MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING

Wednesday, February 23, 2000

Council Chamber

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

Chair Washington called the meeting to order at 1:40 PM.

2.  CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 9, 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:

•  Winners of Metro’s annual Earth Day Billboard Art Contest were chosen on February 18. The winners will be recognized at an open house on March 10, from 5 – 8 PM, in the Metro lobby.

•  The Rebuilding Center has reopened at an expanded site on N. Mississippi. The Center has begun selling Metro’s recycled latex paint at its new store.

•  Total tonnage delivered to Metro’s waste facilities declined during the first half of FY’99-’00 compared with the same time period last year, but revenue tonnage increased. That suggests less material was recovered from all the facilities, although a few have recovered more. (More details can be found in a memo dated February 16, 2000, attached to the meeting record.)

Mr. Petersen praised Mr. Tom Wyatt, who manages Metro Central, for increasing the percentage of materials recovered at that facility in spite of the decrease in total tonnage received.

•  CleanCare, Inc., a company Metro has contracted with to handle hazardous waste, declared bankruptcy. Metro will need to recover ten drums of hazardous waste stored there.

•  The City of Portland Planning Bureau approved the St. Johns Landfill Dike Stabilization project with conditions, among which included work on the 40-mile loop. Although that work would not be directly related to the dike stabilization effort, the REM department recommended it be done anyway, as the cost of doing the work would be relatively small compared with the cost of appealing the requirement.

Councilor McLain suggested the department find out what Metro Central has done that has contributed to its recovery success.

Mr. Petersen said a report would be forthcoming in March that includes that information.

Councilor Park asked about bonding requirements in the contract with CleanCare, Inc., to protect Metro from liability in a case like this.

Marvin Fjordbeck, Metro Senior Assistant Counsel, said the contract had carried an indemnity provision; however, those provisions were good only as long as the company remained solvent. With bankruptcy, the company is no longer solvent. The legal department would be investigating possibilities regarding contractual relief against the company or against the bankruptcy estate. He said he would keep the staff advised on that.

3.  RESOLUTION NO. 00-2891, FOR THE PURPOSE OF AUTHORIZING AN EXEMPTION FROM COMPETITIVE BIDDING REQUIREMENTS AND AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF RFP #00R-1-REM FOR REPLACEMENT OF TWO COMPACTION SYSTEMS AT METRO CENTRAL STATION

Mr. Petersen explained that the two compactors needed to be replaced because they have reached the end of their useful life. He explained the rationale for purchasing two compactors and for issuing an RFP to solicit proposals to do the replacement. Exhibit “B” contains the findings that support issuing an RFP instead of putting the contract out to bid. (More information this resolution can be found in the staff report and in Exhibit B to the resolution, both of which are part of the meeting record.)

Councilor McLain noted that only two manufacturers were listed. She asked if more than those two companies were likely to bid on this. Mr. Petersen said a third company has expressed interest in submitting a proposal.

Councilor McLain asked who would be on the review panel to select the contractors.

Mr. Petersen said they had not yet been selected, but would probably include the same types of people as in the past—i.e., Metro engineers and other staff as well as a representative from the industry.

Councilor McLain said it would be important for the contract process to be fair, equitable, and support competition. She asked what assurances there would be that this proposal process would meet those criteria.

Mr. Petersen said that although the proposal process would consider things other than price, companies would still need to compete.

Councilor McLain asked about the criteria for judging proposals.

Mr. Petersen pointed out that criteria are on page 16 of the RFP. (A copy of the RFP can be obtained from the REM Department.)

Councilor McLain reviewed the criteria and said that she was happy with them as a means of judging the proposals.

Councilor Park for a brief clarification of the whole process.

Mr. Petersen said the proposals would be solicited and evaluated, then the Executive Officer would recommend which one to accept. If that recommendation were not appealed, the contract would be signed. If that selection were appealed, the appeal would come before the Contract Review Board.

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

4.  DISCUSSION OF WASTE REDUCTION INITIATIVES

Mr. Petersen said that about nine months ago, the Waste Reduction and Planning staff’s assessment of the region’s waste reduction efforts indicated waste reduction had stalled throughout the region. New initiatives were proposed at that time as means of addressing that. At the last committee meeting, Councilor McLain had requested an update on the new initiatives. He introduced Meg Lynch and Doug Anderson from the REM Waste Reduction staff, to summarize a draft report on the new initiatives and to discuss their budget implications, respectively. (The draft report, titled “New Initiatives in Waste Reduction,” is attached to the meeting record.)

Meg Lynch, Waste Reduction, REM, presented highlights from the report. She summarized the three initiative areas: reducing organics waste by developing programs for handling commercial organics; reducing construction waste through reuse programs; and markets development.

Councilor Park asked how prevention was calculated in the reduction percentage.

Mr. Anderson said Metro has goals for reuse and recovery, so those categories can at least be monitored. He said the state has recognized the problem that the better the waste-reduction program the worse the recycling rate appears to be. The state has begun to grant credits, such as 2% for home composting—which Metro received—as recognition of prevention activities. In addition, a work group has been convened to study how to address this issue more effectively.

Councilor Park asked if commercial organics recovery counts toward the regional recovery rate. Mr. Anderson said it does.

Ms. Lynch said that in addition to the 2% credit Metro receives from the state for promoting backyard composting, it also gets 2% credit for existing waste-prevention and 2% for existing reuse programs. Ms. Lynch said Metro had undertaken outreach connected with pilot projects aimed at reducing commercial organics waste, with the hope that private sector initiatives to handle the material would materialize. Those initiatives did not materialize; thus, if those goals were to be met in this area, the burden would fall on the public sector.

She said the potential for collecting and process commercial organics would be high if the collections were not limited to only food waste. She noted that there would be significant land use challenges for a facility designed to handling food waste. She noted that the Executive Officer’s budget fully funds pilot projects to develop educational materials for and do outreach to food-generating businesses.

Councilor McLain asked for clarification of the $0 amounts on the proposed budget tables (see Draft Report, attached to the meeting record). Ms. Lynch said that meant those programs would incur no costs for that element that year.

Mr. Anderson added the proposals, which were developed last year, are for all the programs. Most, but not all, have been included in the proposed budget for FY’00-’01.

Ms. Lynch said the proposal aim to achieve the ultimate recycle and reduction goal. Some elements of some programs that would be required to achieve the goal are not in the budget. These are in the column labeled "unmet needs.” Market development is one of the main unmet needs.

Ms. Lynch said about half of the construction/demolition materials that are now being disposed of are recyclable. Some of the reasons they were not being recycled include the fact that some dry-waste facilities do not accept commercial loads and low-cost disposal sites are located nearby. Some recommended practices, such as on-site audits of dry waste, have been rejected by the builders. Markets are also lacking for recovered material. Metro has teamed with the Rebuilding Center and the Multnomah Athletic Club to experiment with careful deconstruction techniques, to see if more materials can be salvaged. She outlined several other recommended approaches to decreasing this waste (included in the Draft Report).

Councilor Park asked what would motivate building contractors to increase their recycling rate.

Bryce Jacobson, Waste Reduction Planner, REM, said based on department research, it’s economics. If it’s cheaper, they’ll do it. Also, the programs must be easy to implement.

Councilor Park asked if the Department of Environmental Quality might be involved in encouraging this kind of recycling. He suggested its “hammer” might be effectively coupled with incentives—a “carrot and stick” approach.

Mr. Jacobson said he would investigate that possibility.

Ms. Lynch said the DEQ does not regulate this type of waste; however, the city of Portland now requires that construction projects of more than $50,000 need to have a recycling practice in place.

Ms. Lynch explained recommendations for increasing commercial recovery, which include measuring the effectiveness of the programs through conducting an audit.

Councilor McLain questioned the wisdom of investing $300,000 in doing more recycling audits. She said too many audits have been done in the past that have not been tied to results.

Steve Apotheker, said a process was currently underway to evaluate the results of different approaches to the audits. Also, this was the only program that offered a direct opportunity to directly communicate waste-reduction and recycling opportunities to businesses. This evaluation would include the number of businesses that had been able to increase the waste-prevention efforts and efforts to purchase recycled materials.

Councilor McLain asked if this, then, was a new waste audit and whether it would be done by consultants or staff.

Mr. Apotheker said different cities have used different sources.

Councilor McLain asked to see a copy of the audit plan when it becomes available, to be certain crucial elements have been included.

Ms. Lynch described outreach to smaller businesses, which comprise the majority of those that do not currently have recycling and waste-reduction programs in place.

Mr. Anderson summarized the budget costs associated with these initiatives and two that were not included in the new initiatives report—Expanded Hazardous Waste Education and RSWMP Implementation. (See table titled, “Waste Reduction Budget: New Initiatives,” attached to the meeting record.) He noted that no large regional ad campaigns had been proposed for next year. He explained that the “Base” column represents what has been part of the budget. The “New” column represents new programs that have been put into the proposed budget. The “Unfunded” column represents programs that would help reach the goal but have not been put in the proposed budget. The total was not requested because the entire state is lagging in reaching recycling goals and is currently deciding whether to move the dates back for reaching the goals. In addition, there are too many unknowns regarding revenues and contingencies.

Councilor McLain said the initiatives to her seemed to be staged programs, which would suggest that not all the costs would fall in a single year. She asked if the bottom line on the table represented money that could be used in the coming year.

Mr. Anderson said most of the programs would not be staged; the $1,271,750 is the figure proposed for the next fiscal year.

Councilor Park said that last year the department had indicated it could use $1 million in additional funding. He asked if that was reflected under the “new” column or whether that $1 million was under both “new” and “unfunded.”

Mr. Petersen said the budget represents a means of getting started on the new initiatives without over-committing staff resources. More precise numbers would become available through the budgeting process.

Councilor Park asked about money budgeted for market development.

Mr. Anderson said he would come before the committee next month to talk about that.

Chair Washington asked for a quick summary of the bottom line on the budget table.

Mr. Anderson said the $1,271,750 represents the amount in the currently proposed budget. That is composed of $766,386, which is the current level of expenditure, and $505,364 for new expenditures. The $1,074,095 is the additional amount it would cost to fully achieve the goals, but which had not been requested. The $2,345,845 is the total that would be needed if all the programs were funded in full.

Councilor McLain said it was important for the public to know that, in accordance with the RSWMP, programs that were not effective were being corrected. She said these new initiatives represented some of those corrections.

5.  ADOPTION OF REM COMMITTEE’S WORK PLAN FOR YEAR 2000

John Houser, Council Analyst, noted that the updated work plan resembles the work plan considered at the previous meeting, with one addition: # 18, added at Councilor McLain’s request. The format has been changed to make it easier to read. (The updated version of the work plan is attached to the meeting record.)

Mr. Peterson reminded the committee that SWAC had been concerned that the schedule on the service plan was too aggressive and had asked that it be moved back one month. The committee agreed to that change, and Mr. Houser noted that on the work plan.

Mr. Petersen also suggested #8 be brought to SWAC in March and the committee action be delayed until April. That change was also made.

6.  COUNCILOR COMMUNICATIONS

None.

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 FEBRUARY 23j, 2000