MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING

Wednesday, April 5, 2000

Council Chamber

Members Present:  Ed Washington (Chair), Susan McLain (Vice Chair) Rod Park

Others Present:    Rod Monroe

Chair Washington called the meeting to order at 1:33 PM.

1.  CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF MARCH 22, 2000

2.  REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR’S UPDATE

Terry Petersen, Director of the Regional Environmental Management Department, gave a summary of the department’s recent activities. (The summary is attached to the meeting record.) Items included the following:

•  Metro has recently signed an IGA with Cowlitz County to process waste latex paint. The county will pay $2.50/gallon for that service. Metro has been talking with Deschutes and Lane County about similar arrangements.

•  The SOLV-IT event for this year will be held at the Peninsula Crossing Trail.

Jennifer Erickson, Waste Reduction Planner, summarized the status of the Year 11 regional waste reduction plan. This plan provides a framework for reaching regional waste-reduction goals. The plan for the next fiscal year has been revised in response to an anticipated slower recovery rate for the region and to Councilors’ concern about the focus of the program. The new plan addresses maintenance; targeted competitive grants; and new initiatives in commercial, construction, and organics recovery. The public has commented on the plan and the Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC) unanimously approved it. (Details related to Ms. Erickson’s presentation can be found in the attachment to the meeting record titled, “Year 11: Metro and Local Government Partnership Plan for Waste Reduction.”)

Ms. Erickson said the plan would be brought back to the committee on April 19 for discussion and action. She encouraged the committee to review the plan and the public comments before that date, and to contact her with questions or concerns.

3.  ORDINANCE NO. 00-853, FOR THE PURPOSE OF AMENDING THE FY 1999-00 BUDGET TO INCREASE THE FULL TIME EQUIVALENTS IN THE SOLID WASTE REVENUE FUND BY 2.50 FTE FOR THE PURPOSE OF INCREASING STAFFING IN THE HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAM; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY

Mr. Petersen said this ordinance would amend the current year’s budget to change the staffing levels in the hazardous waste program in response to a union grievance on how the program has used temporary employees. This ordinance would convert temporary employment positions to an equivalent amount of permanent positions, as recommended by an outside consulting firm. This conversions would cost about $9,000 for the rest of this year and about $36,000 for next, to cover the higher wages of permanent employees and associated fringe benefits. (More details about this ordinance can be found in the staff report that accompanies this resolution, included in the permanent record.) Mr. Petersen said that although he did not believe Metro had violated the labor contract in a technical sense, he did believe that this action would be the right way to go, and he encouraged the committee to support it.

Councilor McLain asked whether the only change would be in pay, not in the type of job or the number of jobs.

Mr. Petersen said that was correct; there would be no overall increase in the FTEs. An internship program with Mount Hood Community College would remain in place, but the number of interns would be reduced.

Chair Washington asked Ruth Scott, to explain the internship program and its effect on the union contract.

Ruth Scott, Interim Human Resources Director, said that the collective bargaining agreement does not govern interns or temporary employees. The interns come from the education program at Mount Hood Community College.

Chair Washington asked if the interns were provided with a stipend.

Mr. Petersen said the interns have been paid an hourly rate equivalent to that paid to temporary employees at Metro.

Chair Washington asked if the internship program would continue with Mt. Hood Community College.

Mr. Petersen said the internship program would continue, as it has been mutually beneficial, but there would be fewer interns.

Chair Washington asked if this action would correct the problem from a labor contract standpoint.

Ms. Scott said this action came about as a result of a study commissioned to resolve a grievance filed by the union. The grievance said that the hazardous waste program employed too many temporaries, which indicated full-time positions were actually needed. The study confirmed that assessment and recommended creating 2.5 more FTE, dues-paying, regular positions. That would settle the grievance from the union’s point of view. The study recommended re-examining staffing in a year.

Councilor McLain will carry the motion to a meeting of the full Council.

4.  ORDINANCE NO. 00-851, FOR THE PURPOSE OF AMENDING THE REGIONAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN REGARDING GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND RECOMMENDED STRATEGIES FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTES

Mr. Petersen explained that this ordinance had been before the committee for discussion at the last meeting. Councilor Park had requested clarifying language to Goal 13. Mr. Petersen distributed an amended version that adds clarifying language to Goal 13 (attached to the meeting record). He said that was the only part that had been changed since the last meeting.

Councilor Park said some of his concerns were addressed in this version, but not all. He said his primary concern was with the word “use” anywhere in the ordinance. He said he understood the staff’s intention, but he was concerned about Metro’s implying that it was trying to regulate use. He was concerned because regulating use is, according to state law, the exclusive purview of the Oregon Department of Agriculture. He said he had no problem with Metro’s regulating disposal.

Councilor McLain referred to Section 4, number 2. She asked if the sentence “…focus outreach and educational programs on reducing risks from use, storage, or disposal of hazardous products…” took away a responsibility from the Department of Agriculture, or whether it somehow confused a legal term.

Councilor Park said in his view, it implied that Metro was assuming an authority it did not have. He said he understood that the intent was to educate the public on the use of alternatives to chemicals.

Councilor McLain said she thought the goal of this ordinance was to address safety rather than pesticide use. She suggested inserting the words “on safety issues,” in that sentence, to read “…focus outreach and educational programs on safety issues related to the use, storage…”

Councilor Park said that had the same problem in that it implied regulating use. He said the question was not the correct use of a product, but the use of an alternative product. He said the director of the pesticide division at the Department of Agriculture had offered to spend time with the REM staff to help with this ordinance.

Councilor McLain said it was important to remember that this ordinance would address safety of any substance like pesticides, and that Metro had the responsibility for the safety of the public and employees with regard to disposal of those substances. She expressed concern that the ordinance might be watered down and compromise safety.

Councilor Park said there was no question in anyone’s mind that once these substances become part of the waste stream, Metro has every right to regulate them. The problem remains that Metro has no authority to regulate use. That lies strictly with the Department of Agriculture.

Chair Washington said he had expected staff to have the issue resolved for this meeting.

Mr. Petersen said staff had not understood the scope of Councilor Park’s concern. Rather, it had focused on the language only in Goal 13. He offered to take the ordinance back for more work.

Mr. Fjordbeck said that he had not understood the scope of Councilor Park’s concern, either, and also thought it was only with the language in Goal 13.

Chair Washington announced that no action be taken today and asked that the ordinance be redrafted with input from Councilor Park.

Councilor Park said he would prefer reference to “use” be removed from the ordinance entirely. If not, the language should be crafted so as not to imply regulating use.

5.  RESOLUTION NO. 00-2924, FOR THE PURPOSE OF REPLACING A SOLID WASTE FRANCHISE ISSUED TO WASTE RECOVERY WITH A SOLID WASTE FACILITY LICENSE TO BE ISSUED TO RB RECYCLING

Roy Brower, Regulatory Affairs Administrator, REM, introduced the resolution. He gave the history of the company, explained the types of products the company makes, and explained key considerations that Metro must consider in issuing licenses to waste recovery facilities. (Details can be found in the staff reports associated with the resolutions included in the meeting record.)

Paul Gilson, COO of RB Rubber Products, McMinnville, Oregon, showed the committee examples of his company’s products and explained how tires were processed to make them. Only black tires can be used in the process, as the whitewalls contaminate the powder. He showed small samples of products, including padding for horse stalls, fitness floors, pickup bed liners, playground equipment, and fitness-weight bumpers.

Chair Washington asked if this type of re-manufacturing had made a dent in the amount of tire waste that must be disposed of.

Mr. Gilson said his facility would process about 2.5 million tires this year, 1.5 million from the Metro area and the rest from the rest of the state and outside of Oregon. He said that, unfortunately, the amount was not much compared with the amount generated. He said new markets were developing that would have a significant impact, but those were slow and expensive. He said that reprocessing is expensive, which makes it tough to compete in the marketplace. He said his company has been successful because it began as a manufacturing business.

Chair Washington asked how many tires were disposed of in this area. Mr. Gilson said about 1 per person.

Councilor Park asked why it was cost-effective to import tires from outside Oregon. He asked if it would be more expensive to have a factory elsewhere. Mr. Glisan said that was correct.

Councilor Park asked whether transportation or tire purchase was the main cost in the process.

Mr. Glisan said the Portland facility barely covers its costs to process the tires. He said it was an expensive process. He said to relocate or to move would not be cost-effective. The main cost lay in the manufacturing process itself. Acquisition and transportation were minor in comparison.

Councilor Park will carry the motion to a meeting of the full Council.

6.  RESOLUTION NO. 00-2923, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ISSUING A SOLID WASTE FACILITY LICENSE TO TIRE DISPOSAL AND RECYCLING, INC.

Mr. Brower introduced the resolution. He explained the difference between this tire recycling facility and the previous one. He explained that whereby RB Tire accepts only black tires, this one takes all other types of tires, and process about 36 thousand tons of tires annually. It primarily shreds tires for fuel but has continued to look for other markets. (More details can be found in the staff report that accompanies this resolution, included I the meeting record.)

Mark Hope, President of Tire Disposal Recycling, Inc., Clackamas, Oregon, explained his operation. He said black tires are sent to RB Tire. Some of the tires can be processed for civil engineering applications. He clarified that the facility is not in the “tire dried fuel” application; however, it does incinerate whole tires in a cement operation. Steel is recovered from the tires and used in the manufacture of cement kilns. He said the company had found other niche markets. Tires that are still usable are sent to outlets for resale as used tires. He said tire disposal fees charged by tire dealers do not reflect what his company charges the dealer to haul the tires away. Many of the dealers charge $2 or $3 dollars; his company charges the dealer $1 or less.

Chair Washington asked what happened to the fiber and steel when the tires were shredded. Mr. Hope said his process used the fiber and the steel for civil engineering products.

Mr. Gilson said his company did not use the fiber, but was seeking ways of making pucks of steel to send to metal salvage companies.

Mr. Brower reminded the committee of Metro’s rules for granting licenses and said both these companies qualified. He said both of these companies help reduce illegal dumping of old tires and reduce the number of tires that go to landfills. He urged approval of the resolution.

Chair Washington will carry the motion to a meeting of the full Council.

7.  RECYCLING BUSINESS GRANT WORK SESSION

Doug Anderson, REM, outlined the general direction of the business grant program, accompanied by overhead projections. He requested feedback from the committee and said a resolution on this topic would be forthcoming.

He recapped the purpose of the business grant program, which would be to assist businesses that use recycled materials in their products. This would be a program of recoverable grants and loans and be set up as a revolving fund—loan out, get the money back, recycle the dollars. He summarized the elements of the program, including its mission, objectives, eligibility criteria, required documentation, evaluation, and awards. (The substance of Mr. Anderson’s presentation can be found in the hard copies of the summary overheads, titled “Recycling Business Assistance Program Mission,” attached to the meeting record.)

Regarding the eligibility criteria, Councilor Park said he understood the intent of the eligibility criteria, in that they were similar to those used by other lenders of last resort, such as the SBA. He suggested rephrasing in a more positive way the last bullet about duplicating existing businesses —e.g., rather than stating that a business cannot duplicate a existing business, require that the idea be innovative.

Regarding documentation, Chair Washington suggested adding parameters to the meaning of “perpetual” in the bullet point on public subsidy.

Mr. Anderson agreed that parameters were needed but said specifics such as that would be added as the program is fleshed out, once the committee has indicated its approval for the general direction.

Regarding evaluation, Chair Washington asked what criteria would be used to select outside experts. He asked for an example of an outside expert.

Mr. Anderson said if a proposal were submitted for mixed glass kullet [an intermediary product in glass remanufacturing], an expert with that machine would be called to see if the machine could do the work as claimed. In addition to technical experts, financial experts might be used.

Councilor McLain said she sat on a previous committee, the 1% for Recycling Grant Committee, which gave small grants to similar businesses. The program was discontinued because of a lack of eligible emerging recycling businesses. She asked whether a good pool of applicants now exists and on what regularity the money would be dispersed. If, for example, not enough businesses were to qualify, would the money be held over until the next year?

Mr. Anderson said that based on the number of phone calls received even before the program has been publicized indicates a lot of applicants would be out there. Also, staff has discussed doing an independent market study to answer just the questions she had asked.

Councilor McLain referred to the TOD program that has a rotating fund. She asked if that might be appropriate here. She suggested talking with Phil Whitmore, who is in charge of that program.

Mr. Anderson said he would contact Mr. Whitmore to follow up.

On the subject of the frequency of grant allocation. Mr. Anderson said he envisioned having one competitive round per year but also accepting applications on a flow basis. He said that a good use can disappear in six months, so it would be important to accept applications on a flow basis.

Councilor McLain asked if the proposed budget would allow that.

Mr. Anderson said the budget Mr. Houser has proposed would allow that.

John Houser, Council Analyst, said that in the past conversations had been held around how the grant money could be spent—could the grants be used for payroll or marketing or capital needs? He asked if that level of criteria would be included.

Mr. Anderson said yes. He said payroll and utilities would not be funded by Metro, but that a partner might be able to help with those needs. Metro would focus on technical assessments. He said the final criteria would include that level of detail.

Councilor Park asked how much money had been appropriated for this program.

Mr. Houser said $500 thousand in seed had been put in an account for this, with $250 thousand appropriated for this year. He said that partners had indicated that they were willing to increase the potential pool of funds by several fold—to a fund that might eventually total $4 to $6 million.

Councilor Park asked why only half the seed account had been appropriated this year.

Mr. Houser said that half was a lot, historically. In the past only $50 to $75 thousand had been appropriated, total. In addition, the idea would be to have a revolving fund. By staggering the allocation of the funds over a two-year period would allow time for funds to start flowing back in from the first years’ grants.

Councilor Park asked what would happen to the ending fund balance if not enough projects qualified in a year. He suggested applying all the funds the first year, to send a signal that Metro was serious about this program and serious about achieving its recycling goals.

Councilor McLain suggested waiting until the analysts and the REM staff had had an opportunity to study this before suggesting appropriating all the money in the first year. She said she did not think it would matter to the success of the program whether all or half the money was appropriated the first year. She said she would be suggesting an amendment that would add an FTE to manage a program of this magnitude. Currently, REM staff did not have anyone on board to do that.

Mr. Houser said that even if $500 were authorized to be spent in a single year, it would not affect the reserve balances in that year. That money would already have been set aside in that account. The amount that would be spent in a certain year would be changed. That could result in a need in a following year to replenish some of that $500 thousand that has been loaned out if not all of it has come back. But initially it would not affect the reserves.

Councilor Park said he thought it was important to demonstrate to the public that Metro was moving ahead toward reaching its recycling goals. He said it is not enough to pull recyclables from the waste stream if no use could be found for them. He would like to see practical, innovative ideas emerge.

Mr. Anderson recounted the growth of this program, from a small grant program of the past to the proposed $500 thousand in seed.

Chair Washington asked how large a program like this might grow to be.

Mr. Anderson said figures like $4 million and $10 million have been suggested with partnerships.

Councilor McLain said that perhaps by having the full $500 thousand available the first year, more partners might be attracted. That might stimulate contributions from the private sector.

Chair Washington recessed the meeting at 2:53 PM for three minutes. He called the meeting back to order at 2:58 PM.

8.  ORDINANCE NO. 00-857, FOR THE PURPOSE OF AMENDING METRO CODE CHAPTER 7.01 TO CONVERT THE EXCISE TAX LEVIED ON SOLID WASTE TO A TAX LEVIED UPON TONNAGE ACCEPTED AT SOLID WASTE FACILITIES AND MAKING OTHER RELATED AMENDMENTS

Chair Washington announced that this item was for discussion and public hearing only and that no action would be taken today.

Councilor Park introduced the ordinance. He explained that this ordinance was the first in a two-step process. This part would put the system in place. The second part would be a separate ordinance to address what charges would be levied against what type of waste and at what point in the waste stream.

This first ordinance would move the process into a more business-like setting. Within the budget process, the needs would be established and the budget set accordingly. Also, this would provide tax incentives to encourage recycling. Another goal was to separate tonnage from the revenue system, so that achieving the recycling goals would not affect revenue stability. Finally, he was trying to make the system simpler and easier to understand.

Councilor Park said he had worked with staff and members of the industry on this ordinance. He said that more work would need to be done to make sure it was not creating unintended negative consequences. He said that if windfalls occur, he wanted to make sure that the money went back into the recycling system as part of the system credit fee.

Councilor McLain said she generally supported the ordinance and was anxious to hear the public’s view. She asked if anything in this ordinance would change the previous policy on the distribution of resources.

Councilor Park said distribution had not been addressed in terms of the 1% for parks. The current budget proposes more than 1%. He said part of the new system would be that resource allocation would come as part of the budgeting process. Directors would be invited to make their case. It would be up to the Council to determine the need. He said he did not believe it would drastically affect things.

Councilor McLain said that besides establishing a flat rate, this ordinance would allow the Council the opportunity to revisit resource allocation through the regular budget process.

Chair Washington said the intent was to craft an ordinance that would serve the citizens, Metro, and the industry. He said the numbers were still being crunched. The ordinance and the associated numbers would be sent to members of SWAC in preparation for its next meeting, which would be on Wednesday morning, April 12. That meeting would be devoted entirely to this issue. He promised that SWAC members would have the latest information no later than Monday, April 10, and would have plenty of time to address concerns at that meeting.

Chair Washington opened a public hearing on Ordinance No. 00-857 at 3:07 PM. No one came forward to testify, so he closed the public hearing.

9.  COUNCILOR COMMUNICATIONS

There being no further business before the committee, Chair Washington adjourned the meeting at 3:10 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

Pat Emmerson

Council Assistant

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF APRIL 5, 2000

Testimony Cards

Paul Gilson, R.B. Rubber Products (Resolution No. 00-2924)

Mark Hope, Tire Disposal and Recycling (Resolution No. 00-2923)