it is difficult to predict the total time needed to complete the landfill permitting process and procure a permit. A key land use action that must be completed by the sponsoring jurisdiction is to approve the LUCS. This approval is subject to appeals to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) and can be a protracted process. It has been noted that no new landfills have been permitted in the State of Oregon for more than 20 years. Part of the reason for this is the fact that a majority of Oregon's population resides west of the Cascades which is subject to greater amounts of precipitation. High amounts of precipitation can pose challenges for groundwater protection and management of leachate. The State has preferred that new landfills be built in arid climates east of the mountains. Most communities do not generate sufficient wastes to justify the cost to build a Subtitle D compliant landfill and with the existing capacity at regional landfills available to accommodate those communities, no new landfills have been sited. Based on past experience going back to the early 1990s, it should be assumed that it may take two to three years to site and permit a new landfill. However, this schedule does not account for legal challenges and/or appeals to agencies that have approval authority. As an example, the Riverbend Landfill in Yamhill County is the most current landfill permitting project in Oregon. The landfill owner applied for an expansion to the landfill on an adjacent property in 2011. As of October 2018, the process has taken almost eight years and is currently on appeal to the State Supreme Court for a decision. This landfill is located near several residences and is close to farm land. If the decision is made to move forward with the option to site a new landfill, a period of three to five years considering extra time associated with appeals should be assumed for completing the permitting process. Additional time will be needed to build the supporting facilities (access roads, gatehouse/scales, maintenance buildings, etc.) and the initial landfill cells. These could take two years to design and construct. Conservatively, six to eight years may be needed to have a new in -County disposal site ready to accept waste. Phvsical Description of a New Landfill The commitment to site and build a landfill should be considered an investment to provide ongoing services for a long period. Such a facility will provide a stable long- term solution for Deschutes County and perhaps other parts of central Oregon. Using waste generation projections, a preliminary analysis was prepared that indicates between 400 and 500 acres would be needed to provide approximately 100 years of service. This does not necessarily mean the entire site will be built out at the onset, as it can be built and filled in phases. However, in seeking a future landfill site, it is desirable to have the capacity to manage the County's waste for the long term. The amount of property needed should account for providing a buffer for adjacent properties. The size of the buffer area depends on the location and mitigating impacts to neighbors, if required. In considering the amount of land required for a new site, it should be assumed the landfill can be excavated to a depth of 50 to 100 feet and filled to a height of 100 feet above the surrounding grade. This approach is not only more cost effective to operate, but also results in reducing the overall footprint needed for the facility. 7-15 Traffic is usually not a major consideration as most likely, waste will be delivered by transfer trailers like those currently used at the County's transfer stations. This helps to reduce the number of vehicle trips that would be needed to deliver waste to the new landfill. The site should also have safe access to highways or County roads. Dedicated service roads to access the landfill working areas can be constructed as needed. Cost to Site/ Build and operate an In -County landfill To properly dispose of MSW, the County would need to site, construct and operate the new landfill in accordance with the Subtitle D regulations. Since the County has operated Knott Landfill in conformance with these regulations for over 20 years, it certainly has the knowledge and experience needed to continue this practice. Currently, the cost to operate the landfill is about $35 per ton. This includes all direct and indirect expenses such as closure and post closure funds, capital reserves and fees. Siting a New Landfill As previously noted, a new landfill has not been sited in the state of Oregon for more than 20 years. Thus, the costs to complete the entire process are best estimates assuming the procedures presented in the previous section are followed. Since there are several opportunities to appeal decisions during the process, it is difficult to estimate the total time required and what additional efforts will be needed to respond to any appeals. However, the cost to produce the technical reports and engineering documents needed to secure a permit are defined and these costs are known. With this background, the estimated cost to site the landfill are: Landfill Siting Process (includes public meetings) $ 300,000 Site Characterization Reports $ 1,000,000 Preliminary Engineering and Permit Documents $ 1,200,000 Permitting Contingency (20%) $ 500,000 Total $3,000,000 Included in the estimate is a contingency to address the need to conduct additional public meetings, provide additional technical studies and/or respond to permit agencies and possible appeals. These funds will be expended over the entire siting and permitting process which might be three to four years, or possibly longer depending on appeals. Landfill Development/ Construction Cost A new landfill must be designed to comply with the regulations established by the OAR 390-94-001 that are consistent with RCRA Subtitle D. Key environmental and engineering features for siting and building a new landfill are installing groundwater monitoring and landfill liner systems to protect groundwater. Other elements include leachate and landfill gas management and control systems. All the physical improvements and control systems will be established in the preliminary engineering documents submitted to DEQ. Upon receiving a permit, final design of the landfill elements, as well as necessary support facilities, can be prepared. 7-16 Chapter 7 These engineering plans must be approved by DEQ prior to start of construction. In this initial phase, the County will need to excavate and build the first landfill cells as well as construct the necessary infrastructure to support operations. This will include access roads, scales, employee facilities and maintenance shops. The estimated costs to complete the engineering and build the facilities to start operation are listed below. Support Facilities $ 4,000,000 (includes access roads, scales, employee facilities, maintenance shops, utilities, etc.) Initial Landfill Cells $ 2,000,000 Leachate Management System $ 1,000,000 Environmental Monitoring Systems $ 1,000,000 Subtotal $ 8,000,000 Engineering/Construction Services/Administration $ 1,400,000 Contingency (15%) $ 1.600,000 Total Estimated Construction Cost $ 11,000,000 This estimate assumes that 10 to 15 acres will be constructed in the first phase over a two or three year period. The entire landfill is expected to be approximately 400 to 500 acres in area. These estimates are based on the most recent costs to construct landfill improvements of similar facilities throughout the State. The total cost to site and construct a new landfill is estimated to be about $14,000,000 with a 15% contingency. It is assumed that the County will issue some form of bonds to fund these initial improvements, which would be retired over a 20 -year period. Operating Expenses and Projected Cost Per Ton The cost to operate a new landfill is expected to be similar to the current cost to operate Knott Landfill. As shown in Table 7-2, the current cost to operate Knott Landfill including reserves, closure and post closure funds is about $6,000,000 per year, or about $33 to $35 per ton. Projecting these expenses and adding the annualized debt service for the capital to build the new landfill results in a projected cost of $38 per ton in 2029 dollars. This represents a present worth value in 2018 dollars of $34 per ton. Adding the cost of the land, assumed to be $1 per ton paid over time, the estimated cost to start up and operate the landfill is $35 per ton. Once the debt service on the initial capital investment of $14,000,000 is retired, landfill expenses may be reduced by $4 per ton. This suggests that the long-term disposal cost for operating an in - County landfill is about $30 per ton in 2018 dollars. Assuming a suitable landfill site is located within 25 miles of the Knott Transfer Station, transportation cost could range from $6 to $8 per ton, depending on the route. 7.7 Evaluation of Disposal Options Given the remaining capacity of Knott Landfill, the County has some time before making a final decision on a future disposal site. However, whether the County elects to transport waste to a regional landfill or pursue siting and building a new in -County landfill, investments in the solid waste system will be needed. As discussed in previous chapters of this SWMP, there are several recommended actions for implementing 7-17 strategies to reduce waste disposed in landfills. There are also several emerging technologies that are commercially viable that can be used to convert or transform waste into renewable energy resources. Some of these technologies are not currently feasible for the County, but perhaps conditions could change in the future that would prompt a reconsideration of an alternative technology. However, the County cannot fully rely on these strategies to dispose of all waste and must plan to have an option ready when Knott Landfill closes for disposing of waste that cannot be recycled or converted. In this chapter, three options were discussed: 1. Transport waste to an out -of -County regional landfill 2. Transport a portion of Deschutes County's waste to the Crook County Landfill 3. Site and build a new in -County landfill At this time, Crook County is interested in accepting only a portion of Deschutes County's waste. Thus, this option will be evaluated as part of the strategy to transport waste out -of -County. Disposing of some of the Deschutes County's waste at the Crook County Landfill might be an interim strategy to extend the site life of Knott Landfill. However, based on the information received from Crook County to date, this strategy is not cost effective and does not provide immediate benefits to Deschutes County. The two primary alternatives are compared in the following table. (Intentionally Left Blank) 7-18 Chapter Table 7-6: Evaluation of Disposal Options Primary Factors Transport Out of County New In -County Landfill 1. Implementation 0 Regional landfills are permitted Siting a new landfill has proven Considerations and have available capacity to be both environmentally and • County transfer stations will politically difficult and need to be modified to unpredictable for communities accommodate long haul transportation 2. Sound Financial 0 Proximity of several regional County and cities control rates Principles landfills provides competition Revenue and jobs stay in that can result in lower fees Deschutes County Impacts to local economy as revenue and jobs are created in other jurisdictions 3. Cost Effectiveness Estimated cost to transport and Estimated costs dispose varies $35 disposal + $ 7 transport $42/ton $47-$60/Ton (Assumes landfill is 25 miles or less from Knott Transfer Station) Note: After initial debt is retired 2040, the operating cost will be reduced by about $4/ton 4. Rate Stability 0 Disposal contracts can be written Based on history of tip fees at to provide certainty of cost Knott Landfill, disposal costs • Factors outside control of County are predictable and stable could impact fees (Host fees, fuel prices, road mile taxes, etc.) S. System Flexibility 0 Flexibility can be part of County controls waste and contract; may have impacts on disposal system and can make tip fee changes as needed (Example: • If minimum waste supply is if local jurisdictions implement committed, there may be new diversion programs) possible impacts to County or County retains ability to cities to implement alternatives manage waste without contractual issues 6. Reliability Disposal is reliable • Transportation and disposal • Transporting waste to regional are reliable landfills may encounter 0 Transporting waste on certain interruptions roads may encounter short • In general, regional landfills have term interruptions good track record for 0 County has control and can environmental compliance manage environmental risks • County can control nature of waste is disposed in the landfill 7. Environmental Considerations - 7.1 Impact from Disposing of waste in a regional 9 Disposing of waste in County LandfiNing: landfill has the same impact as has the same impact as - Greenhouse gas disposing waste in County disposing waste at a regional (GHG) emissions landfill 7-19 Chapter 7 7.2 Impact from Transportation: 0 In 2030, 2-2.1 million truck 0 In 2030, 340,000-350,000 miles and emissions along local truck miles and emissions Waste Disposed roads and highways 97 and 197 along local roads and highways 2030 — 216,000 tons/year 6,800-7,000 trips/year In 2040, 2.3-2.7 million truck 0 In 2040, 390,000-450,000 miles and emissions along truck miles and emissions 2040 — 250,000 tons/year highways 97 and 197 along local roads and highways 7,800-9,000 trips/year • County will need to disturb Existing regional landfills are 400-500 acres* - 7.3 Impact on Land permitted and will continue to fill a County may adopt mitigating designated sites with or without measures as necessary Deschutes County waste *Note: Existing quarry sites might provide opportunity to restore disturbed land The comparison of the options shows that either transporting to an on out -of -County landfill or building a new in -County landfill will provide a dependable long-term disposal solution. Both options will require investments to build the facilities needed to support future operations however, more capital is required to site and build an in - County landfill. Both options are reliable and provide for an environmentally safe solution for disposing of waste. For instance, DSW has operated Knott Landfill for over 25 years in compliance under the more stringent disposal regulations adopted in 1995. DSW has installed advanced leachate controls and a recirculation system. Landfill gas is collected and flared to control LFG emissions and ensure destruction of air contaminants. Regional landfills that service several jurisdictions have a notable record of compliance and service. Another consideration is the fact that the regional landfills sited and permitted in the early 1990's are located in and climates east of the Cascade Mountains where there is little precipitation (less than 16" of rainfall per year). Regional landfills are also located in areas where the depth to groundwater is several hundred feet below the surface. Additionally, they are located in rural areas with few residences and/or they provide buffer areas. These same conditions are prominent in Deschutes County and therefore it is fair to assume that suitable sites can be located to meet these criteria. Finally, DSW has demonstrated their capabilities to operate the Knott Landfill in a cost- effective manner. As an enterprise fund, DSW has provided a well-managed system and maintained stable tip fees to residents and businesses. When considering the key guiding principles for developing the solid waste management system, there are several other factors that support the option to site a new in -County landfill as the best option. The first key factor is having flexibility for managing the County's waste stream. Owning and operating an in -County landfill provides maximum flexibility to make decisions on how best to manage waste. Decisions on implementing programs to reduce waste disposed or to divert waste can be made without having potential contract issues. For out -of -County landfills, contracts can be written to minimize impacts from changing the amount of waste transported and disposed. However, owners of regional landfills typically want some certainty and commitment of the waste 7-20 D. 0 they will be managing. This commitment is understandable since they need to plan their operations. The second factor is the impacts of transporting waste over 130 miles to the regional landfills located along the Columbia Gorge. Currently, waste is delivered to these sites using a variety of transportation modes such as rail and barge in addition to trucks. Also, most of the wastes transported to these landfills travels the majority of the distance along I-84, an interstate highway. Thus, the distance to the landfill may be similar for some users in comparison to transporting from Deschutes County, but the time to transport waste to a regional landfill is not impacted by travelling through city business centers or small towns. The primary transportation route from Deschutes County will be US 97 and SR 197. The nearly 7,000 trucks trips annually (about 30 per day) must drive through several cities and towns along the route. Although these roads represent the primary truck routes for transportation of goods in central Oregon, they still must travel through business centers of several cities and towns. As these cities and towns increase in population, the travel time will be impacted. Rail haul may be a consideration; however, it has not proved to be cost effective when transporting materials over a short distance. Another impact consideration is the wear and tear on highways and emissions from the transfer trucks. Annually, trucks will travel over 2 million miles on these highways to a regional landfill. Disposing of waste at an in -County landfill reduces this impact. A third factor is cost. Based on the preliminary evaluation of similar long-haul agreements, it is estimated to cost between $5 per ton to perhaps as much as $18 per ton more to transport waste to a regional landfill than to a new in -County landfill. Most of this additional cost results from the added transportation expenses. However, the County has disposed of 180,000 tons of waste per year and has operated a modern Subtitle D complaint landfill at a cost that is competitive with these regional landfills. The preliminary cost estimate prepared for the SWMP shows that a new in -County landfill can be operated at a cost that will be similar to or slightly more than the regional landfills that dispose of much higher volumes of waste. Other factors that could impact the future costs to dispose of waste at a regional landfill may include the fees charged by those communities hosting the disposal facility. Also, Deschutes County is one of the fastest growing areas in the State and the amount of waste to be disposed may increase at higher rate than projected. This will result in more truck trips to transport waste and the time to travel to the regional sites will be impacted as other cities and towns along the route experience more growth. 7.8 Recommendations With Knott Landfill expected to be at capacity in 10 years or possibly less, the County must develop a plan to ensure that a disposal system is in place to serve residences and businesses. The County must begin to plan for this event as the time needed to obtain permits and build the infrastructure needed will take several years. 7-21 Chapter 7 Recommendation 7.1 - The County should proceed to site and permit a new in - County landfill to be operational when the Knott Landfill closes. The landfill should be capable to handle all waste streams generated in the county. Rational - The SWMP has identified and recommends several actions for County and cities to take to reduce the amount of waste disposed in a future landfill. It also recognizes that alternative technologies are continuing to develop that may at some point prove to be feasible for extracting additional resources from the waste stream and creating some form of renewable energy. Progress on these technologies can be monitored. However, the best approach for managing and disposing waste that cannot be recycled or diverted is to continue to operate an in -County landfill. It provides flexibility and maximizes control for managing the County's waste streams, avoids impacts resulting from transporting waste long distances over highways and will be cost effective in the long run. Recommendation 7.2 - The County should begin a formal process to site and permit a new landfill by 2021. Rational - The timeframe to conduct a process to select a preferred site may take from three to five years. Once the site is permitted, final engineering, obtaining construction permits and building the initial landfill cells is expected to require and additional three years. Using these assumptions, the site may be available in approximately eight years. (Intentionally Left Blank) 7-22 Chapter 8 S. ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT 8.1 Introduction In the State of Oregon, counties and cities have the responsibility and authority to provide comprehensive services for managing solid waste. Deschutes County executes this mandate by placing the primary responsibility to oversee these services and operate necessary facilities with DSW. This chapter reviews the County's funding to determine what changes may be needed to meet the goals presented in this SWMP. It will also consider the adequacy for managing the needs of the solid waste management system, and to determine if resources are sufficient to implement the recommended strategies as presented in this SWMP. 8.2 Background and Existing Conditions 8.2.1 Solid Waste Administrative Agencies Counties and cities are provided the authority and responsibility for managing solid waste under ORS 459.125. This statute gives counties the authority and responsibility for designing, constructing and operating facilities necessary for the safe and efficient handling of solid waste. Counties may elect to own and operate facilities or contract with private sector vendors or other jurisdictions to provide the services. Deschutes County provides services through a combination of owning and operating certain facilities and contracting with private sector vendors. In addition to operations, the County provides a leadership role in planning and implementing solid waste management services throughout the entire County. It is also responsible for ensuring that State -mandated programs are in place to provide required services or to meet goals. The County's annual budget states the mission of the Department of Solid Waste is to: "Provide environmentally sound and cost-effective solid waste management services that are in compliance with all laws and regulations to the citizens of Deschutes County." The County executes this mission by providing the necessary facilities needed to operate an efficient solid waste system and working effectively with local jurisdictions, private industry and citizens to provide coordinated solid waste management services throughout the County. Department of Solid Waste Background The County delegates the responsibility for managing solid waste operations to DSW. DSW has been the primary provider of disposal sites for all wastes generated in the County for over 50 years. At one time, there were several disposal sites operated in the County that provided convenient locations where customers could dispose of waste. When new regulations were adopted in the 1990s, the County, like many jurisdictions throughout the country, were forced to close landfills that could not 8-1 comply with these new standards. In response, the County constructed a network of transfer stations to provide convenient sites to receive waste and recyclables from customers and transport all waste to Knott Landfill in Bend. To respond to the new regulations, the County made significant capital investments to install liner systems and environmental controls for protection of groundwater and to close old unlined areas of site. Under DSW leadership, these actions resulted in developing a solid waste system that has been compliant with all regulations and providing cost effective and environmentally safe services for over 25 years. Although the County is the primary agency for providing the infrastructure needed for provide solid waste services, operation of these facilities is conducted through a public/private partnership. DSW is directly responsible for operating Knott Landfill as well as the gatehouses at all transfer stations. DSW is also responsible for the operation of the Northwest, Southwest and Alfalfa transfer stations. Operation of the Negus Transfer Station and the waste and recyclables transfer system is conducted by private companies through contract agreements. In addition to owning and operating facilities, the County provides collection services to all unincorporated areas of the County through franchised agreements with four different collection companies. Cities have separate franchised agreements with these same companies that serve their respective jurisdictions. The County and the cities work cooperatively with franchised haulers to ensure that solid waste is managed in an integrated, comprehensive and coordinated approach. This includes cities, other public agencies and private businesses. The County has continued to foster a public-private partnership that has led to a solid waste management system that provides cost- effective services throughout the entire County. Thus, the County provides a leadership role in setting policy and operating facilities while maximizing the use of the private sector to implement and carry out direct services on a daily basis. In addition to County owned and operated facilities, Mid -Oregon Recycling provides a facility that receives and processes the commingled and other recyclable materials collected from residences and businesses. These materials are baled and transported to MRFs in the Willamette Valley and Portland. Deschutes Recycling operates the recycling center and compost facility located at Knott Landfill. DSW Organization DSW functions as a separate department responsible for operating the transfer stations and Knott Landfill. Their responsibilities also include policy development, facilities management and administration, and direct operations. DSW operates the system as an enterprise fund, which is completely funded by tip fees, franchised fees, and the sale of recyclable materials. As an enterprise fund, no general tax funds are used for operating or managing the solid waste system. The Director of Solid Waste is responsible for overseeing all aspects of facility operations including compliance with regulations, execution of County policies and approved services, preparation of budgets and management of financial resources. The Director reports directly to the County Administrator. To operate the transfer facilities and Knott Landfill, the Director manages a staff that includes administrative support, supervisors, gatehouse and site attendants and 8-2 Chapter W..,3 8 equipment operators. The current staff includes 24 full time equivalent (FTE) employees and six part-time contract employees. Figure 8-1 shows the organizational chart for DSW. Figure 8-1: D5W Organization SOLID WASTEMI FIE i fk a N. MIN®*��:5 '100 rar z.oO fTr a-cx7 tTE r Knott Transfer Knott Transfer Rrtral Transfer Kett i�nd all Station Station Stations I � i r 4 S � � , 4 t 4.SO rrr.:.,.,... irl Department funct rK Incorporated Municipalities There are four incorporated cities (Bend, Redmond, Sisters and La Pine) that have the same authority in Oregon for the management of solid waste, as does the County. State law allows cities to license, contract, or franchised with private vendors for solid waste collection. They also have the authority to own and operate solid waste facilities (ORS 459.065). Cities have the authority to approve rates and program options within their incorporated boundaries. Cities with populations over 4,000 have responsibilities under SB66 to ensure the implementation of recycling and waste reduction education programs. Solid waste programs are partially funded by a franchised fee collected by private collection companies. 8-3 Cities in the County have entered into franchised agreements with private companies to provide collection of recyclables and solid waste in their jurisdictions. Cities determine the service standards for residences and businesses and set rates. Cities have also entered into intergovernmental agreements that support the County to provide transfer stations and disposal services. The current relationship between the cities, Deschutes County and the franchised companies has resulted in the operation of an integrated and coordinated collection and disposal system that provides a high level of service and that addresses statewide mandates and regulations. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) DEQ is responsible for overseeing State solid waste policy as stated in ORS 459.015. This authority includes ensuring local governments enact effective programs consistent with statewide goals, work cooperatively to provide services and coordinate solid waste management throughout the State. In addition to monitoring local solid waste management, the agency provides educational and technical assistance to government agencies, community and business groups, and citizens. This assistance includes public information materials, workshops, seminars, and compilation and management of solid waste data. DEQ can provide funds to assist local governments in planning and implementing solid waste management programs. DEQ also supports research and demonstration projects to encourage waste prevention and resource recovery. It provides grants to assist jurisdictions in implementing specific programs and is responsible for the development and oversight of regulations for managing solid and hazardous waste. 8.2.2 Solid Waste Enforcement DEQ has the lead responsibility for enforcing solid waste management and air quality regulations and permitting at all solid waste -related facilities in the state of Oregon. Deschutes County is responsible for monitoring and enforcing local illegal dumping regulations. The following sections describe the enforcement responsibilities for solid waste management. • Solid Waste Facilities. DEQ issues solid waste permits for each facility that handles solid waste, including compost facilities, within the state of Oregon. It conducts periodic inspections of the County's waste handling facilities, including landfills, transfer stations, and recycling centers. It also conducts investigations of abandoned waste sites and requires the principle responsible party to correct or remediate any contamination resulting from such facilities. • Water Quality. DEQ issues water quality permits for leachate management and permits for stormwater runoff under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Currently, there are no water quality permits required at the County's solid waste facilities. 8-4 Vel • Hazardous and Special Wastes. DEQ issues permits for facilities that manage hazardous and special wastes including construction/demolition landfills. DEQ conducts regular inspections of these facilities and develops regulations and guidelines for the proper management and disposal of hazardous and special wastes. • Illegal dumping. The County's Community Development Department's Code Enforcement Division investigates and responds to illegal dumping incidents in Deschutes County through site inspections and response to complaints. It works with property owners to clean up and close illegal dumpsites and issues fines as necessary to enforce County regulations. 8.2.3 Financing and Funding Sources The County has the primary responsibility to ensure that the necessary infrastructure for providing cost-effective collection and disposal services is available to all residences and businesses. The underlying foundation enacted by the State legislature is to provide for the health and safety of citizens of Deschutes County. DSW is responsible for managing and ensuring the delivery of these services through a combination of working with different agencies, private businesses and private sector vendors. It ensures that revenue resources are adequate to provide these services. Its overall purpose is to provide citizens and businesses in cities and the County with an environmentally responsible and convenient system for managing solid waste through quality, cost-effective and uninterruptible services. Funding Obligations DSW operates as a public utility through an enterprise fund. The revenue needed to meet the expenditure requirements of the program is funded primarily through tip and franchised fees. A small portion of revenue is derived from the sale of recyclable materials. As an enterprise fund, there is no reliance on federal, State or local taxes. An enterprise fund mandates that financial obligations for delivery of services, as well as the associated environmental risk, be in place. This often includes the need for contingency resources and/or reserves. The purpose of any utility is to provide uninterrupted service to its customers. DSW assures this through three functions. First, it generates the revenues necessary to operate the service system. Second, it provides the capital and reserves required for system improvements. Third, it prepares for contingencies to minimize interruptions in service and provides rate stability. The Enterprise Fund The Solid Waste Division was originally part of a larger Public Works Department that was responsible for road construction and maintenance in addition to operation of solid waste sites. This Department operated with revenues from statewide transportation funds, transfers from the County's general fund account and revenues from tip fees collected at the solid waste facilities. In the mid 1990s, a decision was made to establish a separate Solid Waste Department and enterprise fund that would operate solely on revenues from services provided. Many public works utility operations, such as wastewater or water districts, typically use enterprise funds. The enterprise fund may manage its revenue resources to provide for operations including purchasing equipment and internal financing for capital projects. As an enterprise fund, the County can issue bonds and repay the debt through user fees. DSW completed a financial plan in 1998 that was used to establish strategy to mostly finance capital improvements and establish reserves for the purpose of maintaining stable rates and minimizing the need for sudden rate increases. This is a result of the County's overall guidance to provide a fiscally responsible and managed approach for these services. Revenues in excess of annual expenditures are typically placed into dedicated reserve funds. These reserve funds are intended to be used for capital investments, either for new facilities or replacement of existing facilities, resources for closure and post -closure maintenance of Knott Landfill, and contingency funds. Dedicated reserve funds (described later in this chapter) are in place to ensure that disposal fees remain stable and allow capital project funding without incurring large amounts of additional debt. This financial strategy has been effective in minimizing incremental or sudden rate adjustments. The current disposal rate or tip fee is $55 per ton and was approved in July 2017. The previous tip fee of $50 per ton was in place for seven years, from 2010 to 2017. DSW was able to avoid rate adjustments, despite a decrease in disposed solid waste between 2010 and 2013 at Knott Landfill, by maintaining appropriate fund balances. Revenue Requirements and Expenditures for Facility Operations and Management The revenue requirements to fund the County's solid waste management programs and provide services are reviewed on an annual basis. DSW establishes these revenue requirements by examining its needs in several categories, consistent with the requirements of managing an enterprise fund. This includes all internal operations conducted by DSW and those operations that are contracted with private companies. Primary budget line items include: 1. Personnel Services - Includes all direct labor and employee overhead/benefits 2. Materials and Services - Include all supplies and the materials required to operate facilities and services that are contracted. These include: • Transportation of waste and recyclables from transfer stations • Transportation of recyclable materials to processing facilities • Education and promotional services for waste reduction and recycling • Transfers to the general fund to compensate for administrative support services such as legal, accounting, purchasing, and other support functions. 3. Capital Outlay - Represents expenditures for equipment and items over $50,000 4. Transfers to Funds - These represent distribution of revenue to reserve funds for closure and post closure of Knott Landfill, system -wide capital improvements and equipment. E. Chapter 8 5. Debt Service - Includes payment of debt (principle and interest) for bonds issued to make large capital investments. Specifically, the County issued a $14 million bond in 2006 to construct new facilities at Knott Landfill including scales and a scalehouse, an administrative office, a household hazardous waste facility, a recycling center and a transfer station. In 2016, the County re- financed approximately $5.2 million of the original bonds. Therefore, the budget reflects the appropriation of capital funds, but no new debt was incurred. The annual budget prepared by DSW considers not only the direct operating needs of the Department but also addresses the changes required to meet State regulations and the service needs of the cities and franchised collection companies. DSW budgets for transfers from reserve funds to offset expenditures to close portions of the landfill, purchase equipment and make capital improvements. Also, in 2018 and in the 2019 budget, DSW established an operating contingency of about $600,000 or 4% of the total budget. This policy is consistent with standard practice for public utilities or enterprise funds. The amount of contingency will vary for each utility operation depending on the risk associated with generating the projected revenue. Since 80% or more of DSW's revenues are from tip fees at facilities, they rely extensively on projected solid waste quantities to be disposed at Knott Landfill. Historically, solid waste volumes have varied from minus 3.35% to plus 11%. Table 8-1 shows the actual expenditures for fiscal years (FY) 2016 and 2017 along with the expected revenue requirements for FY 2018 and FY 2019. Table 8-1: Actual and Projected Expenditures — FY 2016 -FY 2019 Revenue Requirements (Expenditures) FY 2016 Actual FY 2017 Actual FY 2018 Budget FY 2019 Adopted Personnel Services $1,967,190 $2,049,320 $2,278,466 $2,504,623 Materials & Services $3,483,735 $4,334,705 $4,859,217 $4,772,159 Debt Service and Bond Re- finance $6,219,266 $ 858,512 $ 861,102 $ 860,938 Capital Outlay $ 74,313 $ 127,449 $ 125,000 $ 173,000 Transfers Out $1,726,539 $3,075,000 $2,580,000 $4,688,023 Contingency - - $ 569,886 $600,000 Total Requirements $13,471,043 $10,444,985 $11,273,671 $13,598,743 8-7 Chapter 8 Figure 8-2: Projected Expenditures for FY 2019 Contingency 4% Capital Out 170 Debt Service 6% Figure 8-2 shows that about 54% of the DSW budget is expended on operations and another 35% in transfers representing financial obligations associated with operating Knott Landfill. One expense item that could be impacted by recent events relates to the costs for transporting and processing recyclable materials. Over the past 10 years, markets for recyclable materials collected under State -mandate collection requirements to households were stable. For example, the average price per ton of recovered materials from MRFs ranged from $120 per ton to as much as $160 per ton. Since 2016 however, prices have been severely disrupted due to China's increased restrictions for purchasing recyclables. Currently, market prices now average about $50 per ton for all materials with the price for mixed paper, the largest commodity in the recycled stream, being worth less than $10 per ton. Jurisdictions across the United States have had to make rate adjustments to address significant commodity price reductions. Some communities in Oregon have discontinued collecting certain items and others have received exemptions from DEQ to dispose of certain materials because of the depressed values of those materials. Since revenues are used to offset the cost of transportation and processing recyclables, when market prices decline, these expenses must be made up by ratepayers. To date, the franchised haulers, cities and the County have maintained the current collection system and rates despite the recent market challenges. This issue will mostly impact collection rates to residences, but DSW does pay the expenses to transport the recyclable materials collected at its facilities to processors in the Willamette Valley and Portland. If the recycling processors charge more, DSW's budget may be impacted since they pay for the transportation of recyclable materials to processors and also absorb the cost of depressed market prices. M Based on a review of the past few years, DSW's budget is largely expended on direct operating services for the transfer stations and Knott Landfill. The allocation of expenditures to services is shown on Table 8-2. Table 8-2: Allocation of Expenditures to Operations Service Cost Allocation Disposal of Solid Waste — Knott Landfill 60% Operation of Transfer Stations 26% Recycling Marketing/ Transportation/Special Waste HHW /Com ostin 5% Debt Service 9% Note: The actual allocation of expenditures to operations may vary from year to year. Reserve Funds A key feature of DSW's financial program is the establishment of dedicated reserve funds. DSW reviews these funds annually to verify the amount being collected and placed in reserve is sufficient to meet the needs of their operations over the next five years. As such, revenues are transferred into reserves to maintain the required amounts. If funds are needed for capital improvements or projects such as the closure of landfill cells, money can be transferred into the operation budget. However, these funds can only be appropriated and spent with approval of the Board of County Commissioners. Currently there are four different reserve funds. These are described in Table 8-3. Table 8-3: Projected Reserve Fund Balances - FY 2019 Reserve Funds FY 2019 Fund Balance Landfill Closure Fund — Established to make final improvements required to $4,037,938 close the landfill once it is completed. Landfill Post Closure Fund — Established to collect funds dedicated for $1,057,948 monitoring and maintaining the landfill after it closes. Capital Projects Fund — Funds set aside to make improvements and $3,104,840 expansions to existing facilities or to build new facilities. Equipment Fund — Funds needed to purchase large equipment needed for $543,175 operations. Total Reserve Funds $8,743,901 DSW uses these funds to execute its basic services in accordance with State and federal regulations and to maintain rate stability. The total amount generated in each fund must be reviewed at least annually to verify that sufficient funds are available to meet anticipated and unforeseen obligations and liabilities. As solid waste is one of the most heavily regulated industries, it is necessary for DSW to update the funding requirements as part of their operations. Although DSW does provide a capital projects reserve fund, it does not currently have sufficient funds to finance construction of major facility improvements. As the SWMP has identified investments needed in existing transfer stations and potentially siting and constructing a new landfill, DSW will need to consider the appropriate approach for raising the capital to make these investments. In 2006, DSW issued bonds used to construct needed facilities at Knott Landfill. These facilities were designed to not only meet immediate needs but also to provide for services when Knott Landfill closes. Additional capital will be needed over the next 10 years to construct the infrastructure required to provide cost effective long-term disposal and resource recovery services. Revenue Sources DSW generates most of its revenue from fees for services. This includes the tip fees charged to customers and fees charged to the franchised collection companies. Table 8-2 presents the actual revenues generated in FY 2016 and 2017. As mentioned previously, in 2016 the County re -financed bonds that shows up in the budget as new revenue. However, no new debt was incurred. As shown each year, DSW carries forward a beginning fund balance, referred to as "Beginning Net Working Capital". These revenues are a result of funds not expended during the previous year's budget and/or increased revenues from waste quantities that were higher than projected in the previous year. These fund balances range from an expected 5.5% in FY 2018 to perhaps almost 13% budgeted in FY 2019. The net working capital is part of the annual budget used to offset revenue requirements in the current FY. Table 8-4: Actual and Projected Revenues — FY 2016—FY 2019 Revenue Sources FY 2016 Actual FY 2017 Actual FY 2018 Budget FY 2019 Adopted Beginning Net Working Capital $1,163,893 $1,810,265 $ 615,872 $1,730,130 Charges for Services $8,755,712 $9,780,396 $10,614,998 $11,795,572 Interest Revenue $ 24,335 $ 31,959 $ 20,000 $ 44,000 Other Non -Operational Revenue $ 10,801 $ 12,801 $ 10,801 $ 11,041 Sale of Assets, Land or Equipment $ 40,673 $ 47,242 $ 12,000 $ 18,000 Refinance Bonds — Capital Issuance of Long -Term Liability $5,285,895 - - - Total Resources $15,281,308 $11,682,663 1 $11,273,671 1 $13,598,743 8-10 Chapter 8 For FY 2019, almost 87% of the projected revenues are generated from charges for services. For this reason, DSW must be diligent in monitoring the incoming waste streams and balancing expenditures. Many factors outside the control of DSW can impact the revenues projections. During the recent recession, solid waste quantities were depressed due to reduced construction activity as well as a slower overall economy. Other factors that possibly impacted the amount of waste generated in Deschutes County was a reduction in tourism during this same period. This occurred between 2012 through 2014 when solid waste disposed at the landfill decreased. Over the past three years, DSW has experienced an increase of 26% in solid waste quantities. Despite these unique circumstances, the financial strategies and operations of the enterprise fund by DSW have resulted in stable rates. The current rate of $55 per ton is 40% less than most other large jurisdictions in the State. Other communities that operate similar enterprise funds include Marion County at $87.45 per ton and Lane County at $78.77 per ton. While these jurisdictions operate well established and stable solid waste systems, this comparison demonstrates the ability of DSW to operate a cost-effective system. 8.3 Needs and Opportunities The County has provided a leadership role in providing the facilities necessary to support efficient management of solid waste services. Over the past 25 years, Knott Landfill has been improved and expanded to meet the disposal needs of the County. It also includes a system of four transfer stations which provide collection facilities that offer convenient and cost-effective infrastructure to receive and transport waste and recyclables for communities outside the Bend area. In addition to owning and operating facilities, DSW has worked effectively in partnership with the cities, franchised collection companies, The Environmental Center and other entities to expand programs and services to respond to growth and the ever-changing regulations that impact how solid waste is managed. This stewardship is apparent by the fact that collection and disposal rates are amongst the lowest in the state. At the same time, the service providers have adopted new programs to promote waste reduction and reuse as well as new services to recycle more materials. For the past 25 years, the system has relied on having a disposal site, Knott Landfill, to manage solid waste in a convenient, cost effective and environmentally safe manner. As discussed in previous chapters of this SWMP, when Knott Landfill reaches capacity in the next 10 years, a new disposal alternative must be in place. There are several improvements to existing programs and services as well as the addition of new programs and services that have been recommended that will present new challenges to the solid waste management system. These include: 1. Currently the County has achieved a recovery rate of 33%. New goals set by the State recommend the County increase its recovery rate to 45% by 2025. These are not mandatory goals, but they suggest that certain programs need to be expanded and/or new services be provided. 8-11 CEO Chapter 8 2. To address the increase in the recovery rate, the SWMP identifies several modifications and expansion of collection services. This will take a coordinated effort between the cities, County and franchised collection companies. 3. Expanding collection programs for food waste from residents and commercial businesses will also require more advanced composting systems and possibly relocating the current composting operations. 4. As new recycling programs and services are considered, a uniform and standardized education and promotion program will be needed. 5. Both the Negus and Southwest Transfer Stations need improvements to address increases in customer traffic and waste volumes. 6. A new disposal site must be located or chosen over the next six to seven years to provide sufficient time to make the necessary investments to have facilities operating when Knott Landfill closes. While there are significant program and service enhancements that need to be made over the next five to ten years, the County and its partners have time to execute an incremental approach to make the improvements needed to sustain a convenient and cost-effective system. The recommendations made in this SWMP provide a roadmap for implementing a systematic approach. However, it will require leadership from the County and active participation of the cities, agencies, franchised collection companies, and others to effectively develop the details and implement these system changes. 8.3.1 Management Considerations A coordinated effort between the County and cities is needed to address changes to the solid waste system and maintain cost-efficient service to all citizens and businesses. New resource recovery goals imposed by the State will mean changes to collection services, which will require that facilities be expanded or adapted to handle the enhanced collection services. Implementation of the actions recommended in the SWMP will require all parties to participate in making key decisions that affect their constituents. For instance, expanding recycling services for collection of food waste, expanding multi -family and commercial recycling programs, and planning and constructing the facilities needed for future operations are amongst the many actions to be taken over the next five to ten years. Coordinating these actions to continue to build an effective integrated solid waste system will require participation by all stakeholders. The SWAC, representing a cross section of local government, franchised collection companies, technical experts and the general public has played an important role in shaping the direction of the SWMP. In deliberating over the recommendations, the SWAC has identified the need to establish a task force or other committees to further develop the details for implementing the recommended actions. 8-12 8.3.2 Financing and Funding Considerations Over the past 25 years, DSW has operated as an enterprise fund largely built on a pay as you go model with exception of issuance of bonds in 2006. A portion of these bonds will be retired by 2026 and the remaining amount in 2033. As the County considers the options for disposal after Knott Landfill closes, there are several financial scenarios to evaluate including: 1. If the County elects to transport waste out of Deschutes County, the cost to dispose of solid waste is estimated to increase from $35 per ton to more than $50 to $60 per ton in today's dollars. This increase is for the incremental cost to transport and dispose of solid waste at an out -of -County facility. Additional costs will be incurred at existing transfer stations to provide the infrastructure to load transfer trailers for long haul transportation operations. The total expense to operate this system will most likely range from $70 to $80 per ton. This tip fee may also be subject to host fees the regional landfill will charge, which is assumed to be $5 per ton for planning purposes. 2. If the County elects to site and construct an in -County landfill, the cost to dispose of waste is estimated to be similar to current cost of $35 per ton. Also, some transfer stations will require improvements to accommodate growth and provide short term surge capacity. Under this option, system operating costs are estimated to be about $60 per ton. These projected revenue requirements only consider the cost of operating transfer stations and transporting solid waste to a landfill. It does not include any new expenses for waste reduction and recycling programs, increases in expenses due to new regulations and cost to manage special waste streams (tires, HHW, C/D, etc.). Other capital investments that can impact future rates include the possible siting and construction of a new compost facility to handle food waste, yard waste and other organics. DSW prepared a financial study in 1998 that established funding strategies and reserve funds that have been effective in maintaining a stable rate system. A new financial plan should be developed to address the new facility needs and other program options recommended in the SWMP. 8.4 Alternatives and Evaluation Moving forward with implementing the recommendations in this SWMP will require changes in the management approach to engage stakeholders in setting priorities and developing specific actions. Also, the cost of the services to all County residents and businesses will increase as the system transitions from disposing of solid waste at Knott Landfill to a new site. This section presents the alternatives to address the management and financial needs. 8.4.1 Administration/Management The County has been the primary owner and operator of facilities and therefore has played leadership role in developing the infrastructure needed to provide cost effective 8-13 management of solid waste. With the adoption of this SWMP, there will be a need to manage the transition from the system that relied on Knott Landfill to seeking an alternative disposal site. Also, as collection services are adapted to implement new programs and services, facilities will need to be modified and new facilities developed. Many communities have faced similar challenges brought on by the need to transition the solid waste system on a County -wide or regional approach. The following presents some alternatives that might be considered. Maintain Existing Management Structure The County has effectively provided the leadership role working with cities and franchised collection companies. During the past 25 years, most of the changes to facilities and services have been the result of new regulations and or policies adopted by local jurisdictions. The SWMP has established a roadmap for moving forward. However, the recommendations will impact all citizens and businesses in both the cities and the County. The County will continue to play a leadership role with DSW having the responsibility to organize, plan and oversee implementation. This will require additional resources from DSW or possibly some restructuring of responsibilities within DSW. Since several recommendations will require decisions by local jurisdictions, they will impact franchised collection companies. Their involvement will be crucial to planning and developing the best approach for moving forward with enhanced collection programs and services. Thus, under the current management structure, there are a few alternative management models or approaches to consider. 1. Establish a Solid Waste Steering Committee - This committee can be comprised of elected officials from each jurisdiction or possible a key division manager from each jurisdiction. The Steering Committee would be responsible for representing the interest of their jurisdiction as recommendations for changes to services are considered. The County would represent its constituents while local governments represent theirs. 2. Appoint a Special Task Force to plan and implement programs - Under this model, a Task Force would be given the responsibility to address certain needs of the system. It is a way to involve decision makers, experts in technical fields and representatives of the general public during the implementation process. As an example, establishing a Task Force to develop a comprehensive program for providing recycling to multi -family dwellings could be considered. This has been a challenge for many communities and a tailored approach is needed to provide these services effectively. Each jurisdiction must consider what works best for their situation. Another Task Force might be appointed to oversee the siting of a new landfill if this disposal alternative is selected. 3. Establish an ongoing SWAC - The SWAC would provide guidance and involve stakeholders in developing alternatives and actions for implementation. Many counties have established ongoing committees as a method to involve stakeholders in development of their solid waste system. In many cases, the SWAC may have different levels of responsibilities and authorities granted by the Board of County Commissioners. Involvement of a SWAC has proven to be 8-14 Chapter 8 effective in developing consensus and support for implementing solid waste programs and services. There are numerous examples where these management models are being used. Clark County, Washington for example has a regional steering committee and a SWAC. The steering committee is a policy group involving the participating cities, while the SWAC is a cross section of stakeholders and the public. The SWAC is involved with implementation of the recommendations adopted in Clark County's Regional Solid Waste Management Plan. Other communities rely heavily on SWACs to provide input and guidance for developing new programs and services. As the County moves forward with implementation, the use of a Steering Committee and/or SWAC may be an effective way to involve the local jurisdictions and stakeholders with implementing the SWMP. In addition to establishing a framework for local government participation, the County should consider renewing the intergovernmental agreements with each city. It is critical that the County work closely with these partners to develop consensus prior to making large investments in the solid waste management system. Regional Management Approaches As regulations became increasingly more stringent requiring extensive environmental controls, jurisdictions had to consider options for processing, transporting and disposing of solid waste. It became desirable and, in some cases, necessary to work on regional solutions. Regionalization of solid waste management services, where the system extends beyond the boundary of one political jurisdiction, provides the potential to offer administrative and economic benefits over what a singular jurisdiction may not be able to achieve otherwise. This is especially true for capital - intensive system elements such as transfer stations, MRFs, landfills and alternative technologies like WTEFs. Throughout the country, there are several forms of regional organizations ranging from singular purpose agencies like a Joint Powers Board, to separate agencies such as Special Districts and Authorities. These management approaches may be a consideration as one approach for moving forward with implementation of the SWMP and developing the future solid waste system. .joint Powers Board When two or more jurisdictions have a stake in the development of a system in which policies and investments will impact constituents of each of those parties, establishing a separate decision-making authority may be desirable. What differs from a system that relies on intergovernmental agreements is it recognizes each jurisdictions' desire to have a vote on certain actions. The Board can be made of elected officials from each jurisdiction or delegates. The Board may have a limited authority, as agreed upon, such as approval of the annual budgets and/or setting rates. This authority is usually restricted to certain functions that serve both parties. Policies, programs and services 8-15 related to collection and recycling do not necessarily need to be part of this agreement. Operations of the common facilities can be carried out by the employees of the County, but under direction of the Joint Powers Board. As such, the agency can work similar to the existing enterprise fund including using existing County and/or city support services. The advantage of the Joint Powers Board is to isolate the enterprise fund from purposes other than solid waste services. Also, since the participating jurisdictions will be paying indirectly through its residents and businesses for system improvements, elected officials may desire a more control over decisions affecting the system. In some cases, the commitment of solid waste volumes to build the needed facilities may be necessary to sell bonds to finance capital intensive projects. A few examples of Joint Powers Boards include the Spokane Regional Solid Waste System and Santa Fe Solid Waste Management Agency. 1. The Spokane Regional Solid Waste System was originally formed in 1988 by an intergovernmental agreement between Spokane County, the City of Spokane, and other regional cities and jurisdictions. Under that agreement, the City of Spokane took on the ownership and operation of County -wide solid waste disposal system. This agency operates with elected officials from both the cities and the County as Board members. Its establishment was necessary due to adoption of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), which required closing all city and County landfills. These landfills were prohibited from continuing to operate under the new RCRA regulations as they were located above a sole source aquifer. In order to sell bonds to finance the closure of all landfills and build a WTEF, the regional system agency was formed. On November 17, 2014, a new intergovernmental agreement was initiated. Under the new agreement, the ownership and management of the solid waste system was transferred from the City of Spokane to Spokane County. The exception to this transfer was the ownership of the WTEF and the Northside Landfill, which ownership of was retained by the City of Spokane. The agreement specifies that Spokane County direct waste flows from the transfer stations to the WTEF. 2. The Santa Fe Solid Waste Management Agency is comprised of three elected officials from Santa Fe County and three from the City of Santa Fe. The agency operates like a public utility or enterprise fund. It operates the County landfill and contracts directly with the City to operate the recycling and transfer station. It contracts with the City to provide purchasing and some legal services and uses the City benefits system for its employees. This agency was formed to site, build and operate the new county landfill. It works closely with both jurisdictions to provide facilities and support for waste reduction and recycling services. 8-16 These Joint Powers Boards have operated for several years and all the circumstances that created the arrangements may not be the same today as they were when they were formed. However, they have operated successfully to provide equitable and cost- effective services that have satisfied the participating jurisdictions. It should be noted that they have flexibility to evolve as shown by the changes made to the Spokane Regional Solid Waste System. The most common incentive is the commitment of solid waste volumes to support the investments in facilities,the ability to finance these investments and to operate most cost effectively by consolidating waste streams to support operations. Establish a Regional Authority or Special District The establishment of a special district or authority in the State of Oregon is not common for solid waste services. However, there are many examples of regional or special water and wastewater districts. In the State of California, there are several examples of special solid waste districts or authorities. The impetus for establishing these regional districts is largely driven by the need to pool waste streams in order to build and operate solid waste facilities most cost effectively. These special districts are standalone organizations that own and operate transfer stations, MRFs, and landfills. The boards are typically comprised of elected representatives of the participating agencies under some agreed formula. The agency has ability to finance, build and operate facilities to serve all participating jurisdictions. Different from the Joint Powers Boards, Special Districts are totally autonomous and, depending on state statutes, may have authority to levy taxes. This is the case in the State of Washington where statutorily, a solid waste Special District (referred to as a Disposal District) can tax citizens and businesses within its approved boundaries. Currently there are a few Disposal Districts operating in the Washington State. Some examples of Regional Authorities operating are as follows: Monterey Regional Solid Waste Management District - This Board is comprised of elected official from seven cities and Monterey County. It operates all recycling and disposal facilities and manages about 250,000 tons of solid waste per year while its member agencies maintain responsibility for franchised collection programs and services. The District's facilities include: • Regional compost site managing food, yard and agricultural waste and digestate from an anaerobic digester • Mixed waste and commingled MRF • Regional reuse center (Last Chance Mercantile) • Landfill disposal facility • C/D MRF By working together, the District can ensure that facilities are available to handle the programs and services offered by its member agencies. 2. South Bayside Waste Management Authority - Located halfway between San Francisco and San Jose in San Carlos, California, the Authority serves 11 cities and San Mateo County. Established in 1982, the primary 8-17 function of the Authority is to operate a MRF and transfer station that serves all member jurisdictions and to provide a cost-effective system to transport solid waste to a regional disposal site. In 2010, the Authority coordinated a complete transition of its solid waste collection system and retrofitted existing facilities by constructing infrastructure needed for its member jurisdictions to comply with new regulations. There are several other examples of special districts operating throughout the United States. Many were established for the purpose of building the infrastructure needed to manage solid waste using the most effective approach. In some cases, they may operate as a separate government entity like Portland Metro, which provides services in the Portland regional area. However, many operate under the authority of a board comprised of elected officials representing member agencies. These alternative management structures provide some options that might be considered, depending on the factors that are important to the County and the cities. 8.4.2 Finance and Funding The County has a proven financial management system in place via an enterprise fund for the management of the solid waste system. The enterprise fund provides a sound operating base and reserves for maintenance, capital improvements and meeting regulatory requirements. Based on its historic performance and given the funding requirements in the immediate future, it is not expected that the County would need to modify the basic enterprise fund approach. It is recommended that the County continue to rely on its current mix of revenue sources to fund future facility and program improvements. A new financial plan would address scenarios such as: • What increases are needed in tip fees and franchised fees to meet new revenue targets to fund improvements? For example, a resource recovery surcharge could be added to tip fees over a defined period to generate a targeted amount of new revenue. • Can or should franchised fees be adjusted to supplement revenue sources needed for new facilities and programs. Should the County issue new bonds to fund system capital improvements? Table 8-5 provides an illustration of the amount of new revenue that could be generated through a per ton resource recovery surcharge on landfill tip fees. This surcharge would be in place for a defined period and could be adjusted up or down depending on the revenue targets set for new facilities and programs. If the County added a special capital investment fee, assumed to be $5 per ton for this example, it may raise an estimated $11 million for new facilities over a ten year period. 8-18 To determine the amount of capital investment needed, DSW should prepare a capital improvement plan for the next ten years. This plan should consider how much is needed to fund improvements based on the cash flow requirements. Also, the amount needed should take into account that DSW already generates funds needed to construct new landfill cells. However, once the final cell is constructed, the reserve funds currently generated from rates could be allocated to fund other capital needs. These funds would be managed similar to the existing reserve funds. They can be restricted and budgeted on an annual basis to make improvements based on the approved capital improvement plan. This approach provides flexibility and avoids paying interest on bonds and will cost ratepayers less than using some bonding instruments. Also, the reserve fund can earn interest to help reduce contributions. County Bond Financing In 2006, using its ability to issue bonds for public purposes, DSW used $14 million in bond funds for capital improvements made to develop new facilities at Knott Landfill including a new entrance road, scale complex, administrative office, HHW facility, recycling center and a transfer station. These bonds are being paid by DSW through tip fees. The County has the capacity to continue to use these bonds if needed. However, future rate payers will need to pay off the principal and interest over a period of 15 to 20 years depending on the terms of the bond requirements. Revenue Bonds Since DSW derives its revenues from tip fees, an alternative financing method is to issue revenue bonds to pay for improvements and new facilities. These bonds are sold on the open market. However, the combination of higher interest rates, coverage requirements, and bond reserves make revenue bonds financing more expensive than using the County's bonding capacity. Because these bonds pledge future revenues from tip fees as collateral for the debt, this form of financing requires that a commitment of solid waste volumes be made to pay off the debt by all parties. 8-19 Table 8-5: Internal Financing Pa -as- ou- o Waste Disposed Capitol Reserve Year Population (tons) $5/Ton 2020 190,734 191,688 $958,440 2021 194,739 195,713 $978,565 2022 198,829 199,823 $999,115 2023 203,004 197,219 $986,095 2024 207,267 201,360 $1,006,800 2025 210,826 204,817 $1,024,085 2026 214,832 201,512 $1,007,560 2027 218,913 205,341 $1,026,705 2028 223,073 209,242 $1,046,210 2029 227,311 213,218 $1,066,090 2030 230,412 216,126 $1,080,630 Estimated Total Revenue Generated for Capital $11,180,295 To determine the amount of capital investment needed, DSW should prepare a capital improvement plan for the next ten years. This plan should consider how much is needed to fund improvements based on the cash flow requirements. Also, the amount needed should take into account that DSW already generates funds needed to construct new landfill cells. However, once the final cell is constructed, the reserve funds currently generated from rates could be allocated to fund other capital needs. These funds would be managed similar to the existing reserve funds. They can be restricted and budgeted on an annual basis to make improvements based on the approved capital improvement plan. This approach provides flexibility and avoids paying interest on bonds and will cost ratepayers less than using some bonding instruments. Also, the reserve fund can earn interest to help reduce contributions. County Bond Financing In 2006, using its ability to issue bonds for public purposes, DSW used $14 million in bond funds for capital improvements made to develop new facilities at Knott Landfill including a new entrance road, scale complex, administrative office, HHW facility, recycling center and a transfer station. These bonds are being paid by DSW through tip fees. The County has the capacity to continue to use these bonds if needed. However, future rate payers will need to pay off the principal and interest over a period of 15 to 20 years depending on the terms of the bond requirements. Revenue Bonds Since DSW derives its revenues from tip fees, an alternative financing method is to issue revenue bonds to pay for improvements and new facilities. These bonds are sold on the open market. However, the combination of higher interest rates, coverage requirements, and bond reserves make revenue bonds financing more expensive than using the County's bonding capacity. Because these bonds pledge future revenues from tip fees as collateral for the debt, this form of financing requires that a commitment of solid waste volumes be made to pay off the debt by all parties. 8-19 Chapter 8 General Obligation Bonds (New Taxes) General obligations bonds issued to finance of the County's solid waste system is an option with limitations. This approach places DSW's budget in a competitive pool with other County programs. It would be developed and approved as part of the overall general fund subject to revenue requirements consistent with the County's tax and fee structure. Solid waste activities could compete with other projects for available funds. All system revenues would be directed to the jurisdiction's general fund. Also, general obligation bonds may require a vote from the County's residents. The most common form of tax would make solid waste services part of the property tax. Under this approach, every unit pays its portion of the solid waste management program. Tip fees can be used to supplement the program revenues. For instance, the property tax portion can be used to pay facility debt service, program management and administration, and basic waste prevention and recycling education programs. Tip fees would be collected at solid waste facilities for direct services. This approach would ensure that all constituents pay for general services. Therefore, users of the system would not be required to subsidize those generators who elect to haul their waste to facilities outside the system. This would help stabilize tip fees and possibly delay or prevent increases over a longer period. The downside to this approach is that adding new taxes is complicated and certainly unpopular. It is much easier to raise tip fees than to approve new taxes, even if the actual tax is a small percentage of the total property tax. 8.5 Evaluation and Recommendations The County, cities and service providers have worked cooperatively and effectively to operate a well-managed and integrated solid waste management system for all businesses and residents. The system provides a full range of necessary services that are compliant with State mandated requirements at rates that are equitable to all constituents. To continue with a solid waste management system that provides cost effective services, it is important to maintain or enhance the level of coordination between all stakeholders. Currently, there is no formal or consistent forum in place to facilitate the level of coordination needed to support implementation of the SWMP. Currently, the County and cities have in place intergovernmental agreements that provide authority to the County to manage and dispose of waste. Cities retain the authority to oversee the collection services provided for their constituents. These agreements provide a necessary foundation for continuing the development of an integrated solid waste management system. Several options for managing and operating a regional or County -wide system are discussed in this chapter. Whether the system is managed by the County or through the authority established by forming a Joint Powers Board, the primary element that binds the parties to work cooperatively and effectively is the intergovernmental agreement. As long as these agreements satisfy each jurisdiction's needs for servicing their communities, there is no need for changing the management system. 8-20 Chapter 8 A SWAC, established for the sole purpose of developing the SWMP, has provided the necessary guidance and input to formulate the strategy to meet the future needs of the solid waste system. The adopted SWMP sets forth a road map to make improvements in an incremental but strategic manner over time. However, implementation of the recommendations will require updates and/or changes to policies and programs, further technical and feasibility analysis to select the best strategies for new services, and physical changes to the infrastructure that will require commitment of financial resources. Establishing a process to provide an ongoing dialog to develop the details and monitor the progress of these actions is essential to successfully implement the SWMP. Recommendation 8.1 - Given the need to implement the necessary changes to the solid waste management system over the next ten years, the County should meet with the cities to reaffirm commitments and update, as necessary, the intergovernmental agreements. The agreements should also address the cities participation in the process for implementing the recommendations adopted in the SWMP. Rational - The current intergovernmental agreements recognize the commitment to support and rely on the County to own and operate solid waste facilities to dispose of waste generated in their jurisdictions. As the County endeavors to move forward with recommendations to the solid waste management system and to site a new in -County landfill, having the support and commitment to this arrangement is necessary. Also, in considering the agreements, cities should determine what role they wish to have in shaping the future solid waste management system. Recommendation 8.2- The County should establish a formal process that provides for continued involvement of cities, other stakeholders, businesses and the general public in implementing the recommendations of the SWMP. This process may include establishing an ongoing advisory group and/or assigning task force committees to oversee development and implementation of specific programs. Rational -Whereas, the SWMP provides a road map and direction for shaping the future services of the solid waste management system, there are still many details to be determined. These changes will impact collection programs and services that are directed by the County and each city. Also, as changes to these services are made, the County, working with the private sector, must make improvements to the system infrastructure to ensure facilities can handle materials and waste streams most efficiently. Having the continued involvement of the key stakeholders and others will only enhance the ability to oversee the successful implementation of the SWMP. Recommendation 8.3 - The County should consider the current DSW organization and determine the resources that are needed to carry out implementation of the recommendations adopted in the SWMP. This will require perhaps some additional staff as well as financial resources. 8-21 Chapter 8 Rational — DSW currently operates with a staff of 24 FTE positions that operate four transfer stations and Knott Landfill. This is a fairly lean, but efficient, organization that must continue to maintain the current level of services while taking on additional responsibilities to work with cities and service providers to make changes to implement new programs, enhance facility operations and make capital improvements to existing facilities. The ability of DSW staff to take on new responsibilities should be evaluated to determine what changes might be made to execute the recommendations adopted in the SWMP. Recommendation 8.4 — DSW should prepare a financial study of current rates to determine the impacts of implementing the improvements identified in the SWMP and develop a Capital Improvement Plan for a five to seven year period aimed at maintaining a stable financial strategy. Rational — Operating as an enterprise fund, DSW has managed the rates and the financial resources needed to provide services to all constituents in a fair and equitable manner. DSW has also established dedicated reserve funds that are used to stabilize and minimize the impacts to rates and for making scheduled capital improvements for operating Knott Landfill and providing disposal capacity. The SWMP identified improvements to transfer stations and compost facilities and the siting and construction of a new in -County landfill that could cost between $20 to $30 million over the next ten years. DSW can prepare a Capital Improvement Plan to consider investments to be made over a five to seven year period that can updated annually. Forecasting and scheduling these new investments and evaluating the options for how these improvements can be financed will result in developing a strategy that results in the most cost-effective approach. (Intentionally Left Blank) 8-22 (Intentionally Left Blank) Exhibit A ,t4laxini-y-e *Y f. ,.-. . Collection Area by Wilderness Garbage and Recycling Services Can and Roll Cart Services - Effective January 1, 2010 1 ane pickup of one can each week: 1 j 20 Qallon cant curb or roadside $ 15.45 back and or other $ 17.55 35 gallon can: curb or roadside $ 17.75 back and or other $ 20.15 65 gallon canes,— curb or roadside_ $ 29.20 backyard or other 33.80 95 221lon can: curb or roadside $ 36.65 backward oror other $ _ _39.55 One pickup of additional can each week: 35 gallon canes curb or roadside $ 12.10 1.qaqkyarqor other $ 14.25 j�ec lal serylces 35 alioc�� canrsp� c gal ir7 rate {norc ku $ 11 ?5 w�~ � , _� yg,t p Matethe Collection of F3ufk Defuse: 6uik Rate or $13.60 per yard "or" a service fee of $67.00 per hour for 1 truck and driver ($96.60 per hour for 2 menu plus dis osal fees ..{ "'J 3!` t -�::.. tii* �+'�}� S 3" i*`2 b�4 3 7 J titAy ei_ r< iaihit 3$3s y .,3z If the need for a type of service arises that is not now foreseen or specifically covered by this rate schedule, then the charge for such service shall be: 1. uniform and nondiscriminatory between customers of a collector; 2. Commensurate with the rates generally charged in unincorporated Deschutes County; 3. Subic*ct to approval by Deschutes County. Exhibit A - Continued Maximum states for the Collection of Solid Waste within the Unincorporated Distant Rural Collection Area Served by Wilderness Garbage and Recycling Services Container Services - Effective January 1, 2010 Cubic Yard Container $ 111.01 $ 199.10 $ 287.24 $ 375,36 $_ 463.48 $ 551. _1 1.5 Cubic Yard Container $ 151.16 $ 277.66.$ 403.94 $ 530,34 $ 656.70 $ 783,1 5. 2 Cubic Yard Container $ 195.71 _$ 362,14 $ 528.59 $ 695.00 $ 861.43 $_1,027.813) 3 Cubic Yard Container $ 269.95 $ 496.80 $ 723.67 $ 950.55 $ 1,177.41 $_1,404.29 4 Cubic Yard Container $ 337.71 $ _623.64 ( $ 909.61 $ 1,195.58 $ 1,481.55 $ 1,767.46 5 Cubic Yard Container $ 406,78 $ 748.90 $ 1,091.07 $ 1,433.23 $ 1,775.38 $ 2,117.54 6 Cubic Yard Container $ 471,67 $ 865.97 $_1,260.25 $ 1,654.57 $ 2,048.86 $ 2,443.111 8 Cubic Yard Container $ 577,40 $ 1,060.63 $ 1,543.83 $ 2,027.05 $ 251026 $ 2,993.4ti ry Compactor Rates: Compactor containers will have a disposal charge at 3.0 times the uncompacted rate. The service SPDC Ghaa hP the same as those cha cied for uncompacted containers. Exhibit B Maximum Rates for the Collection of Solid Waste Within the Unincorporated Rural Collection Area Served by Brownrigg Investments, Inc., Bend Garbage and Recycling Company, Inc., and Nigh Country Disposal Company, Inc. Can and Roll Cart Services - Effective January 1, 2010 �... Rates as of Class of Service 1 -Jan -10 One pickup of one can each week: 20 gallon can: curb or roadside $ 16 hackvard or other $ 16.. 55 35 gallon can: (Curb or roadside $ 17.75 bac kvard or other $ 19.7 65 gallon can [cuborroadside$ 27.55 30.65 kvard or other 95 gallon can: curb or roadskac,$ 33.8 36.10 6ackvard or one pickup of additional can each week: 35 gallon can: curb or roadside $ 10 _ ______ _ _ _._ _ -gallon or other $ 11.95 Special Services: 35 gallon can special pickup (rate per pickup) $ 12.45 Bulk Rate far the Collection of Bulk Refuse: $12.50 per yard "or" a service fee of $60.50 per hour for 1 truck and driver ($87.10 per hour for 2 men) plus disposal fees. _ If the need for a type of service arises that is not now foreseen or specifically covered by this rate schedule, then the charge for such service shall be: 1. Uniform and non-discriminatory between customers of a collector; 2. Commensurate with the rates generally charged in unincorporated Deschutes County; 3. Subiect to approval by Deschutes County. Exhibit B - Continued Maximum Rates for the Collection of Solid Waste Within the Unincorporated Rural Collection Area Served by Brownrigg Investments, Inc., Bend Garbage and Recycling Company, Inc., and High Country Disposal Company, Inc. Container Services - Effective January 1, 2010 Number of Services (Pickups) er Week 863.52 Compactor Rates: Compactor containers will have a disposal charge at 3.0 times the uncompacted rate, The service fees shall be the same as those h dhn uncompactedoonboinorn Exhibit C Maximum Rates for the Collection of Solid Waste within the Unincorporated Distant Rural Collection Area Served by Brownrigg Investments, Inc., Bend Garbage and Recycling Co., Inc., and High Country Disposal Co., Inc. Can and Roll Cart Services - Effective ,January 1, 2010 Class of Servicep — 1�Jn-1'0 One pickup of one can each week: 20 gallon can: curb or roadside $ 15.95 backvard or other � $ 18.15 35 gallon can: --- — ____.._..__.__..___. 18.40 curb or roadside —� )085 backvard or other — _ - 5 65 gallon can:_._______.._.—�_ __ — d.. — $ 30. (curb or roadside _-.-- backyard or other 35. 95 gallon can: curb or roadside$ 38.05 $ 41.00 backvard or other �- ---- ------ One pickup of additional can each week: 35 gallon -,can. curb or roadside $ 12.60 _ . _� — _...___ _ $ 14.80 (backvar_d or other _ ._ Special services: 35 gallon can special pickup (rate per pickup)— Bulk Rate Tor the Collection of Sulh f efuse: � � — $14.10 per yard "or" a service fee of $71.50 per hour for 1 truck and driver ($100.15 per hour for 2 men) plus disposal fees.�� If the need for a type of service arises that is not now foreseen or specifically covered by this rate schedule, then the charge for such service shall be: 1. Uniform and non-discriminatory between customers of a collector; 2. Commensurate with the rates generally charged in unincorporated Deschutes County; 3. Subiec t to approval by Deschutes County. Exhibit C - Continued Maximum Rates for the Collection of Solid Waste within the Unincorporated Distant Rural Collection Area Served by Brownrigg Investments, Inc., Bend Garbage and Recycling Co., Inc., and High Country Disposal Co., Inc. Container Services - Effective January 1, 2010 Number of Services (Pickups) Per Week Service Provided 1 2-3- 4-, 5----6 1 Cubic Yard Container $ 114.12 $ 205.36 $ 296.65 $ 387.91 $ 479.14 $ 570.39 1.5 Cubic Yard Container $ 155.86 $ 286.97 $ 418.05 $ 549,17 $ 680.26 $ 811.40 2 Cubic Yard Container $ 201.97 $ 374.68 $ 547.41 $ 720.12 $ 892.86 $ 1,065.57 3 Cubic Yard Container $ 279.37 $ 515.67 $ 752.01 $ 988.35 $ 1,224.67 $ 1,461.00 4 Cubic Yard Container $ 350.29 $ 648.85 $ 947.44 $ 1,246.03 $ 1,544.63 $ 1,843.19 5 Cubic Yard Container $ 422.52 $ 780.44 $ 1,138.42 $ 1,496.37 $ 1,854.33 $ 2,212.31 6 Cubic Yard Container $ 490.58 $ 903.85 $ 1,317.11 $ 1,730.40 $ 2,143.69 $ 2,556.97 8 Cubic Yard Container $ 602.65 $ 1,111.24 $ 1,619.79 $ 2,128.36 $ 21636.93 $ 3,145.51 Compactor Rates: Compactor containers will have a disposal charge at 3.0 times the uncompacted rate. The service fees shall be the same as those Cir), for uncompac�ted containers Exhibit D Rates for container rental and transfer services provided by Deschutes Transfer Company to the Department of Solid Waste Refuse Transfer Rates Northwest Transfer Station Ko:ut —hw —eit--r T :s—fe �r�Stabon Alfalfa Transfer Station Neaus Transfer Station Black Butte Ranch Bend DemoINon R(- Ea ( Eag C�est Resort Northwest Transfer Sisters Re"—gclin- Sunriver Recvclinq Southwest Transfer Station Recyciin Wilderness Disposal Recycling Nequs Transfer Station Recycling $304.00 $304.00 $150,00 $12.41 $180.00 $90,00 $135-00 $1_35.00 $13500 ,7 1 �--, $120.00 $IS5—.00 $15$.75 $4.23 $95.55 $34,66 $18.87 $60.02 Container Rental Rates J,O_ecu(itypox $87.50 rd DTp o $70.00 J,O Yard Drop Box $51 .50 Deschutes 2019 Solid Waste Management Plan Public Outreach /Involvement Process A key element of preparing the Deschutes County Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP) was to actively promote public participation and seek input from the broader public as the plan was being prepared. This outreach program was comprehensive. It included setting up a Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC) with broad representation including immediate stakeholders such as cities, recyclers and franchised collection companies and setting up a dedicated website that posted regular updates of the draft SWMP as it was being prepared. All SWAC meetings were open to the public who were invited to participate at meetings. The County issued regular announcements to all parties that visit their website. Summary of Solid Waste Management Plan Outreach: Solid Waste Management Plan website (https•//www deschutes org/solidwaste/pie/solid-waste-management-plan) o Deschutes County Fact Sheet o Solid Waste Management Plan document draft o Links to the Recycling and Disposal Options surveys o Links to the SWAC and public meetings o Other resource information Solid Waste Advisory Committee Meetings website (https://www deschutes org/solidwaste/Daae/solid-waste-advisory-committee- meetings) o Calendar Dates o Location/Directions o Agendas o Meeting Minutes o Presentations o Links to the draft SWMP and public meetings Public Meetings: o Recycling Public Meeting — 6/25/18 6:00 — 7:30 p.m. o Disposal Public Meeting — 1/31/19 5:00 — 7:00 p.m. Publicity: o Solid Waste website o Deschutes County website — news release, banner board, calendar o Deschutes Services Building meeting notification board o County Public Information Officer social media blasting o Notifications at SWAC and other meetings o Other communication efforts • Community Outreach Efforts: o Meeting requests - Timm Schimke, Director of the Department of Solid Waste (DSW) presented at different community events such as Sisters Rotary and various City Council meetings o Media interviews - Multiple media outlet interviews with Timm Schimke Emailed correspondence including calendar invites and material (attachments and website links): o SWAC email distribution list - comprised of committee members, staff and consultants o SWAC Interested Parties email distribution list - comprised of people requesting to subscribe at meetings, in the office or via survey responses • Surveys: o Solid Waste Recycling Survey (http://deschutes.ora/swsurvey) o Solid Waste Disposal Options Survey (http://deschutes.org/disposaloptions) o Telephone survey conducted by independent polling and research firm o KTVZ television station poll Results from Surveys DSW, in conjunction with the SWAC, conducted two special public meetings. At each meeting a survey was issued to obtain feedback from the public about the direction for the future solid waste services described in the SWMP. The survey was also published on the County's website to reach more people. The surveys were designed to gauge the public's general sentiment and input related to the Waste Reduction and Recycling Program and future landfill disposal options. The following information is a summary of the results and comments received. (Intentionally Left Blank) �i tP► �I ►T 1_1;71 2/26/2019 RESPONSES: 196 Surveys 155 Comments 93 Pagel 62 Page 2 63 Interested Party Distribution List Additions From Survey Responses Survey asks about recycling and composting habits (page 1) and ways to extend the life of the landfill by reducing waste and recycling more (page 2) • Majority of respondents have curbside recycling, about half subscribe to curbside yard collection, and under half compost at home • Most recycle at work; very few work places compost • All but a small percentage are in favor of educating on buying products with less packaging waste • Over half of the respondents strongly agree or agree in having curbside yard/food waste collection as part of their bill • Majority agree in having businesses recycle/separate food waste and requiring multifamily complexes to recycle and compost (while offering some type of rate incentive) Over 150 comments submitted with a general theme of: - being able to recycle styrofoam and more plastics - providing more recycling and composting education - making recycling easy - offering recycling and yard/food waste services in unincorporated areas - expanding composting availability at home and in the community - accepting all/most food waste - putting in place programs for construction material - requiring hotels and other businesses to have recycling available Summary - 212612019 NJ z O N M d Z � N ® LL AJ o N M h ® —1 J 00° LU v 4n V H z \ W < ® O C 6L t0 z Mco t°- 00 00 he m cr d' ly ® 1— ui co 0 kJ J W ��. Z ON uj Z 00 ri c®1 + 6 tin ui U M M 6td Cf 6J kn 4u r W o L cc � Z Z N IJm LU co z r LL LL @@@ J o0 LLJ m co N Pil V1 r �1 0 o v z w O O O .-i N M ggg • I'm considering food waste to include any veggies or fruit that have expired or the cut off ends. I do not add cooked food to my compost. I used the description on Bend Garbage & Recyclings website to determine this as acceptable. • I would like to be able to recycle styrofoam and peanuts. • I feel like there is so much more that can be recycled that we have to throw away. Try to be very conscious of packaging when shopping, try to buy in bulk. As a family of 3 we do have the smallest trash can and usually when we put it out it isn't full. Would like to compost at home but I'm grateful that we can put food waste in our yard waste can. • By food in compost, only raw vegetables, fruits, coffee grounds and egg shells. • I use about 1-2 bags of medium-sized kitchen trash per week (usually 1). 1 answered as if I were the person collecting, but I live in an apartment with communal trash bins. • Community composing would be great! Wish there was more we could recycle in our community. • We have to sort and haul our recycling at work. I would love to be able to recycle more ie. clamshell containers. • We would like to be able to recycle more things than what we are allowed now and we would like to be able to compost more things. When we lived in Bellingham Wa. There were more options. I would also like to see programs put in place for construction and the school district, so that they are not creating s00000 much waste. I have worked at both and it is crazy how much perfectly good things get thrown away! • I rent my home and since it is a duplex the bins are shared and the landlord includes these services in our rent (and won't add on yard debris service). • I would love to see solid waste disposal and recycling fees included in our taxes rather than paid for a quarted as they are now. What a shame that dumpsters are locked and we don't have garbage cans readily available for use by visitors on the street. Publicly available garbage and recycling would be more in keeping with the "Be Nice, You're In Bend" ethos. • Recycling of plastic could be done 'by number' and include a greater variety of items. • Why don't we have a power generating incinerator? Many euro countries do this. • Worm composting is so easy. I've been doing it for years. No smell. No fuss. Those happy worms compost kitchen food waste 24/7 365 days a year. it would be great to see our region (county & city) actively supporting worm composting - at home & at work places. • More guidance about appropriate recycling and composting would be very helpful. • We put out trash for pick up usually every other month so answer above is not correct. With reduction in items now accepted for recycle our trash use might increase. We try not to purchase items in non -recyclable containers. • Need more plastic clamshell recycling days. Possibly a clamshell recycling container provided by the County to increase awareness and recycling. • We don't have enough garbage to fill even the small can each week so I put my yard debris there rather than pay for a third yard debris container. • The only food waste I put out to the curb is items that I can't currently compost (meat, bread, fats etc). I am really interesting in solid waste management. I find zero waste lifestyles really interesting and I am trying to transition to one. I am so close but still working on it. I am always looking for new zero waste ideas. • I would love to be able to use curbside composting. • Frustrated at how little is able to be recycled in Bend as compared to my company office in California. • Strong supporters of recycling and composting. • I have very little yard waste so not sure adding that service would be helpful but adding a composting service would be terrific. The compost bins in the Northwest Community Garden were recently removed so now I have no place to compost and I don't want a compost bin in my yard because of it's possible rodents could be attracted to it. • Please enable Bend Garbage to expand area served for curbside yard waste collection. Pg 1 Comments - 212612019 115 • Trash disposal is too cheap and it doesn't give incentive to people to recycle. I bring trash and it weighs 30 pounds max, every few months and it costs me $12 or something. People next to me are paying $40 and piling cardboard, wood, etc out of their vehicle into the pile for the landfill. I realize that you think making it more expensive would mean more sofas and wrecked belongings would go to the roadsides, but there are fines and laws for that. Make a bigger incentive for recycling please and make trash more, much more expensive. Glass isn't picked up in my neighborhood and since the west side recycle transfer station closed, I have to drive all the way out to the landfill with glass to recycle, so I just do it all there, no more curbside. • I currently haul yard waste to the landfill for composting once or twice a year for a cost of $4/disposal. It is a hassle to drive to the landfill to dispose of hazardous waste and metal, but I do it. It would be nice if used batteries, especially AA, could be recycled. Recycling of plastic has become a worldwide problem. The county may need to consider a separate bin for plastic so it does not become contaminated by other recycling, if that is a problem. The county should evaluate the feasibility of a tax or limits on plastic packaging, straws, and bags. • The current service is excellent. But as a new resident, I have not noticed much outreach from the waste company to show what goes in the bin. Yes, there is stuff online, but what about people who do not want to make the effort to look things up? What about graphics on the cart? Flyers? T.V. ads? Facebook ads? I an guessing there is a lot of contamination in the recycling. • We do not put meats, dairy products or other non-vegetable food items in yard debris bins. Yard debris should not be commingled with solid waste but composted and reused. • Would be great if we could recycle glass and compost at my place of employment. • I just moved here from NC. I am very surprised there is not a compost service in place. I know you can put raw fruits and veggies in the yard bin, so that's at least one step in the right direction. However, something more could be implemented. Secondly, what can and cannot be recycled is unclear. Many residents are confused on what should and shouldn't be recycled. • I would love to see more efforts to moving Bend/Deschutes County toward zero waste systems (like in San Francisco: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cg3OA1s8-SI), including an official curbside compost collection (like in Portland) in addition to the currently-offered yard debris collection, and textile recycling collection receptacles (https://gemtextrecycling.com). I believe more public outreach on what can be accepted for recycling is needed. When I lived in Portland, we received regular mailings on recycling. I've found that most people in Bend have no clue what can and cannot be recycled in our curbside bins. I would be interested in forming a citizen task force to research effective municipal zero waste strategies. Please let me know if this would be helpful. Thank you! • People are lazy whatever will make composting/recycling the easiest is best because people don't want to do anything more than is necessary. I have compost/worm composting and maybe one plastic grocery bag of trash per month. I try to recycle everything I can. • We also recycle plastic film at the grocery store, use fabric shopping bags and occasionally take our Styrofoam to Portland (until they stopped taking it) We try very hard to repair and re-use items and avoid buying things we don't need. We love our community and our earth and try hard to keep it clean. • I throw my garden compost in the trash because my HOA doesn't want to see composting bins in yards. I throw away my garden compost because I don't have room for another trash can. I've started bringing my deposit bottles to recycling center myself and keeping the money for myself. I think it sucks you don't recycle clamshell plastics - a lot of places do. • Our garbage can is set out when full, which takes — 10 -12 weeks. • I think Bend should ban single use plastics like grocery bags, straws, plastic cups. We also should have community composting. Thank you. Pg 1 Comments - 212612019 215 • Currently making a push at work to educate staff on what can and can not be recycled, ie. clam shells = no, cracker box = yes • I would like to see stronger recycling programs in the school district. • It would be great to have a more robust composting system, including the "compostable" cups, plates, clamshells (Volcano Veggies), etc. that many businesses use, but that we can't actually efficiently compost. • Too many people put trash in the recycle bin. Several of my neighbors do, they don't want to pay for excess garbage. I read that somewhere they won't pick up the recycle bin if it has trash. Does the driver have to get out and check each bin??? I think they should send the recycle truck out first and have them leave recycle bins with garbage. Than have the garbage truck pick up the recycle can as garbage along with the garbage can and charge for 2 cans of garbage. But that's too much work for the drivers unless they have an easy way to record the extra pickup, AND look in the recycle can. But people will just scatter recycling on top to make it look like a proper recycle can. • Interested in composting options when i dont have a yard to do it • We both work from home so we recycle. Have tried composting in the past and failed. We are open to trying it again. • We must get better at this. We must get better at developing alternatives to our waste. If we develop alternatives and make garbage expensive enough, the vast majority of people will reduce their waste. Humans are not good at dealing w/future crisis. 2029 seems so far away. Unless strongly encouraged by financial reasons or forced by policies & laws we won't do anything until too late. The planet deserves better. Thanks. • I'd love to have more recycling bins at work and recycling information to share with my staff. • I would love having more composting options available. • Increasing deposit has resulted in more can, plastic bottle, and glass self haul recycling in my household. • Recycle bins are not large enough. Also, to promote less waste I should only pay for when I set my garbage can out, if I skip a week I should get a credit or something... • I would like to become more knowledgeable about what materials are recyclable and what is not • I would love it if there was a formal composting program. It would also be great if more types of plastics were recyclable. • I would use and be willing to pay for a curbside compost program. We don't have room to use compost in our yard. • PLEASE add more plastics to recycling. • I wish yard waste pick up was free for all just like recycling is • Garbage is terrible. Recycling is awesome. But sending recycled product on a worldwide trip somewhat defeats the point of recycling. Encourage local business to use/produce products from recycled material? A local contest? • We compost at home! • Please offer more recycling of plastics. Work with stores to reduce packaging or for the buggies lieu Costco, Trader Joe's, Walmart, Fred Meyer, etc to truck clamshells and other stiff consumers can't avoud buying to a proper recycling facility in the empty trucks going back to Eugene or pdx. • Any help with at home composting would be great • I have such a small yard that yard debris collection and home composting isn't needed. But I would do curbside compost collection if that was feasible. • Oregon should make it easier.. it used to be we could go to any grocery store to return our cans/bottles now we only have one place to go in Redmond and Bend.. No more choices of where to go.. also the one place to go has become kind of a trashy place.. I would not send my wife or children or mother there alone!! • we definitely need a city-wide food waste compost option Pg 1 Comments - 2/26/2019 315 • It would be great to have more workshops, support on best practices for composting at home. We have a compost tumbler and are interested in how to make the best soil from it. Would be great to hear how others are reducing waste locally to get inspiration, tips, and more. • We should have compost curbside pick-up and/or access to discounted at-home composters • Please consider adopting a compost/food waste curbside collection program. Currently, our Yard Debris bin allows for "fresh food" to be included, so one would hope it could be possible to expand that to include all/most food waste. The City of Portland initiated a program a few years ago and has seen great success in waste reduction. • I would love to have curbside compost pickup but need to look into the cost of a yard waste container if it were only used for food scraps. I also try to only put my garbage and recycling bins out when they are full or super stinky in hopes that by me not placing it on the curb, that will be one less stop for the dump truck and hopefully save on gas. Not sure if this theory is true but if it is it would be great to have a push to educate the public to do the same. Perhaps people could have an option for their trash to only be picked up every 2 weeks instead of every week so that you could build this efficiency into your system. • Getting the 10 cent bottles and cans into the DEPOSIT - REFUND stream is becoming increasingly difficult. Recycling should be easy and precise ..... a no-brainer if taught at schools and throughout our society. Simple - Easy and efficient - even if it costs EXTRA....... • 1 am on the Bend Climate Action Steering Committee. We are responsible for creating a workable Climate Action Plan for the community to increase renewable energy use and decrease our carbon and other GHG emissions. Out committee is very interested in the significant role waste management will have on our overall success for years to come.:) • Would love to be able to add food waste to curbside. • Work - We tried composting without success due to lack of compliance (wrong stuff in) & lack of greens/browns. I'd do yard waste if there was a reduced option instead of every month. Too expensive for amount of yard debris I have. • Would love a small curbside compost option • If Bend could pass legislation making takeout containers (coffee and drink cups, food packaging) either more expensive or banned, that would help a lot. Americans can do more, and the changes to established habits may be painful at first, but in the grand scheme, no big deal. • I've been "homeless" for 6 years and the amount of waste - I have found - is appauling. Vote for me as Mayor of Bend so WE can help clean up our community and to propagate positivity and critical thought locally to begin... • 1 would like to see appropriate bins for collection in my apartment complex. • Curbside service - Live in unincorporated Bend and do not have this service - must take to transfer station • Glass & yard debris pickup in the county would be awesome. • I would love to not have to pay extra for yard waste. It reduces our garbage volume & waste to landfill significantly! • Hope its working • Work compost - Soon. I know that awareness of what can be recycled is pretty minimal among my peers. • Would really like to see composting bins so all food waste & certified compostables etc. can be composted in a bin at home. i.e. more than just current yard waste • More info/signage, perhaps on bins, on what's acceptable and what's not. Also include info with bills - maybe quarterly so people really look at it with lots of visual images. • Would be nice to have curbside recycling and yard/food waste collection available at outlying communities in the county (where curbside garbage is already offered) • Regarding yard waste recycling - I have a lawn maintenance service that maintains the yard. They haul away the yard waste. I assume that they dispose of it properly. Pg 1 Comments - 212612019 415 • Compost at home: We didn't know that was available. We will compost in the future. Self -haul recycling: Most often batteries, hazardous waste, e -waste, etc. • Sure wish we had the option of weekly recycling pickup. My recycling bin is overflowing every other week, and often I have to drive to the Knott recycling station in between. My garbage bin is usually only about half full each week. In Portland, garbage was every other week and recycling was weekly ... that worked well, I found. Also wish I could recycle used motor oil curbside like Portland does ... but, I wonder if I'm one of few who change their own oil these days:-). • The city of Guelph in Ontario Canada has an excellent waste management program. Might be something worth checking out. • New residential communities - new homes - the builders don't give residents enough space for all the trash & recycle bins - there's no way I could fit another can and... I do NOT want to SMELL residential food waste in my home or neighborhood • Would love to have glass recycling in rural Deschutes County! • I wish Knott Landfill had Terracycle (www.terracycle.com) boxes at the transfer stations that we (as a community) could add to, and increase our recycling/decrease waste streams. • Glass and compost bins at work would be great. I wish plastic clamshells were recyclable. Why aren't they? • I would love curbside composting, and more education about what can and can't be recycled here. • We are interested in learning about any industrial composting options available to us as a business. • We need to be able to recycle clamshell, or push for reduced use of clamshell in grocery stores. • Would like a compost recycling available at home and work • It would be great to see bend doing better with composting food. There are so many farms that could be linked up with that valuable resource. Last time I was in bend , they didn't recycle glass which is crazy. I just moved back and hopefully that has changed. • The majority of people recycle incorrectly and need training. There needs to be a lot more information put out there as to what is and is not recyclable, and why it matters. Also, there should not be an extra charge for yard waste recycling. People don't do it for that reason. The same for charges for bringing recyclables to the transfer station. • We need to make waste management more expensive so more people recycle and compost. People need to be trained on how easy it is to do the right thing for the environment and our community! Pg 1 Comments - 2/26/2019 5/5 • • � �L�Ni �i`� ��/`�,2'"� C'vi�� `lt�S�`�r�'y l'�. f�SN 1 , �`3 >/-` 4 lG`�i �'�, /•l vc y,S�� ~' yf`hair`�i ':�,�'.t' ^,� � 2e �/ Sv � �! ✓ t„ 'k> • fes. `� � � .-` C a ','�%/' . "�`'�� I.�i-,�"ra'�'' • 3 • • 9 �ri��.,u,,r�,��, �� C`�re"* �R�w��5£g` T� t�✓+��,� �� s y',a �, �'�„'L� � • "��.;��y�a�� ?�,. ass �,��,<' � ;�2�z1��" �' .-�`�.,v � 4 1`�'z � %✓� �" . ��„'. `.� `%�� y�`f��„ c��Z+� ,�J'�^.f�'iy'� ,Tnm.JG'Vfi m S�Ss>v�, `p • By adding food waste to recycling program, won't that fill up the landfill quicker? Food waste should be collected more than once per week because it is going to stink! 1 • Where does the composting and yard waste go? Why does that save space, when regular trash pickup does not? • Hotels should be required to have recycling available. • Restaurants should be given incentives that they can also use in advertising. Like a special logo and or sticker that they can show proudly for being zero waste etc. The more incentives and the easier things are made through programs the more people on board with creating less waste. Thanks! • Since a large portion of our waste in the landfill is construction waste, I think thoughtful consideration should be put towards financial incentives and/or regulation, policy, building codes, permits, etc to really make a dent in extending the life of our landfill and conserving resources (environmental and financial). I only think all residents should have yard waste/food waste as part of their bill if this includes ALL food waste, like how businesses currently can compost. • It would be nice to have a way to more easily identify and sort the types of plastics. Also if more plastics were accepted lies would go in the landfill. When I lived in Bozeman. Mt they had these wonderful dumpster around town for recycling that has sista sections for the sudent items. It was how I recycled living in my apartment complex. • Incentivize, don't mandate • I think it would be best to tackle people recycling the right things and not putting garbage in the recycling before trying to tackle adding food waste composting. Maybe incentives are supplied for recycling or composting only if it is done right. That might be to hard to track though. • I think it is incumbent on businesses and property owners and managers to institute these policies. It should not become a burden to low-income residents. There should also be better education and infrastructure for hazardous waste disposal. • Perhaps residential, business and multifamily complexes should be given rate incentives for recycling and composting. We also need to develop recycling businesses that can process recyclables locally. • Provide the container, and they will come. • There are so many variances to the above questions it's difficult to answer with the above options. Is it cost effective for you?, how do you drill EVERYONE it's beneficial to recycle everything we can? ... SO many questions.. We support recycling 200% but I'm still uncertain myself of the fine points of plastic recycling.. It's not easy and LOTS OF PEOPLE need more info on it CONSISTENTLY!! • Yard waste/food waste should not be required. I like having the option. I think it would be great to learn more about the relationship between who is creating the food scraps and who benefits from the compost. Once it is composted at the landfill, who is buying and using it? • With our affordable housing shortage, we should not single out and burden multi -family housing with requirements or fees. • I have tried food composting and found it to require a lot of time and attention but I'd be more than willing to separate it for collection! • I think that curbside composting should be offered and available for all of Bend, businesses and residential but not required for anyone. I also think that reducing packaging and waste should be a main goal for everyone. • We should have programs in the Deschutes schools that education children about recycling, reusing, and reducing. • We should ban single use plastic bags! • I'm currently in the Bend/Deschutes County JMA, and am served by Bend Garbage. For some reason, I'm offered recycling in a blue bin, but not recycling of yard waste. This should be changed to allow for more composting material to be gathered. As of now my only option is to take it to the landfill in general, a wasteful process. Pg 2 Comments - 2/26/2019 114 • We should get a county ruling to outlaw plastic bags, utensils and straws etc which cannot be recycled and end up on the roadsides. Follow lead of Seattle and Portland, we can do it. Maybe weigh the amount of recycling that people take to the landfill collection station and then weigh their trash when they haul that and give a credit if they are big on recycling and small on trash. I see a lot of metal and wood going into the trash. Make the landfill last forever! • We compost in our backyard and so don't need compost pick-up. We don't have enough yard waste for weekly pick-up. Would it be practical to have free community dumpsters for yard waste and compost, perhaps at the edge of parks? A likely problem might inclusion of garbage and too many plastic bags. • This is a necessity. • how would compliance with recycling and composting requirements be ensured? • Need to make it EASY to recycle and compost or no-one will do it. • I compost and have worm composting on my own and use it in my yard to enrich the soil so I can eventually have a garden. I wouldn't want to be charged for this service. But think it is a good idea for people who won't do it themselves. • This is tough to answer because I have mixed feelings. I feel that everyone should recycle and compost, however requiring them to do it can backfire because they wont do it correctly or conscientiously. Education and promotion is the key. Perhaps requiring a trial period of three months when a person signs up for new service would allow them to see if they are willing to recycle and compost correctly. Providing rate incentives are nice, but the process is costly so who will pay for it? • Food waste in the landfill helps everything else in the landfill to decompose better. It also provides the fuel to create the methane that runs the power plant on the landfill. Completely separating out the food waste changes the character of the landfill and the decomposing lifetime of the trash in the landfill. • You haven't mentioned prices. A lot of people are being crushed by taxes and fees in Deschutes. I don't think it's fair to force this on anyone except a business. Why don't you fine companies in Oregon that have excess pancaking and ARE THE PROBLEMM You're punishing the end users but not the people who create the problem. • Recycling and composting is something we ALL should be doing as it's called personal responsibility. I'm sure more people would partake in composting and recycling if there weren't additional fees. Maybe have it as an "all -in -one" package. You pay your monthly fee and with that it includes trash, recycling AND composting. It must be easily accessible for customers to use it. If it's not they won't. • yes, yes, yes to recycling and educating/promoting waste reduction is HUGE • Composting food waste in the yard debris bin only includes raw plant material, if I understand it correctly (apple cores, carrot tops, etc.). It would be great if the facility could compost meat bones, cooked leftovers, etc. I assume this is possible, but I'm not sure what it entails. Portland has a composting system ... what do they do that might be worth copying? • People are LAZY!! In multifamily complexes they will choose the easiest place to throw their trash, no one can hold anyone else accountable - unless there are cameras and everyone can see who are the offenders and they get chided into complying. • I would like to do compost but in this new home with no garden i would like to know what options i could have • If you give businesses and multifamily complexes incentives to recycle & compost you should give individuals incentives too! • Would it be possible to require grocery stores and restaurants to donate food instead of throwing it away? There's so much perfectly good food being wasted. It makes no sense. • When you say require multifamily to compost, 1 assume you mean require them to separate food waste that will be part of the collection program Pg 2 Comments - 2/26/2019 214 • Instead of teaching consumers what packaging to buy, the manufacturers should package in fully recyclable products. That way there's no question if it can be recycled or not • 1 lived in an apartment building and saw lots of people try to recycle things that aren't recyclable. I think there needs to be more signage in apartment buildings about what is/isn't recyclable. This is particularly an issue as lots of people move to bend from other areas that have different recycling rules • I agree with requiring recycling. I do not agree with requiring composting. • "Require" is a word that provides no wiggle room. Incentivize offers a benefit to both parties. • Why not charge a fee for recycling to be done for folks. Take a look at what rainbow disposal in Huntington Beach does. There's a fee and the facility sorts. It's apakling how much waste there is. Responsible packaging and consumerism is critical to our future. • the ones I said "Strongly DISAGREE On.. l feel apartment complexes and businesses would raise their rates which would directly affect the average person.. apartment complexes as you guys well know already charge an arm and a leg.. so that is why I strongly Disagree.. and I strongly Disagree about all residents should have curbside/food waste collection bill.. due to the fact Some Do not use that service.. it's like the State of Oregon recently passing a law where everyone gets a trasnportation tax deducted from their pay checks now.. Surprise.. guess why we are disgusted with the government???. you guys do that 1 Gurantee the Deschutes county leaders will be hearing a ton of negative comments over itl I!!. also.. maybe poor planning on deschutes counties fault for the land fill.. why should us as residents have to do something about it.. if it was a lack of planning of the deschutes county leaders? • I always think that incentive programs work best. I don't think burden should be placed on multifamily complexes as they usually tend to be lower income..but I see the point in trying to control areas that may not have the space to compost on site. It still seems discriminatory to me. • Comment on the "all residents should have curbside yard/food waste collection." I already have that and it is already on my bill. Not sure why you're asking that question. Also, the garbage and recycling bill comes every other month, not monthly. • A strong education program, along with incentives will be among the key factors to engage our community in reducing their waste and recycling more, among other actions. Mandatory requirements will likely be a disincentive. Due to my committee position, I've chosen the neutral route on the last five questions. Good luck. • Multifamily complexes need to have a way to give a rebate to tenants for recycling and composting. They would need to have someone monitor what goes in the right bin since many choose not to be responsible. This is a challenge. There needs to be a colorful laminated poster showing what goes in what bin and what not to recycle/compost. • Some businesses are awfully small to handle this or even generate enough/any compost. Require a certain size business maybe? Or food -based business only? • Curbside yard waste/food waste collection - Only if we use the service. • Vote early and vote often. Let's make this change NOW:-) • "Require" sometimes pisses people off. But I think it would force change. But maybe giving incentives to do it would be more effective than requiring it? Like you have to pay more if you don't do it. • I don't really understand multi -family complex question. I think there should be big rate incentives for building (construction) waste reduction. Or, some other program to collect & reuse/recycle construction waste. i.e. separate bin for re-store/habitat re -usable materials & rate reduction or rebate for amount in said bin. • Curbside yard waste/food waste collection - If they don't have a yard they shouldn't have yard waste • All residents should have curbside yard waste/food recycling as part of their monthly bill: If in a practical sense that is required to make yard waste/food recycling work, then I think it should be a requirement. Pg 2 Comments - 2/26/2019 314 • First step is to reduce, then reuse then recycle. Would love to know if there is a program for black pastor plant containers. • What we really need is a waste energy plant • Multi family complexes with stink to high hell with composting! It's 90-100 degrees way too often - what about the poor homeowner that gets stuck living next to the compost pile??!! Home value? Health? Vermin? • I didn't realize there were multi -family units that *don't* provide recycling bins! • For things which we cannot recycle locally, we should look into systems/programs where we can send it away (www.terracycle.com), and place the boxes in strategic locations around town. • Disagree: Those of us who compost shouldn't have to pay for food and yard waste collection since it's a service we wouldn't use. • Offering rate incentives for recycling and separating food waste for composting sounds good, but I don't recommend it unless there is a corresponding economic benefit to the County. • All education messages should include information about the costs of opening a new landfill. We should also consider adding a small fee toward the future cost of the landfill since it is inevitable that we will need to source one. Saving today for this future expense would be financially prudent. • The reduction of packaging waste is crucial, but would be more effectively dealt with at the level of when the packaging is put on, rather than at the consumer level. We need legislation to reduce wasteful packaging, especially plastic packaging, and the counties should be lobbying the Oregon legislature to get this done. Pg 2 Comments - 212612019 414 (Intentionally Left Blank) I - Rank by order of importance: 1= most, 7 = least 1.1 - Implementation Considerations 1.3 - Cost Effectiveness 1.2 - Sound Financial Principles 1.4 - Rate Stability 4 - Overall Option Like Best. T (Transport Out of County) / L (A 1.5 - System Flexibility 1.6 - Reliability 1.7- Environmental Considerations 1 8 9 10 5 7 5 16 2 4 8 6 5 5 6 9 3 6 6 9 2 6 8 3 4 4 8 3 7 6 4 4 5 5 7 6 9 6 9 2 6 4 1 4 8 5 5 4 7 9 3 2 6 6 5 4 )onses 40 42 40 42 41 42 42 4 3 2 1 1.1 - IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS 10 _ ..a E$v ' -„ w ` 6 00,1111s.<:.tr, a _.: 4 8 0 5 10 4 3 2 1 1.2 - SOUND FINANCIAL PRINCIPLES Y i4 ;.Y y ti r .. .xc 8 MHO . 3 k ? _, .. k 6 NMISMs 2 j . _„ ',,... , v, 8 9 0 5 10 4.Id». 3 2 1 1-3 - COST EFFECTIVENESS 3 aMtILx .::.. _,...;:. , ; 9 '00,v, e,fi ,.,. 6 ON 0 5 10 15 1.4 - RATE STABILITY 1.5 - SYSTEM 1-6 - RELIABILITY FLEXIBILITY 7 e,"111 3 5.; tie r s i1 6 7 1611 rxw , ..%.:. 5 6a 'z, $ 7R 1,N., ;.? 5,,, ::.s., m rt, 6 6 101 s t i 1,00 0 s; K ..,,.:: .+ S , a�, .. w,. ., � ,w, � 9 s 5 .w .. is � � 7 5 .10„_. 4 PIS� u, �" p `�t�;2« 4 ,,.;�t-. 3 MORMON- 6 2 ;e e 5 2 }.. .._ ,, 6 .r3 2 r, , . _ a r , z . ' , S 1 s 5 ,.., ; ,..r:... 5 1,�111'1"AFRE7,., rc 7 1 i v 5 0 5 10 0 2 4 6 8 0 5 10 1.7 - ENVIRONMENTAL 4 - OVERALL OPTION LIKE BEST CONSIDERATIONS T TRANSPORT OUT OF COUNTY L = NEW IN -COUNTY LANDFILL 7 E MM 4 MOM 5 � L 30 `.. 3 '"``"M 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 2 u tz+ 9 1 ir` . 16 L T Total30 11 0 5 10 15 20 Dashboard 311112019 • Encourage more recycling esp. of items that will produce methane • Still thinking about that! • Infrastructural changes - make it easier for "green" disposals. Also, education! • Increased environmental restrictions and the extra cost. • I'm wondering if in this process, plans or proposals have been recommended/suggested to address the enormous waste that happens on our school campuses? • Transfer stations need to be open 7 days a week and safe. • Loss of public land. Incentives and penalties to reduce packaging, food waste, construction waste. Money from reuse of the existing Knott Road site. Money from its development could pay for a new site or transfer of solid waste to another site. More competition in garbage, recycling and yard waste collection to reduce that cost to residents. • Resiliency in case of emergencies. The roads north to Columbia river landfills may be closed in case of earthquake, fire, or severe weather. • Increased fill rate of out of county landfills. • No • landfill alternatives • No, I don't have anything to be considered about this landfill. • building a new land fill • burning • Hopefully longevity and other plans will put in place incase of more build up prior to the development of other facilities. • I know Deschutes County on its own doesn't generate enough trash to have an EFW (Energy From Waste facility) but what if we took trash from other counties? It is estimated that Central Oregons population to double in the next 15 years... Would that be enough trash to make this viable option? In 2016 in Jefferson, Crook, Deschutes and Klamath counties, combined for more solid waste (252,811 pounds) than Marion County (243,100 pounds) (source: 2016 Material Recovery and Waste Generation Rates Report). EFW in Marion County processes 550 pounds per day/200,750 per year. The counties surrounding us are already shipping their solid waste elsewhere. Why not ship their solid waste to Bend to our new EFW facility? If we build an EFW it's one and done... lust ideas, because at some point, the next landfills will get full, will close and we'll have to go through this all over again. • WTE technology is emerging and was not fully explored in the documents prepared during this planning process. • How many jobs would be impacted if we send our trash out of the county? • Continue to think about waste reduction, composting options and education for users. 2 - Comments - 3/11/2019 1 / 1 • If we end up hauling long distance then we need to use trucks that run on methane or biodiesel • Keep our trash here & emphasize waste reduction & sustainability. • Curious about expanding recycling & composting for residents. The less in the landfill, the better. • My comment would be that given past projects (i.e. parkway) a new landfill would hit major appeals and cost overruns. • Have you thoroughly looked at rail transfer to existing large landfills elsewhere? • None. I attended the open house and it was very well down. • None • is there other options? • I don't have any comments or questions. • making a new land fill to help keep trash safe • If decided upon to develop a new Landfill in County how will the land be acquired and decided upon prior to either constructing or developing new facilities? What precautions will be put in place to address near by pedestrians? • In the environmental section, GHG emissions are stated as having local impacts. GHG emissions are fairly ubiquitous and should be viewed from the lens of a total system. • How many jobs does Knott landfill provide the county? 3 - Comments - 3/11/2019 1 / 1 • As much as possible we need to take care of our own problems & wste. We need better & more methane recovery. It's very iffy to think you can get land from BLM. Public land should stay public & not be used as a landfill. • Local control & accountability • We shouldn't ship our waste elsewhere! 350K mi vs 2.1 million miles is huge. • Transportation emissions • I think that it would be better from all aspects to transfer to an existing landfill that has the capacity. • Keep it local! • Concerned about having reliable, cost effective solid waste options. • The out of County option utilizes existing landfills thereby negating the need to use valuable land to create a new landfill here in Deschutes County. It eliminates the need for acquisition, start-up, and operating costs based on a future capacity requirement. It also eliminates the need for additional bond debt to acquire and construct a Deschutes County landfill. It also allows much more flexibility to adjust for solid waste volume in the future. • Rate stability and being able to take items to the dump. • I prefer rail transport out of county if overall greenhouse gas emissions are less or equal to truck and private vehicle transfer to a new landfill in Deschutes County. Otherwise, it depends on the new site and environmental/public values. I value open public lands, such as BLM, and don't think we should take away that land from public use. • Local landfill is the long term lowest carbon emission solution. A local landfill results in a more stable cost structure through the landfill life. Deschutes county is a favorable hydrogeologic environment for the long term storage of waste. A local landfill provides the most flexible solution for processing alternative waste streams. Additionally, a local landfill helps the community maintain mindfulness of the impact of waste disposal. • Less greenhouse gases from driving garbage far away. Less trucks on the highway. But we must reduce the waste through more vigorous construction and demolition recycling. • Well, trash is trash, so neither choice seems like a particular "win," but the matrix dictates that regional sites have a good history of compliance, and there's less for Deschutes County to deal with if we truck it out. But then the highway miles/emissions are a bad deal under that plan, so ..... hopefully smarter minds than mine will come to the most optimum decision. • More control for the county and better job opportunities for locals • It can keep jobs and there would be way less commuting • this option is the best beacuse a in county landfill its keep all the cost down and its safer do do this • Easer • Supports local development • It will be more jobs available if we do build New In -County Landfill, and it won't have to cost more if we do have to transport out of county. • new land fill • its more safe than transport • While little more costly managing less facilities could be more beneficial to both pedestrians and general land management. • Local control should be the primary consideration. Deschutes and adjacent counties are a geographic island .....perfectly capable of managing its waste disposal challenges without undue reliance on remote and unpredictable influences over the next 50 years or longer. • I feel 1) it's our trash, we should be responsible for it, 2) Better for the environment (fuel, road repair, oil, etc.) keeping the truck traffic 1/16 - 1/8 of out of County 3) Keeping job local. 4 - Comments - 311112019 112 • First reason is the lower cost to the system for an in -county landfill, and the second reason is the much lower environmental impact to ship to a local landfill. • Transportation out of the county allows for the county to be flexible as new technologies emerge in MSW management (e.g. WTE). If the county constructs a new landfill, it will create the "feed the beast" hurdle as future technologies become more feasible. • Cost effectiveness. Significantly more truck miles for out -of -county option. • It is more practical. However, it will have to be done in such a way that the surrounding use will not be impacted. • We need as many jobs as possible in the county. If we transport out of the county, it seems we'd be taking jobs away from current residents. • Self-sustaining and reliable model. It provides long term financial stability for rate payers. There is a lot of uknowns especially for funding and variables outside of couny control if we transport out of county. Gas prices will likely rise, and other agencies will have control of our garbage bills. The county has time to identify and construct a location prior to Knott end of life. We should start charging now to collect funding to be able to do that. 4 - Comments - 3/11/2019 212 O WN POLLING ( } y` I 4 4 LH Top Line Results Survey of Registered Voters Deschutes County, Oregon Dates Conducted: 6/24/2019 through 7/3/2019 Survey Type: Live Interview Telephone N = 505N Margin of Error at 95% Confidence Level: +/- 4.3% Weighting: Age & Gender Q0. Are you speaking on a landline or cellphone? Count Percent Cumulative Percent Landline 83 16.5 16.5 Cellphone 422 83.5 100.0 Total SOS 100.0 We would like to start by providing you some background information on the Knott Landfill, the only landfill in Deschutes County. Currently, the Knott Landfill is estimated to reach its capacity in ten years. One of the biggest questions facing County officials is what will happen once the landfill is full. A committee of local residents and stakeholders have been studying a variety of disposal options, but two main choices have emerged: The first option is to build a new landfill in Deschutes County. The second option is to transport our trash out -0f -county to a large landfill near the Columbia River Gorge. In terms of costs, currently, Deschutes County spends about $35 per ton of trash to maintain garbage at the Knott Landfill. If we build a new landfill, costs are estimated to increase to $42 per ton. If we transport trash out of county, costs are estimated to increase to $47 - $62 per ton. These are estimated rates which can be difficult to forecast because of unpredictable factors like fuel prices, taxes and other fees Q1. How important is the financial impact of this decision to you? Is it...? Count Percent Cumulative Percent The most important factor 89 17.6 17.6 total % important 69.2 One of many important factors 260 51.6 69.2 total % not important 14.1 Neutral 79 15.7 84.9 Not an important factor 30 6.0 90.9 The least important factor 41 8.2 99.1 Not Sure / Don't Know 5 .9 100.0 Total 505 100.0 Triton Polling Research, Inc. www.TritonPolling.com Survey of Registered Voters Deschutes County, Oregon - 505N - MoE: +/- 4.3% Page 1 of 6 A landfill impacts the area where it is located and requires mitigation of impacts such as emissions, litter and odor. If we build a new landfill, these impacts will remain in Deschutes County. If we transport trash out of county, impacts from our trash will affect other jurisdictions. 02. Please indicate to what extent you agree with the following statement: Trash that is generated here should stay here. Do you...? Truck transportation has been identified as a significant source of carbon emissions. If we transport trash out of county, there will be more emissions because of the miles trash will travel to be disposed of. If we transport trash out of the county, we estimate over 2 million miles will be traveled each year. If we assume a new landfill will be sited 30 miles from Bend, we estimate about 350,000 miles will be traveled each year. Q3. Please indicate how important the transportation impacts of this decision are to you, Is it...? Count Percent Cumulative Percent The most important factor Count Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly Agree 233 46.2 46.2 Agree 193 38.2 84.5 Neutral 67 13.2 97.7 Disagree 9 1.8 99.5 Strongly Disagree 3 .5 100.0 Total 505 100.0 Truck transportation has been identified as a significant source of carbon emissions. If we transport trash out of county, there will be more emissions because of the miles trash will travel to be disposed of. If we transport trash out of the county, we estimate over 2 million miles will be traveled each year. If we assume a new landfill will be sited 30 miles from Bend, we estimate about 350,000 miles will be traveled each year. Q3. Please indicate how important the transportation impacts of this decision are to you, Is it...? Count Percent Cumulative Percent The most important factor 94 18.6 18.6 One of many important factors 297 58.7 77.4 Neutral 55 10.9 88.3 Not an important factor 27 5.3 93.6 The least important factor 30 5.9 99.5 Not Sure / Don't Know 2 .5 100.0 Total 505 100.0 If we build a new landfill, jobs and revenue from trash disposal stay here. If we transport trash out of county, revenue and jobs are created in other places. Q4. Please indicate how important the economic impacts of this decision are to you. Is it...? Triton Polling Research, Inc. www.TritonPolling.com Survey of Registered Voters Deschutes County, Oregon - 505N - MoE: +/- 4.3% total % agree 84.5 total % disagree 2.3 total %important 77.4 total % not important 11.2 total % important 82.3 total % not important 6.7 Page 2 of 6 Count Percent Cumulative Percent The most important factor 146 28.8 28.8 One of many important factors 270 53.4 82.3 Neutral 55 11.0 93.3 Not an important factor 17 3.4 96.7 The least important factor 17 3.3 100.0 Total 505 100.0 Triton Polling Research, Inc. www.TritonPolling.com Survey of Registered Voters Deschutes County, Oregon - 505N - MoE: +/- 4.3% total % agree 84.5 total % disagree 2.3 total %important 77.4 total % not important 11.2 total % important 82.3 total % not important 6.7 Page 2 of 6 If we build a new landfill, 400-500 acres of land will need to be developed. This development could displace other uses and may impact neighboring parcels of land even in remote areas of the County. If we transport trash out of county, there won't be an impact to local land within the county. Cls. Please indicate to what extent you agree with the following statement: I would be comfortable displacina other uses so that a landfill could be built locally. Do you...? Count Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly Agree 172 34.1 34.1 Agree 217 43.0 77.1 Neutral 74 14.6 91.7 Disagree 29 5.8 97.5 Strongly Disagree 8 1.6 99.1 Not Sure / Don't Know 4 .9 100.0 Total 505 100.0 70.0 Please rank the following impacts from most important to least important based on your values on a 1 to 10 scale, where 1 is least important and 10 is most important: Q6A. Impacts on my monthly trash bill / disposal rates Count Percent Cumulative Percent 1 -Least important 51 10.0 10.0 2 18 3.6 13.7 3 37 7.4 21.0 4 23 4.6 25.7 5 127 25.1 50.8 6 42 8.3 59.1 7 55 10.9 70.0 8 52 10.3 80.3 9 21 4.2 84.5 10 -Most important 78 15.4 99.9 Not Sure / Don't Know 1 .1 100.0 Total 505 100.0 Q6B. Environmental impacts Count Percent Cumulative Percent 1 -Least important 18 3.5 3.S 2 8 1.6 5.2 3 14 2.8 8.0 4 9 1.9 9.9 5 67 13.2 23.1 6 24 4.8 27.9 7 44 8.8 36.7 8 100 19.8 56.5 9 55 11.0 67.4 10 -Most important 157 31.1 98.5 Not Sure / Don't Know 7 1.5 100.0 Total 505 100.0 Triton Polling Research, Inc. www.TritonPolling.com Survey of Registered Voters Deschutes County, Oregon - 505N - MoE: +/- 4.3% total % agree 77.1 total % disagree 7.4 total % ranked 1-5 50.8 total % ranked 6-10 49.1 total % ranked 1-5 23.1 total % ranked 6-10 75.4 Page 3 of 6 Q6C. Impacts to local jobs and the economy Count Percent Cumulative Percent 1 -Least important 9 1.8 1.8 2 6 1.2 3.0 3 8 1.5 4.5 4 17 3.3 7.9 5 57 11.3 19.1 6 29 5.8 24.9 7 66 13.1 38.0 8 107 21.3 59.3 9 61 12.2 71.4 10 -Most important 141 28.0 99.4 Not Sure / Don't Know 3 .6 100.0 Total 505 100.0 Q61). Impacts to land and local development Count Percent Cumulative Percent 1 -Least important 13 2.5 2.5 2 14 2.7 5.2 3 25 5.0 10.3 4 31 6.2 16.5 5 121 24.0 40.4 6 39 7.8 48.3 7 84 16.7 64.9 8 84 16.5 81.5 9 25 5.0 86.5 10 -Most important 63 12.5 99.1 Not Sure / Don't Know 5 .9 100.0 Total 505 100.0 Q7, Overall, which option would you support? Building a new landfill in Deschutes County OR transporting our trash out -of -county? Count Percent Cumulative Percent Building a new landfill in Deschutes County 469 93.0 93.0 Transporting our trash out -of -county 15 2.9 95.9 Not Sure / Don't Know 21 4.1 100.0 Total 505 100.0 Triton Polling Research, Inc. www.TritonPolling.com Survey of Registered Voters Deschutes County, Oregon - 505N - MoE: +/- 4.3% total % ranked 1-5 19.1 total % ranked 6-10 80.3 total % ranked 1-5 40.4 total % ranked 6-10 58.6 Page 4 of 6 Lastly, we have a few questions about you that are needed for statistical purposes. Your responses will remain anonymous and strictly confidential. Q8. Are you....? Count Percent Cumulative Percent A residential customer 390 77.3 77.3 A business customer 2 .4 77.7 Both a residential and business customer 80 15.9 93.6 A self -hauler 24 4.7 98.3 1 never use a recycling or transfer station or 87 17.2 90.9 75-84 8 1.7 100.0 the landfill 5 1.1 100.0 Total 505 100.0 Q9. What is your age? Count Percent Cumulative Percent 18-34 - 102 20.2 20.2 35-44 95 18.8 39.0 45-54 85 16.9 55.9 55-64 90 17.8 73.7 65-74 87 17.2 90.9 75-84 41 8.1 98.9 85+ 5 1.1 100.0 Total 505 100.0 Q10. What is your gender? Count Percent Cumulative Percent Female 249 49.4 49.4 Male 255 50.6 100.0 Total 505 100.0 Q11. What is the highest level of education you have completed? Count Percent Cumulative Percent Bachelors Degree 192 38.0 38.0 Some College 166 32.8 70.8 Post Graduate 70 13.8 84.7 High School Graduate 71 14.0 98.7 Some High School 1 .2 98.9 Prefer not to answer 5 1.1 100.0 Total 505 100.0 Triton Polling Research, Inc. www.TritonPolling.com Survey of Registered Voters Deschutes County, Oregon - 505N - MoE: +/- 4.3% Page 5 of 6 Q12. What is your approximate annual household income? Municipality Count Percent Cumulative Percent Less than $30,000 45 8.9 8.9 $30,000 to $39,999 31 6.1 14.9 $40,000 to $49,999 32 6.3 21.2 $50,000 to $59,999 40 7.9 29.1 $60,000 to $69,999 34 6.7 35.8 $70,000 to $79,999 35 7.0 42.8 More than $80,000 228 45.2 88.0 Prefer not to answer 61 12.0 100.0 Total 505 100.0 Municipality Triton Polling Research, Inc. www.TritonPolling.com Survey of Registered Voters Deschutes County, Oregon - 505N - MoE: +/- 4.3% Page 6 of 6 Count Percent Cumulative Percent Bend 260 51.5 51.5 La Pine 2 .5 51.9 Redmond 72 14.3 66.3 Sisters 5 1.0 67.3 Unincorporated 165 32.7 100.0 Total 505 100.0 City - Mailing Address Count Percent Cumulative Percent Bend 362 71.7 71.7 La Pine 26 5.2 76.9 Redmond 94 18.6 95.5 Sisters 12 2.3 97.8 Sunriver 2 •4 98.2 Terrebonne 9 1.8 100.0 Total 505 100.0 State House District Count Percent Cumulative Percent 53 207 40.9 40.9 54 217 43.0 84.0 55 38 7.5 91.5 59 43 8.5 100.0 Total 505 100.0 State Senate District Count Percent Cumulative Percent 27 424 84.0 84.0 28 38 7.5 91.5 30 43 8.5 100.0 Total 505 100.0 Triton Polling Research, Inc. www.TritonPolling.com Survey of Registered Voters Deschutes County, Oregon - 505N - MoE: +/- 4.3% Page 6 of 6 https://www. ktvz. com/news/desch utes-cou nty-sets-pu blic-m eeting-on-trash-d isposa l- options/989286403 Where should trash go once Knott Landfill in Bend is full? As of 3/12/19 (per Katie at KTVZ): 424 votes 89% - To a new local site 11% - Out of the County outOi•oomoouoi•000uoi.uoiMgco �ovoiolLr! Boma a V n O to m R O Ol .-1 O 00 �"� O n 0 pp O 0 N O ltl w n O N N O u o pp N V u1 N N lC O .4 H Oti0 N m Ol m Q Vl n n Ino m Ol OOi O N ~ m 01 V n Ol M O m oN 5 .N -I N C^ V N `w u W O aOa R tpp p m N N O m N m m E m ul L 0 v Mj v r+i ui o o c n m c o 0 oS o o 0 og o „_ 6 O U ip U 7 'O N O O n n M Intl 0 O O M y V N m a > voi °n° m m m o 2~ O c m llx V a W m • p 0 E. E. mi N - m t7 o N a 0 0 0 00 c o 00 00 E v o 0 0 N m Q W N N d CO C o m O W ci O O O O Vl C N V1 w Q O LL IP Iq N O O U LL W p� N V N V � O� f C~ O O ccd a0 00 o- z O1 to m a O O ~ a O O m v m m O F m o 0 O N oo o Iq u m O m o m oao w N EO Vel n O IR M d rn m O�1 N Owl N O N 't o N a a � Z a s o v Z u o z p w z z z z" w z w u m IQ- 0 m FVl z w j w W v a �- W U tWl. W LL tp/l O uu Q W6' d Q w H C 0 u z J a o w tD z y U K W p U Vl a W > O o w z Q Q w Ccc z W z U zr of p U cl z Q OC O o z z Z K J W w u p Z N U' o i- W O z IA w0 LL og�-0p0�asmu,d„iuvlZmulM>rw W Z> W W M M V Q u = Y N C7 LL Y Vl O O` i- y F m J m W S p W Q W yOy OT yOY. y Oy p y O y Oy y Oy F i- O Q 2 O u Ci uU tj i u w w o u° u u u u u 3 u u u o 0 0 o m o o c� 0amalnaomo.-�ma�nlonaomnm.-+rvMO N�ao Q ac z z z > W U � \)IES 0 w a o Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - https://www.deschutes.org/ AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board of Commissioners BOCC Meeting of August 19, 2019 DATE: August 14, 2019 FROM: Ken Hales, Juvenile Community Justice, 541-317-3115 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Deschutes County Justice Reinvestment Grant Application 19-21 Biennium RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: Approve application for Justice Reinvestment Grant and sign a letter indicating the Board Of County Commissioner's support for the Deschutes County Justice Reinvestment Program. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: House Bill 3194 was passed by the Oregon Legislature as a means to control ever increasing prison growth by investing in local criminal justice systems. The funding started in the 13-15 biennium and the Oregon Legislature has continued to fund this grant program. Deschutes County has applied for and received the grant funds every application cycle and is applying for funds for the 19-21 biennium. The grant this year consists of a formula grant that is based on criminal justice population percentage and a supplemental application that is competitive and awarded to programs that focus on Downward Departures and safe prison utilization reduction. We are requesting permission to apply for the formula grant to continue to support our Deschutes County Justice Reinvestment Program. We are also requesting permission and support to apply for Supplemental grant funds to expand our current program through a partnership with Parole and Probation, the Sheriff, and the District Attorney. Formula Grant Application: Deschutes County Justice Reinvestment Program (DCJRP) is an intensive supervision program for clients directly assigned out of prison on Short -Term Transitional Leave (STTL) or an Alternative to Incarceration (AIP) release, or who have recently received a downward departure from the Deschutes County Circuit Court. The program aims to safely and effectively supervise clients in the community in lieu of prison. In addition to intensive supervision, clients receive risk and needs assessments, case management with an emphasis on structured skill building, and support for cognitive -based and other treatment and basic needs such as housing and transportation. The program has been in full operation since September of 2016. Supplemental Grant Application: Deschutes County proposes to use Supplemental funds to safely expand its current downward departure prison diversion program by routinely assessing all pretrial defendants who are prison eligible for drug and property offenses. Currently the District Attorney and Parole and Probation conducting initial screening and then comprehensive assessment based on assigned district attorney discretion. Supplemental funding will support a pretrial supervision deputy and a dedicated district attorney to review and prosecute downward departures. The pretrial release deputy will also provide pretrial supervision and will have access to resources that are available under our regular JRI grant such as treatment, electronic monitoring, bus passes, etc. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: Formula Grant: $1,779,957.33 over 2 years (July 1, 2019 to June 30, 2021). Already accounted for in Adult Parole and Probation budget for FY20. Does not include any new FTE. Ten percent of the grant funds will go to CASA, KIDS Center, and Mary's Place. Supplemental Grant: $511,000 over 2 years (July 1, 2019 to June 30, 2021). Includes two new FTE: one deputy district attorney and a pretrial supervision deputy. Ten percent of the grant funds will go to CASA, KIDS Center, and Mary's Place. ATTENDANCE: Ken Hales August 19, 2019 Oregon Criminal Justice Commission 885 Summer St. NE Salem, OR 97301 Oregon Criminal Justice Commission, I am writing to convey support for the FY 19-21 Justice Reinvestment Supplemental grant application being submitted as a collaborative effort by the Deschutes County Community Justice department, Deschutes County Sheriff and the Deschutes County District Attorney. The application proposes a pretrial program focused on drug, property and driving defendants eligible for downward departure, including pretrial supervision and services and a dedicated district attorney to review and prosecute cases. These services will increase opportunities for safe pretrial release, thereby reserving county jail resources for those who present the most risk to our community. The pretrial services included in the supplemental grant are a result of collaboration across agencies in service of common objectives, something Deschutes County is known for implementing successfully. The program can only help to improve upon the commitments our community has already made to reducing prison usage while maintaining community safety. Thank you for considering our proposal. Sincerely, DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Y Philip )G.Hderson, Chair 1300 NW Wall Street Bend, Oregon 97703 k� (541) 388-6572 board@deschutes.org @www.deschutes.org Deschutes County Justice Reinvestment Program 19-21 Grant Application Summary Regular JRI Grant • Formula Grant o $1,779,957.33 over 2 years (July 1, 2019 to June 30, 2021) ■ 10% to Victims Services $177,995.73 • Deschutes County Justice Reinvestment Program (DCJRP) is an intensive supervision program for clients directly assigned out of prison on Short -Term Transitional Leave (STTL) or an Alternative to Incarceration (AIP) release, or who have recently received a downward departure from the Deschutes County Circuit Court. The program aims to safely and effectively supervise clients in the community in lieu of prison. In addition to intensive supervision, clients receive risk and needs assessments, case management with an emphasis on structured skill building, and support for cognitive -based and other treatment and basic needs such as housing and transportation. The program has been in full operation since September of 2016. • Pays for o Personnel to operate the program. ■ No new FTE. o Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. o Sober/Transitional Housing. o Drug and Alcohol Treatment. o Bus Passes, DMV IDs, other items that address barriers. Supplemental JRI Grant Competitive Grant o $511,000 over 2 years (July 1, 2019 to June 30, 2021) ■ 10% to Victims Services $51,091 • Problem Statements: o County not maximizing identification and assessment of downward departure eligible defendants: Parole and Probation does not have capacity to increase the number of defendant assessment reports. The District Attorney's office does not have dedicated capacity to review and consider downward departure recommendations. o Jail is operating near capacity, at a population level which threatens a manageable and safe jail milieu. Clients currently waiting in jail for disposition of their case for prison eligible drug and property may be good candidate for pretrial supervision and ultimate our Justice Reinvestment Program. o The county has no pretrial program to safely manage defendants in the community pending disposition. It is possible lack of pretrial supervision leads to more and longer prison sentences. Research conducted in Oregon in 2019 indicates that detained defendants were more than twice as likely to be incarcerated as part of their sentence compared to those who were releases prior to their disposition. At the same time the research also indicated that the longer one spends in pretrial detention the greater the likelihood s/he received a sentence of incarceration (Campbell, C. (2019). Effect of Pretrial Detention in Oregon. Oregon Criminal Justice Commission. Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Portland State University. Supplemental proposal: Deschutes County proposes to use Supplemental funds to safely expand its current downward departure prison diversion program by routinely assessing all pretrial defendants who are prison eligible for drug and property offenses. Currently the District Attorney and Parole and Probation conducting initial screening and then comprehensive assessment based on assigned district attorney discretion. Supplemental funding will support a pretrial supervision deputy and a dedicated district attorney to review and prosecute downward departures. The pretrial release deputy will also provide pretrial supervision and will have access to resources that are available under our regular JRI grant such as treatment, electronic monitoring, bus passes, etc. Pays for o Deputy District Attorney (18 months Jan 1, 2020 start date) ■ Downward Departure Focus ■ New FTE o Pretrial Supervision Deputy (18 months Jan 1, 2020 start date) ■ Deputy at Deschutes County Sherriff's Office —Jail Division ■ New FTE o University of Cincinnati Substance Abuse Treatment Curriculum Training o Moving On Gender Specific Curriculum Training o Training for District Attorney and Pretrial Supervision Deputy o Court Date Notification System Deschutes County Justice Reinvestment Draft Grant Application 2019-2021 Formula Grant and Supplemental Grant Formula Grant Application 1. Provide a detailed description of the activities for which funding is requested, including activity goals and objectives. The description should be presented in a way that helps stakeholders such as administrators, staff, evaluators, funding agencies, advocacy groups, citizens, and elected officials understand and communicate about the program. (500 words or less). a. Deschutes County Justice Reinvestment Program (DCJRP) is an intensive supervision program for clients directly assigned out of prison on Short -Term Transitional Leave (STTL) or an Alternative to Incarceration (AIP) release, or who have recently received a downward departure from the Deschutes County Circuit Court. The program aims to safely and effectively supervise clients in the community in lieu of prison. In addition to intensive supervision, clients receive risk and needs assessments, case management with an emphasis on structured skill building, and support for cognitive -based and other treatment and basic needs such as housing and transportation. The program has been in full operation since September of 2016. Currently, two parole and probation officers (PPOs) are assigned to the DCJRP with capped caseloads of 35. A records technician, parole and probation specialist and an analyst all provide administrative or program support for the DCJRP. Currently DCJRP PPOs manage all STTL and AIP investigations and approvals. They conduct reach -ins, field investigations and determine if the individual will be a good fit for the DCJRP. b. intensive supervision: Clients undergo intensive supervision with their PPO as often as weekly. PPOs uses a continuum of community-based sanctions, services, and programs. The goal is to maintain a high level of structured contact frequency, which has proven to help to reduce recidivism. Currently, PPOs access and order sanctions such as electronic monitoring, drug/alcohol testing, jail time, work crew, and community service in response to technical or new law violations. c. Structured skill building: PPOs assess risk and needs, and create behavioral change plans to address clients' specific risks and needs through motivational interviewing and a variety of structured skill building modalities including: Carey Guides, Brief Intervention Tools and Pathways. DCJRP clients are referred to gender -specific cognitive based programming provided by county staff. In FY19 DCJRP will introduce Motivational Enhancement Therapy group (MET) to complement our current offerings of MRT and Moving On. MET is for clients who are in a pre -contemplative state of change and require readiness preparation Page 1 of 15 Revised 08-14-2019 before treatment or other groups may be effective. MET is a five session group curriculum. MRT requires a minimum of 12 weeks to complete and is a manualized curriculum. Moving On is a 26 session manualized curriculum. d. Treatment and basic needs support: PPOs make necessary referrals to three contracted substance use disorder treatment providers. Many clients are also assigned to a random urine analysis program. Clients in the DCJRP access sober and/or transitional housing through three contracted community providers. Analyst and program staff work closely with contracted providers to train, monitor and support the delivery of high quality, evidence -based treatment that meets Correctional Program Checklist criteria. PPOs also provide basic needs assistance such as bus passes, DMV identification help, or other resources to address barriers. 2. Describe the target population for the program (500 words or less) a. The primary target population for DCJRP over the past several biennium's has included drug, property, and driving clients who in lieu of prison are given a downward departure. DCJRP also includes clients that are releasing from prison early on Short Term Transitional Leave and the Alternative to Incarceration Program. In conjunction with the supplemental application DCJRP seeks funding through this application to support expansion of the DCJRP to provide pre-trial services to drug, property, and driving presumptive prison time defendants. The expansion is a collaborative effort between Deschutes County Parole and Probation Sheriff and District Attorney to increase the number of downward departures and reduce jail time of pretrial defendants. 3. List the evidence -based practices/services to be implemented, as well as the research that supports the use of the practices/services as part of the proposed program. (250 words or less) a. Moral Reconation Therapy (MRT): Increases participants use of higher level moral reasoning and behavior. (Przybylski, R. (2008). What Works: Effective Recidivism Reduction and Risk -Focused Prevention Programs. Colorado Division of Criminal Justice. pg. 61 and 62). b. Carey Guides and Brief Intervention Tools: Structured skill building during 1x1 sessions between PPOs and clients. (Carey, M (2010). Coaching packet: Effective case management. Retrieved from the Center for Effective Public Policy.) c. Motivational Interviewing (MI): Behavior change through drawing discrepancies between current behavior and long-term goals. (Madson, M. (2016). Motivational Interviewing for Substance Use: Mapping out the Next Generation of Research. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment.) d. Pathways: Implementation of gender responsive case management. (Wright, E.M., Van Voorhis, P., Salisbury, E., & Bauman, A. (2012). Gender -responsive lessons Page 2 of 15 Revised 08-14-2019 learned and policy implications for women in prison: A review. Criminal Justice & Behavior) e. Motivational Enhancement Therapy: Creating treatment -ready state of mind with pre -contemplative clients. (Belenko, S. et al. (2013). Treating Substance Use Disorders in the Criminal Justice System. Curr Psychiatry Rep.) f. Moving On Gender Specific Groups: Trauma and relational theory of change. (Gehring, K., Van Voorhis, P., & Bell, V. (2009). "What Works" for Female Probationers? An Evaluation of the Moving On Program. Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati.) g. University of Cincinnati Substance Abuse Curriculum: (Bahr, S. (2012). What Works in Substance Abuse Treatment Programs for Clients? The Prison Journal.) h. Pretrial. (Campbell, C. (2019). Effect of Pretrial Detention in Oregon. Oregon Criminal Justice Commission. Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Portland State University. 4. List the metrics to be tracked locally in order to evaluate progress in achieving the goals and objectives identified in the program description. (250 words or less) a. In the past year, Deschutes County Parole and Probation has created several data dashboards that draw data from various local and state information systems. This dashboard will be the location for DCJRP program output and outcome tracking in FY19-21 drawing from the state DOC, Parole and Probation's internal database ACID, Sheriff's Office Jail Tracker, and District Attorney's Karpel database: i. Safe Screen Completions ii. Defendant Assessment Report Completions iii. Length of jail time served by Downward Departure defendants iv. Number of Downward Departures v. STTL/AIP Acceptance Rates vi. Average Daily DCJRP population. vii. LSCMI and WRNA Completion viii. Case Plan and Behavioral Change Plan Creation/Modification ix. Home Visits x. Office Visits A. Significant Contacts xii. Sanction Numbers By Type xiii. Alcohol and Drug Treatment Referrals xiv. CBT Population and Counts xv. CBT Completion Rates xvi. Sober Housing Counts xvii. Sober Housing Length of Stay xviii. Sober Housing Status at Closure Page 3 of 15 Revised 08-14-2019 xix. Transitional Housing Counts xx. Transitional Housing Length of Stay xxi. Transitional Housing Status at Intake and Closure. xxii. Employment Status at Intake and Closure for Transitional Housing. S. Have any of the programs included in the application received a Corrections Program Checklist review? a. Yes 6. Have any of the programs included in the application received a Corrections Program Checklist review? If so, when was the review? Briefly describe the outcome and any steps to address the findings. a. Pfeifer and Associates (Passed) b. New Priorities (Did not pass) —Current status is action plan with emphasis on utilization of evidence -based curriculum appropriate for population. 7. Describe efforts to reduce recidivism through evidence -based practices while increasing public safety and holding clients accountable *Refer to CJC Dashboards to answer question. *Describe efforts during the previous biennia and how the proposed program will change or continue those efforts. *Applicants are encouraged to address comparisons to the statewide rate. *(750 words or less) Deschutes County clients historically have higher property, drug, and driving recidivism rates when compared to state averages currently measured by the Criminal Justice Commission. Looking at the three year recidivism data Deschutes County's recidivism rate hit a low point with the 2009 cohort, but has been slightly increasing. We will be able to understand the impacts of our DCJRP program when results for the second cohort of 2016 become available at the end of 2019. One year recidivism rates demonstrate a slight declining trend: Rearrests began to decline starting with the second cohort of 2015. Some of these individuals would have been in the DCJRP. Subsequent conviction rates began to decline starting with the first cohort of 2017. Some of the clients in this cohort and the ones following it would have been a part of the DCJRP with its full service offerings. Incarceration rates begin to decline with the second cohort of 2016. Once three year recidivism becomes available for the first full JRP cohort we will be willing to make any necessary adjustments to support the goals of Justice Reinvestment. Page 4 of 15 Revised 08-14-2019 b. In FY19-21 the DCJRP program will continue what has been working (intensive supervision, structured skill building, treatment and basic needs support) and add a small number of refinements or enhancement to address emerging trends and needs. These include adding a cognitive -based program to address treatment readiness for pre -contemplative individuals to decrease number of unsuccessful or administrative closures (MET), assessing and implementing needed improvements in gender -responsive case management (see question 8 below), and working with local partners to expand DCJRP supported services to eligible pretrial defendants (see supplemental grant). c. For downward departure and STTL/AIP clients we will continue to invest in small caseload, intensive supervision sober housing, transitional housing, substance use disorder treatment support, and transportation assistance when applicable. d. We will expand treatment and transportation and electronic monitoring assistance to the eligible pretrial population described further in our supplemental grant application. e. We will continue to support local treatment providers to ensure their service offerings are evidence based and directly work to help reduce recidivism. One of our largest providers recently implemented the University of Cincinnati Substance Abuse curriculum. They had failed a CPC and our department designed an action plan process to bring their service offerings to an acceptable standard. After a year of major changes the provider was able to pass their most recent CPC and are working to become one of our model treatment providers. We are currently working similarly with another contracted provider to adopt this curriculum, and will continue to press for community-based providers to implement evidence -based practices, including working with them to review Correctional Program Checklist (CPC) results, ensuring the identification and tracking of outcomes for any clients receiving services, and meeting periodically to review DCJRP and specific program goals. f. DCJRP will continue to address public safety concerns inherent in early release or downward departure supervision by emphasizing accurate and early assessment, ensuring basic needs are met, case management based on risk and needs, frequent contact to monitor for compliance and safety concerns, and access to cognitive -based and other treatment needs. 8. Describe efforts to reduce prison utilization for property, drug, and driving offenses while increasing public safety and holding clients accountable *Refer to CJC Dashboards to answer question. *Applicants are encouraged to incorporate data specific to the county's prison intakes, revocations, length of stay, and relationship to the statewide rates when discussing past, present, and projected prison usage. *(750 words or less) Page 5 of 15 Revised 08-14-2019 a. Deschutes County Adult Parole and Probation created the DCJRP to address the major goals of the Justice Reinvestment Initiative. Our prison usage based on the Criminal Justice Commission's JRI dashboard for property, drug, and driving clients demonstrates that to date we have successfully implemented program goals. In FY19-21 we propose to continue the activities have thus far served the county successfully and safely, and expand or refine as described below. b. Our prison usage on a per capita rate is well below the state average. Most recently, our average per 100,000 people is 758 months, whereas the state average for the same time period is 1228. Since August of 2017 Deschutes County's per capita rate has trended downward. c. Prison utilization when compared to baseline shows similar results. Starting in September of 2017, prison utilization began to decline each month when looking at both males and females. We have dipped well below our baseline of 1871 month and have recently been around 1400 month when looking at males and females collectively. d. Deschutes County male prison utilization demonstrates the most significant prison bed savings. Our most recent high point above our baseline (1628 months for males) was in August of 2017. However, from that point we started to decrease each month and have levelled out around 1200 months. This is well below our baseline of 1628. We are hopeful that much of this decline is partially due to the DCJRP. Since September of 2016 our DCJRP program has been in full operation. We have been working in close collaboration with our District Attorney's office to complete Defendant Assessment Reports for potential downward departures. The District Attorney has been pleased with the process put into place with the inception of DCJRP. Their interest in expanding and increasing the process will be reflected in our supplemental grant for the biennium and includes hiring a pretrial program supervisor and a new district attorney dedicated to reviewing and prosecuting downward departure cases (see supplemental grant). 9. Female property, drug, and driving offenses *Refer to CJC Dashboards to answer question. *Address prison usage specific to female property, drug, and driving offenses, as well as describe local efforts to address this population. *(750 words or less) a. Deschutes County JRP efforts with women are also positive. The smaller population does mean that utilization ebbs and flows more dramatically (i.e. one new female prison sentence of 50 months impacts the total female rate more noticeably than men's rates). Additionally, the county will be addressing gender - specific components of case management in a more focused way during the biennium, also in hopes of managing the female prison utilization rate effectively Page 6 of 15 Revised 08-14-2019 and fairly. Prison utilization for our female population in Deschutes County reached a high point in November of 2017 at 387.8 months. From that point we declined until November of 2018 where we dropped to 141.2 months. Our female baseline is 242.4 months and as of May 2019 we are at 225.9 prison months. We did experience an increase between November 2018 and May 2019 but we only spiked above our baseline slightly once and have since dropped back below. In our collaborative efforts with the DA's office and Sheriff's office we plan to pay close attention to this population. Deschutes County has services specifically tailored to our female client population and was one of the counties selected to take part in the Family Sentencing Alternative Program (FSAP). We currently offer gender specific MRT, will re -start Moving On, and conduct an assessment of current case management with women using a modified version of the National Institute of Correction's Gender -Responsive Policy & Practice Assessment. Once completed we will pilot use of indicated gender -specific strategies with women on JRP, FSAP and M57 caseloads. 10. If your county has prison -reduction efforts outside of property, drug, and driving offenses please briefly describe them. (150 words or less) a. Deschutes County has an active family Drug Court which directly impacts prison reduction efforts. This is very much a collaborative environment and we are an active part of this team. Deschutes County Parole and Probation also operate Family Sentencing Alternative Pilot Program which is aimed at prison reduction strategies for females and clients with children. 11. Describe the collaborative partnerships in place that will support the county's performance and progress toward the goals of justice reinvestment. (300 words or less) a. This program requires the work of Deschutes County Community Justice, the District Attorney's Office, the Courts, and Deschutes County Sheriff's Office, and community partners in Central Oregon. These organizations have been and will continue working collaboratively to manage specific client groups through the local system, which focuses on identifying the needs of the client and addressing those needs through evidence based services and programs. The development of the new pretrial component of DCJRP requires extensive collaboration between the Sheriff's Office, Community Corrections, and the District Attorney. We have had several meetings in preparation for this grant application and our place is to continue monthly meetings at a minimum. As our supplemental application explains the pretrial program requires a pretrial supervision deputy at the Sherriff's office, a Deputy district attorney, support from our Circuit Court, and support from Adult Parole and Probation. We are designing this new program with a highly collaborative management model in effort to safely decrease prison utilization when possible. Page 7 of 15 Revised 08-14-2019 b. Public Safety and County Officials remain strong supporters of the DCJRP initiative. Deschutes County's LPSCC is active and meets monthly to address current public safety concerns, provide feedback and suggest improvements or public safety needs. It reviews the DCJRP plan and application, listens to updates throughout the year and supports the joint 1R1 goals of reducing prison utilization and recidivism while maintaining public safety. Supplemental Grant Application 1. Describes the target population eligible for the county's downward departure prison diversion program, including, but not limited to, crime types, criminal history factors, risk scores, and residency. Include specific assessments to be used, as well as factors that would result in automatic exclusion from the program. (200 words or less) a. Deschutes County proposes to use Supplemental funds to safely expand its current downward departure prison diversion program by routinely assessing all pretrial defendants who are prison eligible for drug and property offenses. Currently Parole and Probation conducts initial screening on many but not all eligible defendants, and comprehensive assessment upon request from the assigned district attorney. Supplemental funding will support a pretrial supervision deputy (PSD) and a dedicated district attorney (DA). The PSD will assume all initial screening (Safe Screen) and assessment (Defendant Assessment Report — DAR) duties, and provide pretrial supervision and support for accepted candidates. The DA will review initial screens and request DARs, providing consistent and objective criteria for downward departure recommendations. The DAR will remain formulated based on evidence based risk and needs assessments, criminal history summary, and any supervision history. By transitioning screening and assessment duties to the PSD, we expect additional defendants to qualify for downward departures. Pretrial supervision and support will support public safety and appropriate use of limited jail resources, and assist the court's comfort to release clients pending resolution of their charges. 2. Describes the referral process by which participants are identified, assessed, and departed into the program. How will victim input be considered in the decision to depart an individual to this program? (200 words or less) a. The pretrial supervision deputy (PSD) will be housed at the Deschutes County Jail and will review all daily arrests for prison eligible drug and property offenses. Project partners will develop and abide by a Memo of Understanding (MOU) regarding specific program elements and operations and a MOU regarding data sharing for a collaborative dashboard to support the program. The PSD will conduct a Safe Screen for every eligible defendant within two business days and Page 8 of 15 Revised 08-14-2019 forward to the DA. The DA will review the Safe Screen and charges and within two days and make a determination to request a full DAR. The PSD will complete the DAR within three business days. Potential defendants will be screened and assessed with a DAR within seven days from the date of arrest. The DA will use this information to make a downward departure and release recommendation. In accordance with the program MOU the deputy shall arrange for any services, referrals or monitoring conditions recommended and release / coordinate should the judge order release. The plan is to utilize the District Attorney's office expertise with their victims' advocates to consider victim input into our program design. 3. Explains the elements of supervision for this program and highlight differences from standard supervision in your county including, but not limited to, caseload ratios, contact standards, drug testing schedules, response to violations, and use of incentives. (500 words or less) a. The elements of supervision for clients on the DCJRP are significantly different from standard supervision. These include: i. Pretrial supervision —Currently there is no Deschutes County pretrial coordination, monitoring, or supervision outside of a limited electronic monitoring program for primarily DUI defendants. Accessing pretrial program supervision and services will be a significant expansion that supports multiple goals. These include reserving jail resources for the highest risk defendants and clients and reducing prison utilization (research conducted in Oregon in 2019 indicates that detained defendants were more than twice as likely to be incarcerated as part of their sentence compared to those who were released prior to their disposition. The same research indicated that the longer one spends in pretrial detention the greater the likelihood s/he received a sentence of incarceration (Campbell, C. (2019). Effect of Pretrial Detention in Oregon. Oregon Criminal Justice Commission. Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Portland State University)). The implementation committee will spend the next several months creating a project Memo of Understanding (MOU) for pretrial supervision program parameters and operations. Smaller downward departure caseloads - Capped at 35 caseloads per supervisor, verses general street crimes caseloads between 50-60 clients. DCJRP clients receive more intensive supervision including increased offices visits and home visits. Parole and probation officers (PPOs) provide creative and consistent responses to violations including verbal/written reprimands, community services, increased reporting, electronic monitoring, work crew, increased UA's, and jail. PPOs access a Page 9 of 15 Revised 08-14-2019 small but flexible funding resource to provide basic needs assistance such as bus passes, DMV identification help, or other resources that the PPO determines will help the client in meeting their case plan and behavioral change plan goals. iii. Cognitive behavioral treatment - Medium or high-risk clients based on the LS/CMI are enrolled in the Deschutes County Adult Parole and Probation Moral Reconation Therapy (MRT) and/or Moving On program. These programs are evidence -based and require a minimum of 16 weeks to complete. iv. Evidence -based practices - The JRP PPOs utilize motivational interviewing, Carey Guides, and other evidence -based techniques during office visits. Deschutes County Adult Parole and Probation uses a continuum of sanctions such as work crew, written reprimand, verbal reprimand, random urine analysis program, increased reporting, and jail. Parole and Probation also provides transportation assistance, treatment referrals, treatment funding, sober housing, transitional housing, mental health referrals, and other services to address public safety and client accountability. The goal is to maintain a high level of contact frequency, which has proven to help to reduce recidivism. 4. Describes your county's capacity to provide the necessary level of services appropriate to the target population. Examples include, but are not limited to, substance use treatment, housing, mentors, mental health, and cognitive treatment. (1000 words or less) Taken together, the JRI formula and supplemental funds application proposes to maintain its current successful downward departure / STTL supervision program and collaboratively address several pretrial system gaps to expand access to the program. a. Currently, the formula grant supports two dedicated DCJRP staff, administrative support and program/specialist support that has resulted in positive JRI outcomes over the past four years. Parole and Probation will monitor these caseloads closely to ensure that capacity demands are met and will consider adding an additional PPO caseload depending on program numbers. PPO caseloads are only comprised of DCJRP qualifying clients and are dedicated to providing intensive supervision, evidence -based practices and working with community partners to maintain prison usage targets. Deschutes County uses a variety of sanctions and services for sentenced JRP clients. Currently, clients undergo sanctions such as electronic monitoring, drug/alcohol testing, jail time, work crew, and community service. b. Formula grant funds will continue to support DCJRP clients with priority access to sober/transitional housing through three community partners. The Bethlehem Page 10 of 15 Revised 08-14-2019 Inn is one of those providers, offering five contracted for Deschutes County transitional housing beds with intensive case management focused on transitioning individuals to more permanent housing. Other housing partners offer managed sober housing beds each month for single adults or adults with children. Deschutes County is fortunate enough to have contracts in place for 12 sober housing beds on reserve each month and has access to additional sober housing beds and transitional housing beds depending on the demand. c. Formula grant funds will also continue to support DCJRP clients with access to substance use disorder treatment through three community treatment providers. Contracts and staff levels with these current providers allow for the influx of clients as a result of the increased capacity of DCJRP. d. We seek supplemental grant funding to support enhancements to community- based treatment by providing University of Cincinnati Substance Abuse curriculum training and Moving On curriculum training for program staff, treatment providers and community partners. Correctional Program Checklists routinely find that community based providers fail to utilize manualized curriculum developed for the corrections population. By supporting training on this evidence -based curriculum, we increase consistency and likelihood of positive results for the JRI population across the county. Likewise, it is increasingly clear that services designed with women in mind are more effective at addressing women's pathways to supervision or prison. By increasing capacity in delivering Moving On, we aim to be more effective with the female JRI population. Finally, DCJRP clients will further benefit in 2019-2021 from an assessment and improvement strategy currently underway at Parole and Probation related to gender -responsive case management. The assessment, adapted from the National Institution for Corrections, will highlight strengths and needs in our case management model, and direct a path forward for improvements where needed. e. We seek Supplemental funds to support an interagency collaborative approach to expanding access to the Deschutes County Justice Reinvestment Program. i. Maximize screening and assessment for downward departure eligibility: The County is not currently maximizing identification and assessment of downward departure eligible defendants. Parole and Probation does not have capacity to increase the number of defendant assessment reports it is solely responsible for at this time. The District Attorney's office does not have dedicated capacity to review and consider downward departure recommendations. Maintain safe jail milieu with appropriate defendants and clients: The county jail is operating near capacity with an ADP of 300, a population level which threatens a manageable and safe jail milieu. Clients currently waiting in jail for disposition of their case for prison eligible drug, Page 11 of 15 Revised 08-14-2019 property, and driving offenses may be good candidates for pretrial supervision and ultimately our Justice Reinvestment Program. iii. Maintain short-term public safety while reducing prison utilization: The County has no pretrial program to safely manage defendants in the community pending disposition. It is possible lack of pretrial supervision leads to more and longer prison sentences. The Supplemental grant will provide a pretrial supervision deputy (deputy) and a designated district attorney (DA) to expand downward departure assessment and recommendations for more defendants. The deputy will conduct all initial screenings and assessments and manage pretrial release conditions and supervision. The DA will provide dedicated review and support creating consistency and efficiency. g. The Supplemental grant will also be used to establish an electronic notification and court reminder system for the pretrial defendants. Once we have grant approval we will begin exploring the different option available. Some preliminary research has yielded services such as mobile check -ins, video conferencing, and email/text notification as part of these systems. This will add another layer of accountability that will help keep the community safe. 5. Describes your county's capacity to provide the appropriate level of local sanctions necessary to manage the target population. Examples include, but are not limited to, jail -bed availability and community service. (200 words or less) Deschutes County has the capacity to provide the appropriate level of local sanctions to manage the DCJRP. PPOs use a graduated sanction model based on the severity of the misconduct and the client's risk/needs. Sanctions include community service work crew, electronic monitoring, written reprimand, homework, increased reporting, random urine analysis, and jail, which allows for a variety of options when addressing client misconduct. The expanded pretrial program will have access to electronic monitoring. Deschutes County jail has sufficient capacity to provide services, although recent trends indicate an ADP of 300, which is at the upper end of current staffing capacity. All of these methods can be used to address client accountability and help to ensure that clients are meeting program expectations. Finally, our contracted treatment providers provide feedback regarding client progress, which includes possible violations. PPOs are able to use this information to swiftly respond. 6. Are structured sanctions used for every downward departure participant? (300 words or less) Page 12 of 15 Revised 08-14-2019 a. Deschutes County reviews and considers structured sanctions for all violations of downward departure cases. The totality of the case is considered, including violation severity and victim impact, prior supervision participation (abscond history, supervision history, treatment progress and compliance) and the client's stage of change and motivation, supports in the community and criminogenic needs. The goal of our DCJRP is to provide the clients the necessary structure and support to be successful on community supervision. We want to ensure that this can happen safely with appropriate opportunities for accountability. 7. Describes the process for determining revocation of program participants. (200 words or less) a. Much like sanctioning as described above, multiple factors are currently considered when determining whether to make a recommendation of revocation to the court. This includes number of sanctions received, severity and victim impact of any new crimes, treatment and supervision compliance and progress, housing transitions, behavior change plan progress, cognitive behavioral therapy progress, and other relevant factors. b. The designated DA for pretrial considerations will also be assigned to review all JRP case revocation recommendations from Parole and Probation. We anticipate that collaboration and consistency between the District Attorney, Parole and Probation and the Sheriff created through the pretrial program may also result in increased collaboration or consistency after sentencing. 8. Explains how the program will be monitored, evaluated, and adapted. Describes what body will oversee implementation and track program outcomes. (400 words or less) a. Deschutes County Parole and Probation will coordinate all monitoring, reporting, and evaluation activities in partnership with the District Attorney and Sheriff's office and, if approved, an independent program evaluator. A data sharing MOU will guide each agency's role and responsibilities, including use of an interagency project dashboard and individual agency data. b. Monitoring — Parole and Probation will develop and maintain the project dashboard's monitoring capabilities. Monitoring activities will include: monthly Oregon Criminal Justice Commission prison intake data collection and review; Criminal Justice Commission recidivism tracking and the Uniform Crime Report data. c. Reporting — Parole and Probation will develop and maintain the project dashboard for tracking and reporting program outcomes. Key elements include: Number of DARs completed; Time from arrest to completion of the DAR; and Number of pretrial incarceration days; and Time from arrest to deposition. Page 13 of 15 Revised 08-14-2019 d. Evaluation and adaptation —The DCJRP wants to carefully study whether our JRP initiative safely reduces prison utilization. We have invited four Oregon based researchers for a competitive review process to identify the researcher that will evaluate our JRP initiative if approved. The selected evaluator will assist the team in designing the research plan, which is outlined in more detail in the formula grant application. The researcher will provide specific direction to the team regarding data needs and collection, conduct the program analysis, and assist in drafting the final report. 9. Describes the county's total prison intakes for the program's target population during the 2017-19 biennium. (500 words or less) a. During the 2017-2019 biennium Deschutes County had 194 prison intakes for drug, property, and driving offenses. Of those 194 intakes 151 were considered first sentence and 43 were probation revocations. The main target for the pretrial expansion of our DCJRP program will be those that make up the 151. Looking at this group the average prison sentence was 14 months. Of the first sentences 20 were female and 131 were male. Of the 151 first sentence prison intakes 15 of them had a Safe Screen. The pretrial supervision deputy and dedicated district attorney position funded through Supplemental funds will capture more of these cases for review on potential DCJRP eligibility. Deschutes County had 43 probation revocations for drug, property, and driving offenses. Of these 11 were female and 32 were male. Thirty-two percent came from a DCJRP caseload (9% female/23% male). Collectively these revocations received 44 sanctions prior to being revoked. There were four individuals with few or no sanctions, however in most instances these individual were given multiple structured sanctions before a parole violation hearing. At the same time, several of these individuals were charged with new crimes while on supervision, falsifying UA's, or had stopped reporting. Deschutes County Parole and Probation is reviewing these cases and will make any necessary adjustments to ensure that appropriate sanctions are used to address problem behavior. 10. Explains how many fewer intakes are anticipated for the target population during the 2019-21 biennium given full program implementation and describes how the estimate was calculated through anticipated decreased in first sentences, revocations, or both. (500 words or less) a. Based on the past biennium's 151 intakes, the DCJRP program will aim to curb first sentence and revocations by 10%, resulting in roughly 270 prison months' savings. We would estimate a reduction of about 15 first sentence intakes which would equate to roughly 225 months savings if we base it on the current average for that number. As mentioned above we screened 15 of the 151 so the goal would be to increase this number substantially in order to reach the 10% Page 14 of 15 Revised 08-14-2019 increase. The pretrial supervision deputy (PSD) would have a daily dedicated job function to screen potential applicants and get that information to the dedicated district attorney (DA). The DA would request Defendant Assessment Reports (DAR) on those clients that may likely be a good fit for the program and recommend appropriate individuals for pretrial supervision while their case is pending resolution. We estimate that the out of custody pretrial supervision period would average around 60 days. This period of 60 days would allow the PSD to assist the client with appropriate resources and check-in regularly to ensure that they are meeting program requirements. This pretrial supervision period along with the DAR will provide the court with increased information related to expected performance on community supervision post adjudication. b. At the same time Parole and Probation in concert with the DA would work to reduce probation revocations when safely possible. We would estimate a reduction of about four probation revocations which would equate to a roughly 44 months savings. The implementation team would review this number during our monthly meetings, as described above. As necessary we will make adjustments. c. Combined the bed savings estimates would be roughly 270 months. Our three year base line averages approximately 1718 months. This reduction will have a positive impact on those numbers and keep us well below our current baseline. Project partners will also pay close attention to female numbers and work collaboratively to maintain below -baseline averages for that population in particular. The female prison month baseline is 242 months; thus one or two less intakes can make a significant impact. 11. Explain whether funding is being request to support a new or existing (prior to August 28, 2019) program and if new, describes when the program is expected to be operational. (500 words or less) a. Supplemental grant funding will be used to expand current services. As it currently stands our program operates without a pretrial component and is lacking capacity to expand. Planning, policy and procedure development, agency MOU and administration decisions, and training will begin as soon as funding is approved. We anticipate training both of the new position in Motivational Interviewing, the LSCMI, the WRNA, core correctional practices, as well as other trainings around evidence based practices. Using an estimated approval date of October 1, we anticipate hiring the new pretrial supervision deputy and deputy district attorney in January 2020, with the program to be operational February 1, 2020. Our goal will be to provide a level of training for both position so they become subject matter experts in this area. This would allow the review panel to plan the appropriate structures and policies before beginning program implementation. Page 15 of 15 Revised 08-14-2019 2019-2021 REQUEST for GRANT PROPOSALS (RFGP) APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS AND REQUIREMENTS OREGON CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMISSION JUSTICE REINVESTMENT GRANT PROGRAM CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMISSION 885 Summer St NE Salem, OR 97301 ONLINE APPLICATION PERIOD OPEN DATE: July 18, 2019 ONLINE APPLICATION DUE DATE: August 28, 2019, 1:00 PM (PDT) Oregon Criminal Justice Commission The mission of the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission is to improve the legitimacy, efficiency, and effectiveness of state and local criminal justice systems. The agency is tasked with developing and maintaining a state criminal justice policy and a comprehensive long-range plan for a coordinated state criminal justice system that encompasses public safety, offender accountability, crime reduction and prevention, and offender treatment and rehabilitation (ORS 137.656). Definitions As used in OAR 213-060-0010 to 213-060-0140, unless the context indicates otherwise: (1) "Commission" means the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission. (2) "Community-based programs" include: (a) Work release programs; (b) Structured transitional -leave programs; (c) Evidence -based programs designed to reduce recidivism that include the balanced administration of sanctions, supervision, and treatment; (d) Administering a reentry court under Section 29, Chapter 649, 2013 Oregon Laws; (e) Specialty courts aimed at medium -risk and high-risk offenders; and (f) Evidence -based policing strategies. (3) "County" includes a regional collection of counties. (4) "Grant Review Committee" means the Justice Reinvestment Grant Review Committee established under Section 53, Chapter 649, 2013 Oregon Laws. (5) "Program" means a program that is cost-effective as defined in ORS 182.515(2), as that is an evidence -based program as defined in ORS 182.515(3), that is a program as defined in ORS 182.515(4), and that utilizes scientifically based research as defined in ORS 182.515(5). (6) "Recidivism" has the meaning provided in ORS 423.557(1)(a). (7) "Trauma informed services" means providing the foundation for a basic understanding of the psychological, neurological, biological, and social impact that trauma and violence have on individuals, while incorporating proven practices into current operations to deliver services that acknowledge the role that violence and victimization play in their lives. Availability and Duration of Funding This is a one-time solicitation, offering support for 24 months beginning July 1, 2019 and ending June 30, 2021. Grant award recipients may begin charging expenditures to the grant award beginning July 1, 2019. Change to Paragraph 2: The Justice Reinvestment Program was allotted $50.1 million during the 79th Legislative Session. The amount that counties are eligible for is calculated in accordance with the formula used to distribute baseline funding under ORS 423.483 and OAR 213-060-0050. Notwithstanding the formula calculation, all counties are eligible for a minimum grant award of $100,000. See 2019-21 formula allocations by county here. All awards are subject to the availability of appropriated funds and to any modifications or additional requirements that may be imposed by law. Eligible Applicants Eligible applicants include Oregon counties that demonstrate strong collaborative partnerships with stakeholders and community partners. The Grant Review Committee will accept one application per county. The application must be submitted online by the Local Public Safety Coordinating Council (LPSCC) with the approval of the county governing body. LPSCCs may submit a multi -county application on behalf of a consortium of government and non-government partners to design and implement a strategy to further the goals of the region's Justice Reinvestment efforts. For any regional approach, one county must serve as the main applicant for purposes of administering the grant agreement and managing sub -agreements. Deadlines All applications must be submitted by 1:00 PM (PDT) on August 28, 2019. See "How to Apply" in Section VI for details. Contact Information For technical assistance with submitting an application or questions about the grant, contact Ian Davidson, Justice Reinvestment Program Analyst, at (503) 378-6374 or ian.davidson@oregon.gov. CONTENTS 1. Overview.......................................................................................................................................................... 4 II. Program Goals................................................................................................................................................. 5 III. Eligible Program Requirements......................................................................................................................... 5 IV. List of Evidence -based Curriculums................................................................................................................... 5 V. Unallowable Uses for Award Funds.................................................................................................................... 6 VI. How to Apply..................................................................................................................................................... 6 VII. Application Contents........................................................................................................................................ 7 VIII. Supplemental Grant Funds (Optional)........................................................................................................... 11 IX. Application Review and Award Decisions........................................................................................................ 13 X. Monitoring and Reporting................................................................................................................................ 15 XI. Distribution of Funding.................................................................................................................................... 16 XII. Grant Suspension or Termination................................................................................................................... 16 3 I. Overview From 2000 to 2010, Oregon's incarceration rate increased by nearly 50% growing to 14,000 adults in custody with a total biennial corrections budget of more than $1.6 billion. In response to this rapid growth, the bipartisan interagency Commission on Public Safety was convened to analyze state corrections and sentencing policies. The commission's recommendations became the foundation for House Bill (HB) 3194,1 known as the Justice Reinvestment Act, which the Oregon Legislature passed in 2013. HB 3194 made several modest sentencing changes and created the Justice Reinvestment Grant Program with the goal of reducing prison populations, reducing recidivism, increasing public safety, and holding offenders accountable. The Justice Reinvestment Grant Program is Oregon's proactive approach to spending resources more effectively by controlling prison growth and investing a portion of the avoided operational prison costs in the state's local public safety systems. In the 2013-15 biennium, $15 million was distributed among all 36 counties to begin their justice reinvestment programs. For the 2015-17 biennium, the grant program was funded in the amount of $38.7 million while the 2017-19 biennium grant program was funded at $47.1 million (this included the $7 million to support downward departure programs from HB 30782 in 2017). Prior to the passage of HB 3194, the April 2013 corrections forecast estimated that Oregon should plan to house 15,706 adults in custody in state prisons by July 1, 2019. The latest forecast, issued April 2019, calls for only 14,795 adults in custody by that same date, a reduction of 911 adults in custody. As a result of the slowing growth of the prison population, Justice Reinvestment is projected to result in more than $350 million in avoided costs for Oregon by the end of the 2019-21 biennium. Of those avoided costs, $140 million are attributed to delaying the need to build a new male prison facility in Junction City beyond the next decade.' 1 Oregon Legislature. 77th Assembly, HB 3194 (2013). https:Holis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2013R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/HB3194/Enrolled (2013). (Accessed May 2019). 2 Oregon Legislature. 79th Assembly, HB 3078 (2017). https://olis leg state or us/lizZ2017R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/HB3078/Enrolled 3 For more information on avoided cost see the full Cost Avoidance Report released January 2019 https://www.oregon.gov/cic/CJC%20Document%2OLi bra ry/H 63194CostAvoidanceRepordan2019.pdf 4 II. Program Goals The Justice Reinvestment Grant Program is administered by the CJC and requires a data -driven approach to (1) analyze criminal justice trends to understand drivers of local prison use; (2) promote the effective implementation of investments that increase public safety and improve offender accountability; (3) measure the impact of policy changes and reinvestment resources; and (4) tie results to future funding. Proposed programs should be based on existing research and evidence -based practices. The purpose of the Justice Reinvestment Program is to provide funding for counties to plan, implement, or expand initiatives that meet all four goals of Justice Reinvestment: 1) Reduce recidivism through evidence -based practices; 2) Reduce prison populations for property, drug, and driving offenses; 3) Increase public safety; and 4) Hold offenders accountable. The Justice Reinvestment Program supports two separate grants. The first grant is the formula grant, which is distributed using a formula to all qualifying counties that meet all four goals of Justice Reinvestment. The second grant is the supplemental grant, which is a competitive grant designed to supplement formula grant programs. Supplemental grant funds are directed to programs that have dedicated downward departure prison diversion programs. ➢ NOTE: Each application must address all four goals of the grant program." Ill. Eligible Program Requirements In order to be considered for Justice Reinvestment funding, a program must: 1) Serves offenders charged with or convicted of property, drug, or driving offenses; 2) Consider and accept short-term transitional leave candidates as appropriate; 3) Provide assistance to clients enrolling in the Oregon Health Plan; 4) Utilize treatment providers that accept the Oregon Health Plan. IV. List of Evidence -based Curriculums Programs receiving Justice Reinvestment funding should be evidence -based. Counties are encouraged to consult the Benefit -Cost Results page Adult Criminal Justice Section by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy as a resource for evidence -based programs. While the list is not authoritative or comprehensive for each community, it does serve as a valuable resource. 4 Oregon Criminal Justice Commission Division 60: Justice Reinvestment Program. httP://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/pages/ruIes/`oars 200/oar 213/213 060.html. (Accessed March 2017). 5 V. Unallowable Uses for Award Funds Unallowable uses for award funds include, but are not limited to, the following activities: • Land Acquisition including renting, leasing, or construction of buildings or other physical facilities. 2 C.F.R. § 200.439 (b)(1); • Physical facility improvements, restoration, or remodeling; • Compensation of federal employees including salary, consulting fees, travel, or other compensation; • Bonuses; • Firearms; • Tactical equipment; • Polygraphs; • Marketing or branding; • Lobbying; • Fundraising or donations; • Taxes; • Entertainment, including amusement, diversion, social activities, and any associated costs (i.e. tickets to shows or sports events, meals, lodging, rentals, transportation, and gratuities); • Fines and penalties; • Home office workspace and related utilities; • Passport charges; • Food or drink except as per diem in accordance with the Travel Policy; • Membership to lobbying organizations; • Pets and pet care; or • Tip lines/rewards and survey distribution/awards. VI. How to Apply Applicants will complete and submit applications online through the CJC's grant administration website at htt s: c"c- grants.smapply.io. Late applications will not be accepted. Before completing an application on the grant administration website, the applicant will need to set up a user account and log in credentials. Internal screening of the application will determine whether any modifications are required before advancing the application to the Grant Review Committee. If modifications or additional information is necessary, the identified program contact will receive electronic notice asking for revisions to be made within a specified time frame. Estimated Grant Application Timetable July 18, 2019 Request for Grant Proposals (RFGP) Opens August 28, 2019 RFGP Closes: Application Deadline 1:00 PM October 16, 2019 Commission Award Decisions November 22, 2019 Intent to Award Letters December 6, 2019 Grant Award Letters/Agreements Upon final execution of contract, the payment for the first half of Year 1(six months) will be released. 6 VII. Application Contents Application Contents ❑ Cover Sheet ❑ Program Narrative ❑ Goals of Justice Reinvestment ❑ Evidence of Collaboration in Planning and Implementation ❑ LPSCC Membership ❑ LPSCC Staff ❑ Proposed Program Budget ❑ Victim Services 10% Narrative(s) ❑ Proposed Victim Services 10% Budget(s) ❑ Evaluation Plan, if applicable ❑ Racial and Ethnic Impact Statement ❑ Letter of Support from County Commission ❑ Letter of Support from Community Corrections Director ❑ Letter of Support from District Attorney ❑ Letter of Support from LPSCC Chair ❑ Letter of Support from Presiding Judge ❑ Supplemental Grant Application (Optional) ❑ Signature Page 1) Cover Sheet ❑ Primary Applicant Contact Information ❑ Fiscal Contact Information ❑ Contact to Answer Questions on Review Day 2) Narrative Use up to 87% of the Justice Reinvestment grant amount. Unlike in previous biennia, applications will only include one narrative which will encompass the entirety of a county's Justice Reinvestment effort. Description of Justice Reinvestment Effort_(500-word maximum) Provide a detailed description of the activities for which funding is requested, including activity goals and objectives. The description should be presented in a way that helps stakeholders such as administrators, staff, evaluators, funding agencies, advocacy groups, citizens, and elected officials understand and communicate about the program. Additional questions include a) Describe the target population for the program (500 -word maximum). b) List the evidence -based practices/services to be implemented, as well as the research that supports the use of the practices/services as part of the proposed program (250 -word maximum). c) List the metrics to be tracked locally in order to evaluate progress in achieving the goals and objectives identified in the program description (250 -word maximum). d) Have any of the programs included in the application received a Corrections Program Checklist review? If so, when was the review? Briefly describe the outcome and any steps to address the findings (500 -word maximum). 3) Goals of Justice Reinvestment Responses must include all proposed grant -funded activities, as well as local policy changes or collaborative efforts that support the county's progress toward meeting the goals of Justice Reinvestment. The application must address the goals of Justice Reinvestment. In this section, it is required that the LPSCC review the county -specific data found on the CJC dashboards. Applications must reference the dashboards and clearly articulate the county's progress toward meeting the goals, as well as how the proposed program will assist in meeting those goals in the future. a) Reduce recidivism through evidence -based practices while increasing public safety and holding offenders accountable (750 -word maximum). Applicants are expected to use the CJC recidivism dashboards to contextualize the county's current recidivism rates and explain how the proposed program will decrease these rates while increasing public safety and holding offenders accountable. Describe efforts to reduce recidivism during the past biennia and how the proposed program will change or continue those efforts. The statewide definition of recidivism includes new arrest, conviction, or incarceration within three years of a prior conviction or release from custody (ORS 423.557). CJC dashboards show statewide and county - specific recidivism data for both one and three years. Applicants are encouraged to address comparisons to the statewide rate. b) Reduce prison utilization for property, drug, and driving offenses while increasing public safety and holding offenders accountable (750 -word maximum). Applicants must identify how the proposed program will reduce county prison usage for property, drug, and driving offenses while increasing public safety and holding offenders accountable. Applicants are expected to use the CJC Justice Reinvestment Prison Usage dashboards to address data trends. Applicants are encouraged to incorporate data specific to the county's prison intakes, revocations, length of stay, and relationship to the statewide rates when discussing past, present, and projected prison usage. In addition, applicants will be asked to respond to CJC dashboard data regarding county prison usage specific to female property, drug, and driving offenses, as well as describe local efforts to address this population. OPTIONAL: If your county has prison -reduction efforts outside of property, drug, and driving offenses please briefly describe them (150 -word maximum). 4) Evidence of Collaboration in Planning and Implementation (300 -word maximum) Effective collaboration within the LPSCC is expected in the development, submission, and monitoring of the county's Justice Reinvestment grant. Describe the collaborative partnerships in place that will support the county's performance and progress toward the goals of Justice Reinvestment. Counties will also be required to identify LPSCC members and staff that supports the LPSCC, if the county employs any. 8 5) Proposed Program Budget Applicants must prepare a budget based on the full two-year biennium cycle, July 1, 2019 to June 30, 2021. The budget should clearly show a breakdown of costs in the following categories: personnel, contractual/consultant services, supplies, travel/training, equipment, rent/utilities, evaluation, and administrative. Administrative costs must not exceed 10% of the overall award. If funds will be used to hire new personnel, the budget must reflect a realistic start date for each position, taking into account time to post jobs, recruit, and hire. Regular updates to CJC on hiring will be required. ➢ NOTE: Use only WHOLE numbers when completing the budget. Decimals and commas WILL NOT be accepted by the grant -application software system. 6) Victim Services 10% Narrative Ten percent of Justice Reinvestment grant funds must be allocated to community-based nonprofit victim services providers. Each victim services provider must complete a separate Victim Services 10% Narrative. a) Each narrative must include a description of the community-based nonprofit victim services providers that are identified to receive these funds (500 -word maximum). Each community-based nonprofit victim services provider must have: i) A documented history of effectively providing direct services to victims of crime; ii) A mission that is primarily focused on providing direct services to victims of crime; and iii) The capacity and specific training to effectively deliver direct services to victims of crime. b) Each narrative must also include a description of the proposed services (1,000 -word maximum) and explain how the proposed services will address the following criteria: i) Need for the proposed services in the community targeting marginalized and underserved populations in the community; ii) Access barriers, such as, but not limited to: language, literacy, disability, transportation, and cultural practices; iii) Capacity increases for areas where services are difficult to access, limited, or nonexistent; and iv) Trauma -informed interventions and services. 6) Victim Services 10% Budget CJC requests applicants prepare a budget based on the full two-year biennium cycle, July 1, 2019 to June 30, 2021. The proposed budget should be completed individually for each community-based nonprofit victim services providers requesting funding. The budget should clearly show a breakdown of costs in the following categories: personnel, contractual/consultant services, supplies, travel/training, equipment, rent/utilities, evaluation, and administrative. Administrative costs must not exceed 10% of the overall award. Administrative costs may include activities such as purchasing, budgeting, payroll, accounting, and staff services. ➢ NOTE: Use only WHOLE numbers when completing the budget. Decimals WILL NOT be accepted by the grant application software system. 7) Evaluation Plan 9 a) Three percent of the total amount of Justice Reinvestment grant funds will be used to help fund randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or other rigorous evaluations. Applicants can choose to remit funding for research described in this section to the CJC or may retain these funds to conduct an approved evaluation overseen by the applicant. Applicants seeking to retain funds must submit a detailed plan for the use of research funds as described below. If a county selects to retain the 3% funds and conduct evaluations in-house, funding will be released on a reimbursement basis. In choosing programs for RCTs or other rigorous evaluations, CJC will consider the following factors: i) The proposed program is promising and has the capability of being reproduced in other counties. ii) The proposed program is capable of being evaluated through RCTs when taking into account sample size and other practical requirements. iii) The proposed RCT will meet the requirements of the institutional review board process. iv) Studying the program will benefit the state and more broadly the field of criminal justice by adding to the body of knowledge available. b) Applicants will select, in the application template, one of two options to meet the evaluation portion of a proposal. i) County remits 3% of awarded funds to the CJC's statewide evaluation budget. ii) County retains 3% of awarded funds for a locally administered RCT when possible and appropriate. c) Questions if applicants choose to retain 3% of awarded funds for a locally administered RCT i) What is the primary research question that the proposed project will seek to answer? ii) What, if any, are the secondary research questions that the proposed project will seek to answer? iii) Please provide a brief review of the existing social scientific research related to the proposed project. iv) Please describe how this project will benefit the State of Oregon as well as the field of criminal justice more broadly. v) Please describe your dissemination plan for the results of this project. Also, how will other Oregon criminal justice stakeholders be able to replicate your program in their jurisdictions? vi) Please describe the research design/methodology for this project. (1) Describe the study population and expected sample size. Please describe the method used to arrive at sample size estimates. (2) Please describe the control group; if a random control trial is not possible, please explain how the proposed research will employ a quasi -experimental design. (3) What statistical method ology(ies) will be used to analyze your data? vii) If the project involves the collection of primary data, please describe the IRB process you will use and the expected IRB timeline for this project. viii) List project deliverables and expected completion dates, including the following: (1) IRB approval letter; (2) Quarterly updates on research progress and recruitment; (3) A written report of study results; and (4) If using a subcontracted researcher, applicants must provide a plan for the overall management of the project. ix) If cooperating with another county (or counties) to increase your sample size, specify how fidelity to the program between (or among) counties will be monitored and maintained. 10 Counties electing to conduct their own evaluations must present their proposal to a panel of CJC staff on September 23, 2019 in Salem. 8) Racial and Ethnic Impact Statement Pursuant to Section 4, Chapter 600, Oregon Laws 2013, grant applicants are required to complete a Racial and Ethnic Impact Statement. One Racial and Ethnic Impact Statement must be completed per application. This statement should reflect the impacts of ALL activities, victim services, and evaluations proposed in the application. 9) Letters of Support for Application Letters of support are optional if a county is only applying for a formula grant. Each Supplemental Grant application must contain a signed letter of support from the following: • county board of commissioners; • the director of community corrections; • the district attorney; • the defense attorney serving on the LPSCC; • the presiding judge of the local circuit court; • and the LPSCC chair. VIII. Supplemental Grant Funds (Optional) 1) Overview of Justice Reinvestment Supplementary Grant Program In 2017, HB 3078 created a competitive grant to support downward departure prison diversion programs. In the 2019- 21 biennium this supplemental grant is funded at $7,266,000. These funds are limited to positions and trainings that directly support downward departure prison diversion programs. 2) Supplemental Victim Services 10% Ten percent of supplemental funding requested must be dedicated to nonprofit community-based victim services providers approved in the county's formula -based Justice Reinvestment grant application. 3) Program Performance Objectives Qualifying programs must: a) Identify a specific eligible population agreed upon by all key stakeholders, including the district attorney's office, the judiciary, and community corrections. b) Use presentencing assessments to inform downward departure sentencing. Assessments used may include, but are not limited to, the PSC, LS/CMI, URICA, TCUDS, ASUS, and WRNA. c) Establish regular communication regarding program participants' progress, including collaboration on revocation decisions. d) Use structured sanctions for all program participants. e) Provide supervision, sanctions, and services appropriate to participants' criminogenic risks and needs. f) Aim to decrease county prison intakes—including revocations—for the target population. g) Use data to monitor and evaluate program in order to improve program operations. 11 4) How to Apply Applications must be submitted online through the GC's grant administration website at https://cjc-grants.smappIV.io. Simply indicate your interest in applying for the supplemental grant funds when filling out the main Justice Reinvestment grant. late applications or applications without letters of support will not be accepted. 5) Allowable Uses Supplemental grant funds are restricted to supporting key personnel positions that increase local capacity to engage in a collaborative, effective downward departure prison diversion program. Funding is available to support critical personnel in participating agencies including, but not limited to, the following: a) Public Defense Services b) District Attorney's Office c) Judiciary d) Community Corrections Funding may also be used for training directly related to the development or operation of the downward departure prison diversion program. Funding may not be used to support wraparound services or sanctions for program participants, such as treatment, housing, skills training, jail beds, or community service programming. Applicants are strongly encouraged to use their formula -based Justice Reinvestment grant funding to build appropriate local service and sanction capacity. 6) Application Contents a) Application must include a program narrative that: i) Describes the target population eligible for the county's downward departure prison diversion program, including, but not limited to, crime types, criminal history factors, risk scores, and residency. Include specific assessments to be used, as well as factors that would result in automatic exclusion from the program (200 - word maximum). ii) Describes the referral process by which participants are identified, assessed, and departed into the program. How will victim input be considered in the decision to depart an individual to this program? (200 -word maximum) iii) Explains the elements of supervision for this program and highlight differences from standard supervision in your county including, but not limited to, caseload ratios, contact standards, drug testing schedules, response to violations, and use of incentives (500 -word maximum). iv) Describes your county's capacity to provide the necessary level of services appropriate to the target population. Examples include, but are not limited to, substance use treatment, housing, mentors, mental health, and cognitive treatment (1,000 -word maximum). v) Describes your county's capacity to provide the appropriate level of local sanctions necessary to manage the target population. Examples include, but are not limited to, jail -bed availability and community service (200 - word maximum). vi) Explains whether structured sanctions be used for every downward departure participant. vii) Describes the process for determining revocation of program participants (200 -word maximum). viii) Explains how the program will be monitored, evaluated, and adapted. Describes what body will oversee implementation and track program outcomes. (400 -word maximum) ix) Describes the county's total prison intakes for the program's target population during the 2017-19 biennium. x) Explains how many fewer intakes are anticipated for the target population during the 2019-21 biennium 12 given full program implementation and describes how the estimate was calculated through anticipated decreases in first sentences, revocations, or both. A) Explains whether funding is being requested to support anew or existing (prior to August 28, 2019) program and if new, describes when is program is expected to be operational. 7) Letters of Support for Application Each Supplemental Grant application must contain a signed letter of support from the following: • county board of commissioners; • the director of community corrections; • the district attorney; • the defense attorney serving on the LPSCC; • the presiding judge of the local circuit court; • and the LPSCC chair. 13 IX. Application Review and Award Decisions 1) Formula Grant Review Process CJC staff will conduct the initial review of all applications received by 1:00 p.m. on August 28, 2019. Each application will be examined for responsiveness to the guidelines provided in this RFGP related to timeliness and contents. If CJC staff determines that modifications are required before advancing the application to the Grant Review Committee, the identified program contact will receive electronic notice asking for revisions to be made within a specified time frame. CJC may negotiate the components of the application. An application will be deemed nonresponsive if it does not conform to the application requirements. LPSCCs submitting applications deemed nonresponsive will be contacted in order to address deficiencies in the application. See "Unallowable Uses for Award Funds" in Section V to determine whether budget items requested are allowable prior to submitting your budget. All applications that are responsive to the guidelines will be provided to the Grant Review Committee for review and evaluation based on the following criteria: a) Whether the applicant's program is designed to reduce recidivism of offenders; b) Whether the applicant's program is designed to reduce prison use by offenders convicted of felonies described in ORS 137.717, 475.752 to 475.935, 811.182, 813.010, or 813.011; c) Whether the applicant's program would increase public safety; and d) Whether the applicant's program would hold offenders accountable. The Grant Review Committee will meet on October 2, 2019 to review applications. Each county must identify someone that will be available to answer questions about this application if the Grant Review Committee has any. The Grant Review Committee will recommend approved applications to the Criminal Justice Commissioners for final award decisions. If an application needs rehabilitation, the Grant Review Committee will notify CJC staff, who will work with the county to address deficiencies. 2) Supplemental Grant Review Process All applications responsive to the guidelines will be provided to the Grant Review Committee for review and evaluation based on the following criteria: a) Start date of program, with preference given to programs established on or after August 28, 2019; b) Applicant estimation of total decrease in prison intakes for program's target population from the 2017-19 biennium to the 2019-21 biennium; c) County capacity to provide appropriate level of services, sanctions, and supervision for program participants; d) . Level of demonstrated commitment to reducing county prison intakes by critical stakeholders including, but not limited to, the district attorney's office, the judiciary, and community corrections; and e) Total amount of funding requested compared to expected program capacity and applicant estimation of decrease in prison intakes. 3) Award Decisions and Protests a) Awards. The Grant Review Committee will recommend approved applications to the Criminal Justice Commissioners for final award decisions. CJC may approve an application in whole or in part, as well as issue a 14 provisional one-year award with continued funding contingent upon program performance and progress. CJC will issue Award Notification letters and Grant Award Agreements. b) Protests. If an application is not awarded after efforts to revise the application or for any other reason, the applicant may protest the decision. The affected applicant shall have seven calendar days from the date of the Intent to Award Notice to file a written protest. An applicant is considered affected only if the applicant would be eligible for the award in the event that the protest is successful and the applicant is protesting for one or more of the following reasons specified in ORS 27913.410. Protests must: a. Be delivered to the CJC via email, facsimile, or hard copy b. Reference the RFP name c. Identify applicant's name and contact information d. Be signed by an authorized representative e. Specify the grounds for the protest f. Be received within seven calendar days of the Intent to Award Notice. CJC will address all timely submitted protests within 30 days and will issue a written decision to any respective applicants. The agency will not consider protests that do not include the required information. 4) Award Conditions Counties receiving awards must agree to the grant award terms and conditions. CJC may negotiate the terms of the Grant Award Agreement. In the event that mutually agreeable terms cannot be reached within a reasonable time period, as judged by CJC, the Commission reserves the right to cancel the award to the applicant. X. Monitoring and Reporting 1) Award Conditions CJC will monitor whether grantees are operating their programs as described in their approved applications, as well as county performance and progress toward the goals of the Justice Reinvestment Grant Program. To assist CJC in the monitoring process, grantees must participate in quarterly RICs, quarterly financial reporting, semi-annual progress reporting, periodic communications, and occasional site visits by CJC. 2) Reporting a) Financial: Grantees will be required to report program expenditures quarterly through the CJC's grant administration website at https://cic-grants.smapply.io. All documented expenses (time sheets, invoices, travel charges, etc.) must be documented and retained for six years following the close of the grant. b) Program Progress Report: Grantees will be required to submit semi-annual progress reports through the CJC's grant administration website. Progress Reports will be narrative and require the grantee to evaluate to program performance and progress toward the goals of Justice Reinvestment with reference to the most recent data available on the CJC Justice Reinvestment dashboards. c) Victim Services 10% Progress Report: A brief report (two-page maximum) is to be provided annually regarding services to victims with the 10% funding. 15 XI. Distribution of Funding CJC will provide grant funds in four installments during the biennium to the designated county applying for Justice Reinvestment grant program funding. Initial funding will be provided following the execution of the CJC Grant Award Agreement. Subsequent funding disbursements will be made contingent upon spend down and performance and progress towards the goals of Justice Reinvestment on a quarterly basis. CJC may issue a provisional one-year award with continued funding contingent upon improved performance and progress toward the goals of the Justice Reinvestment Grant Program. X11. Grant Suspension or Termination Following reasonable notice to grantees and attempts to resolve problems informally, CJC may suspend funding in whole or in part, terminate funding, or impose another sanction for any of the following reasons: • Failure of the program to comply substantially with the requirements or statutory objectives of Justice Reinvestment Grant Program guidelines issued hereunder, or with other provisions of state law; • Failure of the program to make satisfactory progress toward the approved goals and objectives; • Failure of the program to adhere to the requirements of the grant award and standard or special conditions; • Proposing or implementing substantial changes that result in a program that would not have been selected if it had been subjected to the original review of applications; or • Failure of the program to comply substantially with any other applicable state statute, regulation, or guideline. It is the role of CJC to ensure that the funds, as awarded, comply with state and local statutes and rules. CJC reserves all rights regarding this opportunity, including, but not limited to, the right to: • Amend or cancel this opportunity without liability if it is in the best interest of the public to do so; • Reject any and all applications upon finding that it is in the best interest of the public to do so; • Waive any minor irregularity, informality, or nonconformance with the provisions or procedures of this opportunity; • Reject any applications that fail to substantially comply with all prescribed solicitation procedures and requirements; • Amend, at CJC's sole discretion, any agreements that are a result of this opportunity; • Engage other grantees or contractors by selection or procurement independent of this opportunity process and/or any contracts/agreements under it; • Accept applications in whole or in part. CJC is under no obligation to do so, but at its discretion may request additional information or clarification from applicants for the purposes of assuring a complete understanding of their applications and supporting an accurate review, evaluation, and comparison; • Require applications to be modified if it is found to be in the best interest of the public; • Extend any agreement resulting from this opportunity without an additional solicitation process; and • Modify the type of agreement vehicle employed, based on what CJC deems appropriate to the type of work for which funds may be awarded, if it is in the best interest of the public to do so. 16