HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/13/1987 - Solid Waste Abatement Commission AGENDA
SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION
EAGAN, MINNESOTA
EAGAN MUNICIPAL CENTER CONFERENCE ROOMS A & B
TUESDAY
OCTOBER 13, 1987
6:00 P.M.
I. ROLL CALL AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES
II. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
III. STAFF REPORT
A. Organized Collection Study Status
B. Household Hazardous Waste Collection
C. Reuter Resource Recovery Correspondence
IV. OLD BUSINESS
V. NEW BUSINESS
A. Solid Waste Strategy Report to City Council
(The joint meeting with the Eagan City Council
will immediately follow the Commission
meeting)
VI. OTHER BUSINESS
VII. NEXT MEETING
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MEMO TO: CHAIRS MANN AND HOEL AND ALL MEMBERS OF THE SOLID WASTE
ABATEMENT COMMISSION
FROM: JON HOHENSTEIN, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
DATE: OCTOBER 7, 1987
SUBJECT: SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION MEETING FOR TUESDAY,
OCTOBER 13, 1987
A meeting of the Eagan Solid Waste Abatement Commission is
scheduled for Tuesday, October 13, 1987 at 6 :00 p.m. in the Eagan
Municipal Center Conference Rooms A and B. Following a brief
business meeting, the joint meeting with the City Council will be
held beginning at 7 :00. Please contact Jon Hohenstein at
454 -8100 if you are unable to attend this meeting.
I. ROLL CALL AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A copy of the minutes of the Eagan Solid Waste Abatement
Commission meeting of September 8, 1987 is enclosed on pages
/ through 3 for your review. These minutes, subject to
any change, require approval by the Commission.
II. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
The agenda, as prepared or modified, requires approval by the
Commission.
III. STAFF REPORT
A. Organized Collection Study Status - -Staff has invited Terry
Guggenbuehl of Pope -Reid Associates, Inc. to be on hand at
Tuesday's meeting to provide a brief update concerning the
Organized Collection Study. Enclosed on pages i4 through
SZ02, is the most recent draft of the study for your review.
New material is contained in Section III, Description of
Alternative Collection Systems, and Section IV, Comparison of
Existing and Alternative Systems. I would encourage you to
review the entire document, but specifically the new sections for
review with Mr. Guggenbuehl prior to the City Council meeting.
No action is required on this matter at this time.
B. Household Hazardous Waste Collection -- Enclosed on pages
5«3 through 4L . X you will find a flyer for the Dakota
County /Unisys /City of Eagan Household Hazardous Waste Collection
event. Staff is finalizing preparations for a joint powers
agreement and will be distributing this flyer through an
advertising service in the immediate future. There is a need for
volunteers on -site on Saturday, November 7 from 8 :30 a.m. to
2:00 p.m. for purposes of traffic direction and survey
completion. For liability reasons, City volunteers will not be
allowed to handle any of the wastes involved. However, your
assistance will be greatly appreciated if some of you choose to
participate in this event. Staff will request volunteers for
SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION
PAGE TWO
specific periods during the collection at Tuesday evening's
meeting.
No other action is necessary on this matter at this time.
C. Reuter Resource Recovery Correspondence -- Enclosed on pages
4 /6' through I/. you will find correspondence from Doug
Reuter of Reuter Resource Recovery. Mr. Reuter has initiated
contacts with the Cities of Eagan, Burnsville, and Apple Valley
concerning a possible exclusion or exemption from the County
designation of wastes for designation to the Eden Prairie
facility or another Reuter facility to be constructed in the
area.
As you may be aware, Reuter, Inc. was not among the respondents
chosen by Dakota County for additional negotiation for provision
of waste processing services. This is the reason for the direct
contact by the firm. Staff is forwarding this correspondence to
the Commission for consideration without recommendation for
discussion purposes. If time does not permit discussion of it at
Tuesday's meeting, it can be continued to the next regular
Commission meeting agenda.
No action is required on this matter at this time.
IV. OLD BUSINESS
V. NEW BUSINESS
Solid Waste Strategy Report to City Council -- Enclosed on pages
4C7 through 427 is the Draft Solid Waste Abatement Strategy
Report. Following adjournment of the Commission meeting, a joint
meeting with the Eagan City Council will begin at 7:00 p.m.
VI. OTHER BUSINESS
There is no other business at this time. However, enclosed on
pages 6 through 7/ you w i l l find a copy of
correspondence from Knutson Rubbish Service concerning its
Recycling Center in Rosemount. If time permits, Commission
members may ask Mr. Knutson questions concerning this matter.
VII. NEXT MEETING
The next regular meeting of the Solid Waste Abatement Commission
will be Tuesday, November 10, 1987 at 11 :30 a.m. Please mark
your calendars for that date.
SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION
PAGE THREE
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting will adjourn at or about 7:00 p.m. and the Commission
will re- convene in joint session with the City Council at that
time.
Ad fnistrative Assistant
JH /mc
cc: City Administrator Hedges
City Planner Runkle
Subject of Approval
MINUTES OF THE SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
Eagan, Minnesota
September 8, 1987
A meeting of the Eagan Solid Waste Abatement Commission was held on
Tuesday, September 8, 1987 at 11:30 A.M. The following members were present:
Earl Milbridge, Tom Mann, Duane Soutor, Darlene Bahr, Delmar DeBilzan, Terry
Schnell, Doug Wilcox and Jon Hohenstein. Absent were Larry Knutson, Tim Hoel
and Thom Yehle. Also present were Bruce Robertson, Administrative Intern,
Catherine Meuwissen, Engineering Intern, Dave Gurney of Pope Reid Associates,
and George Kinney, Dakota County Solid Waste Planner.
MINUTES
Upon motion by Bahr, seconded by Wilcox, with all members voting in
favor, the minutes of the August 11, 1987 Solid Waste Abatement Commission
meeting were approved.
AGENDA
Upon motion by Bahr, seconded by Schnell, with all members voting in
favor, the proposed agenda was approved.
ORGANIZED COLLECTION STUDY STATUS
Dave Gurney of Pope Reid Associates was introduced to the
Commission. Mr. Gurney indicated that he has worked with Mr. Guggenbuehl who
is responsible for the development of the Organized Collection Study that Pope
Reid has been developing for Eagan. Mr. Gurney distributed and went through a
draft version of the Collection Study and discussed specific issues of the
study including noise, street wear and costs of haulers. He went on to
indicate that the Organized Collection Study document, that had been
distributed to Commission members, was still in draft form and Pope Reid staff
welcomed any ideas from Commission members and City staff on any changes that
could be included in the final draft.
At that point, a number of Commission members addressed specific
questions to Mr. Gurney involving the issues of street wear, noise and costs
of garbage hauling. Schnell addressed the street wear issue by questioning
the effect of one garbage truck driving down the street in comparison to the
effects of thousands of automobiles. Dave Gurney stated that he felt only a
small percentage of garbage trucks operate over the approved weight limits for
the road. Bahr addressed the issue of noise by stating that she felt most
trash haulers were up and down a residential street in such a short period of
time that noise was not a large factor. A number of Commission members
discussed the large range of costs to residents in various Twin Cities suburbs
for trash pickup service.
Bahr expressed interest in including in the Organized Collection
Study an analysis and description of the costs of trash pickup in various Twin
Cities communities in comparison to Eagan so the Commission could obtain a
better understanding of how competitive trash hauling charges were in Eagan.
Hohenstein closed the discussion on the Organized Collection Study by stating
that Commission members should carefully review the draft document and refer
any questions, concerns or ideas on the study to staff, who will in turn pass
it on to Pope Reid representatives.
APPROVAL - DRAFT SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT STRATEGY
Hohenstein discussed the draft Solid Waste Abatement Strategy that
had been developed by staff. He indicated that this draft included appendixes
which have not been before the Commission previously and also included the
changes that were suggested by the Commission during last months meeting. He
urged the Committee to approve the draft strategy under the understanding it
would be discussed and possibly modified during a joint meeting of the Solid
Waste Abatement Commission and the City Council in October. After some
discussion regarding the draft strategy statement by Committee members, upon
motion by Schnell, seconded by Bahr, with all members voting in favor, the
Commission approved the updated Solid Waste Abatement Strategy draft.
HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE COLLECTION PROPOSAL
Hohenstein introduced George Kinney who is a Solid Waste Planner
with Dakota County. Mr. Kinney discussed a joint project between Dakota
County, the City of Eagan and Unysis Corporation. He explained the collection
would be publicized to Unysis employees and Eagan residents and would allow
those participating to dispose of a variety of hazardous wastes including
acid -based materials, adhesives, aerosols, solvents, paints and pesticides.
He went on to state the cost to the City of Eagan would not exceed $5,000 and
would be paid to the county. The typical participation rate is 1 -3 %.
Hohenstein stated the county has accepted the responsibility as the
hazardous waste generator, while the City's role is providing the publicity
for the Hazardous Waste Collection Day. Bahr suggested that the City might
utilize flyers to publicize the event that could be distributed through the
schools and through community organizations.
After additional discussion, upon motion by Hohenstein, seconded by
Milbridge, with all members voting in favor, the Commission passed a motion to
approve the proposal by Dakota County to undertake the joint Hazardous Waste
Collection with Unysis Corporation and directed negotiation of a joint powers
agreement with the county with the City's obligation for costs not to exceed
$5,000.
OTHER BUSINESS
Hohenstein indicated that the second tour of the Reuter Resource
Recovery Facility in Eden Prairie had been scheduled for 3:30 P.M. on
September 8, 1987, for those who were unable to attend the previous tour.
Four Commission members indicated they would be attending this tour.
oCi
NETT MEETING
The next meeting was set for Tuesday, October 13, 1987, at 7 :00 P.M.
and will be a joint meeting between the Solid Waste Abatement Commission and
the City Council.
ADJOURNMENT
Upon motion by Milbridge, seconded by Schnell, with all members
voting in favor, the meeting was adjourned at 1:05 P.M.
BR
Date Chairperson
Secretary
ENUTU
1 7
ORGANIZED COLLECTION STUDY
CITY OF EAGAN
OCTOBER, 1987
Prepared by:
Pope -Reid Associates
245 East Sixth Street
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101
(612) 227 -6500
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary
Page
I. Introduction 1
II. Assessment of Current Collection System 2
Survey of Collection Companies 2
Collection Route Overlap 6
Refuse Vehicle Impacts 8
_,_,Other Impacts of Route Overlap 12
Potential for Recycling 13
Conclusion 14
III. Description of Alternative Collection Systems 15
Municipal Collection 15
Contract: Existing Number of Haulers in Districts 16
Contract: Fewer Haulers in Districts 16
Contract: Single Entity City -Wide 17
Existing with License Provisions 18
IV. Comparison of Existing and Alternative Systems 19
V. References 26
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
List of Tables
Page
1. Licensed Solid Waste Companies 3
2. Average Residential Collection Steps 6
3. Collection Vehicle Characteristics 9
4. Comparison of Collection Systems 21
5. City Responsibilities and Hours 22
List of Figures
1. Areas of High Weekly Concentrations of Collection Vehicle
Traffic 7
2. Average Stops Per Day 8
6
INTRODUCTION
In July, 1987, the City of Eagan contracted with a consultant, Pope -Reid
Associates, to conduct a study of the City's existing collection system and
potential alternative systems. The study was designed to compare the systems
and provide information for any future decisions by the City. No recommen-
dations for action are made.
The impetus for studying the residential waste collection system in Eagan stems
from a need to provide a cost - effective, safe, environmentally sound service to
citizens. An additional impetus for the study is to examine the most effective
means of coordinating the waste collection system with a curbside recycling
program. The Dakota County Solid Waste Master Plan recommends that cities
within the County recycle a specific portion of the waste stream. If the City
of Eagan enacted a curbside recycling program, it would be advantageous to
reduce the potential for conflict with solid waste collection.
The Waste Management Act; Chapter 348 Section 27, allows cities or towns to
organize collection of solid waste (see Appendix C). If the City elects to
organize collection, it has the legal authority to do so.
7
ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT COLLECTION SYSTEM
As of mid -1987, sixteen solid waste collection companies were licensed to
operate in the City of Eagan. Table 1 identifies the hauling companies and
illustrates that eleven out of the sixteen companies collect residential waste.
The residential waste collection system is the focus of this study. Those
haulers collecting waste solely from commercial accounts were not included in
the survey. Some of the residential haulers collect from commercial accounts
and large apartment complexes but, for the most part, these accounts were not
considered in this study.
Survey of Collection Companies
Between July 13th and July 25th, 1987 a telephone survey was conducted of all
refuse haulers licensed in Eagan. A sample survey is included as Appendix A.
Since the survey is the main source of information used to describe the existing
residential waste collection system, it was very crucial to achieve the coopera-
tion of waste haulers. Nine out of the eleven residential waste haulers in the
City responded to every question. A complete description of each question,
expected level of detail and problems encountered follows.
• Employees
Haulers were asked the number of employees that typically serve their
residential accounts in Eagan. There were no problems in acquiring this
information.
• Vehicles
The type of collection vehicles used in Eagan, the number of each type,
and whether the vehicles are owned or leased is important information to
determine load capacities and the potential for separate special collec-
tions. Every hauler responded with the requested information.
• Other Equipment
In The survey, haulers were asked if they used other equipment such as
containers. Other equipment, in particular containers, could be useful
if the City starts contracting for collection of recyclables or yard
waste. No problems were encountered in receiving this data.
Table 1
Licensed Solid Waste Collection Companies
(City of Eagan: 7/87)
1. Action Disposal Commercial Only
4300 E. 65th St.
Inver Grove Heights, MN 55155
455 -8634
2. Browning- Ferris Industries Commercial Only
9813 Flying Cloud Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
941 -8394
3. City Clean -Up
William Kreitz
2841 Burnside Ave.
Eagan, MN 55121
454 -6768
4. Dana's Eco Service
3313 Valley View Drive
Burnsville, MN 55337
435 -7209
5. Dick's Sanitation Service Commercial Only
21338 Dodd Road
Lakeville, MN 55044
469 -2239
6. Expert Disposal, Inca Not Collecting as of 7/87
3131 Sibley Memorial Hwy.
Eagan, MN 55122
688 -6666
7. Knutson Rubbish Service
14345 Biscayne Avenue
Rosemount, MN 55068
423 -2294
8. Laker's Disposal
3275 East 260th Street
Webster, MN 55088
461 -2276
�'9
Table 1 (Continued)
Licensed Solid Waste Collection Companies
(City of Eagan: 7/87)
9. Mendota Heights Rubbish
20700 Donnelly Avenue East
Farmington, MN 55024
437 -6786
10. Metro Refuse Commercial Only
8168 West 125th Street
Savage, MN 55378
890 -0861
11. Quality Waste Control
1901 West 144th Street
Burnsville, MN 55337
435 -3454
12. Roadway Rubbish
2400 Dodd Road
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
454 -7152
13. Triangle Services
1881 Lexington Avenue
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
454 -1848
14. Valley Sanitation
15296 Dresden Trail
Apple Valley, MN 55124
423 -2992
15. Waste Management, Inc.
12448 Pennsylvania
Savage, MN 55378
890 -1100
16. Woodlake Sanitary Service, Inc.
9813 Flying Cloud Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
941 -5174
/0
• Collection Routes and Dates
One of the most important questions asked on the survey was the approxi-
mate daily routes of each hauler. Routes and collection dates can help
determine if extensive overlap is occurring. Most haulers were unable to
specify precise routes but service areas were provided. Although less
specific than actual routes, service areas can be used to locate areas
where more than one collection company travels the same residential
street each week. Two companies did not release route information citing
competitive reasons for their refusal.
• Number of Daily Stops
This question, coupled with the daily routing information, helps to iden-
tify the density of pick -ups or the stops per mile which is an indicator
of efficiency. Haulers were asked to identify those stops which were
non - apartment complex residential and within the City of Eagan. Nine out
of eleven haulers released this information.
• Average Tonnage
Haulers were asked to indicate the average tonnage of waste collected on
their routes on a daily or weekly basis. This question was included to
determine vehicle capacities and provide additional background infor-
mation. Some haulers did not have this information.
• Rates
Monthly or quarterly rates for existing services can be used to compare
with alternative systems to determine if any differences are apparent.
It was pointed out to haulers that rate information would not be used to
compare one company with another. All but one hauler supplied the
requested data.
• Current Recycling
Haulers were asked if they provide separate collection of recyclable
materials or yard waste as a special service. The intent of this
question is to identify current curbside recycling activities in order to
assess the potential for city -wide curbside collection. All but one
hauler responded.
• Potential Recycling
A final question asked if haulers were currently capable of providing
curbside collection of recyclables or yard waste. The question was added
to gain insight on options available to the City for a potential curbside
recycling program. Two haulers did not respond.
Collection Route Overlap
The results of the survey indicate that a high degree of potential exists for
route overlap; particularly in the western part of the City (see Figure 1).
Figure 1 identifies only those areas served by five or more haulers. High con-
centration areas shown on Figure 1 should not be interpreted as having the indi-
cated number of vehicles travel every street within these areas. However, it is
likely that some streets, especially major streets, will have the indicated
vehicle use. The most concentrated area is bounded by Silver Bell Road on the
north, Blackhawk Road on the east, Diffley Road on the south and Rahn Road on
the west. Nine or more refuse collection vehicles per week travel residential
streets in that area.
The concentration of collection vehicles becomes more evident when it is
recognized that 70 percent of all Eagan residential stops occur Monday through
Wednesday, as shown in Table 2 and Figure 2. In high weekly concentration
areas, there are probably over two - thirds of the vehicles collecting during the
first three days of the week.
Table 2
Average Residential Collection Stops
By Day of the Week
(City of Eagan: 7/87)
Day Average Stops
Monday 2,755
Tuesday 2,300
Wednesday 2,360
Thursday 1,500
Friday 1,666
TOTAL 10,581
FIGURE 1
AREAS OF HIGH WEEKLY CON CENTRAT IONS
OF COLLECTION VEHI CLE TRAFFI C
(CITY OF EAGAN: 7/87) ,,,
- ewecr,
, $
:' A . . •
. .;Milk/ re
.,.. ,
.1 / q 'A 4 4
. • :r . ii , r . ' A% -,17 W i
wr
.,, Ar //
.../ ` / y. .rte {' �1 �� z /
/ : r• / iips/ � 11. A 4
z A t-e c___;,4 . , 77=4 ... 0 i wi ,:
FOrig1- . c) (II 01 , - i t AO" '
r 40- 'A g 'ft' / ' _ 7 1 ,
., ti :. wilkika e 74....", 4
• . es a ---, 4'' A .d. MI6 , A A 1:,
-. 'Ant m z Im
Ap y 41 �'o / / / / },}� % - r -� 4Vr ./ /� •1 1 9,1 .... -y " _ �� twit
kin - 411162.t _AMOR. . IP a' lisea,A
1 41 /0rir� If- OA
7 'xisty, : . 4v Y
;/, Or .....bit, /v /
l
NUMBERS WITHIN OUTLINED AREAS REPRESENT THE NUMBER OF
HAULERS SERVING THOSE AREAS EACH WEEK
(DOES NOT INCLUDE TWO HAULERS)
/3
FIGURE 2
AVERAGE STOPS PER DAY
(CITY OF EAGAN: 7/87)
3500--
3000 yif _
2500 -
2000
1500 - � f
1000
500
M ON TUES WED THURS FRI
The prevalence of overlapping routes has even been noticed by the waste haulers
themselves. During the survey, several respondents recognized that overlapping
was occurring. One hauler stated that his crews were "crossing paths with other
haulers 2 to 3 times a day." The potential effects of refuse vehicle traffic
are examined below.
Refuse Vehicle Impacts
Frequent refuse collection vehicle traffic has adverse impacts on neighborhoods
and the city as a whole. These impacts include:
• safety;
• noise;
• street wear; and
• air pollution.
To analyze potential impacts, the type of vehicles must be identified. Table 3
indicates the type, size, and number of collection vehicles used on Eagan's
residential routes. The average capacity is slightly over 17 cubic yards.
Nationally, the capacity of collection vehicles is increasing in order to mini-
mize long trips to disposal facilities. Many trucks are now in the 26 to 30
cubic yard capacity range. Compared to national trends, the capacity of collec-
tion vehicles used in Eagan is low.
Table 3
Collection Vehicle Characteristics
(City of Eagan: 7/87)
Type Capacity (cu. yds.)
Quantity
Open Truck 10
1
13 1
Side Loader 17 4
Rear Loader 1 1
17 2
18 5
20 1
TOTAL 451
26
AVERAGE 17.3
• Safety
Refuse vehicles are prone to cause or be involved in a higher rate of accidents
per truck than automobiles. The reason is that refuse trucks typically move
slowly, obscure vision, and make frequent stops. Trucks can cause traffic
congestion which may cause related accidents. A particular problem with refuse
vehicles is the fact that most use occurs in residential areas where few other
trucks or large vehicles are encountered. When the concentration of refuse
vehicles increases, the possibility of accidents also increases. On the other
r �s
hand, if only one truck collects from an area and the driver is inattentive, the
chances of an accident would be as likely as if several trucks with attentive
drivers collected from an area.
Accidents are normally a function of vehicle -miles traveled. The current system
of refuse collection results in more vehicle -miles traveled than an organized
system. It can be concluded that congestion and accidents would tend to be more
frequent under the existing system.
• Noise
Trucks and other large diesel - powered vehicles are typically noisy. The noise
of these vehicles may be more evident because of the normally quiet residential
areas in which they operate. Stopping and starting, metal containers, com-
pactors and crews contribute to noisy operations. Although the potential for
noisy operations increases with a higher concentration of trucks, a single
unmaintained truck may result in more complaints. As it stands, few, if any
complaints about noisy refuse trucks have been received by City officials. The
current system offers little control by the City over the maintenance levels of
vehicles. Poorly maintained vehicles are noisier, dirtier, and less safe than
maintained vehicles. The City reports no problems with current maintenance
levels.
• Street Wear
The greatest impact to the City caused by refuse trucks is wear and tear on City
streets. Previous studies have determined that street wear from an average,
half - filled 18 cubic yard refuse truck is equivalent to 1,500 automobiles per
day. This figure was originally developed by the Center for Government Studies
at Columbia University (Reference 8) and was used in subsequent studies by the
City of St. Paul and the Metro Council. The Minnesota Department of
Transportation also uses this figure as a guide in roadway planning.
The impact of empty trucks versus partially full or full trucks is not fully
defined but it is certain that a full truck has more impact than an empty truck.
A full 18 cubic yard truck can be carrying 6 to 9 tons of garbage. To compound
the problem, refuse trucks have been known to exceed weight limits. On streets
with weight restrictions, a fully loaded refuse truck could cause road surface
degradation with only a few passes over the weight restricted areas.
On residential streets designed for a life of 20 to 30 years of relatively light
traffic use, the impact of more than one refuse truck per week can be substan-
tial. In the section of the City where 9 refuse trucks each week collect on
residential streets, the road surface impact is equivalent to 13,500 automobi-
les. Some of the streets in that area may have Monday through Friday automobile
volumes of 2,500 or less so it is evident that major wear and tear will be due
to refuse collection trucks. More detailed study could determine expected rates
of deterioration. It can be assumed that the useful life of a street designed
to last 20 years may be cut by 2 to 8 years due to the impact of several refuse
trucks per week based solely on increased truck traffic.
The long -term effect of such wear and tear results in more frequent repairs and
replacement. This translates into increased costs to the City and thus, to the
taxpayers. It can be expected that if the number of refuse trucks collecting on
any residential street was cut to one per week, the life expectancy of streets
would be greatly extended. Since the City's 1987 budget for street maintenance
was about $800,000, it is likely that less refuse truck traffic in the future
could translate into either lower maintenance costs or the ability to channel
budgeted dollars into other maintenance needs.
o Air Pollution
As with all motor vehicles, refuse trucks emit air pollution. The potential for
air pollution increases as vehicle -miles traveled increases. It can be
expected, therefore, that the current collection system contributes to more air
emissions than an organized system. Diesel truck engines emit hydrocarbons,
carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and small amounts of particulates, sulfur oxi-
des, aldehydes, and organic-acids.— - -
The impact of refuse trucks on air pollution caused by motor vehicles is very
small. The overall effect of organized collection versus the current system
would probably not be detectable. The greater number of vehicles in use under
11
the current system is offset by higher rates of emissions per vehicle under an
organized system. A higher emission rate is due to slower speeds; i.e. more
stopping and starting, under an organized system.
Other Impacts of Route Overlap
Aside from impacts attributable to refuse collection vehicles, other effects of
•
route overlap have been identified. These include neighborhood /community
aesthetics and costs.
• Neighborhood /Community Aesthetics
The current collection system entails several collection companies traveling the
same streets each week. One adverse result of this collection method is that
refuse containers are typically evident on nearly every City street several
times a week. Conceivably, five houses in a row could contract with five dif-
ferent collection companies which collect on five different days. Refuse con-
tainers would be visible on each of those days. Once containers are placed on
the curb, they are subject to scattering of garbage or cans by animals or wind.
Litter or garbage cans are unsightly and of the community.
• Costs
The inefficiency of the current system is characterized by a high number of
miles traveled to collect waste. The system is very competitive but labor and
vehicle costs are high. The average monthly cost of a residential waste collec-
tion service in Eagan is $11.40. The range of the eleven available services is
$10.00 a month to $14.50 a month.
A survey conducted by the Metropolitan Council in 1985 found that the household
agreement collection system such as Eagan's was 26 percent more costly than
organized collection. A 26 percent savings on the current Eagan average of
$11.40 a month amounts to $2.95 a month. The annual savings per household would
be $35.40. Although these figures are estimates and should not be regarded as
absolute, it has been verified through several surveys that collection systems
15
like Eagan's are more costly. In 1985, the average monthly cost of contract
collection for 23 metro area cities was $6.03. The average monthly charge it
1985 for open collection service was $8.21, or 36 percent higher than contracl.
collection.
Monthly costs for contract collection ranged (in 1985) from $3.88 in Wayzata to
$8.50 in St. Bonifacius. The current (9/87) monthly cost to City of Blaine
households is $6.18. Blaine is similar in size to Eagan (about 11,000 house-
holds and 36,000 population) and has had organized collection for several years.
It should be noted that all households in a city with organized collection pay
for refuse pickup. Under an open system, homeowners can provide their own
transportation to disposal sites or transfer stations or double up with neigh-
bors to share one account.
The Center for Government Studies of the Graduate School of Business at Columbia
University conducted a survey of 2,060 cities with a combined population of 52
million people. The survey results coincide with the results in the Twin Cities
metro area in that contract collection is lower in cost than open collection.
The study concluded that cost savings were due to economies of scale, lower
billing costs, and reduced travel time between stops.
Potential For Recycling
Of the eleven residential waste haulers, none currently provide a regular
recycling service. Six companies indicated that their vehicles could be con-
verted to collect separated recyclables. Three companies stated that they did
not have the capability of collecting separated recyclables. Two companies did
not respond.
The impetus for a curbside source separation recycling program will come from
the City or County. No haulers had plans to collect recyclables without incen-
tives or subsidies from another source because the recycling collection business
does not pay for itself. The result is that the City would have to collect
recyclables on its own or contract with a company independent of the collection
of solid waste. This means that the current method of waste collection would
neither add nor detract from a curbside collection program.
X3'
There is no solid evidence that as the cost of disposal increases, private com-
panies tend to collect recyclables without subsidies or incentives from public
sources. In the metro area, the major impetus for private recyclable collection
is a combination of potential revenue from the sale of recyclables and subsidy
through service fees.
The primary factor that negatively affects the current system is that the
savings of enacting a source separation program would be difficult to pass onto
residents because refuse haulers would probably continue to collect waste
without reduced rates. It would be more efficient to incorporate the lower
volumes of waste collected from households that source separate recyclables into
actual monetary savings to those households. A good example of the type of ser-
vice which would provide savings is a metered bag collection. This service is
directly tied to the volume reductions offered by source separation. A metered
bag service or other volume - related service is currently not available through
any of the haulers serving Eagan. As disposal fees increase, haulers may begin
providing volume - related services. There is no definitive cost level in which
haulers tend to provide metered bags or other volume -based fees.
Conclusion
The current collection system is inefficient in many respects. The previous
paragraphs focused on some of the negative factors and limitations of the
existing system. The household agreement collection system does have some
advantages; notably, the freedom for a household to select the hauler of their
choice and the level of service which best meets their needs. Maintaining the
existing system also allows for free enterprise for the small and large busi-
nesses engaged in collecting waste. While haulers sell, consolidate, or go out
of business under all hauling systems, the existing system allows some haulers
to prosper and others to fail based on their own capabilities.
A more detailed comparison of the existing household agreement system with
alternative collection systems follows the next section which describes the
alternative systems.
AO
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVE COLLECTION SYSTEMS
There are three major methods of waste collection. The first is through a
household agreement. It is the open collection system currently available in
Eagan. The existing system with possible license restrictions will be studied
as an alternative. Another collection method is municipal collection. It
involves providing waste collection as a municipal service by city employees.
Additional methods are included and defined as contract collection, often called
organized collection. It can encompass contracting with one or more haulers or
organizations to collect waste city -wide or in various districts. The contract
collection system can be implemented in so many ways that the major methods will
be studied separately in this document. To summarize, the alternative systems
which will be examined are:
• Municipal Collection
• Contract: Existing Number of Haulers in Districts
• Contract: Fewer Haulers in Districts
• Contract: Single Entity, City -wide
• Existing with License Restrictions
• Municipal Collection
Providing solid waste collection as a city service by city employees is not com-
monly found in communities throughout the country. Municipal collection,
however, is somewhat common if only large (over 250,000) cities are considered.
For instance, New York City provides municipal collection. In the Twin Cities
area, Minneapolis provides municipal collection to about half of Minneapolis
(62,000 households) and Farmington provides collection to all of Farmington
households.
In general, municipal collection is the most costly collection method because
municipal waste collection employees typically have better pay and benefits
than their private collection counterparts and because the capital and
operation /maintenance costs of vehicles is high. Advantages of municipal
collection include no overlapping routes, ease of billing, and ease of incor-
c 024
porating separate collections for recyclables, yard waste, or special items.
Purchasing or leasing equipment, hiring employees, and establishing the program
would be costly for the City and may prove to be unacceptable to citizens. The
national trend in the waste management industry is to move away from municipal
systems and move toward privatization.
• Contract: Existing Number of Haulers in Districts
This type of contract collection entails dividing the City into eleven residen-
tial collection districts (the current number of residential haulers) and
allowing each of the existing haulers to collect only within the appropriate
districts. The districts would be sized by the number of residential accounts
each hauler currently maintains. Billing could be done by either the City or
the haulers.
District collection eliminates most of the route overlapping which occurs under
the existing system. Yet, eleven districts may be burdensome and costly for
City staff to establish and manage. Since each hauler has different capabili-
ties due to personnel and equipment, each district may have different contract
terms to suit the hauler's capabilities. Varying contractual arrangements may
result in non - uniform costs and services to residents. An additional difficulty
is that haulers may encounter limited business growth opportunities because all
districts will not experience the same growth in the number of households.
The City of North St. Paul organized collection in 1986 by dividing the City
into the same number of districts as residential haulers. City officials have
indicated no unexpected problems with the new system. North St. Paul household
costs prior to organizing collection was $9.00 per month. After organizing,
costs dropped to $6.95 per month.
• Contract: Fewer Haulers in Districts
A variation of the contract collection system described above is dividing the
City into fewer districts than the current number of haulers. This system is
more manageable if the number of districts is kept to a smaller number. The
City would contract with a number of haulers to collect within assigned
districts. As with other contract collection systems, billing could be either
the haulers' responsibility or the City's.
For haulers, the system is less desirable because not every hauler is assured
of a contract. The result is that some haulers will no longer conduct a resi-
dential waste collection business in Eagan.
The formation of districts causes potential inequities in household growth
potential. One district and its assigned hauler may experience low growth
opportunities while another district and hauler may be the center of residential
growth. Districts would have to be re- defined periodically or haulers would
have to be re- assigned to different districts to alleviate inequities.
• Contract: Single Entity, City -wide
Another variation of the contract collection system is contracting with a single
hauler or consortium of haulers to collect residential waste from the entire
City. This is the most common form of organized private collection. In
Minneapolis, half of the City (62,000 households) has waste collected by a con-
sortium of waste haulers that organized to respond to the City's Request for
Bids. The haulers formed an organization and established districts. They
respond to City contracts as a single unit. The City handles billing. Other
cities have organized collection with similar responses from haulers.
The City of Hastings, in turn, contracts with a single hauler for collection of
the entire City. Billing is conducted by the hauler. Monthly costs for
Hastings' approach is relatively high at $10.00 per household (as of 9/87).
- Contracts for a single entity are fairly simple to manage for the City since
only one contract is normally required. On -going administrative respon-
sibilities are generally limited to billing (if the City accepts billing
responsibility), periodic re- bidding or re- negotiating contracts, and addressing
citizen concerns.
A disadvantage is that some or even most haulers may lose business in Eagan
unless haulers organize a consortium to respond to a request for bids of a
contract for negotiation. The City may foster or encourage a response from a
0 013
consortium if it chooses. The City of Minneapolis assisted haulers in their
efforts to form a consortium to serve the City.
• Existing System with License Restrictions
A method of providing some efficiency in the collection system without orga-
nizing or contracting is to strengthen licensing provisions. Provisions which
could be subject to stregthening include: establishing collection districts,
vehicle specifications and maintenance requirements, performance bonding,
collection of recyclables and /or yardwaste, and other service - oriented items.
A problem with attempting to organize collection though license provisions is
that more enforcement would be required to assure compliance. License provi-
sions also tend to be less legally binding than contracts.
Other items which diminish the usefulness of this arrangement include no
distinct cost savings over the existing system and impacts to the environment
and streets differ little from the existing system.
COMPARISON OF EXISTING AND ALTERNATIVE SYSTEMS
Table 4 capsulizes a comparison of the existing residential waste collection
system with alternative collection systems. A more detailed comparison is pre—
sented below.
• Infrastructure Impact
With up to 9 refuse vehicles per week traveling on some residential streets, the
existing collection system could be taxing the integrity of older streets and
hastening the aging of newer streets. All other alternatives offer less street
impact. Depending on how each was set up, as low as one truck per week could
collect on most streets. With refuse collection to apartment buildings and
businesses added, the truck impact would be greater than on truck per week,
however.
A comparison of the lowest street wear options (municipal and contracting with a
single entity) with the highest street wear option (the existing system) shows
that up to 9 trucks per week currently travel in some parts of the City compared
with 1 truck under the lowest options. By converting truck traffic to auto
traffic (one truck equals 1,500 autos), the weekly impact to streets could range
from 1,500 autos to 13,500. Many residential streets carry Monday through
Friday volumes at under 2,500 cars. It is evident then, that the existing
system can deteriorate road surface-surfaces much more rapidly than alternate
systems. The precise degree of deterioration is difficult to determine due to
other factors involved in road wear such as construction methods, underlying
soils, weather, and unusual traffic.
• Equipment Requirements
Implementing a municipal waste collection system would entail a significant
equipment purchase by the City. Vehicles and maintenance items would be an
upfront capital cost. No other option involves the purchase of new equipment by
either the City of haulers. An exception would depend on the implementation of
a curbside recycling /yard waste collection program. Three of the 11 haulers
2br
have the capacity to collect recyclables. However, the survey question did not
identify the requirements of curbside collection.
• Environmental /Aesthetic Impacts
Noise, diminished safety, air pollution, and placement of garbage on curbs are
all impacts related to the frequency of collection vehicles on residential
streets. The existing system, with up to 9 trucks per week on some streets,
carries the potential for the most environmental and aesthetic impact to neigh-
borhoods and the city. The alternative systems are substantially less likely to
impact neighborhood or city aesthetics or the environment. The contract system
with several districts and the existing system with license restrictions may
have more truck traffic and related environmental /aesthetic impacts than munici-
pal or contract with a single entity. Yet the impacts would be less than the
existing system.
• Administrative /Capital Costs to City
Maintaining the existing system would result in the lowest costs to the City
although the costs to individual households would be high. The City has vir-
tually no responsibility other than licensing under the existing system. Every
other system would entail more staff time and, possibly, more direct costs from
the city. Some of the tasks and a range of staff commitments are present in
Table 5. Ranges in hours are due to uncertainties of implementation. For
instance, billing could be done in conjunction with quarterly water /sewer bills
or it could be done separately on a periodic basis. Contract and licenses nego-
tiations or revisions could be done annually or to match the contract term which
could be every 3 to 5 years. The number of contracts and licenses are the major
factor. Responding to citizen concerns or complaints is difficult to estimate.
Eight to 35 hours per month can be expected to handle citizen concerns. Other
time commitments will be needed to meet with elected officials, draft documents
and administer the program. The total staff requirements amount to less than
one -half of a full -time person to two full -time employees. The City may have to
hire a person or persons to handle these duties.
113 4 L -0 •r .- a i a)
O _0
a) Z c
• .0 �� �+) 1 i J
Q
i
U L V n Q a U
N
cu N
.. ^ r• _ 4-)
r- rn _ g •C rCS t RY a b
r
n
g g '-- 0 r 0 '- -C) r--. 0 O 0 rC �-.i
J O a 0 0 O a 0 Q. O 0 • . C1 00
C = C O 0 a = • "• a U
O a) r-- r_
U - 0 • a O
> •o n N v • 0) Q ) 4-)
N CL •fib L L
Q t • O1
e
C C .4-) N
4-) 0)
-�
0 Q p - O 4--) 0J i
E 0
U •-• _. 8
8 LE
N >
}, ( CS 1 d)
al 0
o
U N i
V)
0
?- +L-) U a�i U 4-) • C +N-' O L rC1 0)
N Nr- •r N N CLJ N 0 _ L 1§
v f-• •0) • 'b '0• O •0 N 0 N
t N N
w Q U . , 4- - 3 O 8 O
W J N ^ CO 0 e-- U
J
( U \ 4
1 — U r V b ( a..i
•r-
Q O N ea
E
0 N 4■' (/7 or
N ..- 8 (o
821 C
W v € 5 4-)
. r cu cu
N • 0 1-- -�
4-)
4-1 � • C U
E.
p L C C N I
0 C 0 E
= = ' 0) O >, L
c a)
CG
E =
b
C t
L •r
1- a..' 4) L Q) C
+�� 3 T 0) - b n
• N 0 4--) L . a) Q) Q)
• (0 U N 4-' (O L 0 +' N
N 0)( L b N i - 'X N
►-■ v 1 Q J N
. 4-) -4--)
0) .4) G O in no C CU
+� N F L S.-
3 •r 0 O
•r N 4-) = +-1
N X C •r , _ U
W•rp Li- CI N U +-) N (1) C _
_ r• 3 O 0 '•• rz
+� • rp
0 N c U - Q1
O X O C C 4-)
U Li)
0 0 0 W c U
al
Table 5
Potential City Responsibilities and Range of Potential
Hours Under Organized Collection Methods
Task Staff Hours Per Year
Billing
400 -1,200
Contract /License Revisions 400 -2,000
Response to Citizen Comments 100 -400
Other 250 -500
TOTAL 750 -4,100
Source: PRA estimate
A municipal collection system is much more costly to the City because drivers,
maintenance, and collection people will be required. This mapurchased. irinAg a 5
to 10 or more employees. In addition, vehicles will need
cost of up to $50,000 per vehicle, the initial cost could be very high.
• Hauling Company Impact
Any change potentially limiting the number of haulers collecting in the City may
severely impact the business opportunities of some haulers. ._.Small_ hauling com-
panies are particularly susceptible to losing business because they are often
limited by a lack of personnel or equipment. They may also be protected if a
consortium is formed to bid on City -wide collection. It is also difficult for
small haulers to post a performance bond if required by the City for contract
collection because small haulers often do not have much available
hauling
municipal system would affect the most haulers because none woul d
residential waste in the City. Contract collection systems could affect haulers
very little if districts were established for each hauler or if haulers orga-
nized themselves and responded as a single entity. The existing system would
not artificially affect haulers and the existing system with license restric-
tions would probably impact haulers only slightly.
2B
It should be noted that small waste collection companies, as with nearly any
small business, consolidate, go out of business, or buy and sell without the
impetus of organized collection. When a City organizes residential collection,
haulers will often become more competitive at securing commercial contracts or
residential business in non - organized cities.
• Service Provider Availability
To evaluate alternative systems, it is crucial to consider the capabilities of
the service providers or waste collection companies. For the existing system,
each hauler, large or small, responds to the needs of customers according to the
availability of vehicles, labor, and special services. Under contract systems,
it is anticipated that Requests for Bids or negotiated contracts consider the
availability of small haulers. A particular consideration is the ability to pay
a performance bond to assure effective service. If the contracts or Requests
for Bids are drafted to allow an adequate response by all haulers, the service
provider availability should be high. Service provider availability under a
municipal system may be more difficult because the City would have to hire
qualified individuals to operate and maintain vehicles and routes. Those indi-
viduals could be hired from existing hauling companies.
Other services such as large -item pick -up, cart service, curbside collection of
recyclables and /or yard waste, special rates, and metered bags, can normally be
provided by .a hauler if required contractually. However, for some smaller
haulers it may be costly to provide those services thus, they may be at a disad-
vantage when bidding or negotiating against larger companies.
• Legalities
With the 1987 amendments to the Minnesota Waste Management Act (See Appendix C),
it would be difficult to contest the legalities of a properly implemented orga-
nized collection system. This is not to say that haulers could not sue the city
regarding implementing an organized system. The record shows, however, that the
law allows cities to organize collection.
The only alternative with potential problems is adding licensing provisions to
make the existing system more efficient. Licensing provisions are not generally
as binding as contractual agreements.
X 29
• Other Considerations
Some alternative systems and the existing system have additional items which
affect desirability. Incorporation of a curbside recycling program would be
difficult to manage under the existing system. The City would probably have to
contract separately for recycling collection because haulers presently have no
incentive to provide such a service on their own.
Municipal collection has serious drawbacks in the amount of upfront expense
involved in setting up the system. Purchase of vehicles, hiring staff and pro-
viding space are major requirements. A large expense of this sort may not be
received favorably by citizens.
Some advantages of contract collection and a modified existing program with
licensing provisions include the capability of incorporating curbside collection
of recyclables into a contract or licenses. Along with such a program, volume -
based services such as metered bags or containers could be implemented. The
volume -based services provide an economic incentive to use a curbside recycling
program if one is available. Finally, contract collection, municipal collec-
tion, and a modified existing program would allow for greater accuracy in docu-
menting waste deliveries and abatement progress. The anticipated Dakota County
solid waste system puts a burden on cities to source separate a specific portion
of the waste stream. Accurate accounting of the waste supply and volumes which
are source separated help the City (and county) in reaching those goals. The
planned County system also includes a central processing facility which will
likely involve a requirement that all waste generated in the County be
designated for disposal at the facility. Contracts, licenses or municipal
control would be to the City's advantage by potentially allowing for the
tracking of waste from its source to the final disposal locations.
Conclusion
Three metro area cities (Champlin, North St. Paul, and Columbia Heights), con-
tacted about reasons why organized collection was implemented, identified three
major motives for change. The first reason was to incorporate curbside collec-
tion of recyclables. Although each of the three cities stated this as a motive,
none of the three cities currently collect recyclables curbside. All three have
X30
plans to do so however. Two of the cities indicated that an additional motive
was to reduce costs. One city also stated that minimizing wear and tear on
streets was an important reason to organize collection.
The City of Eagan does not have unusual problems with its existing collection
system. Nine or even more refuse vehicles per week collecting on residential
streets is not uncommon for a city with a housing density such as Eagan's.
Eagan's current costs are also not unusually high for open collection. Even
recycling can be accomplished by separately contracting for curbside collection
of recyclables. This rationale does not imply that the existing system is the
best for Eagan. A version of organized contract collection may lower costs,
decrease wear and tear on streets, and facilitate curbside recycling, but also
increase administrative costs to the City and possibly impair the business
opportunities of some haulers.
Each system has distinct advantages and disadvantages. The importance of par-
ticular factors must be determined by the City prior to any decisions on collec-
tion systems.
•
3/
REFERENCES
1. Study of Organized Refuse Collection in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area;
Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities Area; June, 1985.
2. Proposed Collection Plan; St. Paul, MN; April, 1979.
3. Comparitive Study of Municipal Service Delivery :Refuse Collection; Ecodata,
Inc., New York; February, 1984.
4. "Scale, Market Structure, and the Cost of Refuse Collection "; Barbara
Stevens; The Review of Economics and Statistics, Volume LX, No. 3, August,
1978.
5. Volume -Based Fees; Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities Area; October,
1986.
6. "How Shall We Collect the Garbage ", Dennis Young; The Urban Institute; 1972.
7. Dakota County Solid Waste Master Plan (draft); Dakota County Planning and
Policy Development; 1987.
8. Evaluating the Organization of Service Delivery: Solid Waste Collection and
Disposal; Center for Government Studies, Columbia University, New York;
August, 1976.
3�-
Telephone Survey: City of Eagan Solid Waste Collection Services
Date of Survey:
1. Name of Service:
2. Address:
3. Phone:
4. Number of Employees:
5. Vehicles used and total number of each type typically used for residential
collection in Eagan:
a) Type b) Number c) Lease /own
6. a) Other residential collection equipment used (such as containers):
• b) Do you plan to purchase or lease any additional equipment in the future?
7. On what days do you collect residential refuse in Eagan? And what routes do
your haulers take? (send map, if possible)
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
33
8. Number of stops (per day /per route or other):
9. Average tonnage (per day /per route or other):
10. What are your rates for residential service, including special services?
Rate Service
11. Do you currently collect separated recyclables in Eagan, either at the same
time as regular waste pick -up or by special collection?
Yes, same time
Yes, special
No, not at all
If yes, is this collection done as requested or regularly?
12. If the City decided to contract for the collection of certain separated
recyclables, would your company be readily equipped to handle the additional
load?
Yes
No
13. Other comments:
2-
3.
B
3S"
CITY OF EAGAN
COLLECTION AREAS - MONDAY
-7 r -wr v
;.' A adv -4 e •
M k Ur e. '..m,:,,ff d Z
PA zem. • 2
i/ .F.,-1„.767 r f; I.. FilZ, 4e,m
2 Allt2 v *
.. 1 4.1
1 i r rl i tg i'r 7 1./ 1
,. ,.'. , , 1 i Q a) 1 s MI ,.._.: , A%; •• v
' P EI /^ 2 .--.---fr-4ft- 41 '''"*.. 1- 1 ' 4
p i- 1,* ,rf z - 7 , e . ,_,_( 7 imisvg, Av--- v
/ - 41,1A te ' - •, ♦ Vr� / _ .if 11 1;im 0 -- 1 , h Aff ," ., i i ' A! i 6 1M4V/ . 0/4 4. WAR 'CI * 44. 111 MITIV
gq: A∎ - / - ,,..r. _. ; v 11, 1
"AN 4. 'iliffile 2 -4 tgro
� 1 6� / i y ail/
.,„ ...........mu , 4,..
r ,r Sly d4 , /T /' / , i
NUMBERS WITHIN OUTLINED AREAS REPRESENT THE NUMBER OF HAULERS
SERVING EACH AREA.
(DOES NOT INCLUDE TWO HAULERS)
2 G
CITY OF EAGAN
COLLECTION SERVICE - TUESDAY
-% ' ..,4 v
;- . ...;,.. .
. _ 4
j; IA ti 1 i r 4
• 0 i
.... it i r ip, #a fw , , , , Par lop... 41 i
..- la/ . '/ #AdVs.w > * , :
.' a ,,
CY
..-.. A ,A - A le /
. • . fV e0r4*. ' IV Ulnirr ti.
•
.. iy , 4 t ad Al AG* / /tee r - snee r , � �'w lie �, �� /// / • .,41;-wy
. A .•s "'rte / * lg # 4 1 2 . r
e �
���� %// /ice �
5:7 tror-----ip • : le fre to „T G ' - rinsw 6,
, ,Or I il us ...A .y, 4/ *VII . 444
't.r A 4firteArdp 74, a %EDO 1, ' 1 ■ 101 A
%,� Av.(
�r .rte ♦ � idlAwslata.
Icy � `. . • ,,,_ j i p z
Artirr7 eiri , ti ,,,
L
I
ts Al /
NUMBERS WITHIN OUTLINED AREAS REPRESENT THE NUMBER OF HAULERS
SERVING THOSE AREAS
37
CITY OF EAGAN
COLLECTION SERVICE - WEDNESDAY
z% z' -4sywa: a
A ' .
mo,j,, # EV 4
/ f ' a / i AV .i.
r
: j am : /�
! ! • � iVir.... ,:
... Ai • . Aul ,. ___ ., A c _ Ar 1 _1' , / Ab
. .; 7 ler k i P -77 °I : 7. f/ '' i
i , -, . 1 1 IeW IF Me4 ite An/ .
"101 .E. gro..e,„,,4 /
r 4V,P '. V 0 , i 4, 1 4./re o
r , I 4.1atrik • "pstr—iviiiiro., r
i , i ll t IA �,� L '- + "'r .:..6
iir gpofilpii .
,, ..... , ,,„. , A • , Si' / ,
It 1 zei ,( 1,1011 % a i A in N A ° go al" Ai, 77 ..
1. W In /
eg
i darei r le 7 j
NUMBERS WITHIN THE OUTLINED AREAS REPRESENT THE NUMBER OF
HAULERS SERVING THE AREA
(DOES NOT INCLUDE TWO HAULERS)
38
CITY OF EAGAN
COLLECTION SERVICE - THURSDAY
. � r -. /:iii% �/
/.. �� A i i / ��'�s%% * ;
a: %,
• z v•__.... At
. • • /1 AM .e t p711. 1 1 11 Ael y .-
/ *. /4 eV; •• fie■ /
• ; / il 12 : M " rTIP 1 a ti 4
0 A ■. - 47N/ P rgi al„ , g. ' h"mi //
0:49,AWAITA
� ZidilIM Prit1/4 . 7
f
!ri a / lief . is
j��7 �� YEA �� ` ry e ; ,pw_AlmadivraiekTv 0, ifp.41F4Ato
a •° • j A / tea �' .� � � s ,...... .
1/4.. .
1 % y:6' / '� art . 0 7
111 DO^ - .
fel, /. l i /
NUMBERS WITHIN OUTLINED AREAS REPRESENT THE NUMBER OF HAULERS
SERVING THOSE AREAS
37
CITY OF EAGAN
COLLECTION SERVICE - FRIDAY
-7 v -. 47 , rai: ,
i x ;iv •
;all i 7 , - - , , !
•-•• 4, 0 v - 7 v A vv ' .
•' &O Q3 r A --, #. 10 1- •■ i
..'. Am a , 't- 7 ,r ...* itir , ,
,' A 1141111111
A r#, - A / /iA. i ri 5 4 . 1 il , r l ' P‘ e
...f./4 /cow. ,.4.1-4, -
..• / 1 0,34 c:( !, y . oo e /;# 1? dt
... J . - ' 44% AttiV..4. ,
. ,, ,, . . Kt* _4 ;,,, ri r . A.. lea, z.
, , —c, ,; 1 u rtize 1pr
i_VI - ,(/ 11±4, JAE ABLINA , .4k
Kt.-. _.,,,,..-/, , , suiwOomm., y ___„/ ow 1 ,,, a ,,,,,,
7
aj ot 7 .. a . , : fro■ r te - , }I IfrVV77% :, A AintIgs. A a 4
__ 0 mi. .7_,..1:, . kr sy iti 465 I 4 ? 0
MI6 %r% //
1167„
�. VMSha 1..
Iiii wie, T % ' IP "" NW P ■ � P'r i i % „.._, , 4 ”, .,
e /
l
NUMBERS WITHIN THE OUTLINED AREAS REPRESENT THE NUMBER OF HAULER:
SERVING THOSE AREAS
(DOES NOT INCLUDE ONE HAULER)
APPENDIX C
Summary of Waste Management Act Amendments, 1987
Chapter 348 -- HF 794 (Long); SF 708 (Merriam)
(Prepared by the Legislative Commission on Waste Management)
ORGANIZED COLLECTION (Section 27)
Section 27 grants a city or town the authority to organize collection of some or
all of the solid waste released by generators for collection as a municipal
service or by ordinance, franchise, license, negotiated or bidded contract or
other means.
The local government unit may not impair . throughkorganizedecollection ,athemust
preservation and development of recycling
exempt recyclables if shown r that tmmaterials will be source separated,
collected and delivere s for recycling.
The local government unit, in proposing, planning and establishing an organized At
collection system, must organizing �lectiPn�cthe. city oratownOmustspassoae
proposing the means of o g 9 co
resolution of intent to collection invite
two week �dvance
participate in the establishment
notice and a public hearing mwntmustcdevepopsaor supervisesthetdevelopmentgof�e
�90 day period, the city or to
plans for the organized collection system. The local government unit a may
ae mploy
the assistance of solid waste haulers and others in developing the
establishing the organized collection system.
If organized collection is done by contract or as a municipal service, a waste
facility may be designated conformance to any designation
ordinance adopted under
anize
Counties are granted the authority to cities and of
collection. The county ordina nce may require (a)
recyclables; (b) specific material to be separated; and (c) cities and towns to
meet source separation standards in the county plan. If the city or town does
not comply, the county may organize collection for it.
Unisys -City of Eagan
Household Hazardous Waste Collection
Friday November 6 and Saturday November 7
.��5. 0...�.,�:�'
x �t i.'�. wxKx� _ ki`R
� , ., x `•.;; %e- Unisys, Dakota County, and the City of
l df.+ Eagan will sponsor a household hazardous l "i t 1 .� . waste collection on Friday, Nov. 6 and
/""f _ ,Y Saturday, Nov. 7 at the Unisys Park plant.
`\ ' �, "y i' . r , ` ° ( Enter the lot from Pilot Knob
s ,. ' � �� �1 �wr f parking g
\, t :,' �.... Y�f Road.
x,
IR 1. I A /IT *111ON'
, i /' v im . 1 r.i t S L ` '. ` _ Towerview ,- ) (
. , I _- - _ \\
-O yr Enter
14 74
eo6. Pak II
Collection Site 40
AxpetrtsiWaiiiik * _o (o
1111111ift— c°
M r Illi lif
*pips! a s= Unisys n.
® ,_ � Ya nkee Doodle
NI og MN lEzzq In , — mu
1< 11 » wry FAY z
I
S 3 + aI ,i, ra y _ O C
.04141 ?" P j a nT r se mr f i k
'It'
L3
PLACE AND TIME
Friday, November 6, 1987, from 3:30 to 6:00 p.m. and Saturday, November 7, 1987,
from 8:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. at the Unisys Park, employee parking lot
WASTE PRODUCTS THAT WILL BE ACCEPTED ARE:
ACIDS WOOD PRESERVATIVES
EPA BANNED PESTICIDES CAUSTICS
THINNERS OUT -DATED MEDICINES
PESTICIDES PAINT & PAINT REMOVERS
MOTOR OIL AUTO BATTERIES
AEROSOL CANS
WASTE PRODUCTS THAT WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED ARE:
PRESSURIZED CONTAINERS EXPLOSIVES
RADIOACTIVE WASTES UNIDENTIFIED WASTES
BIOLOGICALLY ACTIVE MATERIALS
SUGGESTIONS FOR HANDLING AND PACKAGING YOUR WASTE
PRODUCTS AND BRINGING THEM TO THE COLLECTION SITE.
1. Prepare Yourself. Wear protective clothing, gloves and goggles. Don't wear soft
contact lenses if handling solvents -fumes can become trapped between the lens and
eyes. If you're pregnant, avoid toxic chemical exposure. Work in a well ventilated
area. One open window is not adequate. Use an exhaust fan. Make sure air is escaping
outside. Don't breathe fumes. Take "fresh air" breaks. DO NOT SMOKE. Keep
children and pets away.
2. Separate Waste Products. Separate flammables, corrosives, and poisons. Labels
usually indicate if products are flammable, corrosive or poisonous. Container sill be
available at the collection site for waste motor oil.
3. Labels. Make sure all containers are laveled. DO NOT MIX different or unknown
waste products. Keep products in their original containers.
4. Packing. Pack waste products containers in leak -free boxes. Line a cardboard box
with a plastic bag, then put containers in the box in an upright position. Pack
newspaper between the containers. Boxes with dividers make good packaging. Make
sure all lids are tight.
5. Leaky Containers. Use extreme caution when handling leaky containers. Pack a
leaking container in a larger container. Use absorbent material such as cat litter to soak
up leaks.
6. Transport. Place waste products in car trunk. If you must transport them inside your
car, be sure there is good ventilation. Keep combustibles out of direct sunlight and
away from heat sources.
For more information call George Kinney of the Dakota County Public Health
Department at 450 - 2793.
• Precision Machinin . _
g • Blow Molding of Plastics
Computer Disc-Pack Soi ��
o nnpu / Spindles e» 4lO_ � TH AVENUE SOUTH
• Structural Fo«rn�Ao|ding
• Design and Engineering HOPKINS, MINNESOTA 55343-7878 • Rotational Plastic Molding
Service
Telephone 612-935-6921 Telex 291106 • Mechanized Refuse
• Waste Processin Collection Services
and Recycling Plants
September 23, 1987
Mr, John Hcwenstein
City of Eagan
3O0 Pilot Knob 9d'
Eagan, Mn. 55
Dear John:
P our phone conversation t other day, 1 an writinq you to
b,inr: you up to date rogarding the solid waste is facinu
cities like Eagan, Da County and the region in gcnral..
Earlier this summer l told you that, in my opinion, Dakota Count;
would eventually decide to go with a mass burn solution to the
solid waste problem' Well, last week the county name the final
three companies they will look to for the solution and all three
of them are mass born solutions.
This means Dakota County will fall into the same nuttern a'.
Hennepin County with respect to mass burn/source separation beino
the methods of dealing with solid waste.
Reuter, Inc, is still very interested in working with the City of
Eagan, along with the possibility of including Apple Valley and
Burnsville, to have your waste delivered to Reuter, Inc. and have
us precess the waste' recycling what we can rncycle, ccmocst what
we can compost and pclletize the rest of the material.
WT are currently working with the legislature to net legislation
which would allow cities tC control where ;jr !`T wus ,- 1ccs cnc',
collected without havinp to "orpanizing collection'". 1 have
enclosed a copy of a lottcr 1 sent to the cities of Plymouth,
Minneto Hopkins, Eden Prairie and Bloomington' It was in
response to their request to try to explain wh^t we saw as th
issues and possible solutions to those issues. In resoonse to
that letter, each of the cities have written to Mr. Vern Peterson
of the AMM asking him to include these issues in his lcpislativr
lobby el'forts next session.
There are two ways Eagan can enter into this type of arrangement,
One way is for Reuter to apply to the Metropolitan Co'.2 for an
e.:clusion from Dakota Coun designation plan and ,`dinancc'
This. in our opinic,, will be somewhat difficult to a flhi,r'
The second way is for Reuter to start processing ycor waste at
our Lden Prairie facility OEF01{:2 the county submits toir
"designation plan" to the Met Council. lf that hacrens, our
wa=te will be "exempted" from county designation in accordance
with the Waste Management Act of 1980 as revised through 1987'
These are your only two methods of getting Out from under the
decision the county is making for you regarding solid waste. Tr
you dc not qualify under the second option above, it is lik'Ay
you will be at the total control of the county,
If l can be of any further help or provide you with any further
information, please give me a call at 935-6921.
lhenk you.
Douglas E. Reuter
Dircct^r
Inter-Governmental Relations
T xY
�
I. LEGISLATIVE MANDATE AND AUTHORIZATION
A. OVERVIEW
Federal and state legislation, the Metropolitan Council, and the
Dakota County Master Plan require a modification of the current
system of collecting and disposing of wastes. This section
outlines specific legal mandates and regulations pertinent to
such a change in waste management strategies. Essentially the
strategies require that waste management entities, including
municipalities, work jointly to reduce landfilled wastes through
waste reduction, reuse, recycling, waste processing, and
residuals management.
B. FEDERAL RESOURCE AND CONSERVATION ACT OF 1976
The 1976 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) imposes
federal requirements and provides authority for dealing with the
problems of managing solid waste.
The act provides for technical and financial assistance to states
for developing environmentally acceptable methods of managing
solid waste. It prohibits future open dumping and requires that
existing open dumps be closed or upgraded to sanitary landfills.
It also regulates the treatment, storage, transportation and
disposal of solid wastes. Subtitle D of the act is particularly
important because it provides guidelines for developing and
implementing state and regional solid waste management plans.
As a result of the act, the Minnesota Waste Management Board has
been given the authority to finance and regulate certain aspects
of solid waste facilities and activities outside the Metropolitan
area. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) is the state
agency responsible for adopting a state solid waste plan and
waste facility regulations.
C. MINNESOTA WASTE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1980
In response to the waste management dilemma, the 1980 Minnesota
legislature passed the state Waste Management Act, significantly
increasing the Metropolitan Council's responsibility for solid
waste management in the Metro area.
This act charged the Council with providing a long range plan for
managing solid waste in the region that provides for the
reduction of waste, recovery of materials and energy, and
minimizes the practice of land disposal. The act requires the
plan to set regional waste management policies and provide
schedules for developing waste facilities and activities to
manage solid waste through the year 2000.
It is also the responsibility of the Metropolitan Council to
provide technical and financial assistance to counties,
municipalities, and private service providers. In addition, the
Council is to research and develop markets for recycled products
and new processing techniques.
D. METROPOLITAN COUNCIL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT
GUIDE AND POLICY PLAN
1. Major Policies
The Metropolitan Council will be working closely with
governmental agencies and the private sector in implementing its
guide and policy plan. Responsibility for implementing many of
the policies rests with local jurisdictions, counties, and the
private solid waste management industry. The Council and
appropriate state agencies will offer adequate levels of
technical and program assistance.
The guide calls for establishing a regional system of coordinated
processing and recycling services. The system could be comprised
of centralized processing facilities, transfer stations, and
composting and recycling services. The county has the principal
responsibility to carry out this portion of the system.
A major policy, set under this plan, requires the termination of
landfilling mixed municipal solid waste after 1990. Only the
nonrecoverable residuals remaining from waste processing could be
landfilled after that date.
Another major policy requires metropolitan area generators of
municipal solid waste after July 1, 1988 to separate recyclables
and compostable yard waste materials from the remaining waste if
voluntary efforts on the part of cities, towns or counties have
not achieved the Council's objectives. Counties, cities and
towns will be required to provide recycling services for these
materials within the next two to three years.
2. Funding
A number of financial incentives and funding alternatives are
contemplated under the plan. Financial incentives that can be
used to promote source separation /recycling include 1) rebates to
participants, 2) penalties for non - compliance, 3) charges per bag
or per can of mixed solid waste, 4) extra charges for prohibited
yard waste materials or recyclables, and 5) deposits on beer and
soft drink containers. The Council and the counties are working
to research and develop programs to more fully explore these
types of financial incentives.
Improvements in solid waste management will entail increased
cost, leaving public willingness to pay somewhat difficult to
predict. For this reason, the Council will place heavy emphasis
on public education and awareness.
Counties can further their efforts by implementing county -wide
publicity, tools and provide technical and financial assistance
to municipalities and private service providers.
49
3. County Responsibility
The Metropolitan Council and counties have shared
responsibilities in implementing a development process for waste
reduction, resource recovery, and solid waste landfill siting in
the metropolitan area. The counties must amend their master
plans to implement the waste reduction and resource recovery
facilities. The Council and counties ultimately have authority
to implement the process including control over the flow of
waste.
In the metropolitan area the counties are designated as the
responsible party for regulating collection and transportation of
solid waste and certain aspects of facility location and
operation. Counties are required to prepare master plans that
describe and govern existing and proposed solid waste activities.
They must also share responsibility with the Metropolitan Council
in implementing a development process for waste reduction,
resource recovery, and solid waste landfill siting in the
metropolitan area.
4. City Responsibility
The waste management policy extends responsibilities to cities
and townships as well. Included in these are: collecting source
separated yard wastes and recyclables either directly or through
private companies, adopting mandatory source separation
ordinances if voluntary efforts fail to achieve adequate
participation, assist counties with siting and /or development of
processing facilities for source separated materials, and assist
with local publicity tools (i.e. flyers, neighborhood meetings,
newsletters). These responsibilities are further defined in the
County's Solid Waste Masterplan.
E. DAKOTA COUNTY MASTER PLAN
Dakota County's master plan, and its subsequent revisions will
act as a guide for solid waste management as the county meets
legislative mandates and strives to manage solid waste generated
and /or disposed within its borders in a manner that is
environmentally sound and fiscally responsible.
The county must develop its waste master plan and reports in
order to site, acquire, construct, operate and improve solid
waste management facilities. One of the most important roles of
the county is to assure orderly and coordinated development of
multi- material, intermediate processing or transfer facilities
for identified recyclables. Furthermore, inter - county
coordination may enhance the economic feasibility of recycling
plants and promote cooperative marketing of the materials.
The Dakota County master plan urges each city and township in the
county to form a solid waste management committee or commission
for the purpose of assessing waste management in the
jurisdiction, recommending waste management practices to the
governing body, and to work with county solid waste management
staff as the community initiates and continues to operate
community programs.
SU
The county's ultimate goal is to provide a comprehensive solid
waste management system that protects public health and safety,
preserves and protects the environment, and provides cost
effective alternatives to land disposal of mixed municipal solid
waste.
S/
II. GENERAL CONCEPTS
WASTE REDUCTION
Waste reduction is the process of reducing the amount of solid
waste generated. It includes product reuse, increased product
life, reduced material use and product design and decreased
consumption of products. It also includes activities such as
mulching - back yard composting of yard wastes. These areas
require continued industry support and attention by lawmakers and
the media.
From this definition, it can be seen that cost cutting measures
regularly practiced by business and industry and conscientious
purchasing patterns practiced by consumers qualify as waste
reduction. Business and industry respond to the profit motive,
which is perhaps the greatest incentive to reduce unneccessary
consumption in their processes. Most consumers, however, are
willing to pay for the convenience resulting in the purchase of
products that are managed for that purpose or products that are
not needed. _
Waste reduction activities are the most cost effective ways to
manage solid waste because materials do not enter the waste
stream. These activities are also the most difficult to
accomplish since they require changes in life style, consumption
patterns, work habits and require voluntary effort by homeowners,
businesses, agencies and individuals. Waste reduction is also
difficult to legislate. For these reasons, waste reduction is
best accomplished through education. Emphasis must be placed on
making consumers aware of the consequences of their actions, and
on informing citizens, public officials and businesses of methods
to reduce waste volumes.
Waste reduction because it is dependent on the behavior and
cooperation of both industry and the general public, is difficult
to accomplish. Although, with education and economic incentives,
waste reduction can become a reality in our society.
SOURCE SEPARATION
Source separation implies the separation of materials, by the
generator, from the municipal solid waste stream prior to the
collection of the remaining mixed municipal solid waste. The
materials subject to source separation are yard waste and
recyclable glass, tin, aluminum, ferrous metals, paper,
corregated cardboard, plastic beverage containers, drain oil,
batteries, tires, furniture, clothing and some plastics. Also
implied are systems of collection, processing, and marketing of
separated materials.
The effort expended by the generator of solid waste consists of
separating the materials from the waste stream collected as trash
and making them available for either pick up or taking them to a
drop off site. This is considered by some as an inconvenience,
but as the cost of disposing or processing solid waste increases
and as the public becomes more aware of solid waste management,
source separation becomes more attractive. Depending on how the
program is designed, recyclable materials may be mixed together
32
or may have to be secured by type. For example, yard waste is
typically bagged if it is collected via routed pick -up or it can
be loose if it is delivered to a drop -off site.
Collection can consist of routed pick -up, either separately or in
conjunction with the pick -up of trash or delivery of materials to
the drop -off site by the generator. Routed pick -up is
appropriate to areas that have a fairly dense population such as
larger cities. Drop -off sites can be as simple as attended sites
with containers for disposal or they can be redemption centers at
which materials can be redeemed for cash.
Curbside collection of recyclab'es enjoys the highest compliance
rates of any recycling strategy due to its convenience. Under
curbside programs, any individual merely puts separated
recyclables at the curb as he or she does with ordinary refuse.
It is kept separate when collected for transfer to a processing
facility. Such a system requires either specialized equipment or
separate pick -up to maintain integrity of the products.
In conclusion, source separation requires the cooperation of the
waste generator. Public education and economic incentives will
tend to increase compliance in meeting source separation goals.
CENTRALIZED SEPARATION
Also called centralized material recovery, centralized separation
involves the separation of recyclable or compostable materials at
the actual central processing facility. Centralized separation
has historically been considered only a process to be carried out
before waste combustion. Using it only to extract recyclables or
reduce the volume of waste has never received much attention,
largely because the savings were never comparable to its cost.
Currently, the technology of recovering materials at the
centralized processing facilities is well established.
Shredding, magnetic separation of metals, air classification, and
similar techniques have been successfully used for a number of
years. This technology can extract recyclable materials, process
recyclables previously separated at the source, and reduce the
total volume of waste. It can also be adapted to produce refuse -
derived fuel (RDF) for combustion or supplemental material for
co- composting. Source separated materials can be processed at
such facilities or waste can be sent to other locations.
CENTRALIZED PROCESSING
Centralized processing, also called central processing, is
defined as the processing of mixed municipal waste collected from
within a designated area at a single facility. Centralized
processing facilities have a capacity to process large volumes of
waste for the purpose of volume reduction and /or resource
recovery; some facilities accomplish both. Centralized
processing has the potential of achieving the greatest percentage
of volume reduction in solid waste management.
3-3
The types of centralized separation procedures include mass burn
waste incineration, refuse- derived fuel production, and
composting /co- composting. The incineration processes are able to
produce steam for use as heat and, through co- generation,
electricity. Aerobic composting produces heat and composted
humus, while anaerobic composting produces methane gas which can
be captured.
The following is a more detailed description of the various types
of centralized processing facilites.
Mass Burn
A mass burn system incinerates waste in virtually the same
condition it is delivered to the facility. Prior to
incineration, waste is usually mixed by front -end loaders or
grapple cranes and undesirable material is removed. Some
facilities also mechanically or hand separate recyclables before
the remaining waste is incinerated. Most mass burn technologies
have a primary chamber which incinerates the waste and moves the
burning waste horizontally from the point of charging to the
point of discharge.
Refuse - Derived Fuel
Refuse - derived fuel processing significantly alters the condition
of solid waste before it is burned. As with mass burn, many RDF
facilities mechanically or hand separate recyclables before the
remaining waste is processed. When waste is processed for
refuse - derived fuel, goals are to:
1) reduce the size of waste to give better, more consistent
burning characteristics;
2) classify the materia's received to increase the heat value.
A series of shredders, hammer mills, and air knives classify
the waste to produce a product that is lightweight, uniform
in size, and has a greater energy value per unit than a
comparable unit of unprocessed solid waste.
Following production, the refuse - derived fuel can be used in its
original form (fluff), it can be densified to enhance its
handling characteristics, or it can be dehydrated and densified
to yield a product which can be stored.
Composting /Co- composting
A third type of centralized processing is composting /co-
composting. A biological process which occurs naturally,
composting can yield both energy and material that can be
utilized. There are two different processes that can be
emp'oyed; aerobic and anaerobic. Aerobic composting takes place
in the presence of sufficient or excess oxygen; the microbes
active in aerobic composting produce heat but do not produce
methane gas. Anaerobic composting takes place in conditions
which are oxygen starved; microbes active in anaerobic
composting produce both heat and methane gas.
S'�
Both aerobic and anaerobic composting produce humus and heat.
Heat is generated during the processes due to activity by
microbes. This heat can be utilized for such purposes as heating
buildings and preheating water.
Because of the many different types of centralized processing and
the significant impact centralized processing has on decreasing
the sheer magnitude of solid waste generated by our society,
centralized processing facilities will continue to be expanded in
the future.
LAND DISPOSAL
As a method of waste management, land disposal is thought of as a
last resort; although, until recent years, land disposal of solid
waste has been the primary method of managing the metropolitan
area's mixed municipal solid waste.
Land disposal has occurred in a range of environments, from
uncontrolled, polluting, unaesthetic open burning dumps, to
landfills that, when properly designed and operated, have less
chance of causing serious pollution problems. A critical
concern regarding any land disposal facility is to what extent
the waste material can escape into the soil and groundwater and
adversely affect the surrounding environment and water supplies.
New land disposal facilities should be located, and modern
technology incorporated into their design, to reduce public
health and environmental risk. Another important consideration
is controlling the type of wastes going into the land disposal
facility. In recent years, compliance with increasingly rigorous
and detailed standards for environmental protection have
increased the cost of land disposal.
It is estimated that, in the future, waste reduction and resource
recovery will reduce significantly the need for land disposal but
will not eliminate it entirely. Landfills for municipal solid
waste will be necessary on a short -term basis while reduction and
recovery systems are developing. They will also be necessary for
the waste that cannot be processed and for the residue from
recovery operations. However, increasingly in the future, land
disposal of solid waste will be kept at an absolute minimum.
55-
III. REVIEW OF CONCEPTS AND VENDORS - Since August of 1986,
the SWAC has studied and discussed the folowing issues and
concepts with the listed resource persons.
A. Metropolitan Council Mandate - Jim Uttley
B. Dakota County Waste Abatement Planning - Warren
Wilson
C. Dakota County Hazardous Waste Planning - George
Kinney
D. Goodwill Industries - Attended Donation Center -
Del Edwards
E. MSD /Supercycle - Recycling Redemption Center,
Curbside Collection, Reverse Vending - Linda Bartels
F. Rohn Industries - Business Paper Recycling -
Dennis Fields
G. Reuter Resource Recovery - Centralized Separation
and Refuse Derived Fuel - Doug Reuter and Jerry Misukanis
H. Waste Management Inc. - Co- Composting - Lanny Ross
I. Tours - Reuter RDF Facility and 3M Hazardous Waste
Incinerator
J. Monitoring Legislation - Organized Collection and
Container Deposit
K. Monitoring Citizens League Recycling Study
IV. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS
A. General Findings
1. The mandate for solid waste management
clearly states the responsibility of cities
to implement a landfill abatement strategy.
The nature of such a strategy may be flexible
within certain paramaters, the most specific
parameter being that source separation
opportunities be made available within
communities.
2. The Solid Waste Abatement Commission's first
responsibility is to define a strategy to
meet Eagan's waste abatement needs. In
addition, the Commission may advise the
Council concerning recommendations for County
action to facilitate waste abatement in
Eagan.
3. While the City will benefit from cooperation
with the County, the City should not
unnecessarily limit its options for waste
management and waste abatement if effective
alternatives are present.
4. Landfill abatement through recycling, etc.
has a positive effect on the Metropolitan
systems and environment by reducing landfill
use and resource contamination while reducing
demand for non - renewable resources.
5. A system which includes waste reduction,
reuse and recycling is preferable to one
which does not because it optimizes the use
sG
of non - renewable resources.
6. Waste management is a public service due to
its health, safety and welfare implications.
In the past, Eagan has provided for this
public service through privatization by free
enterprise.
7. Recycling, due to its larger public purpose
of reducing environmental and other impacts,
can be viewed as part of that public service.
8. The private sector and market may continue to
provide a mechanism for waste abatement,
given appropriate conditions. However,
government mechanisms may be necessary to
guide market forces and to quantify hidden
costs.
9. Education and the modification of waste
disposal habits will be the keys to any
successful waste abatement strategy.
10. The City Code currently prohibits any method
of waste disposal other than in area
landfills. Recycling, composting and other
means of landfill abatement will require an
amendment of the Code. Because organized
collection, curb -side recycling and other
potential changes in the waste management
system will also require City Code
modifications, such amendments should be
approached in a comprehensive manner (See
Appendix A).
B. Recycling and Resource Recovery
1. Given an adequate delivery system and
incentive structure, recyclable resources can
be effectively removed from the waste stream.
2. The Metropolitan Council targets for waste
abatement cannot be met by the 1988 deadline,
due to the stage of Dakota County's waste
management development. The City would be
premature in implementing any comprehensive
waste abatement strategy until the County
program is better developed.
3. Convenience and a sense of personal benefit
will be keys to the implementation of a
recycling program. Where a clear public
purpose or economic benefit are perceived by
the public (WW II metal and rubber drives,
deposit bottles, etc.) waste reduction, reuse
and recycling have been accepted by the
public.
4. Source separation of recyclables maintains
the integrity of most recyclables better than
centralized or mechanized separation. Both
the Metropolitan Council and Dakota County
have mandated that cities provide source
separation alternatives as a part of their
S7
waste abatement /management strategies.
5. No recycling program will receive 100%
compliance and, therefore, there is a need
for centralized separation technologies to
effectively remove recoverable resources.
The costs of such centralized processing
should be focused on those who do not source
separate, thereby contributing to the
economic incentive structure of the waste
mangement system.
6. Residential and business recycling needs are
of a different character and must be
addressed separately.
C. Economic Considerations
1. The current open hauling system, with
relatively inexpensive land disposal, does
not address landfill abatement objectives and
will have to be modified by new market
realities, rate structures, local regulation
and /or public demand for waste abatement.
2. The type of centralized processing technology
adopted by the County may dramatically impact
the nature of the waste abatement obligations
of the City and the costs it may have to
bear. Likewise, the types processing
technologies not chosen may represent lost
opportunity costs for communities faced with
implementing the system.
3. While source separated recyclables are
generally of higher quality, the extra effort
of each source separating household or
business is a hidden cost. Source separation
strategies will require economic realities
which reward separation.
4. Volume based fees will be an essential
element of an effective waste abatement
strategy.
5. The County is in a unique position to affect
the rate structure and the economic realities
of recycling due to its intention to
designate County wastes to a centralized
processing facility. By charging more for
mixed wastes and less for that with
recyclables removed, the County facility can
encourage recycling through the market
mechanism and reduce the need for unnecessary
public expenditures.
6. Certain abatement alternatives will benefit
from centralization among cities or for the
County as a whole due to economies of scale.
V. DRAFT STRATEGY FOR WASTE ABATEMENT
The City of Eagan Solid Waste Abatement Commission
recommends a strategy which considers the role of
S8
Dakota County in defining the waste abatement realities
of its cities. It also recognizes the functional
opportunity afforded the City to influence the shape of
the County's waste management system.
In the immediate future, the City would be best served
by .a conservative approach to waste abatement which
functions to provide recycling and waste reduction
alternatives to residents and businesses at a minimal
public cost. As Dakota County's waste abatement system
evolves, the City's can mature with it to address
community needs in the future. A general description
of such a system is outlined below. The Solid Waste
Abatement Commission recommends that the City of Eagan:
A. Provide voluntary recycling and source separation
opportunities to Eagan residents at the least
possible public cost and through the private
sector where possible (recycling centers, compost,
business recycling).
B. Provide voluntary waste reduction alternatives
like back yard composting through ordinance
amendment.
C. Address hazardous waste collection issues
including physical collection, costs and
liability.
D. Ammend portions of the City Code pertinent to
refuse management to provide for waste abatement
and recycling alternatives. Define acceptable
waste reduction strategies and facilitate their
implementation.
E. Analyze collection and recycling alternatives
through the Organized Collection Study. Prepare
to implement as rising disposal costs increase
incentives to source separate and centrally
separate.
F. Recommend that Dakota County:
1. Choose a central processing alternative which
includes a centralized separation component.
2. Identify the preferred central processing
technology and the City obligations and costs
it implies prior to enactment of the
designation ordinance.
3. Implement a rate structure for the processing
facility which encourages source separation
by passing through the real costs of mixed
waste processing.
4. Centralize and coordinate programs which will
benefit from economies of scale: centralized
separation, compost, recycling markets, etc.
5. Act or require the central facility to act as
a market of last resort for recycling
contractors and programs, haulers and
residents.
6. Standardize education materials for schools
and cities to help develop habits and
s9
attitudes for separation and recycling.
7. Specifically request a blanket exclusion from
the Metropolitan Council's 1988 mandatory
source separation requirement for all Dakota
County cities to allow them to come into
compliance as the County implements its waste
processing facility.
G. Develop a comprehensive waste management system
combining appropriate public and private elements
by modifying and expanding upon these initial
recommendations. Such modification to be
consistent with the development of Dakota County's
waste management program (See Appendix B).
H. Possible Alternatives - A set of four possible
alternatives has been prepared for consideration.
These are intended to illustrate the combination
of tactics in the development of a strategy, but
are not all- inclusive (See Appendix C).
VI. CONCLUSION
The City of Eagan has a mandated public policy
obligation to address landfill and solid waste
abatement in the immediate future. The mandate will
require some expenditure of public funds and public
effort, but such costs can be substantially mitigated
by the proper application of incentives to and
regulation of free enterprise. Dakota County is in a
unique position to encourage recycling by establishing
a two - tiered price structure for mixed and separated
wastes at its centralized processing facility. The
City of Eagan has an obligation to insure the provision
of this service through the appropriate application of
public and private effort.
6 o
APPENDIX A
§ 6.37
SEC. 6.37. GARBAGE AND REFUSE HAULERS.
Subd. 1. Definitions. The following terms, as
.ised in this Section, shall have the meanings stated:
A. "Garbage" means all putrescible wastes,
including animal offal and carcasses of dead animals but
excluding human excreta, sewage and other water - carried
wastes.
B. "Other refuse" means ashes, glass,
crockery, cans, paper, boxes, rags and similar non -
putrescible wastes but excluding sand, earth, brick, stone,
concrete, trees, tree branches and wood.
Subd. 2. License Required. It is unlawful for
any person to haul garbage or other refuse for hire without
a license therefor from the City, or to haul garbage or
other refuse from his own residence or business property
other than as herein excepted.
Subd. 3. Exception. Nothing in this Section
shall prevent persons from hauling garbage or other refuse
from their own residences or business properties provided
the following rules are observed: (1) that all garbage is
hauled in containers that are water -tight on all sides and
the bottom and with tight- fitting covers on top, (2) that
all other refuse is hauled in vehicles with leak -proof
bodies and completely covered or enclosed by canvas or other
YSa1 (8- 31 -85)
(o
means or material so as to completely eliminate the possi-
bility of loss of cargo, and, (3) that all garbage and other
refuse shall be dumped or unloaded only at the designated
sanitary land -fill.
Subd. 4. Hauler Licensee Requirements.
A. Hauler licenses shall be granted only
upon the condition that the licensee have water -tight
packer -type vehicles in good condition to prevent loss in
transit of liquid or solid cargo, that the vehicle be kept
clean and as free from offensive odors as possible and not
allowed to stand in any street longer than reasonably neces-
sary to collect garbage or refuse, and that the same be
dumped or unloaded only at the designated sanitary land-
fill, and strictly in accordance with regulations relating
thereto.
B. Before a garbage and refuse hauler's
license shall be issued, the applicant shall file with the
City Clerk - Treasurer evidence that he has provided public
liability insurance on all vehicles in at least the sum of
$100,000.00 for injury of one person, $300,000.00 for the
injury of two or more persons in the same accident, and
$50,000.00 for property damages.
C. The Council, in the interest of maintain-
ing healthful and sanitary conditions in the City, hereby
reserves the right to specify and assign certain areas to
all licensees, and to limit the number of licenses issued.
D. Each applicant shall file with the City
Clerk - Treasurer, before a garbage and refuse hauler's
license is issued or renewed, a schedule of proposed rates
to be charged by him during the licensed period for which
the application is made. The schedule of proposed rates, or
a compromise schedule thereof, shall be approved by the
Council before granting the license. Nothing herein shall
prevent a licensee from petitioning the Council for review
of such rates during the licensed period, and the Council
may likewise consider such petition and make new rates
effective at any time. No licensee shall charge rates in
excess of the rates approved by the Council.
E. No hauler operating on a route in a resi-
dential district shall operate a truck on any City street
when the weight of said vehicle exceeds eight ton per axle.
F. No hauler shall operate in a residential
district after 8:30 o'clock P.M. or before 5:30 o'clock A.M.
of any day, and no hauler shall operate in a residential
district on Sunday.
G. Each vehicle for which a hauler's license
is issued shall exhibit such license in a prominent position
on said vehicle.
(1 -1 -83)
ISA
CHAPTER 10
PUBLIC PROTECTION, CRIMES AND OFFENSES
SECTION 10.01. STORAGE, DEPOSIT AND DISPOSAL OF
REFUSE.
Subd. 1. Definitions. The following terms, as
used in this Section, shall have the meanings stated:
A. "Refuse" - Includes all organic material
re :dicing from the manufacture, ,reparation or v L;, :: cr
fck.0 or food products, and spoiled, decayed or
fr.:,;it any source, oortles, guns, glassware, paper
products, crockery, ashes, rags, and discarded ci.• ,
tree or lawn clippings, leaves, weeds and other waste prod-
ucts, except human waste or waste resulting from building
construction or demolition.
B. "Residential Dwelling" - Any single
building consisting of one through four dwelling units with
individual kitchen facilities for each.
C. "Multiple Dwelling" - Any building used
fo residential purposes consisting of more than four
(3%-:,ling units with individual kitchen facilities for each.
D. "Commercial Establishment" - Any premises
wt„_-r a commercial or industrial enterprise of any kind is
cur.ied orr, and shall include restaurants, clubs, churches,
and :schools where food is prepared or served.
Subd. 2. Storage.
A. It is unlawful for any person to store
refuse on residential dwelling premises for more than one
week. All such storage shall be in five to thirty gallon
metal or plastic containers with tight- fitting covers, which
shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition;
provided, that tree leaves, weeds and grass clippings may be
stored in plastic bags and tree limbs must be stored in
bundles weighing no more than seventy -five pounds and no
longer than four feet.
B. It is unlawful for any person to store
refuse on multiple dwelling premises for more than one week.
Such storage shall be in containers as for residential
dwelling premises, except that so- called "dumpsters" with
close - fitting covers may be substituted.
C. It is unlawful for any person to store
refuse on commercial establishment premises for more than
forty -eight hours. Such storage shall be in containers as
for residential dwelling premises, except that so- called
"dumpsters" with close- fitting covers may be substituted.
D. It is unlawful to store organic refuse
unless it is drained and wrapped.
(1 -1 -83)
G3
Subd. 3. Deposit. It is unlawful for any person
to deposit refuse from any source, rubbish, offal, or the
body of a dead animal, in any place other than a sanitary
landfill.
Subd. 4. Fire Danger. It is unlawful for any
person to store, deposit or dispose of any refuse which is
in flames or heated to the point where it could cause danger
of fire in other refuse.
Subd. 5. Disposal. The Council may, by resolu-
tion, adopt, and from time to time amend, adjust and revise
such rules, regulations, rates and charges as it deems
necessary or proper for the operation and management of the
sanitary landfill. It may give notice of any such action as
it deems necessary.
SEC. 10.02. TOILET INSTALLATION REQUIRED. It is the
duty of every owner or occupant of any property within the
. City, having a dwelling house or business building situated
thereon, which property is abutting a street in which there
are City water and sewer mains, to install a toilet in such
dwelling or business building and make connection thereof
with such water and sewer mains. The City shall serve
written notice upon said owner or occupant requiring the
installation of toilet facilities upon premises described in
said notice, and connection thereof with the sewer and water
mains, all of which shall be done within thirty days after
service of such written notice. Whenever any owner or
occupant shall default in compliance with such written
notice the Council may by resolution direct that a toilet be
installed and connection made with the water and sewer mains
and that the actual cost of such installation be paid in the
first instance out of the General Revenue Fund, and assessed
against the property so benefited. After such installation
and connection is completed by order of the Council, the
City shall serve a written notice of intention to make an
assessment therefor. If such assessment is not paid within
ten days the City shall certify the amount thereof to the
County Auditor in the same manner as with other special
assessments, provided that the Council may by resolution
provide that the assessment be spread over a term of five
(5) years upon written request by the owner of the property.
SEC. 10.03. MAINTENANCE OF INDIVIDUAL SEWERAGE
SYSTEMS. It is unlawful for the owner or tenant of any
premises to permit an individual sewage disposal system to
overflow, or expose the contents thereof above ground.
Source: City Code
Effective Date: 1 -1 -83
(Sections 10.04 through 10.09, inclusive, reserved for
future expansion.)
(1 -1 -83)
APPENDIX B
POTENTIAL WASTE MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT MODEL
1988 - 89 Drop-off Centers (Compost & Recycling)
(Collection Modifications & Education)
1989 - 90 Routed Collection Alternatives
(Rising Costs)
1990 - 91 Increased Incentive to Separate
1991 - 92 Comprehensive Waste Abatement System
APPENDIX C
SCENARIO EXAMPLES
I. Low Tech - Low Cost (Example: Attended donation center
with compost program)
A. Education - Emphasis on waste abatement, ease of
separation, and location of donation centers
B. Source Separation /Donation Centers - Location of one or
more full- service donation centers (Costs dependent on
number and responsibility)
C. Yard Waste Composting - Maintenance of community
program utilizing County system as market
D. Collection - Require either volume -based fees or
separate collection of recyclables
E. Pros and Cons
1. Pros
- Low cost
- Limited City responsibility
2. Cons
- Metropolitan Council requires mandatory separation
if voluntary separation fails to meet targets.
II. Low Tech - High Cost (Example: Curbside recyclable
collection with donation center backup)
A. Education - Emphasis on separation, convenience and
relative costs
B. Source Separation /Collection - Routed residential
collection of separated recyclables, yard wastes, and
mixed wastes.
C. Yard Waste Composting - Full scale independent program
to assure high quality compost and marketing.
D. Donation Centers - Location of relatively few donation
opportunities as safety valve for routed collection.
E. Pros and Cons
1. Pros
- Higher participation
- Economies of scale
2. Cons
- High cost
- Possible duplication with County programs
66
III. High Tech - Low Cost (Example: Reliance on County
intermediate processing with voluntary programs)
A. Education - Minimal
B. Source Separation - Limited to hazardous and special
wastes and voluntary programs
C. Collection /Intermediate Processing - Designate all
wastes to County facility and rely on it for separation
D. Pros and Cons
1. Pros
- Low cost
-No need to change disposal habits
2. Cons
- Metropolitan Council and County plans require
source separation
- Reduces quality of recovered recyclables
IV. High Tech - High Cost (Example: City participation in RDF
or co- compost system)
A. Education - High intensity - locally managed
B. Source Separation - Variable depending upon technology,
allowing for voluntary programs
C. Collection /Processing - Locally managed waste
processing system
D. Intermediate Processing - Locally managed and operated
E. Pros and Cons
1. Pros
- Local direction
2. Cons
-Costs and duplication
- County designation of wastes limits viability
e, 7
•11 .in d 647t
Since 1961
RUBBISH SERVICE tra 15120 CHIPPENDALE AVE., ROSEMOUNT, MN 55068 (612) 423-2294
f E 3 C. 11 Li riic, t c ari r cr
f center is open and ready for busines. We anticipa
C=tF: trOm U0St Of the southern sal aii(1 the
i: c0
Our recyclia& pfoe-rawi now includes: co=ieTcia2
compostin fecyciing of drain oil, batteries, and tires from oLr
kouehoiLl and commercial accounts aloLg with OUT drop-of!
recyciine ,- Jente-r.
The getro Council h,Is awarded us several incentioe erants to heip
us L
LL LT and co-,T-4)ostine poj-rams, WiF;
On .3fA:parldige" our .recycline program ven more.
This Lrochure ha L.:sen sent to you bocaus of your conc-rn with
the environt and solid waste Teductin. P2case read it o.t
ytr COnienC.3.
RiTCYCL- FOR THR FUTURE"
KNUTSON RUEISH SRRVICR, INC.
•