HomeMy WebLinkAboutEnvironmental Center Grant MoniesCounty Administration - Environmental Center report #11/12-2 December 2011
Environmental Center Grant Monies
Audit committee:
Michael Shadrach, Chair - Public member
Chris Earnest - Public member
Gayle McConnell - Public member
Jean Pedelty - Public member
Greg Quesnel - Public member
Jennifer Welander - Public member
Anthony DeBone, County Commissioner
Tom Anderson, Community Development Director
Scot Langton, County Assessor
Deschutes County,
Oregon
David Givans, CPA, CIA
Deschutes County Internal Auditor
PO Box 6005
1300 NW Wall St, Suite 200
Bend, OR 97708-6005
(541) 330-4674
David.Givans@deschutes.org
County Administration - Environmental Center report #11/12-2 December 2011
{This page left blank}
County Administration - Environmental Center report #11/12-2 December 2011
TABLE OF
CONTENTS:
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background on work …………..………………………………………...…… 1
1.2. Objectives and Scope ………………….……………………………..……… 1
1.3. Methodology …………………………………….……………………..….… 1-2
2. BACKGROUND AND REVIEW ………..…………………………….……….. 2-3
2.1. Recycling trends ……………………………………………..................... 4-5
2.2. Requirements for recycling education ………………………................... 5-8
2.3. Recycling education costs ………………………………………………. 8-12
2.4. Benchmarking information …...…………………………………………. 12-13
3. MANAGEMENT RESPONSES
3.1. Deschutes County Department of Solid Waste …..………………..…. 13-14
3.2. Central Oregon Environmental Center ……………………………….…14-17
County Administration - Environmental Center report #11/12-2 December 2011
Page 1 of 17
1.
Introduction
1.1 BACKGROUND ON RECALCULATION
Authority:
The Board of County Commissioners requested information for budgetary purposes regarding the funding
of recycling education at the Central Oregon Environmental Center (a non -profit organization). The Audit
Committee added the work to the 2011/2013 audit workplan with the understanding tha t this would be a
non-audit service.
1.2 OBJECTIVES and SCOPE
This review is intended to document what the County receives from the Central Oregon Environmental
Center (the Environmental Center) and impacts to recycling. To put these questions in context, the review
looks at the County’s current recycling trends, the requirements for recycling education, and the costs for
recycling education provided by the Environmental Center.
Objectives:
1. The audit objective was to review how the organization spends the monies it receives from the County.
a. To the extent that records permit, provide financial information on the funds provided and costs
associated with Deschutes county contract.
b. To the extent that records exist, provide information on services provided and coverage. To the
extent possible any measures of performance in this area.
2. Summarize County responsibilities to educate on recycling. Status of current responsibilities and how
covered and DEQ compliance.
3. Information on comparable county spending, if available.
Scope:
The scope included the information obtained from interviews, observations, and analyses performed.
W ork was primarily performed in September 2011. The scope is anticipated to include the most recent
calendar years 2009 and 2010. When possible trend information will be shown.
1.3 METHODOLOGY
Procedures included:
Reviewing and analyzing data provided in Oregon publications on recycling.
Reviewing applicable laws and regulations as might be relevant.
DESCHUTES COUNTY
INTERNAL AUDIT
REPORT
DESCHUTES COUNTY
INTERNAL AUDIT
REPORT
DESCHUTES COUNTY
INTERNAL AUDIT
REPORT
County Administration - Environmental Center report #11/12-2 December 2011
Page 2 of 17
There are a number of limitations to the analysis performed. Financial information received from the
Central Oregon Environmental Center was reviewed but not verified, and no audit work was performed on
them.
Since this work performed is considered non-audit services, we did not conduct this work in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
2. Background
and review
The Board of County Commissioners and Budget committee in preparation of fiscal year 2012 budget
questioned the level of funding for recycling education. The Central Oregon Environmental Center (the
Environmental Center) has been the primary provider of recycling education services to the County for
some time. These services help the County achieve the recycling credits allowed by the State, promote
recycling, and target certain recycling efforts.
Chart 1
Trend in Deschutes
Solid Waste -
recycling education
disbursements
(by fiscal year)
County financial information (acct 610-6200-432.34-19)
The contract between the County and the Environmental Center (prior to the budget revision) provided nearly
$155,500 in FY 2011/2012. It has since been reduced through the County budget process to $50,000.
0
25,000
50,000
75,000
100,000
125,000
150,000
175,000
200,000
04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11
Di
s
b
u
r
s
e
m
e
n
t
s
(
$
)
Fiscal year
County Administration - Environmental Center report #11/12-2 December 2011
Page 3 of 17
Table 1
Recycling
education contract
breakdown by
major element (with
revised budget)
Chart 2
Composition of
Environmental
Center revenues
Focus area FY 2011/2012 %
REVISED
BUDGET %
Youth Education 60,000$ 39%32,000$ 64%
Public awareness 40,000 26%18,000 36%
Residential behavior change 35,000 23%
Commercial behavior change 19,000 12%
DEQ 2% Credit report 1,500 1%
155,500$ 100%50,000$ 100%
Central Oregon Environmental Center had the following revenue composition for July 2010 through June
2011:
Deschutes County
contract
35%
Sponsorships and
donations
27%
Foundation and
private grants
16%
Dues &
Memberships
8%
Unrelated business
income
5%
Fundraising
4%
Rental income
4%
Other income
1%
Financial information provided by Environmental Center for 7/2010-6/2011
Chart 2 is based upon the $155 thousand contract with the Deschutes County. The County adopted budget
for fiscal year 2012 was reduced for the Environmental Center grant to $50,000 ($150,000 was requested),
subject to additional review. The current budgeted amount of $50 thousand would result in an 11%
contribution to their revenues at the above levels.
County Administration - Environmental Center report #11/12-2 December 2011
Page 4 of 17
2.1 Recycling trends
Chart 3
Trend in total
recyclable rates
(including goals) for
Deschutes and
State of Oregon
Deschutes County’s improving recyclable rate is set back with 2010 figures.
As noted in Chart 3, Oregon’s recycling rate has been steady, while Deschutes County’s rate has
improved significantly. The decline in the recently released 2010 recycling rates shows the County’s
recycling rates numbers declining a little more than the state. The County’s rates are still below the state
averages.
34.0%33.0%
35.9%37.4%
45.1%
41.1%
49.2%47.3%46.6%48.3%48.4%46.3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
To
t
a
l
R
e
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
R
a
t
e
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
(
%
)
Report Year
Trend in Total Recycling Rate
Deschutes Goal
Oregon Goal
Deschutes Total Rate
Oregon Total Rate
Data extracted from 2010 Oregon Material Recovery and Waste Generation Rates Report.
Total rate includes up to 6% in credits for certified programs in waste prevention, home composting, and reuse.
County Administration - Environmental Center report #11/12-2 December 2011
Page 5 of 17
Chart 4
Trend in total waste
generated and
recycled per capita
(Deschutes)
Analyses by County shows that improvements in recycling rates in 2009 were given back in 2010. With
current information, it is not possible to correlate specific programs (or the recycling education) to
Deschutes’ recycling rate trends.
-
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Ll
b
s
/
C
a
p
i
t
a
Report Year
Lbs Generated per capita Lbs Recovery per capita
Data extracted from 2010 Oregon Material Recovery and Waste Generation Rates Report.
The interesting thing to note about Chart 4 is the decline in overall waste generation, yet the relative
persistence of levels of recycling. In DEQ’s report to the legislature (January 2011), they indicate the solid
waste generation trends with the economy, but other factors may also be affecting the decline. The
persistence of the recycling and increasing recycling rate seem to indicate that Deschutes County is doing
something right.
2.2 Requirements for recycling education
Minimum requirements for recycling education met without contract.
From discussion with Timm Schimke, Solid Waste Director, the County meets Oregon’s minimum
requirements for recycling education through efforts of the County and the franchise haulers before usage
of the Environmental Center.
Regulatory requirements for recycling education include:
County Administration - Environmental Center report #11/12-2 December 2011
Page 6 of 17
Chart 5
Composition of
recyclables - for
State of Oregon
1) Give notice to each person of the opportunity to recycle;
2) Encourage source separation of recyclable material;
3) Utilization of either of two methods
a) Preparing and implementing an education and promotion plan that includes actions to
effectively reach solid waste generators and all new and existing collection service
customers; or
b) Provision for
i) Recycling notification and education packets to all new collection service customers that
include at a minimum the materials collected, the schedule for collection, the way to
prepare materials for collection and the reasons persons should separate their material for
recycling. At least annually, the above should be sent to all customers.
ii) Recycling information in a variety of formats and materials at least four times a calendar
year to collection service customers that includes at a minimum the materials collected
and the schedule for collection.
iii) Targeting of community and media events to promote recycling.
The County’s goal of 45% recycling is that; a goal. Timm Schimk e, Solid Waste Director, indicates the
recycling rate information used by the State is determined from many sources other than the landfill. The
recycling stream includes lots of things that the County is not directly involved with or no influence over.
Chart 5 indicates the various types of material categories used (based on 2010 DEQ report) in developing
the recycling rates. The use of recyclable materials in compost and in creating energy has been
increasing. Use of the recyclables for energy has been growing the fastest.
Data extracted from 2010 Oregon Material Recovery and Waste Generation Rates Report.
Glass
5%
Metals
18%
Papers
30% Plastic
2%
Other
6%
Organics
39%
County Administration - Environmental Center report #11/12-2 December 2011
Page 7 of 17
Table 2
2010 Total
recycling rate
breakdown
(Deschutes county)
Additional program credits may be at risk without Environmental Center contract.
The Environmental Center’s efforts for recycling education have ventured into areas beyond the minimum
requirements under the coordinated direction of County and Environmental Center staff. Those efforts
more closely target the areas for additional recycling program credits. Those areas currently include:
o Youth education programs – presentations at schools, field trips, and EarthSmart kid program;
o Grants to schools;
o Waste prevention and reduction guide (ReThink Waste program) and website
(www.rethinkwasteguide.org);
o Waste prevention public awareness campaign;
o Booths at community events;
o Community presentations; and
o Assist businesses with waste reduction implementation.
The Environmental Center’s work has had a direct impact on the County’s ability to obtain the program
credits and it is likely that it has also provided a more widespread impact on behavior for recycling in
general.
Deschutes County has a history of receiving 6% in program recycling credits towards the total recycling
rate. The most recent (2010) total recycling rate of 41.1% is broken down as follows:
State calculated recylcing rate 35.1%
Additional program credits:
Waste prevention 2.0%
Residential composting 2.0%
Reuse 2.0%
Total Recylcing Rate 41.1%
The program credits increase the recycling rate by nearly 17%. A majority of counties obtain one or more
credits, but only 37% receive the 6% in credits in 2010.
The mandatory elements under the program credits are primarily supported by efforts of the Environmental
Center. Mandatory elements included:
1) Waste prevention
a) General educational materials to residents and two additional prevention programs
2) Residential composting
County Administration - Environmental Center report #11/12-2 December 2011
Page 8 of 17
a) Promotion of the residential composting program through public information and
demonstration site(s) and two additional program options.
3) Reuse
a) Promotion and education campaign on the benefits and opportunities for reuse and two
additional program options.
The Environmental Center prepares the report claiming the 6% in credits. Most of the complying programs
described are Environmental Center programs. Reduced funding to the programs raises the potential for
losing some or all of the 6% program credits. A significant decline in recycling rates might draw additional
attention from DEQ who might look to the County for a new plan to improve their recycling rate.
It is recommended, with the potential scale-down of Environmental Center recycling education
programs, that the County monitor how they will fulfill the requirements for these credits.
2.3 Recycling education costs
Disbursements from Environmental Center are in-line with County grant funds.
The contract agreements with the Central Oregon Environmental Center provide specified levels of work.
The scope outlines the extent and nature of services to be provided and appears to be written in the
context of meeting the requirements for Oregon’s diversion credits. These credits are a necessary part of
attaining the recovery rate goals established by the State of Oregon.
The Environmental Center has been very responsive and has provide d some recalculations of their
historical costs for performing on the contract on the County’s fiscal year. The information in Table 3
below appears to be a reasonable approximation of the costs to provide the contracted services. We
reviewed and discussed the approach with Mike Riley, Executive Director for the Environmental Center.
The approach relies upon the levels of labor identified by the Environmental Center as having been
performed for the contract. They maintain detailed accounting records that mirror the above calculations
with reasonable adjustment. We did a separate analyses based on similar assumptions for direct costs
and had a little higher level of indirect costs. In addition to purchasing the above services, the County
directly benefited from in-kind media contributions to the Environmental Center for 09/10 and 10/11
amounting to over $22 thousand.
County Administration - Environmental Center report #11/12-2 December 2011
Page 9 of 17
Table 3
Comparison of
Environmental
Center costs to
grant payments by
fiscal year.
FY 08/09 FY 09/10 FY 10/11 Total
Grant revenues 155,498$ 155,496$ 155,493$ 466,487$
Estimated costs*
Direct costs
Personnel 122,298 115,927 88,430 326,656
Other program costs 22,776 12,910 27,919 63,605
TOTAL DIRECT 145,074 128,837 116,349 390,261
- Indirect costs 20,165 17,908 16,173 54,246
Total estimated costs*165,240 146,746 132,522 444,507
Net of revenues to estimated costs (9,742)$ 8,750$ 22,971$ 21,980$
Net as a percentage of revenues 5% * Costs estimated by Mike Riley, Director for Environmental Center
The table shows the organization spending significantly all of the grant monies on direct costs and
associated indirect costs. The contract does not identify or align specific performance measures with
requirements being identified for the diversion credit programs. Annual reports provided appear to
address the scope of work identified in the contract and provide a self -evaluation that aides in developing
improvements to the programs. The DEQ “Recovery Rate Credit Claim” report for 2010 highlights other
areas and is difficult to reconcile to the grant and the Environmental Center reports.
It is recommended for the County, with the assistance of the Environmental Center, to consider
adding to the contract performance measures aligned with the diversion credit categories and
scope of services to assure requirements are being met in an efficient and effective manner.
Environmental Center reports impact and request for programs.
The Environmental Center was able to provide some breakdown of the contractual components for the
current contract year, the current budget year and anticipated requests for additional funding. They have
worked with Timm Schimke, Solid Waste Director to identify areas that may require additional funding for
the current fiscal year and have coordinated that with a plan for the next budget year.
County Administration - Environmental Center report #11/12-2 December 2011
Page 10 of 17
Table 4
Summary of
funding requests
Table 5
Youth education
program funding by
contract year with
additional requests
ACTUAL BUDGETED REVISED Request ANTICIPATED
FY 2010/2011 FY 2011/2012 FY 2011/2012 FY 2012/2013
FUNDING LEVEL $155,493 $50,000 $88,550 $104,278
YOUTH EDUCATION 32,000 39,197 43,892
RESIDENTIAL 18,000 49,353 49,803
COMMERCIAL - - 10,583
The Environmental Center has identified the use of the budgeted funding of $50,000 (down from $155
thousand). They indicate their original allocation to programs did not provide for all their labor costs or
their indirect overhead costs.
The FY 2011/2012 increase requested is for additional identified services, all of their associated labor
costs, and indirect costs. An additional $38,550 is being requested to cover $11,050 in indirect costs,
$2,500 in employee mileage reimbursements, and $25,000 for a marketing campaign. Solid Waste is
supportive of funding the marketing approach to strengthen the current ReThink Waste web site campaign.
The detail of the service components and anticipated metrics are included below by the major components
of youth education, residential awareness, and commercial awareness.
ACTUAL
FY 2011
Services Costs Services Costs Services Costs
YOUTH EDUCATION 32,000$ 39,197$ 43,892$
Develop, promote and deliver in-
school and after-school education
programs, grades K-12.
# of Presentations (est)229 150 30,000 150 30,000 150 30,900
# Student Contacts (est)6,024 4,000 4,000 4,000
# of $500 School Grants
Awarded (est)5 4 2,000 4 2,000 4 2,000
Coordinate Oregon Green
Schools program in Deschutes
County and assist schools in
completing OGS application and
achieving OGS recognition. (est)
5 Schools
($750 grants)
3,750
Executive Director indirect cost 2,655 2,735
Mileage reimbursement 1,603 1,480
Other indirect costs (9%)2,939 3,027
BUDGETED REVISED Request ANTICIPATED
FY 2011/2012 FY 2011/2012 FY 2012/2013
The reduction of monies has resulted in approximately a 35% reduction in presentations for youth at the
County Administration - Environmental Center report #11/12-2 December 2011
Page 11 of 17
Table 6
Residential
program funding by
contract year with
additional requests
Table 7
Commercial
program funding by
contract year with
additional requests
schools. The request includes supporting the Oregon Green Schools program through grant awards.
ACTUAL
FY 2011
Services Costs Services Costs Services Costs
RESIDENTIAL 18,000$ 49,353$ 49,803$
ReThink Campaign work:
Rethink Waste guides and website for
residents and businesses.
18,000 Marketing firm hired to
develop marketing plan;
and substantially more
investment in marketing
effort, in terms of
numbers of ads placed
and number of residents
reached.
41,800 Same
effort/results as
last year but
less of budget
spent on
planning and
more on
implementation.
42,200
# of community events (est)13 4 4 6
# of Rethink Waste Guides Dist. (est)30,000+~ 5,000 ~ 5,000 n/a
# of hits on Rethink Waste web site.
(est)
n/a
(began June
2011)
Double volume
of June/July
2011
Double volume of June/July
2011
Double volume of
Apr-Jun 2012
# community presentations (est)3 8 8 12
Executive Director indirect cost 2,655 2,735
Mileage Reimbursement 897 824
Indirect costs (9%)4,001 4,044
BUDGETED REVISED Request ANTICIPATED
FY 2011/2012 FY 2011/2012 FY 2012/2013
The reduction of monies has resulted in significantly fewer community events. The approach has been to
focus and leverage on the website efforts. Environmental Center believes a marketing plan and
implementation plan are now warranted.
ACTUAL
FY 2011
Services Services Costs Services Costs Services Costs
COMMERCIAL -$ -$ 10,583$
ReThink waste :Develop, market
and distribute
ReThink Waste
toolkit for
businesses
9,300
# of business technical assistance 2 None None None
# zero waste events 11 Minimal support Minimal support Minimal support
Mileage reimbursement 446
Indirect costs (9%)837
BUDGETED REVISED Request ANTICIPATED
FY 2011/2012 FY 2011/2012 FY 2012/2013
Most of the commercial efforts have been removed. Some of this is covered through other community
efforts. The Environmental Center anticipates some of the ReThink Waste efforts can be packaged for
use by business and will request funding for this in the next year.
County Administration - Environmental Center report #11/12-2 December 2011
Page 12 of 17
The indirect costs for the executive director’s time and other indirect costs of 9% result in an overall
indirect rate that is less than the 20% management and general overhead costs shown by the Central
Oregon Environmental Center’s in their financial statements for 2010.
It is not clear to what extent the lower level of FY 2011/2012 funding puts at risk the County’s ability to
claim the recycling credits or whether there will be an impact to recycling rates. It is also not clear what
impact the funding will have on the County’s recycling rate, since the County’s overall recycling rate comes
from many sources outside of the County’s control (see Chart 5).
2.4 Benchmarking information
Chart 6
Correlation of
estimated costs per
household to
recycling rate
(2009) for selected
Oregon counties
Previous County recycling education spending per household in midst of other
comparably sized Oregon counties.
The Environmental Center was able to provide information on recycling education costs for several Oregon
counties (Lane, Marion, Benton, and Clackamas). Additional data was located for Douglas, Yamhill and
Jackson Counties. Though these costs may not be comprehensive they provide some anecdotal indication
of levels within the state.
$0
$1
$2
$3
$4
$5
25%30%35%40%45%50%55%
Do
l
l
a
r
s
p
e
r
H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
Recylcing rate
Trendline (approx.)
Deschutes
$155,000/64,090=$2.4
The overall information graphed in Chart 6 places Deschutes County somewhat in the middle of the pack
County Administration - Environmental Center report #11/12-2 December 2011
Page 13 of 17
using the original FY10/11 funding level ($155,000). The higher spending by some of the counties per
household did have a minor level of correlation with higher recycling rates.
All of the counties in the analyses achieved the 6% in program credits. It is thought that many of the
counties expending these funds are trying to impact their recycling rates as well as obtain the program
credits as opposed to meet the statutory minimum requirements. It is not clear the analysis has captured all
of the costs expended for recycling education. For Deschutes county, we have additional internal costs
and costs paid by garbage haulers costs, not to mention other recycling operations within the county that
feed into the recycling rates. There was insufficient data obtained to show differences in programs and
how various programs might impact recycling rates. The current Deschutes County budget for recycling
education of $50 thousand would place the approximate cost per household at $.80 per household and
below all of the other collected data points. The requested budget of $88 thousand puts the cost per
household at around $1.40 per household.
The Environmental Center also provided a copy of a 2002 study on “Evaluating the Impacts of Recycling /
Diversion Education Programs – Effective methods and optimizing expenditures” by Skumatz Economic
Research Associates Inc. The study’s focus was on targeted recycling efforts. The conclusions of the
study indicated certain methods could add 1 -3% to the recycling rate depending on their current diversion
rate and method. The survey metric utilized was costs per household. The focus was not on general
education efforts and the conclusions often were around distribution methods (such as bill stuffing).
3. Management responses
3.1
Timm Schimke,
Solid Waste
Director,
Deschutes County
Department of
Solid Waste
Department of Solid Waste response to Internal Auditor’s evaluation of funding of recycling education and
promotion efforts through the Environmental Center.
I believe the evaluation shows that the monies spent with the Environmental Center have been used
judiciously, and are neither higher nor lower than other counties in the state when compared on a cost per
household basis. I also believe these conclusions hold true at any of the funding levels discussed in the
report. The report points out that it is very difficult to directly correlate levels of funding in recycling
education and promotion to diversions levels. The solid waste and recycling industries as well as state
governments can only report that it is clear that a good education and promotion program is a ke y
ingredient to a successful diversion effort, and it is on that basis that we have approached recycling
education and promotion in Deschutes County.
County Administration - Environmental Center report #11/12-2 December 2011
Page 14 of 17
The report recommends establishing performance measures and aligning the scope of the grant
agreement to focus on meeting the requirement for obtaining the additional diversion credits offered by the
State for efforts in waste reduction, residential composting and reuse. I have no objections to taking steps
to ensure that we qualify for these diversion credits, but I think it is important to recognize that this is not
the only area that the Environmental Center adds value to our diversion program. Although minimum
requirement specified in statute are being met primarily through the franchised collection syst em, I believe
the Environmental Center’s efforts residential and commercial recycling are an important factor in our
success in those areas as well.
I would like to thank David Givans for the work he has done in this evaluation.
3.2
Mike Riley,
Executive Director,
The
Environmental
Center
November 30, 2011
David Givans
County Internal Auditor
Deschutes Services Center building
1300 NW Wall Street, Suite 206
Bend, OR 97701
RE: Audit Report on Environmental Center Grant Monies
Dear David:
I agree with the facts as presented in the audit and support its findings and recommendations.
County Administration - Environmental Center report #11/12-2 December 2011
Page 15 of 17
I have a few comments I would like added to the “Management Responses”, Section 3, of the report.
1. Substantial investments in education and promotion are a best practice in Oregon counties that
achieve high recovery rates. Based on my experience in waste prevention and recycling in Oregon
since 1998, I believe that professionals in the waste and recycling field view substantial investments
in education and promotion programs as a best practice and a critical part of the overall program
mix needed to achieve recovery rates goals and then sustain those rates. These professionals
know that if you want customers to choose your product or service, you need to invest in education
and promotion. Getting people to adopt new behavior s — to prevent waste, to reuse as much as
possible, and to recycle and compost the rest — is no different. You see this best practice reflected
in the research on per capita spending on recycling education and promotion in seven comparable
Oregon counties that David Givans and I completed for this report, summarized on pages 12 and
13. Those counties with the highest recovery rates also invest significantly in education and
promotion activities, and those activities are substantially more than the minimum required to
comply with state law.
2. The current grant amount of $50,000 per year places Deschutes County dead last among the seven
comparable Oregon counties looked at in the audit. See section 2.4, pages 12 and 13.
3. The Environmental Center has significantly leveraged DCSW grant funds. With DCSW grant funds
as a base, The Environmental Center has been able to significantly leverage additional financial
support for waste prevention, reuse, recycling, composting and other sustainability education and
promotion activities in our county. This support has come to us as both in-kind donations (goods
and services) as well as cash. As described on page 8, we secured over $22,000 of in -kind media
services to support delivery of messages to County residents in the 2009 to 2011 grant period
alone. Additionally, over the last ten years we have secured approximately $150,000 in cash from
foundation grants, state and federal government grants, and corporate contracts and donations, to
support a wide range of activities that complement and build on the activities paid for by the DCSW
grant, including promoting reuse, sustainable business practices, and zero waste events as well as
delivering sustainability education programs to youth.
4. Traditional marketing strategies and tactics are an important tool that we should use more often in
Deschutes County. We propose to do so in our current grant revision and in the 2012-2013 grant
year. My research on education and promotion activities in comparable Oregon counties, as well as
a literature search on what activities produce results, suggests that we should try more traditional
County Administration - Environmental Center report #11/12-2 December 2011
Page 16 of 17
marketing strategies and tactics to deliver waste prevention and recycling messages to County
residents and businesses. Other Counties in Oregon have used this approach substantially more
than we have, and the research by Skumatz referred to on page 13 of the audit supports it as an
effective strategy. We laid the foundation for such a marketing campaign last grant year with the
publication of a Rethink Waste guide and web site (www.rethinkwasteguide.com). The main
program objective of increasing our current 2011-2012 grant from $50,000 to $88,550 is to develop
and begin implementing a marketing campaign that raises awareness about waste prevention,
reuse, recycling and composting, and drives people to the Rethink Waste resources where they can
learn how to take action. The tactics would be a mix of paid advertising, social media, earned media
coverage, and print and web-based resources.
5. Deschutes County saves money by extending the life of Knott Landfill, currently the least cost waste
disposal option available to County residents. Waste prevention, reuse, recycling and composting
activities are key components of an overall strategy to extend landfill lif e. The last time that
Deschutes County Solid Waste compared a range of waste disposal options for County residents it
was clear that extending the life of Knott Landfill was the lowest cost disposal option for County
residents. So a plan was adopted and implemented to expand the footprint of the landfill. As DCSW
Department Director Timm Schimke pointed out last January, recycling alone has extended the life
of the landfill at least 6.3 years and saved County residents approximately $7,000,000, just in
reduced transportation costs. Undoubtedly, waste prevention, reuse, and composting activities also
have kept stuff out of the landfill and saved more dollars, albeit the financial savings from these
activities are difficult to quantify because the results of the activities cannot, unlike recycling, be
weighed on a scale. (Thus the two percent credits awarded by DEQ for activities that promote these
behaviors.)
Finally, I’d like to suggest a new waste recovery framework for Deschutes County. Back in the 1980s,
when recycling was just beginning in Oregon, a full recycling bin was the right stretch goal. But recycling
alone is no longer enough. While recycling rates have grown significantly over the last decade in Oregon
and Deschutes County, so too has the total amount of stuff we throw away. Today, we need to change our
focus from recycling to waste prevention. We need a new stretch goal: a full recycling bin and an empty
garbage can. We’ll protect the environment and extend the life of Knott landfill, our count y’s
lowest-cost disposal option. That’s a win-win outcome that I believe is supported by Deschutes County’s
citizens.
Achieving that new stretch goal will require continued investments in education and promotion programs.
County Administration - Environmental Center report #11/12-2 December 2011
Page 17 of 17
We look forward to being part of the County’s team that delivers those programs.
Thanks for your patience, diligence, and objectivity in preparing this audit. It’s hard to describe any audit
as a pleasant experience. Your professionalism made it as pleasant as possible and I appreciat e that.
Sincerely,
Mike Riley
Executive Director
{End of Report}