Portland Bureau of Maintenance: Recycling While Saving Taxpayers' Money
Roland Chlapowski
As most citizens of Portland know, Portland is a leader in the sustainability and green building movement in the United States. The City’s Office of Transportation Bureau of Maintenance (BOM) has embraced the challenge of developing cost-effective methods to recycle materials generated when performing street maintenance operations. BOM’s recycling program is conducted at the Sunderland Recycling Facility, and is designed to meet Portland’s sustainability goals by:
1) lowering fees and hauling costs for the disposal of material;
2) reducing the need to purchase virgin rock; and
3) offsetting operating costs through the sales of compost and recycled products.
Since the mid 1980s, BOM employees have been recycling materials such as leaves, concrete, asphalt, and street-sanding rock. In 1997, BOM purchased a 20-acre site committed to this recycling effort. At present, 30,000 to 50,000 cubic yards of material are processed annually at the facility. City crews use this material for maintenance and repair projects. This recycled material is sold to the public as part of BOM’s outreach program.
BOM’s recycling efforts have been so successful that in October 2004, an additional 14-acre parcel of land adjacent to the existing site was acquired. This second property adds capacity for current programs and provides opportunities for savings and revenue for new programs. For more information on the BOM’s recycling program and the master plan for the future of the facility click here (link to www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?c=35730 ).
Want to help the City’s sustainability efforts
And improve the look and health of your landscape?
Purchase recycled products from the City’s recycling program.
The following recycled produces are currently available for sale:
• leaf compost
• crushed rock (crushed concrete and asphalt blend)
• blended soil (soil and compost blend)
Sunderland Recycling Facility
9325 NE Sunderland Avenue
(just off NE 33rd Ave, between Marine Drive and Columbia Blvd)
Open Monday – Friday
Open Saturdays in May
7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
phone # 503-823-3500
Posted by Roland Chlapowski on May 4, 2006
(16) Comments | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Filed Under Environmental Services, Front Page, Livability & Environment, Transportation
Comments by site visitors
Speaking of transparency, how about a status report on the FHWA Airspace Lease for the Tram?
It would be a crying shame to spend $50 or $60 million only to find out the Feds won't approve the Tram's Airspace Lease without design changes.
Posted by: Alice | May 7, 2006 8:05:33 AM
Roland, I know you are busy, as you said in a post several weeks ago defending why there has not been a LCC for the tram as requested in a vote by the NM URAC over six months ago. Our URAC has many important decisions to make in regarding budgeting for NM in the near future, and in the recent past.
I believe Adams and your staff should expediate the LCC immediately and give us an update on its progress. PDC and Council has been remiss in not helping it's only public review committee of the NM URD in fulfilling its mission.
Posted by: Jerry | May 7, 2006 12:50:01 PM
Why does everything posted have to be
turned into a discussion of the TRAM?
I am much more concerned about the city hauling tons of gravel around between work sites.
When in some cases it could be put to good use at the work site for virtually no additional cost.
Posted by: Bryan H. Ackler | May 8, 2006 8:28:23 AM
Good point, Bryan. Why the city has to move around rock is that the 130 acres of North Macadam (the tram site)is below the 100 year flood plain so the site has to be filled in with over nine feet of fill over much of the site. And, of course, at tax payers expense. Where were the environmentalist on this issue of filling in a flood plain?
Posted by: Lee | May 8, 2006 8:49:27 AM
^Lee, could you provide the link to the fill issue you are talking about. A developer was quoted in the BigO as saying they, not the city, was required to raise the land before their condos could be built as well as finance pumps in their underground garages in a worse case flood situation. I'm trying to figure out if the developer is lying or if you are speaking solely about the tram landing spot.
Posted by: MarkDaMan | May 8, 2006 9:57:08 AM
The voice of the public majority was ignored in greenlighting the Tram. Despite a quadrupling of the construction costs, the City of Portland continues to ignore the advice and preferences of a majority of the voters.
We are afraid the construction cost fiasco will be repeated in the operating, maintenance, and safety costs: all of which would likely have an adverse impact on future general fund budgets. If we build a white elephant, we have to feed it and shelter it.
There is no other forum to voice these concerns, and they have gone unaswered thus far.
Posted by: Publius | May 8, 2006 11:24:23 AM
MarkDaMan: As explained to the NM URAC about a year ago by PDC Jane Blackstone, the cost of the fills for all the raised R.O.W.s (streets/sidewalks and the greenway) were paid by the TIF money (taxpayer's money) delegated for the the street/greenway improvements. Jane did not answer who was paying for the fill on actual private property. Over 1/3 of the 120 acres is in r.o.w.
I would suggest you ask PDC Larry Brown for an updated answer, and written proof of who paid for the private portion of the fills.
Keep in mind that because of the streets being raised, the services (sewer, water, gas, storm drainage, etc.) had to be raised, or connections to the finished elevations had to be made by other city bureaus. I even talked to a city sewer engineer about the engineering and city costs to raise these services because of the raised elevations. He wasn't happy-costand tim e.
Posted by: Lee | May 8, 2006 1:52:03 PM
,"""how about a status report on the FHWA Airspace Lease for the Tram?""""
I called PDOT today and got the update.
The topic will be on the Council agenda this Wednesday.
Preliminary permits for construction closures of Macadam and other components pending the application and acquisition of permits for crossing the Interstate. Conditions of approval will be submitted to the council.
Posted by: Steve Schopp | May 8, 2006 6:05:30 PM
MarkDaMan: if you think about your fill question an obvious point pops up. All the buildings so far built/being built in NoMa have two to four levels of underground parking/basements under the buildings. This then requires no fill but actual excavation under the buildings since the building perimeters extend to the city r.o.w. property lines. The developers liked the necessity of fill so that their underground parking levels are further up from the severe flood plain and the hydrostatic ground water pressures. This has been a tremendous cost savings to the developers.
Thus, in almost all cases the taxpayers have paid for all the NM fill required to meet the federal flood plain requirements. Meeting the fed. requirements are required for the city/developers to receive any federal money in the NM URD, which already has been extensive. Score another dollar benefit to the developers at a tremendous costs to the taxpayers to raise the streets nine feet.
Posted by: Lee | May 8, 2006 7:03:31 PM
Gravel..... again focused on the Waterfront project(s).
When I mentioned gravel it was in the contect of the Maintenance and Transportation aspects of this topic, not the waterfront infrastucture.
Whent he city does excavations they move gravel by the truck load back and forth between the work site and the city gravel yard. Seems very silly to me to "recycle" gravel this way. Especially since we have SEVENTY-some MILES of gravel roads in the city, most with ruts and potholes.
Let the city maintenance crews use the "idle" time at job sites to fill the holes within say "half block" of the work site. Might make the city a smoother place to live and help dispell the image of workcrews "standing around".
Just an idea, needs more thought but it is a start.
Posted by: Bryan H. Ackler | May 9, 2006 3:53:12 PM
Steve Schopp wrote: "The topic will be on the Council agenda this Wednesday."
So, Steve, did you go to the council meeting? What do you have to report?
Alice? Did you go?
Publius? How about you? You mentioned there was "no other forum" - raising a stink at a city council meeting might be a good place to start.
Jerry?
Did anybody go?
I know the Tram topic is so very, very, very important that you bring it up in every discussion thread. Surely you all went, right?
So, where's the report?
- Bob R.
Posted by: Bob R. | May 10, 2006 11:53:00 PM
So, Sam, did you go to the council meeting? What do you have to report?
Roland? Did you go?
Any paid staff? How about you?
You mentioned before you would be looking into the Air space issue, Life Cycle cost and the State mandated Urban Renewal basic services impact reports.
What are you waiting for? Do more people have to raise a stink at a city council meeting before you provide answers?
I know the Tram topic is very important but many other greater concerns are being left unanswered just as the $15.5 million Tram was at the time.
Surely the Commissioners and staff don't want to make the same mistakes on a grand scale, right?
So, where's the answers and reports?
With all of the tax paid officials and staff why is it the public can't get the answers and reports they deserve and pay for.
Many people, including the SoWa URAC, would like to see a real SoWa budget, yet one can not be found.
All the while the Bob R's, while lacking any understanding of what is transpiring in SoWa, are playing silly games with suggestions that it's the public activists who aren't doing enough.
Some of which might tell Bob to shut up and do some homework first.
Posted by: Steve Schopp | May 14, 2006 11:10:32 AM
"Some of which might tell Bob to shut up and do some homework first."
Nice way to keep it civil there, Mr. Schopp.
So I take it you didn't go to the meeting.
- Bob R.
Posted by: Bob R. | May 15, 2006 12:23:51 PM
Bob - You know, I couldn't attend the meeting, so I sent off an email to a contact listed at the PDC website asking about obtaining a copy of the minutes. Of course my email has gone unanswered. Any idea how a fella couldn't get a copy?
Posted by: Larry | May 15, 2006 2:49:23 PM
I don't know about the particular minutes from that meeting, but I do know that when I've attended other regular meetings, the minutes have to come up again at a subsequent meeting and be approved by a vote that particular committee, so it can sometimes take a month or so before minutes are available to the public.
My neighborhood association is the same way, too.
- Bob R.
Posted by: Bob R. | May 16, 2006 11:50:26 AM
Post your comment
Please note: your email address, although required to post, will not be visible. We remove inappropriate or offensive content, and content deemed improper by State and City election and ethics law. The comments posted do not necessarily reflect the views of the office or the City of Portland.
Roland,
Most everyone is in favor of government "embracing the challenge of developing cost-effective methods"
Many of us are still waiting for the life cycle cost estimate for the Tram.
The PDC seems rather unccoperative and will not respond to multiple requests for the LCC estimate.
Perhaps Commissioner Adams can rattle the PDC cage and get it done.
FYI
There are many ways to get it done without much time or cost.
http://www.strand.com/expertise_municipal.html
Private firm provides life-cycle cost analyses.
http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/fulltext/nrcc46774/nrcc46774.pdf
Life cycle cost analysis as a decision support tool for managing
municipal infrastructure
http://www.uscost.com/costestimating.asp
We work for government agencies. Our independence guarantees unbiased and untainted Life-Cycle Cost Analysis supported by facts and diligent research.
http://pppue.undp.org/toolkit/MOD124.html
1. Perform a "reality check"
-All costs for the full system life cycle must be included.
http://www.relex.com/products/lcc.asp
Software
Complete Product Life Cycle Cost Analysis Tool
Life Cycle Cost (LCC) analysis provides methodology for computing the cost of over its lifetime.
Life cycle cost tools endeavor to provide a picture of true cost over the life of your product.
Posted by: Jennifer | May 6, 2006 4:02:50 PM