HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/12/1991 - Solid Waste Abatement Commission d t)d
AGENDA
SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION
EAGAN, MINNESOTA
EAGAN MUNICIPAL CENTER CONFERENCE ROOMS A & B
TUESDAY, MARCH 12, 1991
11:30 A.M.
I. ROLL CALL AND ADOPTION OF AGENDA
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
III. STAFF REPORT
A. Slide Show presentation
B. Updated tonnage report for additional materials
in 1990.
IV. ORGANIZATIONAL BUSINESS
V. OLD BUSINESS
A. Long -Term Funding
VI. NEW BUSINESS
A. Participation Rate Guidelines —
VII. OTHER BUSINESS
A. Future Agenda Items
VIII. DISTRIBUTION
IX. NEXT MEETING
X. ADJOURNMENT
Subject to Approval
MINUTES OF THE
SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION
February 12, 1991
A regular meeting of the Eagan Solid Waste Abatement Commission was
held on Tuesday, February 12, 1991 at 11:30 a.m. Present were Todd Gatz, Craig
Seim, Kenneth Ische, Earl Milbridge, Floyd Hiar, Terry Davis, Denny Seiz and
Terry Jacobs on behalf of Coca Cola Midwest. Absent were Darlene Bahr and Larry
Knutson. Also present were Recycling Coordinator Hageman, Assistant to the City
Administrator Hohenstein and Dakota County Planner Mike Trdan.
INTRODUCTIONS
Those present at the meeting introduced themselves including ongoing
members as well as Terry Jacobs, the new Coca Cola Midwest Representative, Terry
Davis, a new citizen representative and Ken Ische, the new business
representative to the Commission.
OATH OF OFFICE
All newly appointed and reappointed members were given the oath of
office.
AGENDA
The agenda was modified to move organizational business up the
agenda. Upon motion by Davis, seconded by Milbridge, all members voting in
favor, the agenda was approved as amended.
MINUTES
Upon motion by Seiz, seconded by Davis, all members voting in favor,
the minutes of the January 8, 1991 meeting were approved as presented.
ELECTION OF CHAIR
A nomination for Chair was received for Dennis Seiz. Upon motion by
Davis, seconded by Hiar, all members voting in favor, the nominations were closed
and Dennis Seiz was elected Chair of the Commission through election of a
successor in February, 1992.
ELECTION OF VICE CHAIR
It was suggested that this item be continued and that those members
absent be polled to determine whether or not they would be willing to serve as
Vice Chair. Upon motion by Davis, seconded by Seiz, all members voting in favor,
the election of the Vice Chair was continued to the March 12, 1991 meeting with
direction to staff to contact those absent in this regard.
MEMO TO: CHAIR BEIZ AND ALL MEMBERS OF THE EAGAN SOLID WASTE
ABATEMENT COMMISSION
FROM: RECYCLING COORDINATOR HAGEMAN
DATE: MARCH 6, 1991
SUBJECT: EAGAN SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION MEETING OF
MARCH 12, 1991
A regular meeting of the Eagan Solid Waste Abatement Commission
will be held on Tuesday March 12, 1991 at 11:30 a.m., in the Eagan
Municipal Center conference rooms A & B. The City will provide a
box lunch to those requesting one by Monday, March 11, by 4 p.m.
Please contact Kris Hageman or Jane Helebrant at 454 -8100 to
indicate whether you will attend and your luncheon preference.
I. ROLL CALL AND ADOPTION OF AGENDA
The agenda, as presented or modified, requires adoption by the
Commission.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A copy of the minutes of the Solid Waste Abatement Commission
meeting of February 12, 1991 is enclosed on pages to . These
minutes, subject to any change require approval by the Commission.
III. STAFF REPORT
A. Slide Show Presentation
A presentation of the Eagan Recycling Program slide show will be
the first item in the staff report. The Show will be used as a
speakers guide at school, community and special event
presentations.
B. Updated tonnage report for additional materials in 1990
I have received an updated tonnage report from Dakota County which
incorporates our recycling tonnages from materials such as tires,
appliances and those collected at drop -off centers outside of Eagan
which originated from Eagan residents. Our total for 1990 reached
over 5,700 tons. I will have a break down of these weights at our
meeting on the 12th.
IV. ORGANIZATIONAL BUSINESS
At our February 12th meeting, Dennis Seiz was elected as
Chairperson for the Commission. The Vice -Chair position remains
open and will need appointment during our March meeting. Members
absent from the February meeting will be contacted as to their
interest in serving on this position.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: Appointment of a Vice -
Chairperson to the commission.
V. OLD BUSINESS
A. Long -Term Funding
The Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee's Subcommittee on
Long Term Funding is beginning to close discussion regarding long
term funding in order to submit a final report in April. It would
by appropriate for the commission to review the same questions and
funding options as they relate to city programs and coordinated
efforts with Dakota County. As time did not permit this discussion
at our last meeting the item has been continued for further
discussion.
The Commission had directed staff to prepare a position for Council
review regarding continued support for local recycling
administrative costs. The resolution passed by the City Council on
February 19th is enclosed in the distribution section for your
review.
Also included in your packet is an outline of main questions used
as guidelines for discussion purposes and a list of key issues and
ideas the sub - committee has reviewed throughout its brief history.
Some of the key issues include: Yard Waste Composting, source
separation and recycling, public education, designation, resource
recovery facility and regional perspectives for solid waste
management. Also included in your packet is a Dakota County report
on financial projections for solid waste abatement activities.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny a
position paper for City Council consideration as it relates to
County support of long term funding for Eagan solid waste abatement
activities.
IV. NEW BUSINESS
A. Participation Rate Guidelines
When evaluating the residential participation issue there are a
number of questions we need to ask prior to formulation of
guidelines for recording such figures. These questions include;
1. over what period of time will the number of
households source separating be measured?
2. If a household places only one material at the curb
or only a portion of all the recyclable material in
their waste, would they be counted as participating?
3. Can participation rates by calculated by hand or does
it require the purchase of computerized recording devices?
These questions and others where answered in a report from a group
of recycling coordinators from Hennepin County, January 1989. The
report submitted by the Hennepin Recycling Coordinators answers the
questions related to this issue and offers definite and realistic
recommendations.
It is also important to remember that programs vary throughout the
county and metropolitan area and should not be judged for success
on the level of participation.
Why are these questions important? Municipalities are not
currently required to maintain specific participation levels but
use participation as a tool to measure success (on an individual
basis) in addition to abatement levels. Participation rates are
required from haulers as part of the tonnage reporting forms
submitted monthly or quarterly.
Currently, residential participation rates are measured in
different ways. To my knowledge, methods used in Dakota County
include; driver check list or "clicker" count and spot checks by
haulers and program coordinator.
Haulers have indicated a desire to not incorporate more demanding
participation measurements unless and until compelling reasons be
defined for higher levels of accuracy.
At the present time, no specific action is anticipated on this
item. It is expected that further discussion of the merits of this
matter will define future direction and whether it should by placed
on a future agenda as an action item.
VII. OTHER BUSINESS
A. Future Agena Items
As we have prepared our goals and program elements for 1991 I would
like the Commission to think about specific issues they would like
addressed in greater detail during our meetings. If you have
specific interests or ideas for tours or meeting topics we would
like to address them during our meeting on the 12th to organize the
calendar of meetings.
VIII. DISTRIBUTION
The following materials are enclosed in your packet.
1. On pages to you will find the minutes from the
February 12, 1991 meeting.
2. On pages to you will find a copy of the resolution
passed by the City Council regarding continued local administrative
support for community abatement programs.
3. On pages to you will find a copy of the discussion
outline and key issues surrounding the long -term funding of local
and county solid waste abatement activities.
4. On pages to you will find a copy of the Hennepin County
recycling coordinators report on participation rates and
measurements standards.
5. On pages to you will find an article from Waste Age,
February, 1991, "What do those numbers mean ? ".
6. On pages to you will find a copy of the Commission
Phone List for 1991.
IX. NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of the Eagan Solid Waste Abatement Commission will
be Tuesday, April 9, 1991.
X. ADJOURNMENT
MEETING TIME
Davis asked if evening meetings would be more appropriate to enhance
the ability of the public to participate and facilitate the Commission's roles
in education and accessibility. Assistant to the City Administrator Hohenstein
indicated that staff preferred the second Tuesday of the month to avoid Council
meetings on the first and third Tuesdays. Recycling Coordinator Hageman
indicated that she would have a conflict with evening meeting times through May
as a consequence of a night class she is attending. After further discussion,
a motion was made by Davis, seconded by Seiz, that the meeting time of the Solid
Waste Abatement Commission be changed to 5:30 - 7:00 p.m. on the second Tuesday
of the month beginning in June, 1991 for a trial period of at least six months.
Motion passed 6 to 1.
YEAR END RECYCLING TOTALS
Hageman stated that the City had exceeded its 12% abatement goal with
recyclables only and that total waste abatement including yard waste exceeded 23%
or approximately 5,100 tons. She further stated that staff and hauler estimates
place recycling participation at roughly 65%. Information relative to the City's
performance is attached to these minutes as appendix A. Hageman also reported
that over 80% of the multi - family units had met the October 1 target date for
starting multi - family recycling. Virtually 100% of the complexes were on line
by December 31.
Hiar noted that production costs for slides and overheads were
included in the City's budget for the recycling program. Hageman indicated that
these materials were part of a project she had been working which would be
available to the commission in March or April. Hiar asked about the efficiency
of using trailers for recyclable container storage. Hageman stated they are
inexpensive in comparison to similar square footages of buildings. Hiar also
asked about the transportation costs to deliver yard wastes to the Lakeville yard
waste facility. Hohenstein stated that the costs pertained to city crews moving
the materials and the reimbursement was in order to prevent the costs from being
covered by property tax dollars.
Davis asked how participation rates are calculated and whether there
is a need for a standard procedure. Jim Weinzettel of Mendota Heights Rubbish
said that it was difficult to measure participation because different household
set out materials at different frequencies. He stated that as an example that
a household may be recycling even though it sets out recyclables only once every
two to four weeks. Davis asked how important the rate was. Hageman stated that
the City was not required to keep track of participation rates but that the City
requests it as an indicator of program effectiveness. Davis asked if it would
be worthwhile revisiting the participation question at some point in the future.
Weinzettel indicated that the current system works well to abate waste and
provide information and that it would be wise to consider greater detail in this
area only if a need could be identified. Hiar pointed out that it was necessary
to reach out to those who don't participate in recycling and the participation
rates help identify the penetration of the program.
It was further indicated that an ongoing need exists to promote the recycling
program's basics and that simple items such as acceptable materials and their
preparation should be repeated often in weekly newspapers, letters to the editor,
newsletters, brochures and the like. After further discussion, it was
recommended that staff place the participation rate issue on a future agenda for
further discussion.
HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTES
Hageman reported that the permanent Dakota County household hazardous
waste site at Aptus Environmental Services in Lakeville would be open beginning
on Saturday, February 3, 1991 and would be open from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. on
the last Saturday of each month at that location. In addition, she stated that
Dakota County staff would be opening two permanent drop -off sites elsewhere in
Dakota County that would be available approximately 20 hours per week and that
the one day household hazardous waste collections would be phased out over the
next several years. Jim Weinzettel asked about the convenience of the Lakeville
site and whether people would be willing to drive that far for hazardous waste
disposal. Hohenstein indicated that it had been the experience of the one day
collections that people were willing to drive significant distances in order to
dispose of hazardous materials. Hageman pointed out that the drop -off centers
would be strategically located in the county to provide convenient access to
residents who were not close to the Lakeville site.
EARTH DAY ACTIVITIES
Hageman reported that the City is organizing a number of Earth Week
activities including the Earth Day Walk and picnic on Sunday, April 21, which
will feature displays by the Eagan Recycling Program, the County Extension
Service, Dakota County, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Department of Natural
Resources and other parties at Thomas Lake Park. She stated that clean -up day
will be on April 27, 1991 and would focus on the City's waterways.
ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEY
Hageman indicated that she had been working with the City's Water
Resources Coordinator Rich Brasch, the Dakota County Extension Service and the
University of Minnesota regarding an environmental survey to cover a broad range
of environmental issues. She distributed sets of questions that had been
developed by staff relative to recycling and solid waste. Trdan asked about a
selection of the survey sample, return rate and the like. Hageman stated that
would be worked out with Dakota County Extension Services. Davis asked when the
survey form would be developed. Hageman stated that it was due the extension
service by Tuesday, February 19, 1991. She stated that it would be mailed on or
about March 18 and that follow -up would occur in the weeks immediately following
that. Davis asked that a question be added regarding whether people supported
mandated recycling. Hohenstein suggested that in addition to this question a
question be asked whether mandated recycling would change recycling habits.
Discussion was then generated with respect to the effect of the
additional recyclables on the standardization of the message from the City. It
was suggested that this item be placed on a future agenda for additional
discussion.
LONG -TERM DAKOTA COUNTY FUNDING
Hohenstein introduced the item and outlined a concern raised by City
staff relative to the phase out of County administrative funding to the cities.
He discussed the effect of the State budget deficit on local government finance
and indicated that the City could not continue to maintain or expand services to
its growing population while its revenue base continued to erode. He suggested
that the Commission consider a position supporting the continuation of
administrative support from the County in 1992 and beyond. He stated that such
a position would have to be couched as a recommendation to the City Council for
Council action. Upon further discussion, motion was made by Davis, seconded by
Milbridge, to direct staff to prepare a position for Council consideration to
support the continued funding for local recycling administration costs as a part
of the Dakota County long -term funding program. Floyd Hiar abstained because he
has opposed aggregate county expenditures for administration at county solid
waste meetings in the past. All other members voted in favor.
ADJOURNMENT
Upon motion by Milbridge, seconded by Ische, all members voting in
favor, the meeting was adjourned at 1:10 p.m.
Date Secretary
0
0
0
(D
.4.
7_
Q co
to
0
cc 0
0 to
/ ,
O , ,
cc 0
_ 0
CL F
CD 0
Z P-1 m in
a U CC CV CO
CV
} w / , o
E
ff U (7 � '( F
cv
CC Z
// /
0
to
co
W Q o a ° co 73
to
in
liJ
.s. t , , , , ' U
F-- 1 M
CC 7 // 0
Z
0 in
el ,,/ III
11 0.1
ILI N l
CC 1.--
UJ
1
N j /
LLJ
0 1
(-D z N
to
v. •
O ,
..., 2 M ir Z
j /
Z }' N 1
Q
( 7 ) 2 I ,y
1
H 0- /
CL
1 cc
0) w 1
a r j / / /� / j 1 3
1 Z ■
o
0 0 O O O O O
0 LO 0 to 0 to
C'7 N N r r
CITY OF EAGAN
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING •
A COMMITMENT TO CONTINUED FUNDING
FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT RECYCLING ADMINISTRATION
IN THE DAKOTA COUNTY LONG TERM RECYCLING FUNDING PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the City of Eagan and Dakota County have cooperated
effectively and successfully to provide residential and business
recycling programs, and
WHEREAS, these joint efforts have afforded all Dakota County
residents with the opportunity to recycle thereby diminishing local
reliance on landfill disposal and non - renewable resources, and
WHEREAS, these programs have earned significant awards, recognition
and media attention for Dakota County, and
WHEREAS, the success of these programs and their benefit to the
public is largely due to the efforts of local recycling
coordinators who have developed, administered, promoted and refined
them, and
WHEREAS, Dakota County's financial support of local government
administration is currently scheduled to be phased out in 1991, and
WHEREAS, Dakota County retains financial resources to support
recycling including, but not limited to, SCORE funds, tipping fee
surcharges and the potential solid waste service charge, and
WHEREAS, the City of Eagan, like other local governments, face
substantial reductions in state aid revenue in 1991, 1992 and 1993
as a consequence of the state budget defecit, and
WHEREAS, the City of Eagan does not have independent financial
resources to support local recycling efforts, and
WHEREAS, it is essential for purposes of meeting state mandates and
in the interests of the health, safety and welfare of Eagan and
Dakota County residents that adequate funding be secured to insure
that our recycling programs not only continue in this time of
budget crisis, but expand to additional materials and further
participation to reach the 35% abatement goal by 1993 and the 50%
abatement goal by 2000,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of. Eagan strongly
urges Dakota County to maintain its support for local recycling
administration as a part of its long term funding strategy for
solid waste management, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that such support be retained through at
least 1993, or until such time as local revenues stabilize.
CITY OF �,GAN .// j
' CITY COU , J
Y'
�� f ' is = o
4 Attest: '.
It Clerk
Motion made by:
Seconded by:
Those in favor:
Those against:
Dated:
CERTIFICATION
I, E. J. VanOverbeke, Clerk of the City of Eagan, Dakota
County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution
was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of
Eagan, Dakota County, Minnesota, in a regular meeting thereof
assembled this 19th day of Februar 1991
E. VanOverbeke, City Clerk
t
o ro x m g �. :
9 In .- 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 'D 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 vlv W S E n n:D In r..4 En< ° C.% ,
O c r. m fp m 7 C o 61 61 O O rJ n O 7 C t C
- G ) n'v m rr S O C Z IT 'O n n n n n 7 O n r N Z M N N n 9 n O n rr n Z 7
r• a p on fD O 7' 7 '< O rr r• O r C O O O O O (0 O r• rr 1J C d R'0 b '« 6 ' N n C rr '• �
• G 0 , r r) z O r• m .3 7 C K < C 7' n 7 r• 0. 3 r r C 9 n B 0, n r, .3 7 rs CD O O n m ' N 7' t c
O 01 7 N En N r 'O 0 0 n n 3 1- r 7 I< r• .3 O 0, O. M N r' 1D 61 •• •r7 O
O - n3 rr n K r• n rr (D n 7 O ■• (p fp 0 rt O n C Z D C rr 0 ri 0 rr r- ,o N n (p M ,
Y < 666 400 6 7" 0 7 S n n n n '< 0 r 7 0, C m 61 M C r• rt 7 10 rr t0 (D 1
n (D m x )•'•' r 6 7 M 0 Cr) ID MID n rr rr rr ■• •• 71 rr m r n N re •• .3 10 0 (D -. Z ti
D. r9 Mr0 O,O Cu m ......... O ... 7 rr rr r• (n 0 (D O r• '< 0 n Cu N.
r• '< , < m C) rr f0 • . 0. r n r 0. 61 o O M 710 '< (D O •• z 9 E 7 '0 n r 0 ' 7 O n c c En
rr ,> `-- % O K O 7 r• rn 9 rr C r 7 7 M 10 7 ID 61 "A '0 ( D
7 0 Z Z '0 < O Ip rr S 0, O •• S 0 r• n A b < n N N n r• 7 •• ►, r r• ID ? ` -;
'0 0 c tD N n < 61 61 r 7 •• 61 z o O n 'rJ O (D V rr . ID r• rt r• 0 7 rr 7 7 r 0
a y n , 1 ., m 7 n 0 (D r N Z r•10 rr 0 M M 1 1 ) N 7 n 61 0 7 rr co 9 7 10 (D t0 < ( D
rt .3 (n 0 I IL 0, r• 0 n rr 6 ( rr C r• O' IT n (D 0 .-C n A
ID
N N 01 C "' 6 D r 6 1 '< 0 S r( ( n 0 O M O N W 0, 3 C n nJ CI N rr C -
`
rD r O RID t • ,D '0 fD 0. rr Z r• 7 n r d ID r' K r 9 rr 01 r• rt r• 0 7:1 ID rr r• n a' -- .- e t.
n r• m < C 7 9 61 O co 61 rr r Cu rr n ' r• ID 7• 'O N O' ID N < 9 O 0. r• -
< 7 y m n K CD r 0 0 ID r• 0 rr'< rr 7 7 (D N C < • ID 7 n '
0 10 Z1 ID 7 rr N In rr N 7 rr ID n '< rG rr n '+J 9 rr W. ID 7
CO rr 7' r• 0D 10 r• rt r • CD ID r• 7 C) rr K
;C Z rr n r• r• C) A f t ) O N C n N 0. r.
ID Cu CD En N ID 7 rt 0 1' 7 0 N 61 N
• In N fn r• y N rO d C to r - 7 ... , sz.
M R n 3 7 7 N rr \
C CD 01 CD rt rr r H r• N 01 \\ rs `
ID -\ ID ° a
T 0 �'
y Z y < ° C I 4) -
J LA is I.. t0 CO W
.
1.4 6) r rW (( r CJ r 01 r 1.0 W r N .01 r rn .
a 1 6) CO J @ @ p. as t0 1( 10 4a. .....1 .> 10 1 1 x 1 1 VD.4 Ct0'0 N J t0 rr
J 1 N 01 to 6) N N r tp N r .P 1 1 14 Jr 41r t0 N 1 1 CO 1 1 \D@ 1001 J • N CO
• 1 . . . . • . . • • ■ I I ■ . ■ ■ ■ . ■ I 1 ■ I I ■ ■ ■ • ■ 01 ■ tD fl,
• CO 1 tC N@ @J6) J@ W CO .0 1 1 Ja 01 .a a 6) N 1 1 CT 1 1 111 .> VD N N 1.4 1-
J 1 tD N@ 01 to J J 6) r 01 J I . 1 -W CO J 01 a t0 r 1 I 01 1 1 r N0'r 1.J W
N @ 01 6) J t0 J 6) a 10 N a / - a 01 W 1.-. ....1 1J 01 co N 1n N t/1 m
in in in in in
I- 01 0" rr 01 •a I
. S
Ln Q N N' 1 NN a W No In CO J a .a CDWr to rC
• Q a CO 6D CO In 1.n Cr, J N r @ 1 1 O' r r OD CD @ N 1 r 1 W@ N J a N r N J VD Q.
✓ Q W 1.71 a 4). to L.) LID 01 CO 0 1 1 N r6) a VD 1 VD 1 ED CD r N J 6) CO N %DUO Cn
I 1. I. 1 01 6) (D 0
0' Q J 01 6) .a @ 0' 6) In to 6) 6) 1 1 In t0 6) N Q 6) a 1 N 1@@ r .a VD @ en N @ rr t'
Q Q W *4 6)161 6) r6) @6) 6) 1 1 1. IS) ►'6) 6) 6) 1 6) 1 6) 6)01 .i. 01 6) a @ r
N Q 6) 6) 6) 6) 6) 6) 6) 6) 6) 6) 6) 6) @ 6) 6) 6) 6) 6) 6) @ 6) 6) 6) @ 6) 6) 6) 0
E r
01 in y <6 <n y ►
N 01 01 rr 0 a r m (n
I to •3 0
W 6) J Q r N N a (.4 r a @ CO 10 a r t. ( l a W to •a J r rr "1 '.7 r•-• Q N CO Q CO In (J1 a) J • 6) 6) a N 01 r m 6) 6) C) es) t0 N 1n N CO J N In N @ 1D
In Q 1 r Ln a a tr 6) In 14 6) 0 6) N Lm Q Q @ CO U1N a J 1.11Q JW @•a 6) (0 W ►
Ka Q 111 J Q a CO 01 6) Q Q@ 6)@ 6) In tD Q@ 6) N N J (.1 01 'Q 6) t0 W @@ N 6) rr 9 C
01 Q 0-, 6)646) @6) 6) 6) 6) 6) 6) 6) 1n6)Q6)63 to 01 .01 -4646)6) Q (D .3 1 11
111 Q W 6) 6) 6) 6) 64 6) 6)@ 6) @ m m Q @ @@ Q @ W @ 63 1 63 @ Q v+ @ @@ @ a m C) "
0 sz;
y v) in 1 in y Z C.
a 01 N.> to r r c ' ` c_ In r 'C '3 P
n
In 9 N m r NN (' t.1 r N @CO W 6)-- In a -.1 01 J r0 ,'a ■ -
CO 6) C1 @ rO01 LnNNa 01(•(1NNr0NJN J 01 N 1 W 6) NJa 1401 W @ LO 't) n ►
r. Q C\ 6) 6) Co 01 6) 6) N co Q J @ 6) a 01 1.1 %D 6) a 01 6) 1 @ N@ 6)r l.1 @ '.0 0 N C
J Q In W N Cr, JLC) 6) 61 6) @ M@@CD at. 6) @ t0 a 6) 1 6)6)6)%06) l✓ @ ID < C
01 Q tD 11 N6)a 6) 6) t0Q @6)6)6)64 In 6) Q 6) V111 6D 1 6161@ In64 es) 6) @ 0. 1.4
Q Q to v163 @Q63 6)6)6)63 6)6) 6)6)6)(.11 to co Q 6) l9 @ @ @64@64@ @ y
1N
m
y y y '• y in b N
I.' r co to r n
J rn N 0
N Q C1 01 .' N N In W r r r 01 r N W N 01 a J .4 01 J r U.
6) 6) N r r tO CO CO CO N N 01 J In N@ r N CO CD J 1Jrie.N 1 1.1 IJ N CO 1 6)0• W 6) 10 (D
N 6) 6) CO In W 6) a W W 10 6) J W 6)6)016) J 6) as VD X,@ 1 6) 6) CO CD 1 6)r • @ to
,1 1 • • • • 1 . . 1.4 • N rr
a Q -.I J JQ@ 0 6) W J.01 0 6) 6)6)106)1..1@ . 1 6) a 6) 1 6) 6) a 6) 1 6)@ 1.4 6) (0
CD 6) N 6) 011.n W 6) @ N J@ ln @6)01 N a @ 6) N 6) 1 @ N6)6) 1 6) 6) @ 0.
6) 6) 6) 6) 6)6) 6)6) @6)6)6) 6)6)6) 6)6) @6)6)V•.6) C '6) 6)6)6)6) 6) 6) @
V
y LI y N y . 0
OD C1 r 01 r J a r n
0
1-1 6) W 6) r N N 01 W r N r 01 W N W a 01 a J CO 01 a No L.J.
CO 6) CO - -4N)1/40 %DLO rN WOO � toQ@rW @J J 0 I N 1 WCO WC0 1 a. ON W @ 'O (D
N 6) 6) @ rJ CO J a r N CO 01 0 01 J N 01 N a ( 1 6) 1 @ N016) 1 6)N @ VD n
. .
( . 1 1 . 41 W rr
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . ■ . . . .. . . . . .
J 6) N J Ln J 6)J LO J Ln 6) N r 6) 6) LC 6)@ 6) @ 6) 1 6) 1@ 6)% 0 6) 1 6)@ W 6) O
01 0 CO N 0 6) a6) CON01N @CO6)@C)N -@ @ @ 1 @ 1 6)NCO@ 1 @6) @ 0.
6) 6) 6) 1166:16)190 @ 6)@@ 6)6:1006)06)0 6) 6) 6) 061061 6) 6) 6)
in y L) in <1) '0
m 0'. 01 r r N N n
0
0 6) In a rrW W 01 a r NJ Ka J aW W CO JaJ CO (.O 6) ru.
✓ 6) C1 N NCCr Ln ha W 6) VD0 W a 6) 01 1 N 1 W tnaCO 1 a '.0 W 6) 10 ID
VD 6) W 111 J N m W V101 W a VD VD @ N 1D @ 01 CO @ N 1 6) 1 6) 6)1n @ 1 6)J . 10
1. 1 1 W 6) .1). rr
-4 6) @ VD ON LP J0'. @Nat0 1311n6)We La 6) (.O 1 @ 1 6)NJ6) 1 61 6) W 6) (D
JP. 6) N a W VD Ln CD LA Ln CtnC01 Q N 1 6) 1 IO N@@ 1 CD 6Z 6) 0,
6) 6) 6) 6) @ 6) 6) 6) 6) @ 6) 6) 6) 6) 6) 6) 6) 6) 6) 6) 6) 0 6) 0000 O@
•
)\
DISCUSSION OUTLINE
FOR
FEBRuMy 12 19 91 ,
I. What should be the County role in influencing and mans in
the Solid Waste Management System in Dakota County? g g
II. Which functions of the System should the County fund?
III. At what levels should the County fund certain functions of
the Solid Waste Management System? Which should be reduced,
which should be increased, and which should be maintained at
existing levels?
IV. Which revenue sources should the County consider using to
maintain its commitment?
V. How should future program requirements or changes, i.e.
recycling of additional materials, be handled? What should
the funding policy be?
VI. What is a realistic timeline for implementation?
41 •
1 M E M O R A N D U M
FINANCIAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Dakota County Administration Center
1590 West 'My S5
Hastings, Minnesota 55033
Telephone: (412) 435 -4555
DATE: January 31, 1991
TO: Members of the Sub - Committee on Long -Term Funding
PROM: Richard P. Johnson, Financial Services Director1 y
SUBJECT: Key Issues and Ideas From Past Discussions
KAL ets ( ill Frank_l i_fl The supply
1. Markets for recycling materials will improve.
and demand factors will grow closer together. However, the
system probably will not reach the point where revenues will
meet costs.
3_egional Perspective (Metropolitan Council. Office of Waste
an -•em t - -i -t' - _ = -
1.
flexible in that developed
have to suppora constantly
evolving solid waste system.
2. Continued on goals -
35% in
3. Government should serve as a role model;
Costs of service should be obvious and visible;
Incentives for changes in habits should be put into place;
and Co unties g ist provide a base level of service.
Lard Waste Compgstina
1. Concern was raised as to whether private sites would be
accommodating to the private citizens of the County since
they are more geared to handle commercial haulers.
• 2. In terms of a regulatory rolta was
to discussion
was proper
the County setting minimum standards as
compost. There was concern that there needed to be a
definition of the product and the quality so that people
would know what they are receiving.
FEB 05 '91 13 23 DAKOTA COUNTY ADMINISTRATION P.3
3. it was a concensue of the committee following discussion
that the County needed to do the following things:
a. The County needed to continue to improve its
educational program.
b. The County should continue to reduce its subsidy and to
remove itself from operating a portion of the yard
waste program to one of aversite and regulation.
c. Provision of satellite sites needs to be evaluated more
fully. The County should look at reducing subsidy but
ensuring the prices are kept reasonable. Also, the
County needs to evaluate what would be the true cost to
residents if satellites where not subsidized, and will
the private sector provide collection at the satellite
sites.
S uo ce Separatio an R-trycl nv
1. Do haulers need to be subsidized for both collection and /
marketing of materials? I . _ _ a. - ✓
2. Who does the Recycling Center primarily serve?
3. Can volume based fees provide enough of a differential to V
provide an incentive to home owners to participate in
recycling? W #v les
4. Should the pricing structure be used to encourage the use of
one option of disposal over another?
5. Will higher prices encourage illegal dumping which will •
require more enforcement? 44 ' b -� " ` `�
6. Will it be necessary to have mandatory recycling in order to v /
obtain broader artici ation and higher participation rates?
e,oM.. Ip•441% 'w k ""i� Ira C 1044, E-' a 'o .
7. There is a need to educate the public a* to the t e cost of
L solid waste management. However, if the customers had to
7431 pay the total cost through the haulers, what ould be the
Oi • 1 impact on participation? u) uac.� ould #?
In terms of administrative costs, should cities be ✓
considering a consolidation of the r !forts?
ma
• ,,,a,au the !
c' `r3 f . " (fib Ma o
Designatio $vwe LP ' y ,
1. There is c n ern -out t e inequality of those who receive
subsidies versus those payin abatement fess at the
landfills. L e , ,, , q,,,, . 144•44 1 • 1 ean.ww.
2. A representative of the County Attorney's Office was of the
opinion that the County could not designate before a
facility was available.
3. The Assistant County Attorney was asked the question as to
• • whether it would be possible to relate the amount of subsidy
that haulers receive to whether or not those haulers are
paying abatement fees through Dakota County landfills. She
did not feel those issues could be connected.
Public Education
1. There will need to be more promotion in order to reach the
35% goal for recycling and eventually the 50% goal.
2. Education should be more targeted.
Soecial Waste and Household Hazardous Waste
1. Special wastes and household hazardous waste are incredibly
expensive to handle. 0
�v CC �. t
2. Hazardous waste generally has no value so there : is not � :
offset from resale to the amount of money that is being ye
spent by the County.
Solid Waste Reuulation and Remedial AcIior
1. Remedial Action /Investigation is the primary function for
which the solid waste surcharge was originally intended. i/
Again, it is an area which os not pay for
pesource R itself.
y ecovery Facility
410 1.. there is potential for use of the tip fee at the facility to
��finance some solid waste activities. Will this further
- dilute the process by which the public is charged for solid
, waste which increases the confusion as to what it really
% costs.
■ 2.. Should the solid waste.-sarvic.-fee be used more'aggressively
since it is an easy means to collect revenues and it also
spreads some of those costs which are not directly related
to volume generation?
01M -o6rj
,
. .
recycling goals:
i
W HAT DO THOSE
NUMB ERS MEAN
Consistency is the key:
Without it, recycling may end up with a bad rap.
t k t ,: -
s recycling plays a bigger role in solid waste of a recydlteg program's succe'_To say that,, re ling
management throughout the country, the�Pfanning program diverts or recycles, for mpte, 18%of thewaste
and evaluation of re ycl ,. progra stream seemi, like a valid and u. 1 ` ement. However,
more impbt ant. Yer?he ,�, ntttati'e mea due to the lac of standardization lacing this rate, it
used for evaluating recycling pogr si s are`oler1mislead- is rarely a ul number. Red ` ng Fate is at.,,fraction:
ing, misunderstood, pr,inapptopri ly applied' Conse- Qu�ttttity of waste recycled in thepunpator,
quently, recycling programs ara` • 41 e;pI p4dpn, uantity of waste „ ated in thdrlenom na-
the basis of misleading data ► ■ r )con s a-'
RC a� ot. In most cases `; e is know,, a ' ei r
defensible analytical tools are devilo;eed for�ev - ,:,the numerator of denominato :Without •
v. ing recycling, future red cling programs are 1ik yt;z , aux •, : 'that knowledgq' t.is difficult to u rstsnd
to be improperly planne4 and implemented. ` the meaning of recycling rate..* I
The three most common pa auttet used r • - -- ,,,_ ,,
evaluating recycling pro s aiek , i -� - What's included in the x
• Recycling or diver rat 1� '', numerator
a • Participation rate; aae} A }� ' The numeratot is ua
,•qntity of waste
•
•Costs, in dollars petfton. a , -tz ' recycled. But what is included in that quan
Eawh�of these parameters` is used' to describe tity'? For instajacer'd&s it include;,
existing programs,. to . cdmpare performance of e - "''' ' ',y w ,aste compost? °
programs; kttd topredi jt pefformance of future ,cam • • Commercial waste recycling
programs. ' that occurs. outside an organized
r 4 . recycling program?
Recycling rate a, , • Recy g of scrap from
; On the face of ite recycling rate t ., , manufactutg facilitipa4
appears to be a iftaightfo and measure �! ''. • Salvage and resale of"``t
• #. clothing or a fiances? j i i t
g of white goods?
, ,
BY NI ATTH4W OL A • s
4 , , , , , , , , .. • Racy ing of automobile „..0
Goldman is jth Royarlir } ton, ! . . . scrap? (` sue''
in Burlington as s. , .• , . � ` .. ! Each o hese could be legiti-
mately ded in thetivantity of
$ ± thgin-
- w ;� j • i' waste recycled. However,
1E e; • ,. . elusion or exclusion of one could
act • �:�. • ,t • , '�.
'If - 4 Nib ■„; , ' 4?
ill r...
A:
i
i
i1
I
I Numbers Contd
substantially alter the recycling rate calculated. It is very ognize that each time a piece of data is cited in a report, that
important that a description of what activities are included report may be used as a source of information to someone
in the recycling rate be quoted along with the rate. else, who will not go back to the primary data source. Thus,
• In addition. a distinction should be made between it is common for data to be quoted third- or fourth -hand.
material collected and material recycled. That is, ma- Unless each person in this data chain takes the responsibil-
terial that ends up as process residue and is not recycled ity to include relevant information, the data will lose its
i should not be included in recycling rate calculations. effectiveness.
Ideally, a standard methodology will be adopted by. the In summary, the following information should be in-
entire solid waste management profession, but until that cluded along with a statement of recycling rate:
time, a recycling rate should give a description of what • The types of recycling activities included and ex-
types of recycling activities are included and excluded. cluded;
• The materials included; .
Understanding the denontfnatof • The waste types or sectors used as the basis of
1 The denominator of the fraction is just as important, calculation; and
and usually just as mysterious, as the numerator. The • Any information necessary to clarify unusual cir-
1 denominator supposedly represents the quantity of waste cumstances or definitions of waste types.
generated. However, there are many subdivisions within
l solid waste— residential, commercial, industrial, institu- Participates rate
tional, medical, sluff., and construction itild demolition There is no standard methodology for calculating par -
j debris. Any combinati of these sectora ciatild be included ticipation rate, and as a result, participation rates cannot be
in the denominator.
a . compared between programs.
Furthermore, som recycling rates arealctllated for The participation rate is an oft - quoted number used to
I i the service area only, pot the entire ltov qr city. For characterize the success of recycling programs, yet by itself
example, a particular neighborhood receivini curbside col- it is virtually a meaningless number except that it is useful
lection may be recycling 50% of its waste but the city as a in overcoming the perception that people don't want to
! whole recycles only 13%Without disctOsing which ctors recycle. Participation rates are designed to measure the
1 are included in a recyclinigitate calculatt is irlp sible fraction of the population participating in residential recy-
i to compare recycling rates between: *grams, or ' in- cling. The concept, presumably, is that the greater the
i derstand the success of a.'rrecycling' program. Recycling fraction of the population that participates, the more suc-
3 rates are often quoted as, for example, "18% of the waste cessful the recycling program. However, there is no clear
stream is recycled." The most obvious"gUestion is: 18% of relationship between the percentage of the population recy-
11 what? cling and the quantity of material recycled.
It is perfectly legitimate to measure the recycling rate To define the participation rate; first there needs to be
I in this fashion, but unless it is clearly stated that the rate is a definition of a participant. Is the participant the
c alculated on residential waste only, it is easy to misunder- person or the householdthat sets Out recyclables once
stand the recycling rate as meaning 189 of the entire solid a month? Should thin type of participant be counted
i waste stream. This is a gross misunderstanding in most the same way as a household that participates weekly?
cases. askes+detaial waste represents approximately half of Depending on the length of the period cuing which partici-
the solid waste in y communities. _ pation rate is n}easured, certain may not be
Even if .the stream sectors�n calculation of counted at all. t
t
reciCling rate cifil i
d, it still ma be clear exactly In addition to varying nfrequency, participation can
what types of w are included. Th�s'i cause defini- vary in terms of the number of materials separated for
tions of waste sectors are not stands ed. For instance, recycling. Thus, one household can set out only one mate -
"municipal solid waste" means only residential waste in rial while another household can set out all materials
i some communities while in others it is all waste — commer- included in the recycling program, and both households
I cial and industrial, too — collected by a municipality. would be considered "participants." It is clear that one
Thus. it is important not only to include sector infor- household is contributing more than the other, but this
mation in the original calculation of recycling rate, but effect is lost in the calculation of the participation rate.
1 that each time this rate is quoted the information be in- These subtleties of household behavior are missed in cal-
k eluded. Solid waste management professionals must rec- culating participation rate. Yet these subtleties are imps
a .
1 ' ft�RWRV 1991
„war . p.r.".......mummirmuummiumpluirimie
54 WASTE AGE
. Numbers Contd.
tant in determining the degree of success of a recycling times incorrect information.Table 1 presents an example of
program. a typical calculation of recycling costs in dollars per ton.
Success should be measured in terms of the "capture Some calculations include a more detailed breakdown of
rate." This rate depends on the number of participants, the costs than shown here, but the concept is the same. The
frequency of participation, the efficiency of participants in material revenues are calculated based on a mix of materials
separating out recyclables, and the amount of recyclables in and prices, either real or projected, and expressed in terms ,
that trash. The concept is to calculate not just the quantity of the average dollars per ton of revenue for each ton of
of material recycled, but how much of the was, Cream the mixed recyclables. The material revenues are subtracted
recyclables represent. �"` t _ from the costs to yield a net cost per ton of material
To calculate the capture fate, more data is'fequire_ d, by- recycled.
studying a group of hossals6114s,over a month or longei: The next step in this calculation is the one that is most
data needs to be collected on a household -by- household misleading and, in some applications, inaccurate. This is
basis to determine the relationship between frequency of the subtraction of avoided costs from recycling costs. The
participation and quantity of recyclables. In addition to idea is that for pa ton o recycled ere is melon •
• ,I -
observing participation patterns of each household, the _ less that has'to be disposed, anl't,'theref¢ the costs
other data that should be collected are: disposing that,tonare al abided In the calculation shown in
The number of materials set out; Table 1, it is assumed tbhtdisposatcosts it landfill are $35
The quantity of each material set out; per ton, and ttiis fee i Aubtracted'frpm the total recycling `
• The quantity of garbage set out and costs. So, if recycling d disposah bit $0 per ton, is
• The quantity of recyclables remaining in the trash. it correct to say that r ycling costs nothing b ecause of the
The last piece of data is more difficult to obtain because avoided costs, f dis
it requires sorting the garbage from the households in the The answ str do Chi question Obviously no In the case.
study to remove the recyclables for weighing. Because of where recycling and d posal cos are the same, all that can
' the labor requirements, and therefore expense, it is likely be said is that recycli doesn' cost anything extra. For
that some subset of the total population in the recycling every ton of recycled, t ycled, the money that would have
program would be studied. been spent On disposal is being spent on recycling.'This is
1' A program with this intent was developed for the city very different than a calculated "real" cost of zero, which
of Milwaukee, targeting certain neighborhoods. Even though would result from the traditional use of avoided cost.
( data may not be collected from all households, it will be
3' much more useful than a simple calculation of the partici- The dangers of `avoided cost' data
pation rate. The real danger in the use of avoided costs and dollars
Demographic data can also he collected in combina- per ton calculations is when these dollars per ton costs are
t. tion with the study of recycling behavior. This can help in used to develop a cost estimate for a solid waste manage- ,
I
understanding relationships between household size and ment system. Table 2 presents a very simple example of
recycling capture rate. how the use of the dollars per ton cost calculated in Table 1
can lead to incorrect system costs.
Recycling Costs In Table 2, it is assumed that 100,000 tpy requires
1 Municipal of ials ob need to understand the management in this hypothetical solid waste management
expecdil costs o • recyyligg program so that they can system. The only two management methods are recycling
appropriately bud et unds. ycling program costs can and landfilling. The landfill tipping fee is $35 /ton, as
be quite cbtrtplex, in the/often involve using a combi- assumed in Table 1.1f 25% of the waste stream is recycled,
nation of e*isting w equipment, educational efforts, this means that 25,000 tpy is recycled, and 75,000 tpy is
and several funding souks. Yet if one examines available landfilled. Using the cost of recycling as calculated in Table
literature, the'Cost is freq quoted in terms of dollars 1, and applying it to 25,000 tpy results in an annual cost of
s ,f0111,
per ton. There arc several good reasons td use this type $ 625, 000. The 75,000 tpy that is landfilled costs $2,625,000
of calculation: It is easily understood; it is on the same annually. This results in a total annual cost of $3,250,000.
basis as charges for disposal facilities; and theoretically, it However, this is incorrect.
1 allows comparison of costs between programs. To correctly calculate the total system costs, the recy-
However, costs m dollars per ton are usually so over- cling costs without the subtraction of avoided costs have to
simplified that they often provide misleading and some - be used. Using this cost for recycling, which is $60 per ton, •
i
1
56 WASTE AGE FEBRUARY 1991
` f
r r %;;',,.r."._-....,,,',:`...- i
' „ j y ,' � y-st y p l y _ q � ' T . -20- x _ v I. . „�, t�
�� c ^a � Ems . . -: { . � 4 . A ' Y { f k .. R S . �
4 '* 1 7.61 , • R � . :.t { F i.
*.1 x.. ` 7 .. x t i - Tvcical Recycling Cost Calculation , ,
,� ': t� ti Rt rc F
_' ti- ri. -4 P#r fi;� . - D Per Ton
rt_ � - ' t �, h4.:_;;;:., ' Collection $ 4 -
- . ' t , ,'� �"°" -- Proces
15 i
Material Revenues
25
_ - Total Cost 50
== ,L Avoided Cost of Landfilling ,
«. :.....7. ` Net Cost $25 *
• y �'---'— .a • 1
1 — . 4 4 _�
i ,,
L -
* r" .-�
I rr
System Cost Calculations ° "r-
Assomptions:100,0001py Generated i
�' : 75 000 tpy
Landfilled -�' '
` 25,000 tpy Recycled I _
tin F ,;
l.-- - w.• - /
lE Using `Net Cost of Rotrye g
25,000 tpy x $25 /Ton = $625,000 `� -
75,000 tpy x $35/Ton = :2,625,000 L --
T otal Annual Cost - $3,250,000
Using Real Cost of RaayCIIng results in a total annual the st)lid waste management system should be calculated
without recycling, and then with recycling, incorporating
25,000 tpy x $60/Ton = " $1,500,000 $4,125,000 for
cost of 54
75000 tpy x $35/Ton = - $2,625,000 this hypothetical sys- any and all effects recycling may have on other costs. These
Total Annual Cost ' $4,125,000 tem. This difference of two annual costs can then be compared to determine the true
$875,000 between the incremental costs or savings associated with recycling.
rovides a
M two system costs is that when calculating the recycling cost Even much more accurate picture assembling sy, this approach
costs
with avoided landfill costs, the avoided costs are counted m
twice. The avoided costs are taken into account when the using dollars per ton costs for each component.
amountLof material requiring landfilling is reduced from
i 100,000 tpy to 75,000 tpy. Thus, the avoided cost calculated CpfCbtsion
I m th o11ars per ton recycling cost shown in Table 1 is The purpose of this article is not simply to point out the
superfluous. This relatively simple error can result in sub - deficiencies ut also suggest e d rnas�ve s methodolog methodologies
syste Dollar - per -ton Costs are to be avoided altogether be-
al miscalculations in annual solid waste management eta more accurate. However, the primary point is that
• system cor- the solid waste management industry as a whole must adopt
cause there are other problems with this type of calculation. a more rigorous attitude toward the calculation of these
The problems with dollars per ton costs have to do with the types of factors and rates. If recycling is to grow, we need
the oversimplification of a complex system of costs. To accurate and defensible analytical tools. In a few years,
t assume fixed costs for each component independent of the when the discrepancies between reality and some of the
-
calculations currently used in planning recycling programs
other components is inaccurate• recycling will feel a backlash of negative
Instead, system costs should be calculated on a total bl T avoid this backlash, we must get our analytical
annual budget basis. Thus, to calculate the true costs of publicity.
implementing a recycling program, the total annual costs of act together now.
1
4
DATE: JANUARY 25, 1989
TO: CARL MICHAUD, HENNEPIN COUNTY RECYCLING COORDINATOR
FROM: PARTICIPATION RATE SUB - COMMITTEE
Dean Elstad, Chr. Minnetonka
Steve Beseke, Minneapolis
Tom Bublitz, HRG
Jean Buckley, Bloomington
Janet Chandler, Edina
Paul Kroening, Hennepin Co.
Bob Larson, St. Louis Park
Marjorie Vigoren, West Hennepin
SUBJECT: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
INTRODUCTION
The following questions were asked of the Recycling Coordinator
Work Group in an attempt to determine an acceptable way to
measure participation rates:
1. Over what period of time will the number of households
source separating be measured?
2. If a household places only one material at the curb or
only a portion of all the recyclable material in their
waste, should they be counted as participating?
3. Can participation rates be calculated by hand or does
it require the purchase of computerized recording
devices?
The sub - committee has addressed these and other.questions in the
report that follows.
This committee also developed a survey form which is included at
the end of the report. The purpose of the survey is to gather
information of interest to managers of recycling programs. It is
not necessarily intended that the County should use it or require
it to be used. A copy is enclosed for your information.
•
•
2
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
RECYCLING PARTICIPATION AND TONNAGE
1. PARTICIPATION RATE
* Average Participation Rate. obtained by averaging the set -out
rates from each collection cycle (weekly, bi- weekly or monthly)
over a month's time.
* Total Participation Rate. the percent of households parti-
cipating at least once a month.
Using data from the St. Louis Park program, Total Participation
may be estimated by multiplying the Average Participation Rate
by 1.3 for cities with weekly collection.
RECOMMENDATION:
* Cities should report both Average and Total Participation Rates
on a monthly basis, and indicate how estimated rates are
computed.
2. MATERIALS
* Household size and buying habits vary a great deal.
* A minimum qualifying amount or assortment of materials might
penalize those who buy with waste reduction in mind.
RECOMMENDATION:
* Any amount or combination of recyclables counts as recycling.
3. METHODS OF COUNTING
* The methods currently in use are: computerized bar -code
systems, driver check list or "clicker" count, spot check
neighborhood observation and resident pledge statements.
* The methods above are listed in order from most to least
accurate, with pledge statements being of questionable value.
* The frequency of counting varies from city to city depending
on contract requirements: Current examples are: daily, weekly,
and once every three months.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
* Cities should strive for as accurate a system as possible
within their programs and, when reporting, describe the
method used.
* Resident pledge statements should not be accepted as reliable
data for computing participation rates.
CITY OF MINNETONKA TEL: 612 - 939 -8244 Mar 12,91 8:45 No.002 P.02
3
4 CAMFUTERI SYSTEMS
* Computerized bar code systems are the most accurate systems now
available, although not fool- proof.
* Computerized systems can provide the data necessary to enforce
mandatory or incentive programs.
* Promotional materials can be targeted to non - participants using
the data from these. systems.
RECOMMENDATION:
* Computerized systems need not be required, but may be essential
to enforce certain mandatory or incentive programs.
S. WASTE ABATECELEEEQUIN2
Tonnage and waste abatement information help complete the picture
of a city's recycling program.
* Drop -off center and apartment recycling tonnages may not
otherwise be shown in participation data.
* Waste abatement rates are calculated by dividing the recycling
tonnage by the total residential waste tonnage.
* A monthly waste abatement rate can be calculated by dividing
the monthly recycling tonnage by the monthly residential
waste tonnage (1/12 of the annual amount.) Although this does
not take seasonal variations into account, it is, nevertheless,
useful information.
* The waste generation tables included in the Hennepin County
Master Plan should be used to calculate waste abatement rates,
since this is the best information now available.
RECOMMENDATION:
* Waste abatement percentages should be included in participation
reports, using the Waste generation tables included in the
Hennepin County Master Plan.
6. •TL -CI *5 APSI;OT" REST
RECOMMENDATION:
* It would be valuable to have all cities report participation
rates for a one -month period, twice a year. The suggested
target times are May and October. usually months of high
participation. January or February could also be targeted, to
compare seasonal variations.
F. O' — 44' to IN AT • . _1!0 o -
Recycling participation and tonnage are affected by the type
4
of recycling services offered as well as the type of house-
holds being served; for example:
* Collection schedule (weekly, monthly, same day as garbage ?)
* Incentives: promotion efforts, prizes, lower garbage rate
* Mandatory recycling ordinance and penalties
* Seasonal variations, weather and vacations
* Materials collected & preparation required (easy or difficult)
* Containers; size and number provided (or not provided)
* Size of.households, and consumer buying habits
* History of recycling in the community
Also, it should be noted that:
* Recycling Center materials may count for tonnage, but
participants are not usually counted.
* Apartment dwellers' participation may not be counted, if
recyclables are picked up from dumpsters.
RECOMMENDATION:
* When publishing recycling program comparisons, include as much
data as possible. This information may help cities looking for
mays to improve their programs.
•
1
5
SAMPLE REPORT (ONE MONTH PERIOD)
City Average Total Waste Persons Collect. Container Incentive
Particip. Particip. Abate. per h/h Freq.
Bloom'ton 94% est.* 94% 17.7% 2.45 weekly yes (1) Mandatory
Jun89
Edina 48.6% 63.2 est. 16.1% 2.18 weekly yes (1) Mandatory
Aug 89
Hopkins 20% 26% est 12.5% 2.02 weekly no none
Apr 89
St.Louis 59% 77% 16.4% 2.6 weekly yes (2 -3) lower
Pk,Jul 89 garbage rate
*Based on monthly report of one hauler (of 7 haulers)
SAMPLE COMPUTATIONS
BLOOMINGTON, June 1989
1.606 participants
1,635 total accounts — 94%, reported by one hauler, no other reports for June.
580 tons recycled
3,280 tons residential waste — 17.6% waste abatement rate for June
EDINA, August 1989
29.847 actual pickups in August
61,457 possible stops in August — 48.6%, Average Participation Rate for August
48.6 X 1.3 — 63.2%, estimated Total Participation Rate, based on data obtained
from St. Louis Park Program.
270 tons recycled
1,676 tons residential waste — 16% waste abatement rate for August
HOPKINS, April 1989
number of actual stows
number of possible stops — weekly participation
Weekly rates averaged to obtain monthly Average Participation Rate, 20%
20 X 1.3 — 26%, estimated Total Participation Rate
67.66 tons recycled
542.67 tons residential waste — 12.5% waste abatement rate for April
ST. LOUIS PARK, July 1989
actual pickups
possible stops — 59%
Participating at least once during the month by computer records, 77.8%
259 tons recycled
1571 tons residential waste — 16.4% waste abatement rate for July
February, 1991
COMMISSIONER PHONE LIST
Advisory Planning Commission Work Home
Donald Hoeft 291 -1384 452 -8175
Ron Voracek 481 -2800 452 -1180
Gary Graves 456 -6241 452 -8089
Joyce Staeheli 454 -9400
Scott Merkley 496 -8346 452 -3460
Mark Miller 454 -0224 452 -6972
Lori Trygg 831 -7330 454 -7399
John Gorman (Alt.) 823 -9156 452 -7298
Dale Runkle, Staff 454 -8100
Jim Sturm, Staff 454 -8100
Advisory Parks & Recreation
John Griggs 892 -4383 688 -9456
Lee Markell 456 -0749
Michael Vogel 452 -6891
George Kubik 725 -3592 452 -3887
Theodore Billy 454 -6090
Jack Johnson 454 -7186 454 -6796
Shawn Hunter 456 -2547 452 -8074
Deborah Johnson (Alt.) 681 -9546
Kenneth Vraa, Staff 454 -8100
Airport Relations Committee
Greg Langan 452 -0877
Timothy Ring 688 -0608
George Martin 688 -6413
Becky Newell 688 -0951
Dustin Mirick, MASAC 557 -2190 452 -2574
Larry Alderks, MASAC At. 221 -7533 688 -9077
Robert Hafvenstein Pager: 648 -5729 890 -8604 452 -2020
Bruce Nauth (Alt.) 296 -8493 681 -9283
Randy Verble (Alt.) 343 -4704 452 -4944
Jon Hohenstein, Staff 454 -8100
Burnsville /Eagan Cable Commission
Pat O'Malley 292 -6360 452 -6356
Susan Shaffer 688 -2623 452 -6026
Nick Choban 330 -7044 452 -3886
Roger Franke (Burnsville) 890 -9102
Doug Dahl 687 -1450 454 -8127
Michael Guncheon (Alt.) 347 -1709 688 -6308
W. Michael Reardon, Staff 454 -8100
Jon Hohenstein, Staff 454 -8100
Bill Wells, Staff 0 895 -4466
Paul Wood (Burnsville) 890 -5969
Jerry Hanson (Burnsville) 296 -0728 432 -4787
Jerry Sterns (Burnsville) 894 -6462
Kevin Shea (Burnsville Alternate) 831 -4459 890 -8055
Economic Development Commission Work Home
Roger Hughes 297 -4660 688 -0015
Christy Clapp 332 -7883
Eldon Johnson 463 -6255 454 -7465
Larry Wenzel 452 -1565 454 -4614
Patrick Grinde 452 -8216 452 -8216
Kirk Duholm 454 -3300 452 -6856
Thomas Korsman 229 -6426 688 -7103
Cynthia Luse - McKeen 454 -6139
Debra McMartin 296 -1902 x123 683 -0349
Cathy Matuszak 341 -7266 683 -9915
Daniel Aberg (Ex- Officio) 452 -9872 426 -4449
Thomas Hedges, Staff 454 -8100
Jon Hohenstein, Staff 454 -8100
Dale Runkle, Staff 454 -8100
Solid Waste Abatement Commission
Earl Milbridge 456 -8047 777 -1732
Larry Knutson 423 -2294 423 -3553
Kevin Tritz /Craig Seim 941 -8394
Darlene Bahr 456 -8617 454 -4036
Dennis Seiz 454 -5274 452 -2038
Terry Jacobs 454 -5460
Terry Davis 452 -2635
Floyd Hiar 456 -0387 456 -0385
Ken Ische 623 -3448 454 -1940
Kris Hageman, Staff 454 -8100
Jon Hohenstein, Staff 454 -8100
Mike Trdan, County staff 890 -7030