HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/09/1991 - Solid Waste Abatement Commission AGENDA
SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION
EAGAN, MINNESOTA
EAGAN MUNICIPAL CENTER CONFERENCE ROOMS A & B
TUESDAY, APRIL 9, 1991
11:30 A.M.
I. ROLL CALL AND ADOPTION OF AGENDA
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
III. STAFF REPORT
A. Revised 1990 tonnage report
B. Environmental Survey
C. Earth Day /Community Clean Up Day Activities
D. Dakota County HHW Program
E Dakota County Long -Term Funding
IV. OLD BUSINESS
VI. NEW BUSINESS
A. SCOPE - Legislative action
B. Participation Rate Guidelines
VII. OTHER BUSINESS
A. Future Agenda Items
VIII. DISTRIBUTION
IX. NEXT MEETING
X. ADJOURNMENT
MEMO TO: CHAIR BEIZ AND ALL MEMBERS OF THE EAGAN SOLID WASTE
ABATEMENT COMMISSION
FROM: RECYCLING COORDINATOR HAGEMAN
DATE: APRIL 3, 1991
SUBJECT: EAGAN SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION MEETING OF
APRIL 9, 1991
A regular meeting of the Eagan Solid Waste Abatement Commission
will be held on Tuesday April 9, 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, April 8, 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 cppmmission
meeting of March 12, 1991 is enclosed on pages 6 to K . These
minutes, subject to any change require approval by the Commission.
III. STAFF REPORT
A. Revised 1990 tonnage report
I have received documentation from Dakota County regarding all
recycling activity from the City of Eagan. A tonnage breakdown is
indicated in the first quarter progress report dated March 28,on
pages 9' and M. Also in the distribution section, please find
copies of graphs relating to the 1990 residential recycling and
yard waste programs countywide.
B. Environmental Survey
Since the distribution of the March 28 progress report, a few
formatting changes have occurred in the survey. Due to the
survey's initial length, we will be distributing two surveys each
having approximately 30 questions rather than one survey with 43.
The survey is due to be in the mail April 9. You will find
additional information regarding the survey in the progress report
on page //, .
C. Earth Day /Community Clean Up Day
Organization for the community events began in February and most
details are finalized. To date, total of 50 residents have signed
up to participate in our Earth Day event on the April 21. Working
with our Parks Superintendent, Parks supervisor and Water Resources
Coordinator our parks and pond areas have been prioritized for the
Clean Up Day. This year the Parks Dept. will be in charge of
collecting all of the refuse and depositing the bags of trash and
any large items in the receptacle at the Maintenance Facility.
Response from the newsletter and newspaper ads have been slow for
this event.
Please see details of the events in the first quarter progress
report on page /0 .
D. Dakota County Household Hazardous Waste Program
At our last Dakota County staff meeting, local staff received a
short update on the County's HHW program to date. Public Health
staff is still working on the 2 one -day collections to be held this
year. The City of Inver Grove Heights may be the site for a
northern tier collection day, but a time has not yet been
determined.
Only 14 cars visited the permanent facility in February, the first
opportunity for residents to drop materials off at the site. The
estimated cost for the 14 cars (materials dropped) was $4,000. The
March collection day had 70 cars at the site and $210 were donated
toward collection costs. Of the $210, one hundred dollars was
donated by five residents, each giving $20. County staff estimate
an average of 200 cars will visit the site as more residents become
aware of the facility.
E. Dakota County Long -Term Funding
As directed by the Commission, staff drafted a position paper
regarding a request for continued support from Dakota County at all
levels for local recycling program operations. Information was
submitted to the City Council for review at its regular meeting of
April 2, 1991. The information was submitted at this date to
facilitate communication with Dakota County and the Long -Term
Funding Subcommittee before final recommendations are made to the
County Board.
The City Council approved the recommendation from staff and a
letter documenting this action will be forwarded to Dakota County.
The next meeting of the LTF Subcommittee is scheduled for April 15.
You will find a copy of the memo submitted to the Council on pages
and AZ.
IV. OLD BUSINESS
V. NEW BUSINESS
A. SCOPE - Legislative Action
Minnesota's Select Committee on Packaging and the Environment
(SCOPE) filed a final report in December 1990. In this Legislative
Session the report has been submitted as HouseFile 779 sponsored by
Representatives Munger, Wagenius, Baverly, R. Johnson and Weaver.
In recent months there has been little progress toward passage of
this bill. Currently, HF779 has not made it out of Representative
Hungers' Environment and Natural Resources Committee with concern
over support levels from around the state. Representative Munger
has recently suggested that the bill remain in his committee and be
reviewed at interim hearings over the next six month to guide the
bill through its process.
Enclosed on pages /3 and / you will find a summary of the key
elements and recommendations in the SCOPE report from the city's
prospecitive. Also enclosed on pages .L and 22ahou will find the
Briefing Sheet on SCOPE's recommendations.
While the timing of this issue is not as critical as originally
perceived just one week ago, recognition of the bill and /or support
by the City of Eagan may encourage further discussion and positive
action on these issues.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny
recommendation to the City Council to adopt a position of support
or qualified support for the SCOPE legislation HF779.
B. 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 computerised 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. Please find a copy of the report on pages nand
and
You may also want to refer to the March 12 packet for additional
information on this matter.
3
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.
VI. OTHER BUSINESS
A. Future Agenda 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.
VII. DISTRIBUTION
The following materials are enclosed in your packet.
1. On page a2 you will find the revised tonnage report submitted
by Dakota County.
2. On pages r3 to ;)? you will find copies of the graphs
submitted by Dakota County regarding community recycling and yard
waste tonnages.
3. On pages to li you will find a copy of the first quarter
progress report submitted to the Eagan City Council March 28, 1991.
4. On pages 1/ to j ;2 you will find a copy of the position paper
submitted to the Eagan City Council regarding continued support for
local recycling program activities at all level.
5. On pages 13 to / you will find a memo summarizing the SCOPE
initiatives.
6. On pages L to 1ou will find a copy of the Briefing Sheet
from the SCOPE final report.
7. On page. you will find a copy of a letter sent in support of
HF799 by various groups such as; District 14 Community Council in
St. Paiul, the Minnesota Project, Center for Energy and Urban
Environment and the Sierra Club.
8. On page 3/ you will find a copy of an article in BioCycle
magazine entitled "Packaging is Targeted for Waste Reduction ".
9. On pages /7 to you will find a copy of the Hennepin County
recycling coordinators report on participation rates and
measurements standards.
VIII. NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of the Eagan Solid Waste Abatement Commission will
be Tuesday, May 14, 1991.
I1. ADJOURNMENT
Subject to Approval
MINUTES OF THE
SOUD WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
March 12, 1991
Eagan, MN
A regular meeting of the Eagan Solid Waste Abatement Commission was held on Tuesday,
March 12, 1991 at 11:30 a.m. Present were Chair Dennis Selz, Earl Mi!bridge, Ken Ische, Terry Jacobs, Terry
Davis, Floyd Hier, Craig Seim and Darlene Bahr. Absent was Larry Knutson. Also present were Recycling
Coordinator Hageman and Assistant to the City Administrator Hohenstein.
AGENDA
Upon motion by Hier, seconded by Ische, all members voting in favor, the agenda was
approved as presented.
MINUTES
Upon motion by Bahr, seconded by Ische, all member voting in favor, the minutes of the
February 12, 1991 meeting were approved as presented.
EAGAN RECYCUNG PROGRAM SUDE SHOW
Hageman introduced the program and indicated that It had been prepared as part of a
computer design class to be used for school and community presentations. Following the slide
presentation, the commission provided positive feedback. Hageman indicated she would be adding photo
slides showing the program in operation in the spring.
UPDATED TONNAGE REPORT
Hageman stated that Dakota County is still doing final calculations of all recyclables
collected including drop -off programs in 1990. She stated that the City of Eagan's new total is 5,839 tons
recycled in 1990. Bahr asked how this related to the 1991 goal of 14%. Hageman stated that it was well
above that goal and that it was approximately 26 percent. Hageman stated that it would still be necessary
to add considerably to recycling programs in order to reach 35% recycling in 1993 or 50% recycling in the
year 2000. Davis asked if the Met Council were recommending an earlier deadline for 50% recycling. Seim
and Hageman indicated that level of recycling may have been moved up to 1995 in one of the Met Council
draft reports.
1991 COUNTY COMPOST PROGRAM
Hageman stated that the plans for the County compost program for 1991 had been
developed and that a number of minor changes were being undertaken. She stated that costs would be
the same for residents and commercial users this year, Increasing from $.15 - .25 per bag and $1.00 - 2.00
per cubic yard. She also stated that the sites would be closed on Wednesday and Thursday but would be
open Friday through Tuesday to provide better accessibility over the weekend. She also distributed a report
concerning the success of the County Christmas tree program.
g
ELECTION OF VICE CHAIR
Hohenstein provided a brief background on the responsibilities of the Vice Chair. Following
discussion, upon motion by Hiar, seconded by Milbridge, all members voting in favor, Darlene Bahr was
elected to serve as Vice Chair through the election of a replacement in 1992.
LONG TERM FUNDING
Hageman introduced the item and outlined the County meetings which have taken place
to date on this matter. In the area of community programs, she stated that capital funding is scheduled to
sunset in 1991 and any unused funds would be retumed by the cities to the counties. She stated that one -
half of the returned funds were earmarked to be available for a capital grants program for future city capital
needs. In the area of administrative funding she stated that there had been some discussion of combining
administrative and promotions funding but that County staff had been directed to leave promotions in the
operations budget and make administration support for salaries only.
Bahr asked when the County funding would end. Hageman stated that the County was
anticipating cutting capital funding and that they were questioning the level of administrative funding but that
operations funding was likely to remain. The commission then raised questions concerning the level of
funding the County was likely to have over time. Hohenstein suggested that the commission focus on the
elements of the local program that should continue to be supported by County funding rather than focus
on the sources of the funds.
Bahr stated that she wants to see funding continue to support operations, administration
and promotions and does not wish to see the County's solid waste to be added to the property tax
statement. Hiar stated that he has opposed additional money for local administration in the past because
duplication exists between city programs. Ische asked if it makes sense to develop local funding sources.
Hohenstein stated that it may or may not make sense but probably makes sense to utilize county funds
designated to that purpose first in Tight of the local government budget crisis. Jacobs in clarifying the issue
asked if the City needs to maintain a program and should it use county funds to do so. Hohenstein stated
that that made sense as a first source of funds due to the solid waste purpose of that funding. He stated
that other operations do not compete for those funds as they do for the general fund budget.
Hiar stated that he disagrees with how the county has planned Its revenues to date and
questioned whether sufficient funds would be available in 1994 to support all solid waste programs. Jacobs
stated that the City could not wait until all of those questions were answered and that the Commission needs
to identify which programs we want to seek and support in the short term. After further discussion, upon
motion by Hiar, seconded by Davis, all members voting in favor, it was recommended that the City take a
position supporting the continuation of funding for administration, operations and promotion on the basis
that it is premature to cut program support until the future shape of recycling in Dakota County is more
clearly defined and to maintain local accountability and responsibility for such programs and, further, that
the capital funds which are retumed to the County be designated as follows: one -half to be retained for
future capital grants to cities and one -half to be designated to specific solid waste abatement needs, as an
example, household hazardous waste.
Ische stated that it was important that the commission and City work to enhance efficiencies
on an ongoing basis to minimize the overall cost of waste disposal and recycling. Davis stated that the
motion is appropriate because of the need for the County to continue to support City programs because
the cities have been most responsive in dealing with the recycling issue. He further stated that such a
strategy would be most effective in the initial phases of the relatively new programs but that the cities and
counties should be looking for ways to improve the overall program in the future.
REMAINDER OF AGENDA
The remaining agenda hems were continued to the April 11, 1991 meeting by acclamation.
ADJOURNMENT
Upon motion by Ische, seconded by Hiar, all members voting in favor, the meeting was
adjoumed at 1:08 p.m.
Date Secretary
W
MEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERB
AND CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES
FROM: RECYCLING COORDINATOR HAGEMAN
DATE: MARCH 28, 1991
SUBJECT: FIRST QUARTER PROGRESS REPORT /EAGAN RECYCLING PROGRAM
The information provided in this update is a review of the past
three months of Recycling Program activity and projects currently
being organized for the spring.
A. Amended 1990 Tonnage Report.
The Recycling Program has received an amended tonnage report from
Dakota County which indicates materials collected at drop -off
centers throughout the county from Eagan residents and also
materials such as tires and appliances not accounted for in our
first year end totals.
Our final 1990 totals are as follows:
Newsprint: 1,946 tons
Glass: 557 tons
Tin and
Aluminum Cans: 233 tons
Plastics: 8 tons
Corrugated: 15 tons
Appliances: 179 tons
Tires: 89 tons
Auto Batt.: 217 tons
Yardwaste: 2,593 tons
Totals: 5,839 tons Curbside: 3,501 Drop -off: 2,338
1990 Goal: 2,693 tons
B. Municipal Center and Maintenance Facility Recycling Programs.
Reorganization of the Municipal Center recycling collection program
and institution of a recycling program at the Maintenance Facility
has been underway in March. The new system at the Maintenance
Facility will begin April 1, 1991 with separate collection of
recyclable materials which include; corrugated cardboard, white
office paper, plastic, newspaper and glass.
Our contracted Refuse /Recycling hauler, Knutson Services, Inc.,
will begin the new services at the Municipal Center in the early
part of April. Final details need to be arranged for all materials
to be collected.
C. Citywide Environmental Survey.
The City of Eagan Environmental Survey is scheduled to be mailed to
700 randomly selected residents during the week of April 8. I will
submit a copy in the April 16 Council Packet for your review.
This project has been a combined effort of staff members from the
Recycling Program, the Parks and Recreation Department and
Administration Department. We have received significant in kind
support from both the University of Minnesota Extension Service,
through a grant program currently working on projects similar to
ours, and the Dakota County Extension Service which has helped in
development and formatting.
The U of M Extension Service will be providing the City of Eagan
with extensive survey analysis and final reporting.
D. Community Event Coordination.
The 1991 Earth Day Celebration is scheduled for Sunday April 21 at
Thomas Lake Park. Beginning at noon, the participants may choose
from three distances to walk along our city park paths. Upon their
return, a grilled lunch will be served. A wide variety of
information booths will be set up with representation from the DNR,
Water and Soil Conservation, Dakota County Extension Service, MPCA
and more. Backyard composting demonstrations and a magic show are
also scheduled. The event is scheduled from noon to 4 p.m.
The 3rd Annual Community Clean Up Day is scheduled for Saturday
April 27 beginning at 9:30 a.m. at the Eagan Municipal Center.
Volunteers will be asked to clean around the lakes and ponds in our
parks and /or neighborhoods. Volunteers will be treated to a
grilled lunch at noon at Thomas Lake Park.
If you have any questions or comments regarding our program to
date, please let me know.
/ .41-7
Recycling Coo dinator
cc: Assistant to the City Administrator Hohenstein
1
MEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMFMBERS
AND CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES
FROM: RECYCLING COORDINATOR HAGEMAN
DATE: MARCH 29, 1991
SUBJECT: DAKOTA COUNTY LONG TERM FUNDING
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LOCAL RECYCLING
PROGRAM ACTIVITIES
At its regular meeting of April 12, 1991, the Solid Waste Abatement Commission recommended staff
prepare a position paper supporting the continuation of funding for administration, operations and
promotion of the Eagan Recycling Program. The recommendation came on the basis that it is
premature to cut local program support until the future shape of recycling in Dakota County is more
clearly defined and to maintain local accountability and responsibility for such programs. In addition,
the Commission also addressed the County capital fund allocation by recommending the following;
capital funds which are returned to the County be designated as follows: one -half to be retained for
future capital grants to cities and one -half to be designated to specific solid waste abatement needs. This
memo shall serve as the position paper in this regard.
Since the regular Commission meeting, a draft copy of the Long -Term Funding Subcommittee's final
report has been made available to city staff. In this draft, proposed funding for administrative support
will be combined with promotions at a level of $.90/household for 1992. For Eagan, this amounts to
$15,668.10. The level of promotions has been outlined as one printed piece mailed citywide. In 1990,
the City of Eagan spent $9,120 on printing, postage and other advertising costs, $.49/household. Our
1991 budget for all promotions is $31,000, $1.60/household. One average citywide mailing for the City
of Eagan using bulk rate mailing is $2,200.
In the past, County support has been $1/HH/Mo. or approximately $198,000 for all operations which
include rebate to haulers, advertising and promotions, container storage and other contractual
services. For 1990, rebates to haulers amounted to $85,000. The hauler rebates are estimated at
•
$130,000 for 1991. With $198,000 available for operation less haulers payments $130,000, the
remainder that has been available for promotion and other operations has been $68,000. The proposed
funding level is an 85% reduction in funds available for all promotions and operations.
The Long -Term Funding proposal is a dramatic reduction of monies available for local programs and
administration. The waste abatement goals of 35% by 1993 and 50% by the year 2000 will require a
high level of support from the local level in addition to County level activities. Recycling activities must
be maintained and enhanced and a significant push toward waste reduction is necessary if we plan to
meet our goals in the future. The City of Eagan surpassed its goal of 12% for 1990 and reached 26%
total abatement by building a strong program with community identity.
1/
It is apparent that a higher level than the proposed $15,000 must be allocated to maintain local
programs. The $15,000 is structured to incorporate both administrative and promotion expenses and
falls short of local program needs. Based on the above numbers, a more reasonable support level fron'
the County would be at the level of $2 -3/HH. A $3/HH level would permit administrative support at
approximately $1.40 and allow for the $1.60/HH budgeted for promotions and other operations.
Dakota County has available dedicated funds for support of county and local solid waste abatement
activities which are generated from a %6 sales tax on refuse collection services, SCORE funds and
others, the City of Eagan does not. Since the recycling programs inception in March of 1989, Eagan
has contributed to the program through the use of general fund dollars. As the City faces revenue
reductions, it will be increasingly difficult to support all local services, recycling being just one.
Therefore, it is reasonable to fund recycling activities from dedicated solid waste abatement funds
rather than compete for the City's general fund dollars.
ACTION REQUESTED OF THE COUNCIL: To adopt the SWAC recommendation to encourage
Dakota County to retain reasonable levels of funding for local administration, promotion and
operation of City recycling programs (at a level of approximately $2- 3/household/year) and further that
capital funds retained by the County be dedicated one -half to capital grants to cities and one -half to
specific solid waste abatement needs such as household hazardous waste.
• ecycling Coordi ator
/02
MEMO TO: CHAIR BEIZ AND ALL MEMBERS OF THE EAGAN
SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION
FROM: RECYCLING COORDINATOR HAGEMAN
DATE: APRIL 2, 1991
SUBJECT: SCOPE FINAL REPORT AND CURRENT LEGISLATION
After nearly a year of committee work, the Governor's Select
Committee on Packaging and the Environment produced a final report
in December 1990. This report, generated by consensus to a great
degree saw most of its controversy surrounding the issue regarding
pre - emption of local packaging ordinances.
The members adopted the cooperative plan on the assumption that if
the state follows through with the stated goals of the plan; i.e.
25% reduction of discarded packaging, per person, by 1994;
establishing an enforceable fee system for those manufactures not
meeting statewide recycling goals; system for toxics fee revenue to
pay for cleanup and handling and others local ordinances should
pre - empted from adoption. This options supports a statewide effort
as a first step toward meeting the stated goals.
The only controversial aspect in supporting the complete bill may
lie in the pre - emption issue. Our decision is made somewhat easier
in that the City of Eagan does not have a packaging ordinance on
the books. Credit is do to the local officials and environmental
planners for initiating and motivating action surrounding this
issue and these efforts should not be overlooked but support of
this bill will set in motion specific goals to be reached. If
these goals are not met, the option remains for local action to
take place. A regional approach may be the most practical method
for such large scale environmental changes to occur.
The SCOPE report suggested action to achieve the following goals:
1. Cut disposed packaging 25 percent by mid -1994
2. Reduce the flow of toxics from disposed products into the
environment; and
3. Generate significant funding for landfill cleanup, in both
Metro and Greater Minnesota.
To achieve these goals SCOPE outlined a number of recommendations,
what follows are key elements recommended for implementation;
o Overall goal for discarded packaging: SCOPE recommended setting
an overall goal of reducing discarded packaging, per person, by 25
percent before the end of 1994. This goal could be met by either
reducing packaging at the source, or recycling, or both.
/3
o Recycling targets by material: SCOPE suggests that the state
set enforceable recycling targets for each packaging material in
1991, maturing in 1994. Only materials that are significant in the
waste stream would be subject to the targets. After 1994, a
manufacturer who wanted to use a material not meeting its recycling
goal would have to pay a fee for the privilege. The fee would be
proportionate to that material's progress toward its individual
recycling goal.
o Toxics fee revenues: The fee's revenues would go to pay the
cleanup and handling costs that these materials impose. SCOPE's
presumption was that this would displace some money now going
toward toxic costs from county property taxes and the SCORE tax on
garbage collection; therefore, the toxic fee indirectly would
increase the-money available for recycling collection and other
SCOPE policies.
o Pre- emption of local ordinances: The committee recommended that
the Legislature pre -empt local packaging and labeling ordinances if
it also passed legislation containing the essential aforementioned
elements and others listed in the report.
Recycling Coordinator
/I?
BRIEFING SHEET: SELECT COMMITTEE ON PACKAGING AND THE ENVIRONMENT
Minnesota Office of Waste Management
February 13, 1991
GOALS
Minnesota's Select Committee on Packaging and the Environment (SCOPE) filed a final report in
December 1990. The report suggested action to achieve the following goals:
(1) cut disposed packaging 25 percent by mid -1994;
(2) reduce the flow of toxics from disposed products into the environment; and
(3) generate significant funding for landfill cleanup, In both Metro and Greater Minnesota.
IMPLEMENTATION
•
Recycling
o Overall goal for discarded packaging: SCOPE recommended setting an overall goal of reducing
discarded packaging, per person, by 25 percent before the end of 1994. This goal could be met by either
reducing packaging at the source, or recycling, or both.
•
o Recycling targets by material: SCOPE suggested that the state set enforceable recycling targets for
each packaging material in 1991, maturing in 1994. Only materials that are significant in the waste stream
would be subject to the targets. After 1994, a manufacturer who wanted to use a material not meeting its
recycling goal would have to pay a fee for the privilege. The fee would be proportionate to that material's
progress toward its individual recycling goal.
o Purpose of packaging fee: SCOPE said this "low- recovery" fee either will persuade companies to bring
recycling levels up to the target or will Induce them to shift into other materials. In later years, the fee could
grow substantially as to materials that never met their recycling goals. Throughout, the purpose of this fee is to
be persuasion, and not revenue - raising.
o Measurement: Meanwhile, the state would start setting up a credible measurement system for
monitoring packaging going into recycling and disposal. SCOPE suggested that these packaging estimates
should draw primarily on front -end manufacturing figures and state recycling reports, but may also include
waste composition studies.
o Countv recycling requirements: Under the SCOPE plan, the state would require counties to see that
recycling services are available for residents as to packaging materials that are significant in the residential
waste stream and that meet a local "economic benchmark" of recyclability. The meaning of the benchmark is
that counties would exempt themselves as to materials whose net recycling cost is greater than the local cost of
collecting and disposing the material as garbage.
o Consumer sector. SCOPE recommended harnessing consumer forces as soon as possible: by setting
up an award program to recognize real progress, by moving toward accurate environmental labeling, and by
directing counties toward weight- or volume -based trash pricing by a date certain.
o "Leave behind" option for unwanted packaging: The committee also suggested that the state in its
public education programs inform consumers of their right to remove unwanted packaging at the point of sale
and leave it with the retailer. SCOPE called this the leave behind" option.
(over)
o Packaging Advisory Council: Over the next three years a 'Packaging Advisory Council" would meet to
offer suggestions to state agencies on the new fee system, accurate environmental labeling and methods to
reduce packaging at the source.
Toxic Materials
o Registration fee on certain toxic chemicals: SCOPE recommended establishing a registration fee on
products containing hazardous substances that show up commonly in landfill drainage and incinerator ash.
o Toxic fee revenues: The fee's revenues would go to pay the cleanup and handling costs that these
materials impose. SCOPE's presumption was that this would displace some money now going toward toxic costs
from county property taxes and the SCORE tax on garbage collection; therefore, the toxic fee indirectly would
increase the money available for recycling collection and other SCOPE policies.
o Toxic metals in packaging: SCOPE endorsed model state legislation on removing toxic metals in
packaging, with allowance added for the instance where no substitute in "necessary" packaging is known to be
safer for the environment.
o Trash bags: SCOPE called for a ban on pigmented plastic trash bags, on the reasoning that the
pigments serve no useful purpose and the ban will make certain disposal bans -- e.g., against discarding waste
motor oil in garbage -- easier to enforce. But the ban would allow specialized bags required by law (such as red
bags for medical waste) and printing on bags (such as bags employed in metered -bag waste collection systems).
o Labeling of problem materials: SCOPE called for going ahead with state - directed shelf labeling that
will inform consumers about the environmental consequences of problem materials. This labeling requirement
already is authorized now, but the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency lacks funding to carry the requirement
out.
o Environmental burden fee: SCOPE recommended that the Legislature authorize a fee on packaging
materials that place a significant burden on the environment when disposed.
Other Matters
o Environmentally responsible disposal: SCOPE suggested that -- to the extent practicable -- counties
should separate and send non - recycled garbage to the least harmful disposal method (Le., food- packaging paper
to composting).
o Research: The committee recommended several ongoing research projects. It suggested that the
state undertake a health study on recycling workers, to pick up on any health concerns. It recommended four
economic studies, including methods to determine 'true disposal costs and ways to maximize recycling efficiency.
o Pre - emption of local ordinances: The committee recommended that the Legislature pre-empt local
packaging and labeling ordinances if it also passed legislation containing the above essential elements.
CONTACT: Jim Chiles
Minnesota Office of Waste Management
1350 Energy Lane
St. Paul, MN 55108
(612) 649.5770
Minnesota Toll Free: 1 (800) 652.9747
/46
•
•
Star Tribune
Established 1867 Roger Parkinson Publisher and President •
Joel R. Kramer Executive Editor
Tim J. McGuire. Managing Editor
Robert J. White Editorial Editor
14A . Monday /December 31/1990
•
Carving away Minnesota's trash heap
Every year, Minnesotans throw away a mountain state's recycling of plastics and other packaging.
of packaging — sending it off to landfills or And it urges removing all environmentally hazard-
incinerators. Whittling down that heap of unneces- ous packaging from the waste stream. Meeting
sary waste should be a statewide obsession. And it those goals will take money. which SCOPE says
will be, if state lawmakers heed the advice of Gov. should he raised through a system of fees. One
Perpich's Select Committee on Packaging and the such fee would fall on packaging that fails to meet
Environment (SCOPE). The group wisely urges the 1994 goals for waste reduction. Another fee
that, by 1994, Minnesota cut its annual disposal of would be levied on packaging and products that
packaging by 25 percent. contain hazardous chemicals. If the plan is adopt-
ed, SCOPE recommends renewing the state pre -
SCOPE isn't the first group to put the squeeze on emotion of local packaging ordinances: they are
throwaways. In 1989 a half -dozen metro -area cit- slated for phase -in in the Twin Cities next month.
ies, including Minneapolis and St. Paul, moved to
ban packaging that isn't biodegradable, returnable SCOPE members are unanimous in support for
or recyclable. That patchwork approach troubled the first fee. But the panel's business representa-
businesses, which coaxed the Legislature to defer tives strongly oppose a levy on toxin - tainted pack -
the bans while a panel of public officials, environ- aging, which they say would force an unfair bur -
mentalists, unionists and industry folk hammered den on them. Yet requiring that manufacturers
out a new statewide strategy on packaging waste. pay for safe disposal of their products is consistent
Perpich created SCOPE to do the hammering, and with the time- honored "polluter pays" principle.
the results are admirable. Such a fee would nudge manufacturers away from
hazardous materials — and curb the amount of
The panel wants Minnesotans to cut their packag- toxins ultimately released into air or water.
ing disposal by one quarter in just a few years'
time. Meeting that goal, says SCOPE, will require And as the SCOPE majority concluded. it is the
that consumers try to shun wasteful packaging: most sensible way to underwrite an energetic
• that local governments impose weight- or volume- waste- reduction effort. When the group's findings
based waste fees; that the state educate citizens reach the Capitol, lawmakers should keep that end
about environmentally sound packaging and that in sight. They shouldn't let fretting over funding
manufacturers respond to demand for it. eclipse the need to shrink the state's trash heap.
The committee also favors vastly expanding the
,
PIONEER
EDITORIALS •
•
PACKAGING AS TRASH
n
Group com ' comes up .with
..
real -world solutions ..
• T he issue of packaging and the envi-
A th ht ronment hit flashpoint in Minneso- S
to when St. Paul and Minneapolis plan to
passed unmanageable plastics- control control the
ordinances last year. Now the Gover• !rash before
nor's Select Committee on Packaging
and the Environment, the public policy it controls us. .
firefighter charged with recommend-
. ing real -world solid waste solutions for _
Minnesota, is ready to report in.
• The idea was to bring business. government and consumer
interests to the table together and figure out how to manage,.
trash from a comprehensive state plan of attack that still -
. leaves local flexibility. The result from SCOPE's fact - finding
and negotiating will be a triple -sided recommendation: •.
, • To achieve 25 percent net reduction in packaging by 1995..,
■ To recover materials whenever possible. .
• To see that toxic materials are not getting into icicinera.— ,_
tors and landfills.
The plan will arrive with vigorous dissent from chemical
manufacturers on the third goal, for understandable reasons...
But on the whole, the SCOPE recommendation represents a
thoughtful consensus on how to attack the growing mountains
of trash in this state.
•• The plan is forward - looking and assumes the best about
Minnesotans: that they will take responsibility for their own
actions in promoting the common good. In this case, that aim
is reducing solid waste systematically and paying in a realis-
tic way to get the job done.
' The toughest calls predictably come in the area of hazard -
ous materials. SCOPE's recommendation is geared to the po-
litically necessary goal of getting to where Minnesotans no
longer burn or bury refuse with toxic consequences. That as-
surance would make it possible to site a landfill without polit-
e ical pandemonium. The SCOPE approach also would have the.
effect of taxing some materials defined as hazardous to cover •
environmental cleanup costs. We hear the dissent from chem-
ical- makers who felt underrepresented on SCOPE compared
■ with the plan's impact on their business. They think they are
taking an unfair hit.
We also understand the wisdom of SCOPE's finding a way
to tax at the source of the problem rather than go to the 1:
Legislature at this time of austerity without a way to pay for -
anambitious new program.
. SCOPE's approach puts the emphasis on the counties,
where flexible management can make home - tailored recy-
cling and reduction pans work with the well - placed incen - 1
fives of state policy. _ •
The plan also wisely recognizes where the firestorm began.
It calls for all parties to extend the truce on local packaging
ordinance enforcement. But it says that state management
should be re- evaluated in 1995 and dropped if it isn't working
•adequately.
When SCOPE recommendations hit the Legislature, we ex-
pect the nasty rough and tumble of environmental poiitics.
We also expect the proposals to stand on their own merit as
comprising a thoughtful and constructive plan to control the -5 /� trash before it controls us.
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.
•
. 1
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.
18)
•
3
•
•
•
* 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 AT P!PORTIN
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 aste abatement rats 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.
• RECOMENDATI ON :
* Waste abatement percentages should be included in participation
reports, using the waste generation tables included in the
Hennepin County luster Plan.
6. .LL -CITY •SNA[HOT itZPORT
•
RECOMMENDATION: •
* It would be valuable to have all cities report participation
rates for a one -*onth period, twice a ear. The suggested
target tines ars May and October, usua months of high
participation. January or February could also be targeted, to
compare seasonal variations.
. • _41 s IN s "AT •I s �!� o _
� Recyeling participation and tonnage are affected by the type
•
/ 7
•
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.
R.ECOM MENDATI ON :
* When publishing recycling program comparisons, include as much •
data as possible. This information may help cities looking for
ways to improve their programs.
cO
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
Jun 89
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 stops
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
C.79/
1990 ANNUAL REPORT
Community: Faarkh, --
Contact: s
Phone: y 5 `-i i'Ct1
MATERIAL: TONS: CURBSIDE: DROP:
Newsprint: 1,9y (0•i* 1,g(po.Ho • 536.WD •
Glass: - 1 .1 0 a, .9 o •
Beverage :A ;33-11 13 •5O • q5.(_1 •
Food Cans
Plastics: $.13 LI.sH • 3•a9 •
Corrugated: 14•q(4 1LI•g •
Hshld Goods:
Appliances: 2 1 17q- 1 1 •
LA Batteries: all 41 a}1•(12 1 •
Used Oil:
Tires: 28 •iq gg•g/ •
Other:
CU -6∎ I • .09 • OA
Yardwaste: a5 I gletp :""n • iL2`ko -91 •
TOTAL: 5S 3q: 3 35o r.,,5y a,33S.09
1990 Goal: ; ICC)q 7
1990 33% Yardwaste: DgS•U"I 0 1)
Residential Recycling: 3D 14-3'a
)a..
Abbreviated Total:
ac2
Residential Recycling Comparison *
Tons
36776
30000
27208
20000
15337
10000
7465
0
1988 1989 1990 1990
Actual Actual Goal Actual
• Includes all recycling and yardwaste
c3
-e -
a y
a°
£ a «. N N W W A A U U P P - V
0 Cr 0 U 0 01 0 01 0 N 0 01 0 01 0 U
t ' " O O O O O O O O O 0 0 O 0 0 0
m g
O O 0 0 O 0 O O O O O O O O • O
Q �,
N < \
. cn
O to
m ° ;\ \\\\\\\\\\ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \\\\\\ \ \ \ \\ \\ .
— I L I . 1 I I I i r 1 !!(. 1 1 I I I ri 1111 il I I I I ii : I ' ! . 1 ! I •-3
o , : I • ' A
O. 1 __ m
m a ,\\\ \\\�\\\\� I cn
> = 0.
n 0 !IMI!1//, i i : I i i : : . : a)
0 Q -
I
! J I. O
K ! i 1
0 i ! 1 1
a 1 1 ! C•1
,,-.. 0. ; i ' i �� j' ii-- �--f d 3 1 ! �... N.
G ! i i t i E i , i I .-r
i.< i 1 1 I i j 6'4 (Q
x j !
.... a s .= i 1 i I 1
.0 ' G - -" :. t 1 ! ! ? ' ! 1 •
O t I ' 1`1
Y vc
cn 1.1.1111 .\\\ \\\ \\ \\ \\\\ \ti I q
t '
-0 1
T
•
•
a
a •■• N CA)
O 0 O
a 0 0 0
ZIT O O O 0
o > m 0
n_
a m
e ; \ \ , \ \ \\\\\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ N
m j
C \\ \\\\\\\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ • v
CD
Q V)
•
n
a O C7
n
S K •
o a 1 1 V
O .-1... x 3, r-..
a ��\a\\\\\\�\\\\\ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \1 • '
L •
a 3 o
v
m
t:: !NM 1
n
N rf
r ~
P O
G
n
o x
•
K
•
02LC
v� •
a a
K a .0
K _ P. �' N W
aQa
iy: m 0 0 0
n a' 0 0 0
0n 0 0 0 0
O - O 9 "3
O v a. Y
.n° c 0
.. Q N
7
C m ,n
W
=
a. ; a \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \��\ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \\\ ��\\\\\\\\\\\ �\\\\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ %% \ \ \�\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \I
o ° K c \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \�
c m m
b Q. Q of •
O m Q Q
0 7 .
m x
•
1. 2 . . ,i!illill .
x !" \\1 j
o ! �1
r i CO
ct a o \��W��\\\\��\\\\\\ \\ i
O i n ..
Q r 0 /f\
G
a
a 2 O
•o —• 1
A a a . ,x \ \\\\\0 ' C n
a .
r+
30 s
•
... . 11111 1 .11.
i .
N
N
r
F .
z 1
•
a
a ,
a - 1\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
a6
Yardwaste Comparison
1988 - 1990
20000
16594
15000 - -- - - -- 1 -46(19
10000
5000
2096
0
1988 1989 1990
Tons Tons Tons
c7Q
g a
0 O - 4
my s
' o no w 4 rn
w _ 0 0 0 0 0
- --a- 0 0 0 0 0 0
A N < • A \ \ \ \ \ \� c
i D
o w d
m m v \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \� \V \ \�
v = m z .. >< 1
o m
• 0 0 m
.. o _ a , A� \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \vvU \1 \ \�
n > :1
m A C Z
O
S k\\\\ \ \ \ \ % \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \% \ 1
_ , , 0
co
m \ I
w '
• r CO 1 : 3
z r - i 0 DJ
c = r• , \\ \ \ \ \\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\ \ \\\\ \� 1 3 (/
C I, 3
m �. ( n
:\ \ \ \\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ - ,..m..
•- m K c
m' X \\\\\\\\\ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \\\ ni i
DJ
o i
m y Pa
1
w
w \\\\ \ \ \ \v\ \ \\\\�
r
x
1
▪ \\ \\ \ \ ' "!! i � \ \ \ \\\ \ � 1 �
r
c28
Z >
O c • tO —
co a) 0 1 1
--► N W 4t 01 CA V CO CD O 1
p 00000000000
D o co O O O O O O O O O O O O
a —` i 1 I I 1
ET CO to
CJ Cn I / %////%// i%///%%///%%//%%/ / / % % / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / %//
`D a
o �- 0
I •
•
• C Q' //%////%//%/%//////%//%///////////////%/%///// % / / / / / / / /O / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / %/, PO
Cr
X0 -ft D • (D v
OD Cn
CO 1 / ////%//////%%/%//////%///%/%%%//// / / % / / / % % % / / / / / % / / / / % / / / / % / % %� %i 0
N ¢' : . :
8 6 as I
Er L ! 0 mm
\\ 1 a) `V
( p = /%/%/%///////// / / / / / % / % / / / / / % / / / / % / % / / / / / / / %/% o •
\ c 0
- w C . \ \ \� 1 1 �"
0 fD O
CD 1 0 /////%//%//////////%///%%/////%%///%//%// % / % / / / %� / / % / / / / / / / / % / % / % / / % / %i: z m •
So
0
--I \ \\
C)
3 .
•••••1-
/
m < /%%%%///%/%%/%%///%//%////%////%/% % / / / / % / / % % / % % / % % % / % / % / / / / / / /%i 1 =
i i ^^``
})
0 iiiiiii�iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiaiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii� CD
C a \� (1) •
a