Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/09/1991 - Solid Waste Abatement Commission AGENDA SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION EAGAN, MINNESOTA EAGAN MUNICIPAL CENTER CONFERENCE ROOMS A & B TUESDAY, JULY 9, 1991 5:30 P.M. I. ROLL CALL AND ADOPTION OF AGENDA II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES III. STAFF REPORT A. Environmental Cities Coalition Report/ US West Phonebook Recycling Program B. Facility Tour Options C. Progress Report /Dakota County IV. OLD BUSINESS VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Environmental Quality Survey Preliminary Analysis VII. OTHER BUSINESS 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: JULY 2, 1991 SUBJECT: EAGAN SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 9, 1991 A regular meeting of the Eagan Solid Waste Abatement Commission will be held on Tuesday July 9, 1991 at 5:30 p.m., in the Eagan Municipal Center conference rooms A & B. The City will provide refreshments. Please contact Kris Hageman or Jane Helebrant by Monday at 4:30 p.m. at 454 -8100 to indicate whether you will attend. 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 June 11, 1991 is enclosed on pages L/ to g . These minutes, subject to any change require approval by the Commission. III. STAFF REPORT A. Environmental Cities Coalition Report/ US West Phonebook Recycling Program I recently attended a special meeting of with the ECO and representatives from US West. At this meeting, US West explained the phonebook collection program which will begin with the East metro area phonebook distribution July 10. I am currently working with Jan Henry, Recycling Coordinator for US West, on finalizing program logistics for the collection /drop -of program. Please find further information on pages ? to it in my memo to City Administrator Hedges regarding the meeting with ECO and US West. B. Facility Tour Options Members of SWAC have the opportunity to be a part of an organized tour on Tuesday, August 13, of a variety of waste management facilities. Two of the three spots on the tour have been identified as top priorities for the Solid Waste Abatement Commission to visit. The tour is being organized by the Association of Recycling Managers and members of our group are welcome to accompany ARM on the tour. The tour will begin at Knutson Services, Rosemount at 12:00. The next stops will be Materials Recovery, Inver Grove Heights at 2:00 1 and Empire Organic Gardens, Rosemount at 3:30. SWAC members may visit all three or any combination of facilities. If this date is not convenient for those who are interested in attending any or all of these sites, staff will make arrangements for separate tour(s). C. Progress Report /Dakota County The Recycling Program second quarter progress report has been submitted to Dakota County for review. The report, due July 1, 1991, highlights program activities outlined on the Program Work Plan which was submitted as part of our 1991 funding application. Tonnage figures are also part of the progress report. To date, tonnage figures through the first quarter and portions of the second quarter are available. Our weight total for residential and drop -off is 1,014 tons. Staff has not received any reports on yard waste volumes or weights from the local compost facility. Our 1991 abatement goal is 14% or 3,141 tons. Given first quarter activity and our current figures, staff estimates our six month total at 1,600 tons from the curbside and drop -off program. You will find a copy of the progress report on page 7 . IV. OLD BUSINESS V. NEW BUSINESS VI. OTHER BUSINESS A. Environmental Quality Survey Preliminary Analysis Enclosed in your packet you will find the preliminary results of the Solid Waste /Yard Maintenance portion of the Environmental Quality Survey. The analysis includes the frequency distribution of responses, as well as mean scores where appropriate. For each question or part of question the total number of people responding is indicated along with the distribution of those responses. For example in Q1 below, 217 or 98% of all respondents answered this question. Of those responding, 82% indicated they have curbside trash pickup. This explanation is offered to help you understand what all the numbers mean. Q1. Disposal of Regular Trash Number Percent 1= At the curb 178 82.0% 2= At a central container 36 16.6% 3= At place of business 3 1.4% Total 217 100.0% Missing cases = 4 Response percent = 98.2% As you look over the results, keep in mind what other analysis might be beneficial such as the connection between those residents willing to pay for local coordination of program activity and those who currently recycle or look at the differences, if any, in waste management practices between those who rent and those who are homeowners. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: Recommend specific cross - analysis and /or additional information to be looked at in the secondary analysis process. VII. DISTRIBUTION The following materials are enclosed in your packet. 1. On pages 7 to g you will find a copy of a memo to City Administrator Hedges and Mayor Egan regarding the Environmental Cities Coalition meeting of June 27 and the presentation by US West. 2. On page 9 you will find a copy of Progress Report #3 submitted to Dakota County July 1, 1991. 3. On pages A0 to Pi you will find a copy of an articla from Waste Age magazine, June 1991, regarding a local commercial refuse and recycling hauler. // 4. On pages f c to /b you will find copies of two articles from the local "This Week" newspaper, July 1, 1991. The first article discisses the pilot recycling project at Northview Athletic complex and the second highlights the BFI Recyclery in Inver Grove Heights. 5. On pages 4( / to 1? you will find two companion articles from the Minneapolis StarTribune of June 30, 1991 regarding the packaging ban now in effect in Minneapolis, St. Paul and a few suburbs and also an article about mandatory recycling in St. Paul beginning 7/1/91. 6. Please also find enclosed a copy of the Preliminary Analysis for the Eagan Environmental Quality Survey. VIII. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of the Eagan Solid Waste Abatement Commission will be Tuesday, August 13, 1991. IX. ADJOURNMENT 3 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SOUD WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION Eagan, Minnesota June 11, 1991 A regular meeting of the Eagan Solid Waste Abatement Commission was held on Tuesday, June 11, 1991 at 5:30 p.m. Present were Craig Seim, Floyd Hiar, Darlene Bahr, Ken Ische, Terry Davis and Jeff Gerhke representing Larry Knutson. Absent were Dennis Selz, Earl Milbridge and Terry Jacobs. Also present were Recycling Coordinator Hageman and Assistant to the City Administrator Hohenstein. AGENDA Upon motion by Ische, seconded by Seim, all members voting in favor, the agenda was approved as presented. MINUTES A correction was noted in the minutes relative to the new meeting time being at 5:30 p.m. Upon motion by Seim, seconded by Hiar, all members voting in favor, the minutes were approved as corrected. ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEY Hageman stated that Theresa Ahles has been hired by the University of Minnesota Extension Service to do comprehensive analysis of the environmental survey. She stated that a 54% retum rate had been received and that the report Itself was due in late June or early July. She stated that the cost of the analysis was being paid through an agriculture and education grant by the University of Minnesota Extension Service. LONG TERM FUNDING Hageman stated that the recommendation of the County Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee to set funding for 1992 and the future at $2.00 per household was proceeding to the County Board. FACIUTY TOUR OPTIONS Hageman outlined the results of a survey she had mailed to commission members concerning the options for facility tours. She stated that most expressed an interest In tours of the Knutson Materials Recovery Facility and the Farmington weight based garbage collection system. She stated that Saturday morning seemed to be the time most favored for these tours. Seim also indicated that an open house was being held at the BFI Recyclary in Inver Grove Heights if members would like to attend. CONTAINER SYSTEM PURCHASE Hageman reviewed the bid documents that had been prepared for the original container purchase and samples of containers made by the various vendors serving the immediate area. Seim stated that BFI drivers like the two bin system because It requires dealing with fewer grocery stacks and It keeps materials better separated. Davis asked if different companies' bins are stackable or compatible. Hageman demonstrated that certain bins fit together in one way but not in another. It was indicated that any specification should require that new containers be compatible with the old. • SWAC MINUTES JUNE 11, 1991 PAGE TWO Hageman then reviewed slides showing how residents are using the curb side containers at the present time. She stated that many people are continuing to stack them and to put extra materials either in the present containers or next to them. She stated that some people had requested additional containers and that they were being sold to those individuals and that some had purchased their own containers from private vendors. Seim stated that separate containers helped minimize the commingling of materials for those companies not currently doing commingled recycling. Davis asked if it was alright to commingle the plastics with the glass. Seim stated that it was generally not acceptable because it was difficult to separate. Gehrke stated that it is an ongoing need to educate the public about separation. Davis indicated that it would be helpful for the City to piggyback separation information with hauler bills in the future. Hageman stated that she had received a phone call from Waste Management and that they support single bin systems due to their movement toward commingling. Gehrke stated that it has been Knutson's experience that centralized separation is expensive and that it results in lower participation rates and a higher level of contamination. It was suggested that it would only make sense to move toward a single bin if all haulers were doing commingled recycling. Hiar stated that stackables also work for commingled recycling. Seim pointed out that St. Louis Park has gone from a three container system to a two container system in recent years. It was stated that a third container could always be added if additional materials made it necessary. Hageman stated that additional materials in the future may include rigid plastics, magazines and junk mail. After further discussion, upon motion by Hiar, seconded by Davis, all members voting in favor, the commission recommended that the City Council authorize specifications and bid for 7,500 sets of two stackable containers compatible with the existing containers, containing a minimum of 20% post consumer recycled plastic and incorporating appropriate logos. It was noted that while the green and white container system is attractive and the commission supports its continuation, that additional efforts should be made to place green lettering on those containers to minimize the potential for loss in the winter. REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEY FORM Hageman stated that the commission had previously requested an opportunity to review the environmental survey form to identify specific information they wish to have cross tabulated or further analyzed. Bahr stated that she was curious about the number of people who use redemption or buy back machines at grocery stores. Hageman stated that it would be very important to review information concerning communication sources that people use. She also stated that preliminary results on the funding support question were significant. Bahr asked if it was possible to cross tabulate from the number who would pay and those who recycle. Hiar stated that the City should retain the survey format to allow it to be replicated in the future. He also stated that it was a good educational tool for the public. Davis stated that it was very important to determine a specific time and format to give feedback to the City and City Council on this information. It was requested that the survey results be placed on the July commission agenda for further review. SWAC MINUTES JUNE 11, 1991 PAGE TWO Hageman then reviewed slides showing how residents are using the curb side .. '' - iners at the • esent time. She stated that many people are continuing to stack them and to put ext materials either in e present containers or next to them. She stated that some people had req : - • additional containers - nd that they were being sold to those individuals and that some had pur • : sed their own containers fr• private vendors. Seim stated that separate containers helped minim -- the commingling of materials fo hose companies not currently doing commingled = 1 • : - ked if it was • ht to commingle t - • astics with the glass. Seim stated that - ;- - !?a ep - 7 e • = - use it was � separate. Gehrke - ted that it is an ongoing need to educate t pu • is a "'• TT : pare ion. Dr oar Is2' "'Y1.CS� Davis i icated that it would be helpful for the City to pigg • - ck separation information with hauler bills in the future. Hageman sta - • that she had received a phone call • m Waste Management and that they support single bin systems due o their movement toward com • gling. Gehrke stated that it has been Knutson's experience that central' • - • separation is expensive a • that it results in lower participation rates and a higher level of contamination. It was suggested that would only make sense to move toward a single bin if all haulers were doing • • mmingled recyclin• . Hiar stated that stackables also work for commingled recycling. Seim pointed out that St. Luis Pa has gone from a three container system to a two container system in recent years. It was stat- • t a third container could always be added if additional materials made it necessary. Hageman stat -.► hat additional materials in the future may include rigid plastics, magazines and junk mail. After further discussion, • •n motion .y Hiar, seconded by Davis, all members voting in favor, the commission recommended t =t the City Cou cil authorize specifications and bid for 7,500 sets of two stackable containers compati • e with the existing ontainers, containing a minimum of 20% post consumer recycled plastic and inco • • rating appropriate I • • • s. It was noted that while the green and white container system is attractive a • he commission supports - continuation, that additional efforts should be made to place green letter' on those containers to minim - e the potential for loss in the winter. - EVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL SUR Y FORM Hage .n stated that the commission had previously - • uested an opportunity to review the environmental su ey form to identify specific information they wish ' have cross tabulated or further analyzed. Bahr sta . • that she was curious about the number of people • use redemption or buy back machines at gr • • :ry stores. Hageman stated that it would be very im • , - nt to review information concerning co unication sources that people use. She also stated that preli - ry results on the funding support ques ' • n were significant. Bahr asked if it was possible to cross tabula : from the number who would pay : • those who recycle. Hiar stated that the �ouid retain the survey format to allow to be replecated in the ure. He also stated that it was a good educational tool for the public. Davis stat: • hat it was very im. • .nt to determine a specific time and format to give feedback to the City and City • ncil on this inf-- rmation. It was requested that the survey results be placed on the July commission agenda • further r -view. SWAC MINUTES JUNE 11, 1991 PAGE THREE SAFETY KLEEN CORPORATION Hiar asked staff about Its experience with the Safety been Corporation located in the City. He stated that he had read articles concerning problems the company had had with other facilities over the last six months in other cities. Staff indicated that while Mr. Hiar's concems were environmental in nature, they are the responsibility of the planning and code enforcement divisions of the City and that they could arrange for Mr. Hiar to contact the appropriate parties directly. NEXT MEETING The next regular meeting of the Eagan Solid Waste Abatement Commission will be held on Tuesday, July 9 at 5:30 p.m. ADJOURNMENT Upon motion by Davis, seconded by Hiar, all members voting in favor, the meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Dated Secretary 6 MEMO TO: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES AND HONORABLE MAYOR EGAN FROM: RECYCLING COORDINATOR HAGEMAN DATE: JUNE 28, 1991 SUBJECT: SUMMARY: ENVIRONMENTAL CITIES COALITION MEETING, JUNE 27, 1991 The special meeting was called to invite representatives from US West Direct to comment on the final stages of their proposed phonebook Recovery Program. Mr. Miguel Garcia, Recycling Director, outlined the program by stating US West has chosen to use a drop - off container system similar to the program held in January at metro area Target stores. Twenty -two locations have been chosen in the East Metro area, 13 of which are located in the City of St. Paul although the city has organized curbside collection for the phonebooks. Residents and businesses will be able to deposit their books at these containers through August 18th. Ms. Jan Henry, Recycling Coordinator, went on to mention the main locations will be at Country Club markets. She listed the Country Club market on Old Sibley Memorial highway in Cedarvale as the location in the City of Eagan. As you know, our Country Club has been closed for over eleven months. Needless to say, work will be done to find a replacement site for our location. An additional site(s) may also be negotiated for added convenience for Eagan residents. Contact will be made with our local refuse /recycling haulers encouraging collection of the phonebooks within the curbside collection program. US West has stated that any vendor collecting in the east metro distribution area may deliver the phonebooks to their established warehouse at no cost. US West will then ship the material to market. But at this late date, we may need to work with the current drop -off program. The Environmental Cities Coalition has worked with US West for over six months on this issue. Members had drafted an ordinance earlier during their discussions regarding requirements for recycled material content in the directories and also placing the responsibility of collection both at the curb and through drop -offs on US West. After discussion at yesterdays meeting, members were willing to allow the drop -off program during this distribution period and evaluate the program before pushing for local ordinance passage. I do have some concerns with the program as it has been established. US West has not stated specifically where they will be shipping the material for reclamation. Mr. Garcia noted some of the end uses for the material include; roofing material, insulation 7 and animal bedding. Currently, under Minnesota Law, these uses do not constitute recycling and should not be claimed as such. Similar problems arose during the January collection regarding end use of materials. Care must be taken in the promotion of the project to be very clear about the program and its true efforts. The program is basically landfill abatement not recycling. In addition, I am concerned that local municipalities will not be able to record weights from this material to contribute toward their respective waste abatement goals. Over the next two weeks, I will be working with Jan Henry to locate a new site(s) for our local drop -off and to organize promotional efforts. Analysis of the drop -off program will be made in August and September by US West and all municipalities involved in the program. At that time, program organization will be made for the January distribution in the west metro area. US West continues to work toward solving their waste management problems. While currently their program is basically an alternative to landfill disposal, it is the first step toward a solution. I hope to continue working with the ECO and US West to establish a environmentally responsible management solution for the over 4 million pounds of phonebooks distributed in the metro area each year. If you have any question or comments regarding the meeting our other ECO activities, please feel free to contact me. Recy ng oord ' nator cc: Assistant to the City Administrator Hohenstein • CITY OF EAGAN PROGRESS REPORT #3 July 1, 1991 DATE PROGRAM ACTIVITY 4/15/91 Recycling Pilot Project: Northview Athletic Complex • 14 containers placed throughout the complex (backstops, building and parking lot) . • Attendents monitor usage and volumes. 4/21/91 Earth Day Celebration • Thomas Lake Park, over 150 participants. • Information tables from a variety of environmental organizations, backyard composting demonstrations, magic show and raffle plus a barbeque lunch. 4/27/91 3rd Annual Community Clean Up Day • Over 225 participants cleaned our local ponds and park areas. 4/01- 5/01 Continued Multi -unit program correspondence and promotion 5/01/91 Received Payment *2 5/15/91 Citywide Newsletter • Eagan Recycling Program produces four • pages of information for the newsletter each quarter. 6/04/91 Returned 1990 Surplus Funds. 6/11/91 Solid Waste Abatement Commission • Revised curbside container specifications for second round of container purchase. COVER _ STORY - i 1 Jane 1991 z .� _ ` � 41. , - - A �: \ . • ,t4 • s a l tation till' �-, - ,�' '^� ! t %, t -- 11\1%. - V \ 1 P- -Asao . _ j __ , ......17..i _.) -'260%! - _ _ i_ . ; �� S _ +\ _ _ _' ` ma y ,-- .- „� --1 �_ �- - - - l - ;( — A V.- . � ' r m �'# c - a �ry i T ` C ` ^�r _ 7 J � '4 - t' . r .; "- x-12 - ��� ` 1 ` ` " ;z� �c f "'i ` ''' . . o'' _,..,e,„ 7 .-_ . 1:.-'''' - - - 1 : __ ....... ' 7! IP...:--. - ' - ' i k ' - ' -' 4.1' ` ' _ -- -s• ._' .„,_ A COMERCIAL BREA1( n Minnesota, a state where recycling is a necessity to doing business, many small haulers are becoming This Minnesota hauler extinct. But one hauler in the Twin Cities has not only doubled its customer found a way to stay in business, it has started inno- base and avoided vative commercial recycling programs that have in- creased its customer base 100% in the past three extinction by recycling. yes. Aagard Environmental (St. Paul, Minn.) has been do- ing business in the Twin Cities area for more than 10 years. When Hennepin County, Minn., drastically raised tipping BY KATHLEEN MEADE fees in the area two years ago to support its waste- to -en- 46 WASTE AGE JUNE 1991 /0 Pktos by Layne Kennedy 1r , erg■ plant. many local haulers found themselves selling out the price of disposing garbage in the Twin Cities area jumped to larger companies rather than increasing their rates. Aagard, from $30 to $75 per ton — literally overnight. Aagard, like however. found a way to keep its commercial customers and other haulers, started scrambling to find ways to keep cus- lower their garbage bills. tomers. By putting scales right on its trucks, Aagard has been "Minnesota is a very environmental state," said Tim able to provide waste -based pricing, thereby encouraging Herman, Aagard's vice president of business development. customers to reduce their waste streams. By offering unique "We knew we would need to be heavily involved in recy- recycling services. the company has not only helped its cling. We didn't know for sure, but we studied up on it and regular customers cut their wastes, but has lured new cli- figured that would be the way to go. ents that want to recycle. "Our industry up here was competitive before, but its really competitive now. Three -truck haulers or less are an • Fees drone decision endangered species — they're becoming extinct. Some of the Aagard didn't start out as a community leader in recy- 30- to 50 -truck operations have also decided to sell. cling and commercial services. In fact. the company was "With prices rising overnight. we knew every customer started like many of the now- extinct shops in the area —with would be shopping," he said. "We knew we would gain more one truck and one hauler. than lose —if we could make it cost - effective for the cus- In 1980. Tim Schweizer bought his first garbage truck tomer." from a local hauler. Schweizer had limited experience in the industry. but he had an aggressive attitude, some big Taking off the weight dreams. and a lot of old burn barrels to use as collection With that thought in mind, Aagard set about trying to containers. Calling the company Aagard Sanitation, and find ways its customers could cut their trash bill by recy- dealing entirely in commercial accounts, he ran the truck cling. Besides reduction, however, the company needed to himself and eventually bought a few more small haulers' make sure the recycling program was cost - effective for the trucks and routes. commercial accounts. Since many of Aagard's customers "Whenever I had two nickels to rub together, I would were retail stores and restaurants, the first recycling effort try to buy something else." Schweizer said. "One truck be- was obvious: old corrugated cardboard (OCC). came two. two became three. and we've continued the same Rather than add OCC recycling to every commercial wa\ since." In 1983. Tim's brother Andy joined him in the account, however, Aagard experimented first with 15 cus- business. handling maintenance on the trucks, which had tomers. Besides asking the drivers which accounts had the highest concentrations of OCC, Herman looked at the wastes . that companies were disposing. Using that information, Aagard offered OCC recycling to ac- > counts that could actually save money doing it. At first, the ser- vice was only offered to Aagard customers. "You have to take care of the people who got you increased to four by that time. where you're at," Andy Schweizer said. In 1987. with seven trucks on the road, Tim Schweizer Now, new customers have been added, thanks to made his first business decision that put Aagard on the map. Aagard's OCC program. Grocery stores, retail businesses, McLeod Landfill, a 250 -acre facility 50 miles west of the manufacturers, and fast food restaurants separate their OCC Twin Cities, was up for sale. Schweizer sold his portion of into containers that Aagard provides. About 5% of the OCC the hauling operation to his brother Andy and bought the customers use their own balers to prepare the material, landfill. Herman said. Customers are charged for collection of OCC, In 1988, Aagard's second breakthrough occurred, but but it still costs less than trash disposal because the charge this time it was something the county did. "That was when doesn't include a dump fee. In addition, Aagard's regular Hennepin County started raising tipping fees and the costs commercial customers have lower monthly rates because just skyrocketed," Andy Schweizer said. On June 1, 1989, of the lower trash weights. / / JUNE 1991 WASTE AGE 47 IIIMILIMIIIIIMPIONNT t?' �' 1 Aagard Contd Ar , _ To calculate how much ji r" t said. Aagard is fortunate to waste disposal a customer is r ,• ' � have a lo cal market for this avoiding by recycling, •- - , -�j paper: a local processor pays Aagard installed computer- f,' $30 to $60 per ton for the ized scales on all of its front- I ' I material, which is sold to and rear -load trucks. The Waldorf, a St. Paul manu- trash is weighed, and the facturer of paperboard. "We weight is recorded as it goes - like to do office paper," into the truck. "Every truck Schweizer said. "It's not our weighs every stop, every :1417 / '� most profitable [venture], but time," said Denny .`- _ it's part of the package that Fredrickson, Aagard's op- �' we sell. erations manager. That say- /- -- - "Our recycling routes ing has become a motto that ' don't make the same profit as Fredrickson rhythmically t - the trash routes —but they're chants to all the drivers. _ j ..- � not intended to. They're in- _ tended to get the trash busi- More than OCC Aagard's success had a start in OCC recycling. ness." After showing custom- Another recycling pro - ers how they could save money by recycling OCC, Aagard gram that is a real customer - pleaser is glass. Bars and res- officials knew that it was only a matter of time before they taurants, which make up a good portion of Aagard's ac- ; would want to recycle more things. And rather than wait counts, can cut their bills drastically by separating glass. J for some other company to offer to do that recycling, the Herman said. Glass recycling didn't start as an easy project. i company decided to broaden its efforts. The next project— however. "Glass was the most challenging," Herman said. even though Aagard did not service a lot of office accounts— If Aagard had started its recycling efforts with glass, he said. , was office paper recycling. the company probably wouldn't have continued with rec\ - Office paper was already being recycled in the Twin cling. . Cities by small. private recycling companies, Herman said. For starters, another local company, Mr. Recycle. wa These companies made money by collecting high grades already offering glass recycling in the area. Mr. Recycle wa, from large offices and paying the accounts a portion of the charging bars and restaurants to take their glass. but it wa market value. "But they don't typically target the offices also letting them commingle their glass in one container. that have less than 200 employees," he said. Aagard didn't want commingled glass, since separated glass So rather than try to compete with the successful, large- is worth $35 to $50 /ton on the local market. To get bars and scale office paper programs that these companies had, restaurants to use Aagard, then, the company offered to take Aagard carved out its own niche. "A lot of our office paper separated glass for free. accounts are smaller —about 100 people in the office," This was one instance, Herman said. where flow con - Herman said. trot has actually helped a hauler. Commercial haulers in Like OCC recycling, Aagard charges its recycling cus- Hennepin, Ramsey, Washington. and Anoka counties are tomers to pick up office paper. Trash customers — including required to take their trash to each designated county faL il- some high rises downtown —also save money on their ity. Hennepin County, for example, charges $95 /ton at its monthly bill by recycling paper. Aagard provides the main waste -to- energy plant. "If we did not have a $95 /ton tip - collection containers, which range from 90 gallons to eight ping fee, we would not have near as much recycling going ": I cubic yards. for the office docks. Depending on the value on," Herman said. i " and the amount of the commodity. Herman said, the com- Aagard's bar and restaurant accounts generate about 150 pany may also provide desktop boxes and secondary con- total tons of glass per month, Fredrickson said. Most of the -=^ I tainers for the common areas. glass —about 60 %—is brown, while about 25% is green and i Aagard also makes it easier for the small office to re- 15% is clear, he said. To keep them from commingling the .i 1 cycle by collecting a "file stock" grade of waste paper. This material, the company has developed a grading system for includes a mix of white ledger, colored ledger, computer glass. On a scale of one to five. accounts that keep glass IF print -out, and less than 10% groundwood grades, Herman completely color sorted and free of contaminants receive a [ t ( 48 WASTE AGE JUNE 1991 tz2.... - ' Aagard Contd. one. Customers that receive a one get their glass picked up effectively recycle glass, office paper, or corrugated card - for free: rates increase as the grades increase. board, Aagard offers one other recycling alternative. Rather Grade five is basically trash, Herman said. Aagard not than take their wastes to the Hennepin County waste - to-en- t only charges the full disposal fee for containers that are ergy plant, Aagard uses Reuter, Inc., a local processor of 1 e graded a five, but the company cancels glass recycling for refuse - derived fuel. Although the company has run into some accounts that are always that grade. The company actually controversy about a lack of markets for its material, Reuter lost some recycling business this way after it started crack- still receives credit from Hennepin County for being a re- ; ing down on contamination, he said, but it was worth it to cycling operation. 1 .d keep the quality of the program. "We have real good qual- "We take about half of our wastes to Reuter," Herman ' - ity recycling accounts on that glass," he said. said. "We use that as a marketing advantage. It's still recy- r Color -sorted glass is collected in a separated truck and cling, and it makes the customer feel better." ra taken to SuperCycle, a St. Paul processor. According to Aagard has also entered the residential recycling arena— et. more out of necessity than profit. In July, • •vs $ a+�� apartment dwellers in Hennepin County to C ` !` will be required to recycle. This February, • 1 C � n - the company started recycling at the multi- The ,. • unit apartment buildings it serves. Aagard E y ' . 4: .�' �� collects glass, cans, old newspapers, and mem, - o ` .� 'A ,,•'0 4� �1 , plastics in 90- gallon containers that it pro- o W ` r - ' - it. _ vides the building owners. Accounts are and de, s „,Ili charged for the service, but it still costs less - - r ,,. ' r .r '. 7 `' ” I r'_ 'AA than trash collection, Schweizer said. 4_, s _,a - %' ' . _ are concerned that the service will not be 11 i _ -1 /_ . - . ng • . ' I t t ' _ 1 ve economical for the smaller buildings g that will have to comply with the ordi- 1'6E .s _ - " * Hance, • he said. • to . .‘...... . - ii.; " r V a _ . Polystyrene—at a cost wh - ..,,;,� x t _ ` . i ! `V . - _ . Aagard's latest recycling effort—al- ; s • - r ,mot► + � - ' s •., - - • 4 _. . S • , r though it is probably the most innova- t r - ' »! ,- _ sot" sot" .i. ,. _Q - ^- tive —has been the least successful. After + , + � ''r t !i the Twin Cities passed a ban on non re e :ai ' - - VS, - ,,p . ; cyclable plastics, Aagard's fast food cus- i d,, � - 4b , r - tomers asked the company to help them i � „ .1 f'' / !• - >> i. . . -, recycle their poly Between August a ` 'I c K r - + , " • -'fit • ,. ' t 1990 and January 1991, Aagard collected 1' Aagard put scales on its trucks to provide waste -based pricing. the material from 25 local McDonald's, Arby's, and Lee Ann Chin restaurants and Schweizer, equipment vendors have yet to design a truck that took it to SuperCycle for processing. handles glass well. Aagard had to retrofit a Dempster and a According to Herman, the costs to collect and process Holden recycling truck to meet its needs. "There is still a need the material were high, but the value of the material itself for better commercial recycling vehicles," he said. was low. "You can do the program," he said. "But it's just _ Market segmentation has helped spur interest in the not cost - effective to do. It makes sense if the customer (res- company's recycling program, Herman said. Bar owners taurant) is forced to do it." have been telling their colleagues about the program. Aagard If Aagard were to continue offering polystyrene recy - now has a few hundred bars and restaurants that are recy- cling services, Herman said, the company would have to - cling glass, and some collect cans as well. "There are as charge the restaurants more to do it. Hauling and process - many different ways to do it as there are customers doing ing costs alone figured out to about $500 per month for one it," Herman said. fast food restaurant, he said. Unless the customers were l For some small commercial customers that can't cost- forced to switch to paper packaging if they didn't recycle 50 WASTE AGE JUNE 1991 /3 Aagard Contd. . the polystyrene, it would not be cost - effective for them to As a smaller company, Schweizer said, Aagard can af- do it. he added. ford to move more quickly and be more aggressive than its Polystyrene recycling doesn't even help the restaurants larger. national competitors. "That doesn't mean we won't with avoided disposal fees, Herman said. Since the product make mistakes," he said. "We do. But our goal is to make weighs so little, it doesn't decrease the trash bill much to our mistakes as quickly as possible." take the material out. Mistakes, even when they cost money, haven't hurt Despite the fact that the pilot program was a net loss Aagard yet. "You learn your best things from your mistakes," for Aagard, the company did gain one customer from poly- Schweizer said. "Mistakes, to us, are equivalent to research styrene recycling. A local office of 3M, which didn't used and development dollars. We made that decision two years to use Aagard for trash pick -up, now uses Aagard for poly- ago when we got into recycling." styrene recycling, he said. Last year, to reflect all the changes that have taken place, Aagard Sanitation changed its name to Aagard Environ- Mistakes make business mental. Now, Schweizer said. the company is required to I Even with a few difficulties, recycling has been Aagard's live up to its reputation as an environmental services firm. ticket to increased business. Since 1989, when it started recy- "We've got to be able to back that up," he said. "When we cling. the company has doubled its customer base, Schweizer changed the name, it lifted the standards for us and gave us said. Aagard now has 45 trucks and three separate hauling more hoops to go through. operations that haul trash and recyclables in 11 counties. "It's a great reputation to have. though." 1 • i THE SMARTEST DISTANCE k 1 ..: . ,. g--- - .-e,, _ 1,, y ...t- -_,„ z_ ..,,,,,-, ,......;.. ,. i., , . . .. C.,... _:,... . ob, "1 ' .. , I 1. .... "t, - l it ' "C•• •IN - ' . . . ) 1 110::_ , - .. 1E - -_—__ , -... Ths, .... 01. i ;■— —___ .., _ ...,iirr , 1 ,, .,,, . 1„, ,....1,..40 , • IsAMAy&NJ 1 No matter if you're building a new facility to sort and recover recyclable materials ... or upgrading an existing facility ... it's a big investment. And, not just _ _ - -_ _ in the initial cost of construction and equipment ...but in the cost- �„ �„ • . r: ,_ efficient operation of the facility for years to come. : / , f � .2,__, _ _ " _ .-- Return-on- investment. It's why more recyclable materials �� = === -_ around the world are processed by Mayfran equipment than ' � -" j ills ' , any other brand. r , .1kr ' For more than 30 years, Mayfran has been helping organizations like yours . , , • , . -.. :. increase Y designing and manufact uin g : ON ,....r. - � -i.. -{"`� � systems that: Meet your facilities exact processing needs; Provide turnkey installa- tion and start-up assistance; Minimize maintenance and downtime expenses; - 52 WASTE AGE JUNE 1991 / V :! meowrle s reminded Softball players pitching in w teYin restrictions to • make pilot recycl g stations have been reported program a hit at Nort p The city of Eagan, over the last meone came by and scavenged that summer's sweltering heat has taken hold, and the torren- few years, has been recognized as through the containers. Since last is of spring are gone, garden hoses and sprinklers have made having one of the most successful April, however, the city has pro- ay out of garages and basements all over the state. curbside recycling programs in v i d e d speciaHy - m a r k e d you live in Eagan, you'd better double check the date and the county. aluminum can recycling con - nne address before turning the sprinkler on to make sure you The key to a good recycling tainers at Northview Park. violating a city ordinance. program, according to program Already, more than 600 pounds of to imposes year -round restrictions on watering based on an coordinator Kris Hageman, is to aluminum cans have been col - :11 system. For example, if the last digit of your street address target the areas where garbage lected from the containers, ac- en number, you can water only on even - numbered days. The accumulates. That's why this spr- cording to Hageman, cans which ception is for people who have new sod, seed or Landscaping. ing, the city began a pilot recycl- would have otherwise ended up in e cases, watering is allowed every day for up to three weeks ing project at Northview Park a landfill somewhere. ;e sod was laid. athletic complex. "It's just another way of :ne violating the watering restriction could face a misde- Northview Park, located in the expanding and enhancing the r charge. In the past, however, it has been the city's policy to east - central portion of Eagan, recycling program for city sidents and businesses a warning before a citation is issued. has eight softball fields that are residents," Hageman said. Jenkins, secretary for the citv's engineering department, used by leagues every day of the Hageman said the Parks ere have been very few complaints about watering violations week through the spring and Department has tried recycling his spring and summer. summer months. That's a lot of in city parks before, but had prob- )ple seem to be adhering well to the ordinance," Jenkins said. thirsty softball players and, con- lems with scavenging and poor Eagan City Council adopted the year -round watering restric- sequently, a lot of aluminum participation. So far, she said dinance in April 1990 in an effort to make citizens more con - beverage containers. participation in the program at of the need to conserve water at all times. Prior to that, the In years past, those aluminum Northview has been good and iposed seasonal watering restrictions during the spring and cans were being tossed into they haven't had problems with 'r months. regular garbage containers and scavenging or with non- not being recycled, unless so- aluminum garbage being thrown into the recycling containers. .�y� There are H of the aluminum A x �, ,tr. • E �. � i1 � recycling containers located throughout Northview Park. The �i � + • � red, white and blue colored con ��L f¢ tainers are marked with the .� words "toss cans here" and are or. a � clearly distinguishable from the ,,.. . : .. ' il • � -- - regular garbage containers. • ` � � The city collects the cans on a r ., regular basis. The money raised G 7 lif.4 `� a$ la from the sale of the cans will be ith, = 4 n c 8S put toward a party that the Parks �• w Department throws for its No Cash? �`I.PR seasonal employees each year, . . el., -yr, No Trade? Hageman said. 4 . ? y At the end of this summer, • " 4. . No Problem p Hageman said she will review the ti • . A , ` tz. • ' i _ 9 l success of the pilot program at "Y it, Northview and consider the j 0 � ° S ¢ possibility of expanding the pro- '` gram at other city parks. Cur rently, she said recycling con- • . �O tainers are available upon re- r „...,,,„„,* quest for group gatherings at ,, w y , ; . - �0 1 �J�' Thomas Lake and Trapp Farm ��� parks. is Up &Our Pikes GoDown! �� t5 :r $2 In `Si & `Si New Q mu ive ' o. y s►'.w..' ' CONTACTS SPECIAL - W e are open So'�Ir i - ‘1, ' 1 tune 29 t f 9 p.m. /C t; 4-- Sale ends M .day, tercial exc�.. :.ping. Photo by Evelyn }i' r ucking &site grading. BFI dedicates Pine Bend recycling center lerience Montreal Court Apart - Browning Ferris Industries re- customers, we're hearing that vice, NIGER SR. Gently dedicated its new corn- they want these materials ments, Commonwealth Terrace Iles Office 463 -8798 mercial Recyclery, located in the recycled," the former chief ad- Co-op, St. Paul Companies and Pine Bend Industrial Area. Dur- ministrator of the U.S. Envir- the Stroh Brewery Company. ing the event, several area com- onmental Protection Agency UPS sees the award from P panies were recognized for said. "Demand for recycling is a as acknowledgement that th. _ -_ < achievement in recycling in the virtual fever sweeping the coun- recy because program of was put in work place. y William D. Ruckelshaus, the As part of the proceedings, the dates but because it is the right r company's chairman and chief company honored 11 area busi- thing to do. executive officer, addressed nesses that have demonstrated UPS recycles office paper, about 300 business people and exceptional performance in their plastics, cardboard and wood public officials at the event and recycling practices. These com- pallets and has recently de- V. r•..� discussed the increasing demand panies included Caliber De- velopment a corporate waste for recycling and the challenges velopment, Health One Corpora- management manual based in that go along with it. "If we spend tion, Holiday Plus, Canterbury part on input from its Minnesota \ - any time at all listening to our ' Downs, Homart Development, facilities. commercial and residential Coca -Cola, United Parcel Ser r process waste from businesses, t '� -'*""T' "---" " ,, multi -unit apartment buildings r / y ' ' r � 9!, .. �' Kt" - � s ° and household by sorting Gomm ingled waste and recyclables at Id � —� the Pine Bend site. In commingl- I s re-r... ----•-:- . — %- ! �+ ,c' ; ing, all recyclable materials are �y �, �, r �.. � ! ' p ut into the same container and Will F 1 ' ` "�' " �� st� �' I y � �'M s eparated at the facility. i Hai I ° � ' �� " j BFI's facility allows more .w _,,,,.,,. recycled materials to be diverted T • I T:� f I,• 1 4 E _ yRR r �, '�;. �� 1 ri . ' from landfills because more pen is j ple can participate in recycling °. S an b e a I ... a.E ., �,�.1 --•^.. .. �L�: programs. So trust US i pa c n = : - � ,...r; v�+� ` - '' � ` The facility is located next to Stratton part W t tarry , .. f " ' . •-r "' th e Pine Bend landfill. The 47,500 y .-; II ,line 1101 the tact P-ne' ' ° square -foot plant is designed to As + an a111hrlf led Bn s e, �` M" " handle 150,000 tons of coma L ,ter +��!q� 4 ed materials daily and inclu a �" ;?rA # '` [il� I r 1 I i ! r. community education center, G 5 01 where area schools and civic �.. --�+ —� - ` groups can learn more about ,� .. _ . .N AIO r f _ waste disposal and integrated SAW &TOOL ~ { solid waste systems. ant 423.2822 r r '°'' �. , . a,. :ter:' • . /6 ',. a •� LiI " o c d � ,, c eo in .. c Va 2) = • lik . --: . a 4 Ur 0�/ a e 9 N ^ <O t9 OOQ en f0 m oef efo DseaO •< oom O ov>. V 11:' ) • , . a:3 h o'w ,ii;710 c v ry o -, -e o o n, 3' 7 9 ao3 ' a 2 g. c ° o x n .,o^ 3 a z 1I -» _ EBB 3 • i 3 ^ 1 o 2 tg we 5 E c _ � . O � a • 0- •,/, I ;f0 i p f J ? S * • � C . C19 0 c ,•1 m S O rt. Er c- o S C C D m o y� • ,-..-......e.", � (' � es e9 m o 0.. < .1, 3 ° <. � fp ,..-. c ry n 0 P 3 z o o . ^ In c - + • ey S e - c v ; r m _ .��� , • 2 ^ ° O e4'C�i O aO � 5 0 r7 y o C O 0 0 �0� ti O C 3 1 • f � ' N o y a Ft: w o 3 S N -7. eD 3 p m= C6 w V I y 1 - } �ti 1 °° RXR � � ��� a = 3 0 0 D —. . 0 z © .. • c ,, °- e ate' c -. � a w n ` = it ‘, a 3 co o° ]°' 2p� VI. .. � �• a 1 0 o • 17 ?++ ..,y. o � a m , ? H co e Q o Iv 1 • "eg►a ?o H om- c3vw- g ; °o �3 J l J P n to ° 3 f9 ° p e. E 0 f° O S 'v `< eo ^ ` "�•.• -'te *4 7t• • • f rt. C co c °c p� eo4 o w m � ,7 . » '- `° o ° a 9. p • H et et. N o n "< o e9 P1 S C ry e9 F O a �} 1 • } �. . • S Q 0 00 +o "' j o) ,.,1 t�i R ' N 2 f ^ 9 0• N ` 1 0 O �/ •- J = a s.. 4at .4 o 1 ° e w 2 r; ...< , , ,,. c 7 o ,..... 9 < - 10 .-..- a) ,... t.... , • , = _:•.., ‘, Vi _?p 3c� u h •e A H e 2 .° Sn. o 3 a � oo , �N ° c3 � o a ' E . `° 1 L t° w C5 3 E . E H m` • C O .: 0 7 vl S [ c s Q o n H K �c ^ a c E - o�a ° E am :; °' 0 O S am e9e 9 '+ a w 0 p•^ >?i a )<eo o _ mo n ^'o• -< .0 ' oo - fin SOD '2 E 3 a 0 c c s oo o n �... m y (0. o; a'-•(..r3 _ O o o G = SO c^ m n ^ ie n w eo ‹ H v> CS F, F 3 u. n ie m ›o 2 p e m .yav o e n ' e e - aOoi n a .0 : 0 7. ao R ry < 7 , t < G p m ,•,� 0 n ? e9 3 - Hey y 3 -, - s .. 00 -c: O a o a < •- ^ C n 2 ?. y • w y p ? n' ? ^ el. Pi {a ° " 'a f9 w E es`� n o- < ! e 3 eo =o eo • Qg =�3 n •.- °� H so c = •- ..: n m '� • N ...< rot o m 0 ,, w 0 co m oa � �a������o ° '^ y, - im - »t�a•ooB H ^?;3 va ? 3`n _ <°,on �oo�y• 3ny • v plastics alre,, t Bing recycled. But exemptions have said they need restaurant owners, for the first time Sorting plastics out the lastics ban more time to manufacture — or to • under orders to recycle or get rid of find suppliers of — alternative their plastics, don't know if their In Minneapolis, many otthe plastics affected by the ban are covered by packaging, Cairns said. Grocery stt ;e trash haulers can handle the recycling the city's recycling program and will therefore continue to be available owners also have requested task. after the compliance dates shown below. St. Paul does not currently re- exemptions so they can sell their cycle plastics but will probably start a program soon. Officials from both remaining stocks of plastic - packaged "A lot of folks are going to be doing cities say be pas ti that enforcement of the ban will bhed in gradually. There food products, Cairns said. Thomas • some serious experimenting real Harberts, president of Byer' lc., ' quick," said Dave Siegel, spokesman are five main exceptions to the ban: said the Edina -based supers, •t • for the Minnesota Restaurant _ Packaging that Is returned for reuse. - chain is awaiting the outcome of the Association. "My real concern is if _ Packaging that Is being recycled. exemptions hearing before it people are ready, and Pm honestly _ Flexible plastic wrapping, 10 mils or kiss, such as that used In removes items from shelves at its not sure." wrapping meats, produce, bakery items and take -out foods. store on the East Side of St. Paul. — Packaging used In hospitals and nursing hones. • City officials, while sympathetic, • St. Paul's inability to get into the — Packaging that has no environmentally acceptable or econom- aren't wavering. "There's a lot of recycling business has financial and anxiety and confusion, yes, but I iplly feasible substitute (subject to approval by the city). ideological roots, Long said. don't care how they do it — as long Here are some of the plastic items that will be affected: , "Hennepin County's a lot wealthier as they do it," said John Schnickel, • than Ramsey, and the plastic • environmental health director in industry threw all its money over Minneapolis. "They knew this was Packaging restricted as of Monday there, he said. "We have the money coming." In grocery stores ... In restaurants ... problem, but people here have a g ry more pure environmental view about Two years have passed since the ' — Milk containers — Plastic trays, plates, bowls, plastic recycling that has kept them cities took aim at plastics. Plastic — Carbonated beverage bottles cups, glossae, etc. used on the from acting as quickly." food packaging makes up a relatively — Ice cream, frozen dessert and . premises. Take -out containers small pan of society's garbage pile, yogurt containers will not be banned until Jan. 1, That environmental view holds that but it's obnoxiously visible and lasts _ Noncarbonated water containers 1992. recycling plastic merely encourages nearly forever. people to use more of it. And plastic Stores in Minneapolis may continue Restaurants that want to continue recycling is still so rudimentary that St. Paul led the way, with City to stock these items because they using these items will have to have not all types can be recycled; even Council Member Bob Long out in are covered by the city's recycling a recycling service or other means • those resins that are recycled end up front. The city was quickly followed program. St. Paul does not recycle of reusing them. Plastic knives, being made into new products — not by Minneapolis, then St. Louis Park, them; the city is considering requests forks, spoons, straws and cup lids replacements of the original Robbinsdale, Coon Rapids, White for exemptions from the ban. will remain exempt from the ban. products. Even if people don't notice Bear Lake and Shoreview. Originally, a difference on grocery shelves, they plastic food packaging was going to Packaging in g restricted as of Oct. 1 will start noticing a difference at : be banned, period. restaurants and fast -food joints, In grocery stores ... In catering events .. , where the ordinances also take effect. But the plastics industry wasn't about g ry g Starting tomorrow, restaurants must • to see its business destroyed in a — Plastic grocery bags — Plastic trays, plates, bowls, dive head -first into the recycling major metro area and didn't like the Stores can use these bags if they cups, glasses, etc. used In business — cans, bottles and plastics . idea of bans spreading nationwide, so provide on -site recycling. catered events. ICs up to them to work out tem it muscled into the debate. Industry — Plastic bottles for ketchup, mus- with their trash hauler. In L se of representatives pushed state officials lard, syrup, dressing, oils, etc. Catered events in Minneapolis plastics — unless it's for take -out to preempt local action on plastics, — Plastic Jars for peanut butter, and St. Paul — regardless of the food and if it isn't being recycled — an effort that failed. But they got the Jelly, sauces, toppings, etc. location — will be treated the same that means no more plastic trays, pans suspended by pushing the idea as restaurants. They will have to plates, cups and bowls. of recycling, which was an untested Stores can stock these items if they have a recycling service or other idea because a market didn't exist. are covered by city recycling pro- means of reusing the items above "it's doable, but it's difficult," said grams. to continue their use. Siegel of the restaurant association. , With its well - developed system for "Some guys are grumbling, 'How am ' recycling paper, glass and cans, I going to make this work?' but Minneapolis took the biggest steps at Packaging restricted as of J. 1 , 1992 they're going to try." first, mandating recycling of plastic In grocery stores ... In all food services... • i ther city plans to start the smallest, and the suburbs are — Plastic tubs for butter, merger- — Bulk food containers. aggressively enforcing the new somewhere in between. Ina, cottage cheese, etc. Food services will have to have a recycling rules for restaurants at the — Foam trays and containers for recycling service or other means of crack of dawn tomorrow, inspectors As a result, changes will be barely meet, produce, eggs, etc. rousing bullk con tainers to use mem will make recycling checks pan of perceptible for households in _Remaining types of food pack_ their routine visits, officials said. plastic • Minneapolis. Starting tomorrow, aging considered environment- —' �' mss , ' -tubs that once held yogurt, cottage ally unacceptable. cups, glasses, "clamshells," And unlike the illusory "ban" that cheese and the like can be tossed in etc. used for take -out food. has grocers so concerned, a few items . the recycling bin, meaning the city's Stores can stock these items if they — Plastic packaging used iii used in restaurants may actually be 277 grocery stores probably won't are covered by city recycling pro- vending machine foods. . banished. There's no recycling have to yank products from their grams. These items can be used if they are market yet for foam trays or for the •shelves. covered by city recycling programs clear plastic domes and boxes that Sources: Minneapolis Heart' Department or can be reused hold salads and sandwiches. The that should remain the case between St Paul Drnsion of Pubic Hesith. may have to disc now and the end of the year, as more Barr Tribune °reptile/ Bilk, Store Clayton said pP�. Schnickel plastics are added to the "banned" list — providing the recycling market system isn't evolved enough," Katherine Cairns, the city's public For all the teeth- gnashing about the can handle each new type of plastic. Gunther said health director, said her division ordinances, the fact remains that the' already received I5 exemption affect only one small part of the . "It's a s tep -by -step process, and it That means grocers can breathe requests as of Friday. The deadline plastic mountain — stuff that's only works if the recycling market is easily — for the time being. "No, for applications, covering items wrapped around food. "It's where we there," said Leonard Krumm, the there won't be any cadres of plastic included in the first phase of the have legal authority, restau• and Minneapolis city engineer in charge police out there trying to nail city's plastics ban, is today. A hearing groceries," Schnickel said. of recycling. "The intent is to capture people," Gunther said. But those is planned for late July or early the majority of the material — we plastic police — city inspectors — August. Going beyond that, trying to attack know we're not going to get it all. can slap offenders of the ordinan the use of plastics that wrap so many You remove as much plastic as you with $5O tickets. erns said items covered in the first other items can't be done locally, can with as little disruption to phase include plastic milk jugs, Krumm said. "We've gone after people's lifestyles as possible." •St. Paul has provided grocery stores, yogurt containers, ice cream pails what's easy to attack," he said. "If restaurants, manufacturers and trade and soft -drink containers. The you want to start going after other Across the river. things are more associations with an opportunity t Dairies Federation of Minnesota is stuff, you've got to start doing it o. dea of bans spreading nationwide, so provide on -site recycling csiered events. ICs up to them to Wor( out a system t muscled into the debate. Industry — Plastic bottles for ketchup, mus- with their trash hauler. In the case of epresentati pushed state officials Catered events in Minneapolis plastics — unless it's for take -out P lard, syrup, dressing, oils, etc. o preempt local action on plastics, — Plastic jars for peanut butter, and St Paul — regardless of the food and if it isn't being recycled — n effort that failed. But they got the filly, sauces, toppings, etc. kx�bon — will be treated the same that means no more plastic trays, 'ans suspended by pushing the idea as restaurants. They will have to plates, cups and bowls. )f recycling, which was an untested Stores can stock these items if they have a reeyding service or other dea because a market didn't exist. are covered by city recycling pro- means of reusing the Items above "It's doable, but it's difficult," said grams. to continue their use. Siegel of the restaurant association. Xi well- developed system for "Some guys are grumbling, 'How am - ec) 6 paper, glass and cans, I going to make this work? but Minneapolis took the biggest steps at Packaging restricted as of Jan. 1 , 1992 they're going to try • first. mandating recycling of plastic In grocery stores ... In all food services .. . ugs and bottles. St. Paul has taken Mthour,h neither city plans to start he smallest, and the suburbs are — Plastic tubs for butter, merger- — Bulk food containers. aggressively enforcing the new .omewhere in between. Ina, cottage cheese, etc. Food services will have to have a recycling rules for restaurants at the — Foam trays and containers for recycling service or other means of crack of dawn tomorrow, inspectors As a result, changes will be barely meat, produce, eggs, etc. reusing bulk containers to use them. will make recycling checks part of xrceptible for households in • — Remaining types of food ck- their routine visits, officials said. Minneapolis. Starting tomorrow, aging considered environment- — Plastic � �' bowls, :ubs that once held yogurt, cottage ally unacceptable. cups, glasses, "clamshells," And unlike the illusory "ban" that :heese and the like can be tossed in Mc. used for take -out food. • has grocers so concerned, a few items he recycling bin, meaning the city's Stores can stock these items if they — Plastic packaging used In used in restaurants may actually be 277 grocery stores probably won't are covered by city recycling pro- vending machine foods. banished. There's no recycling have to yank products from their grams. These items can be used If they are market yet for foam trays or for the shelves. covered by city recycling programs clear plastic domes and boxes that Sources: Minneapolis Health Department, hold salads and sandwiches. The St Paul Division of Public Health. or can be reused. That should remain the case between may have to disappear, Schnickel now and the end of the year, as more Star Triune graphlcf Billy Steve Clayton said. . plastics are added to the "banned" list — providing the recycling market system isn't evolved enough," Katherine Cairns, the city's public For all the teeth- gnashing about the can handle each new type of plastic. Gunther said. health director, said her division ordinances, the fact remains that they already received 15 exemption affect only one small part of the "It's a step -by -step process, and it That means grocers can breathe requests as of Friday. The deadline plastic mountain — stuff that's only works if the recycling market is easily — for the time being. "No, for applications, covering items wrapped around food. "It's where we there," said Leonard Krumm, the there won't be any cadres of plastic included in the first phase of the have legal authority, restaurants and Minneapolis city engineer in charge police out there trying to nail city's plastics ban, is today. A hearing groceries," Schnickel said. of recycling. "The intent is to capture people," Gunther said. But those is planned for late July or early the majority of the material — we plastic police — city inspectors — August. Going beyond that, trying to attack know we're not going to get it all. can slap offenders of the ordinance the use of plastics that wrap so many You remove as much plastic as you with S50 tickets. Cairns said items covered in the first other items can't be done locally, can with as little disruption to phase include plastic milk jugs, Krumm said. "We've gone after people's lifestyles as possible." St. Paul has provided grocery stores, yogurt containers, ice cream pails what's easy to attack," he said. "If restaurants, manufacturers and trade and soft -drink containers. The you want to start going after other Aci he river, things are more associations with an opportunity to , Dairies Federation of Minnesota is stuff, you've got to start doing it on a con.. ated. Because the city's • obtain exemptions for certain plastic - seeking exemptions for half- gallon national scale." private trash haulers won't have packaged food items. The and gallon milk jugs, 5-quart ice curbside recycling programs for at exemptions, allowing the products to cream pails and frozen dessert and Staff writer Anthony Lonetree least several months, technically the remain on store and restaurant yogurt containers. contributed to this report. plastics are banned as of tomorrow. shelves, can run up to a year and are "People want to recycle, but the renewable. People and groups seeking • Trash Continued from page IB ✓ cardboard. want to save money, but it may not more participants. Residents can be fined S25 and . be large enough to chance people's businesses S100 if they refuse to That's not good enough for city behavior. So you make it law. People The idea of mandating recycling may recycle. But what's more likely to officials, who want to decrease the have to see that it's that important." shock some residents although so far happen is that a hauler will report amount of garbage being dumped in there's been no opposition to tt, ' uncooperative residents to the city. the landfill or burned at NSP plants Although St. Paul is not the first city according to representatives from the The city will send the resident a letter in Mankato and Red Wing, Minn. in the state to mandate recycling, it's city and the Energy Consortium. The asking for compliance and follow it the only one in Ramsey County. consortium is a coalition of up with a phone call, Buckley said. Mandating recycling seemed to be a neighborhood groups that plans and sure-fire way of possibly doubling Ramsey County is required to meet implements recycling and energy Minneapolis, which boasts that 88 to participation in the program, state - imposed goals of recycling 35 conservation programs. 92 percent of its residents recycle, according to proponents of the law. A percent of its garbage, including yard uses the carrot and not the stick to financial incentive also was added by waste, by 1993 and 45 percent of its It took St. Paul 21 years to pass the encourage recycling. The city offers requiring garbage haulers to offer at garbage,excluding yard waste, by recycling mandate, but it puts the residents who separate their least three rates based on 30- to 33- 1996. Zack Hansen, solid waste city on the cutting edge, said TKach. recyclable trash a S7 discount off gallon containers. That means the division manager, estimates that at "Other cities don't want to take the their monthly $ 17.50 solid- waste- more garbage residents generate, the last 30 percent of the trash collected political step to get residents to do disposal fee. more they'll pay to have it hauled in Ramsey County is being recycled. what needs to be done." away. Taking out the glass, cans and "I personally wouldn't decide to go paper will lower the bill. In an effort to meet the state's Recycling has been the law in with a mandatory program," said recycling goals, more businesses and Bloomington since 1989. Not Andy Castellano, Minneapolis "The voluntary system works for the industries will have to begin or step everyone recycles, but as much as 91 recycling program assistant. But env' - mentally conscious up their recycling efforts, Hansen percent of the residents recycle at there is an advantage to having Ma al." said St. Paul Council said. On a lesser scale, residential least once a month, estimated Jean diversity among recycling programs, Merb —r Bob Long. "An economic programs need to be expanded to Buckley, the city's solid walla he said. incentive may attract people who include more types of materials and program manager. TV program changes 19 era • and Charles Ooletree. City of Eagan Environmental Quality Survey Waste Management Preliminary Results Prepared by Theresa Ahles June 21, 1991 A. Solid Waste Q1. Disposal of Regular Trash Number Percent 1= At the curb 178 82.0 % 2= At a central container 36 16.6 % 3= At place of business 3 1.4 % Total 217 100.0 % Missing cases = 4 Response percent = 98.2 % Q1A. Disposal of Regular Trash - Other Number Percent Apartment Dumpster = 1 33 % Trash shoot = 2 67 % Total 3 100.0 % Missing cases = 218 Response percent = 1.4 % Q2. Participating in Recycling Activity Number Percent 1 = No 10 4.5 % 2 = Yes 210 95.5 % Total 220 100.0 % Missing cases = 1 Response percent = 99.5 % 1 Q3. Reasons for Not Participating ( those responding 'no' in Q2 above) a. Unaware of programs Number Percent 1 = No 7 70.0 % 2 = Yes 3 30.0 % Total 10 100.0 % b. Produce little waste Number Percent 1 = No 5 50.0 % 2 = Yes 5 50.0 % Total 10 100.0 % c. Physically unable Number Percent 1 = No 10 100.0 % Total 10 100.0 % d. Feel it's not necessary Number Percent 1 = No 9 100.0 % Total 9 100.0 % 2 Q4. Recycling Services used a. Curbside Pickup Number Percent 1 = No 37 17.5 % 2 = Yes 174 82.5 % Total 211 100.0 % Missing cases = 10 Response percent = 95.5 % b. Central containers Number Percent 1 = No 178 84.4 % 2 = Yes 33 15.6 % Total 211 100.0 % Missing cases = 10 Response percent = 95.5 % c. Drop -off Centers Number Percent 1 = No 148 70.1 % 2 = Yes 63 29.9 % Total 211 100.0 % Missing cases = 10 Response percent = 95.5 % d. Pooled efforts of church or neighborhood group Number Percent 1 = No 192 91.0 % 2 = Yes 19 9.0 % Total 211 100.0 % Missing cases = 10 Response percent = 95.5 % e. Other recycling service Number Percent Donate 1 12.5% At compost site 1 12.5% At work, office, place of business 5 62.5% Motor oil collection site 1 12.5 % Total 8 100.0 % Missing cases = 213 Response percent = 3.6 % 3 Q5. Materials recycled a. Recycle Glass Number Percent 1 = No 21 9.9 % 2 = Yes 192 90.1 % Total 213 100.0 % Missing cases = 8 Response percent = 96.4 % b. Recycle Aluminum Cans Number Percent 1 = No 12 5.6 % 2 = Yes 201 94.4 % Total 213 100.0 % Missing cases = 8 Response percent = 96.4 % c. Recycle Aluminum Foil Number Percent 1 = No 153 72.2 % 2 = Yes 59 27.8 % Total 212 100.0 % Missing cases = 9 Response percent = 95.9 % d. Recycle Steel /Tin Cans Number Percent 1 = No 79 37.1 % 2 = Yes 134 62.9 % Total 213 100.0 % Missing cases = 8 Response percent = 96.4 % e. Recycle Corrugated Cardboard Number Percent 1 = No 135 63.7 % 2 = Yes 77 36.3 % Total 212 100.0 % Missing cases = 9 Response percent = 95.9 % 4 f. Recycle Plastics Number Percent 1 = No 75 35.2 % 2 = Yes 138 64.8 % Total 213 100.0 % Missing cases = 8 Response percent = 96.4 % g. Recycle White Office Paper Number Percent 1 = No 179 84.0 % 2 = Yes 34 16.0 % Total 213 100.0 % Missing cases = 8 Response percent = 96.4 % h. Recycle Newspaper Number Percent 1 = No 25 11.7 % 2 = Yes 188 88.3 % Total 213 100.0 % Missing cases = 8 Response percent = 96.4 % • i. Recycle Motor Oil Number Percent 1 = No 135 64.0 % 2 = Yes 76 36.0 % Total 211 100.0 % Missing cases = 10 Response percent = 95.5 % j. Other items recycled Number Percent Batteries = 5 41.7 % Car battery = 1 8.3 % Food = 1 8.3 % Grocery bags = 1 8.3 % Other paper, cereal boxes = 1 8.3 % Paint,solvent = 1 8.3 % Plastic bags = 1 8.3 % Tires & battery = 1 8.3 % Total 12 100.0 % Missing cases = 209 Response percent = 5.9 % 5 Q6. Frequency of Collection Number Percent 1 = Weekly 116 62.4 % 2 = Twice a month 24 12.9 % 3 = Once a month 9 4.8 % 4 = As needed 37 19.9 % Total 186 100.0 % Missing cases = 35 Response percent = 84.2 % General feelings of respondents regarding the recycling program... Q7a. Information regarding program procedures Number Percent 1 = Poor 9 4.2 % 2 = Fair 25 11.7 % 3 = Good 111 52.1 % 4 = Excellent 68 31.9 % Total 213 100.0 % Mean = 3.1 Missing cases = 8 Response percent = 96.4 % Q7b. Information regarding program changes Number Percent 1 = Poor 12 5.8 % 2 = Fair 38 18.3 % 3 = Good 104 50.0 % 4 = Excellent 54 26.0 % Total 208 100.0 % Mean = 3.0 Missing cases = 13 Response percent = 94.1 % Q7c. Collection systems available Number Percent 1 = Poor 5 2.4 % 2 = Fair 21 9.9 % 3 = Good 88 41.5 % 4 = Excellent !98 46.2 % Total 212 100.0 % Mean = 3.3 Missing cases = 9 Response percent = 95.9 % 6 Q7d1. Efficiency of Collection Number Percent 1 = Poor 3 1.4 % 2 = Fair 10 4.8 % 3 = Good 91 43.8 % 4 = Excellent 104 50.0 % Total 208 100.0 % Mean = 3.4 Missing cases = 13 Response percent = 94.1 % Q7d2. Reliability of Collection Number Percent 1 = Poor 4 2.0 % 2 = Fair 9 4.5 % 3 = Good 87 43.7 % 4 = Excellent 99 49.7 % Total 199 100.0 % Mean = 3.4 Missing cases = 22 Response percent = 90.0 % Q7d3. Neatness of Collection Number Percent 1 = Poor 5 2.5 % 2 = Fair 16 8.1 % 3 = Good 89 45.2 % 4 = Excellent 87 44.2 % Total 197 100.0 % Mean = 3.3 Missing cases = 24 Response percent = 89.1 % Q7e.Special events and programs Number Percent 1 = Poor 20 10.1 % 2 = Fair 52 26.1 % 3 = Good 83 41.7 % 4 = Excellent 44 22.1 % Total 199 100.0 % Mean = 2.8 Missing cases = 22 Response percent = 90.0 % 7 Q7f. Over -all program operations Number Percent 1 = Poor 4 1.9 % 2 = Fair 15 7.3 % 3 = Good 130 63.1 % 4 = Excellent 57 27.7 % Total 206 100.0 % Mean = 3.2 Missing cases = 15 Response percent = 93.2 % Q8. Received brochure indicating plastics and cardboard included in the recycling program Number Percent 1 = No 43 19.5 % 2 = Yes 143 64.7 % 9 = Don't Know 35 15.8 % Total 221 100.0 % Missing cases = 0 Response percent = 100.0 % Q9. Support small utility charge Number Percent 1 = No 53 24.2 % 2 = Yes 100 45.7 % 9 = Don't Know 66 30.1 % Total 219 100.0 % Missing cases = 2 Response percent = 99.1 % Q9a. Amount willing to pay /month ' Number Percent $ .75 = 1 1.1 % 1.00 = 11 12.0 % 2.00 = 15 16.3 % 3.00 = 12 13.0 % 4.00 = 4 4.3 % 5.00 = 41 44.6 % 10.00 = 7 7.6 % 15.00 = 1 1.1 % • Total 92 100.0 % Mean = $ 4.00 Missing cases = 129 Response percent = 41.6 % 8 Q10. If law required recycling, Would recycling habits change Number Percent 1 = No 146 66.7 % 2 = Yes 56 25.6 % 9 = Don't Know 17 7.8 % Total 219 100.0 % Missing cases = 2 Response percent = 99.1 % Q12. Favor mandatory recycling legislation Number Percent 1 = No 25 11.7 % 2 = Yes 138 64.5 % 9 = Don't Know 51 23.8 % Total 214 100.0 % Missing cases = 7 Response percent = 96.8 % B. Household Hazardous Waste, Special Wastes Q13. Household hazardous waste disposal a problem in neighborhood Number Percent 1 = No 118 54.1 % 2 = Yes 32 14.7 % 9 = Don't Know 68 31.2 % Total 218 100.0 % Missing cases = 3 Response percent = 98.6 % 9 Respondents views on proper disposal methods for the following: Q14a. Tire disposal - Landfill Number Percent 1 = No 205 98.1 % 2 = Yes 4 1.9 % Total 209 100.0 % Missing cases = 12 Response percent = 94.6 % Tire disposal - Recycle Number Percent 1 = No 41 19.6 % 2 = Yes 168 80.4 % Total 209 100.0 % Missing cases = 12 Response percent = 94.6 % Tire Disposal - Reuse Number Percent 1 = No 144 68.9 % 2 = Yes 65 31.1 % Total 209 • 100.0 % Missing cases = 12 Response percent = 94.6 % Tire Disposal - Other Number Percent 1 = No 181 87.0 % 2 = Yes 27 13.0 % Total 208 100.0 % Missing cases = 13 Response percent = 94.1 % 10 Q14b. Motor Oil Disposal - Landfill Number Percent 1 = No 207 99.5 % 2 = Yes 1 0.5 % Total 208 100.0 % Missing cases = 13 Response percent = 94.1 % Motor Oil Disposal - Recycle Number Percent 1 = No 31 14.9 % 2 = Yes 177 85.1 % Total 208 100.0 % Missing cases = 13 Response percent = 94.1 % Motor Oil Disposal - Reuse Number Percent 1 = No 143 68.8 % 2 = Yes 65 31.3 % Total 208 100.0 % Missing cases = 13 Response percent = 94.1 % Motor Oil Disposal - Other Number Percent 1 = No 191 92.7 % 2 = Yes 15 7.3 % Total 206 100.0 % Missing cases = 15 Response percent = 93.2 % 11 Q14c. Large Appliance Disposal - Landfill Number Percent 1 = No 191 93.6 % 2 = Yes 13 6.4 % Total 204 100.0 % Missing cases = 17 Response percent = 92.3 % Large Appliance Disposal - Recycle Number Percent 1 = No 103 50.5 % 2 = Yes 101 49.5 % Total 204 100.0 % Missing cases = 17 Response percent = 92.3 % Large Appliance Disposal - Reuse Number Percent 1 = No 149 73.0 % 2 = Yes 55 27.0 % Total 204 100.0 % Missing cases = 17 Response percent = 92.3 % Large Appliance Disposal - Other Number Percent 1 = No 129 63.5 % 2 = Yes 74 36.5 % Total 203 100.0 % Missing cases = 18 Response percent = 91.9 % 12 Q14d. Auto Battery Disposal - Landfill Number Percent 1 = No 205 99.5 % 2 = Yes 1 0.5 % Total 206 100.0 % Missing cases = 15 Response percent = 93.2 % Auto Battery Disposal - Recycle Number Percent 1 = No 56 27.2 % 2 = Yes 150 72.8 % Total 206 100.0 % • Missing cases = 15 Response percent = 93.2 % Auto Battery Disposal - Reuse Number Percent 1 = No 167 81.1 % 2 = Yes 39 18.9 % Total 206 100.0 % Missing cases = 15 Response percent = 93.2 % Auto Battery Disposal - Other Number Percent 1 = No 157 76.6 % 2 = Yes 48 23.4 % Total 205 100.0 % Missing cases = 16 Response percent = 92.8 % 13 Q14e. Yard Waste Disposal - Landfill Number Percent 1 = No 194 91.1 % 2 = Yes 19 8.9 % Total 213 100.0 % Missing cases = 8 Response percent = 96.4 % Yard Waste Disposal - Compost* Number Percent 1 = No 8 3.8 % 2 = Yes 205 96.2 % Total 213 100.0 % Missing cases = 8 Response percent = 96.4 % * There were a number of respondents (n =24) who indicated yard waste should be reused or recycled. Their responses are included in the 'yes' group above. This seemed the most logical. Yard Waste Disposal - Other* Number Percent 1 = No 209 98.6 % 2 = Yes 3 1.4 % Total 212 100.0 % Missing cases = 9 Response percent = 95.9 % * One respondent's suggestion was to burn yard wastes. • 14 Q14f. Household /Button Battery Disposal - Landfill Number Percent 1 = No 179 95.2 % 2 = Yes 9 4.8 % Total 188 100.0 % Missing cases = 33 Response percent = 85.1 % Household /Button Battery Disposal - Recycle Number Percent 1 = No 76 40.4 % 2 = Yes 112 59.6 % Total 188 100.0 % Missing cases = 33 Response percent = 85.1 % Household /button Battery Disposal - Reuse Number Percent 1 = No 169 90.4 % 2 = Yes 18 9.6 % Total 187 100.0 % Missing cases = 34 Response percent = 84.6 % Household /Button Battery Disposal - Other Number Percent 1 = No 118 63.1 % 2 = Yes 69 36.9 % Total 187 100.0 % Missing cases = 34 Response percent = 84.6 % 15 Q14g. Household Hazardous Waste - Landfill Number Percent 1 = No 193 96.5 % 2 = Yes 7 3.5 % Total 200 100.0 % Missing cases = 21 Response percent = 90.5 % Household Hazardous Waste - Recycle Number Percent 1 = No 130 65.7 % 2 = Yes 68 34.3 % Total 198 100.0 % Missing cases = 23 Response percent = 89.6 % Household Hazardous Waste - Reuse Number Percent 1 = No 178 89.0 % 2 = Yes 22 11.0 % Total 200 100.0 % Missing cases = 21 Response percent = 90.5 % Household Hazardous Waste - Other Number Percent 1 = No 70 35.0 % 2 = Yes 130 65.0 % Total 200 100.0 % Missing cases = 21 Response percent = 90.5 % Q15. Use Non -Toxic Alternatives for Household Cleaners Number Percent 1 = No 106 48.8 % 2 = Yes 111 51.2 % Total 217 100.0 % Missing cases = 4 Response percent = 98.2 % 16 C. Yard Care /Maintenance Q16a. Compost lawn clippings on own property Number Percent 1 = No 118 69.8 % 2 = Yes 51 30.2 % Total 169 100.0 % Missing cases = 52 Response percent = 76.5 % Q16b. Compost lawn clippings at public site Number Percent 1 = No 135 79.9 % 2 = Yes 34 20.1 % Total 169 100.0 % Missing cases = 52 Response percent = 76.5 % Q16c. Lawn clippings picked up by Refuse /Recyling Hauler Number Percent 1 = No 145 85.8 % 2 = Yes 24 14.2 % Total 169 100.0 % Missing cases = 52 Response percent = 76.5 % Q16d. Lawn clippings used for Mulch Number Percent 1 = No 124 73.4 % 2 = Yes 45 26.6 % Total 169 100.0 % Missing cases = 52 Response percent = 76.5 % Q16e. Lawn Service takes clippings Number Percent 1 = No 150 88.8 % 2 = Yes 19 11.2 % Total 169 100.0 % Missing cases = 52 Response percent = 76.5 % 17 Q16f. Leave clippings on lawn Number Percent 1 = No 77 45.3 % 2 = Yes 93 54.7 % Total 170 100.0 % Missing cases = 51 Response percent = 76.9 % Q16g. Lawn Clippings - Other uses Number Percent Neighbor takes them = 1 100.0 % Total 1 100.0 % Missing cases = 220 Response percent = 0.5 % Q17a. Leaves composted on own property Number Percent 1 = No 94 62.7 % 2 = Yes 56 37.3 % Total 150 100.0 % Missing cases = 71 Response percent = 67.9 % Q17b. Leaves taken to public compost site Number Percent. 1 = No 98 65.8 % 2 = Yes 51 34.2 % Total 149 100.0 % Missing cases = 72 Response percent = 67.4 % Q17c. Leaves picked up by Refuse /Recycling Hauler Number Percent 1 = No 117 79.1 % 2 = Yes 31 20.9 % Total 148 100.0 % Missing cases = 73 Response percent = 67.0 % 18 Q17d. Lawn Service takes leaves Number Percent 1 = No 125 83.9 % 2 = Yes 24 16.1 % Total 149 100.0 % Missing cases = 72 Response percent = 67.4 % Q17e. Leaves burned by permit Number Percent 1 = No 148 100.0 % Total 148 100.0 % Missing cases = 73 Response percent = 67.0 % Q17F. Leaves - Other disposal methods Number Percent 1 = No 1 6.3 % 2 = Yes * 34 93.8 % Total 35 100.0 % Missing cases = 186 Response percent = 15.8% * Other methods included the following: don't rake, no leaves /trees on property, use for mulch, put in woods on property, neighbor disposes of leaves. If compost yard waste... Q18. Use finished compost on lawn or garden Number Percent 1 = No 25 39.7 % 2 = Yes 38 60.3 % Total 63 100.0 % Missing cases = 158 Response percent = 28.5 % 19 Q19. Location of compost in yard Least used section Number Percent 1 = No 25 37.9 % 2 = Yes 41 62.1 % Total 66 100.0 % Missing cases = 155 Response percent = 29.9 % Close to garden or area where used Number Percent 1 = No 44 66.7 % 2 = Yes 22 33.3 % Total 66 100.0 % Missing cases = 155 Response percent = 29.9 % Within 50 ft. of pond, lake or wetland Number Percent 1 = No 60 90.9 % 2 = Yes 6 9.1 % Total 66 100.0 % Missing cases = 155 Response percent = 29.9 % In a swale of gully Number Percent 1 = No 61 92.4 % 2 = Yes 5 7.6 % Total 66 100.0 % Missing cases = 155 Response percent = 29.9 % Other compost sites* Number Percent 2 = Yes 7 100.0 % Total 7 100.0 % Missing cases = 214 Response percent = 3.2 % * Other sites included the following: in garden, on vacant lot, in woods around yard, on other owned property. 20 Q20. Aware of location of compost drop -off Number Percent 1 = No 49 27.8 % 2 = Yes , 127 72.2 % Total 176 100.0 % Missing cases = 45 Response percent = 79.6 % Months of operation Number Percent 1 = No •103 59.5 % 2 = Yes 70 40.5 % Total 173 100.0 % Missing cases = 48 Response percent = 78.3 % Hours of operation Number Percent 1 = No 108 62.4 % 2 = Yes 65 37.6 % Total 173 100.0 % Missing cases = 48 Response percent = 78.3 % Materials accepted at the site Number Percent 1 = No 86 49.4 % 2 = Yes 88 50.6 % Total 174 100.0 % Missing cases = 47 Response percent = 78.7 % 21 B. Information Sources Sources respondents rely on for information concerning yard care, recycling and other environmental programs Q21. Articles in "Eagan This Week" Number Percent 1 = No 132 60.6 % 2 = Yes 86 39.4 % Total 218 100.0 % Missing cases = 3 Response percent = 98.6 % Articles in "The Chronicle" Number Percent 1 = No 149 68.3 % 2 = Yes 69 31.7 % Total 218 100.0 % Missing cases = 3 Response percent = 98.6 % R Local Cable Access Number Percent 1 = No 208 95.4 % 2 = Yes 10 4.6 % Total 218 100.0 % Missing cases = 3 Response percent = 98.6 % The Eagan City Newsletter Number Percent 1 = No 123 56.4 % 2 = Yes 95 43.6 % Total 218 100.0 % Missing cases = 3 Response percent = 98.6 % 22 Word of Mouth Number Percent 1 = No 181 83.0 % 2 = Yes 37 17.0 % Total 218 100.0 % Missing cases = 3 Response percent = 98.6 % Brochures /Flyers sent to home Number Percent 1 = No 83 38.1 % 2 = Yes 135 61.9 % Total 218 100.0 % Missing cases = 3 Response percent = 98.6 % Public Meetings Number Percent 1 = No 217 99.5 % 2 = Yes 1 0.5 % Total 218 100.0 % Missing cases = 3 Response percent = 98.6 % Other sources of Information Number Percent Called city hall = 1 5.0 % Television News = 5 25.0 % Twin City newspapers = 5 25.0 % Apartment Clubhouse = 1 5.0 % Association flyers = 1 5.0 % College = 1 5.0 % Garbage bill = 1 5.0 % Waste hauler = 2 10.0 % Knutson sanitary = 1 5.0 % Metro council = 1 5.0 % Professionals = 1 5.0 % Total 20 100.0 % Missing cases = 201 Response percent = 9.0 % 23 Additional information requests from respondents Q22. More Info on Recycling Number Percent 1 = No 98 46.9 % 2 = Yes 111 53.1 % Total 209 100.0 % Missing cases = 12 Response percent = 94.6 % More Info on Waste Reduction Number Percent 1 = No 98 46.9 % 2 = Yes 111 53.1 % Total 209 100.0 % Missing cases = 12 Response percent = 94.6 % More Info - Safe Household Hazardous Waste Disposal Number Percent 1 = No 76 36.4 % 2 = Yes 133 63.6 % Total 209 100.0 % Missing cases = 12 Response percent = 94.6 % More Info - Alternatives to Household Hazardous Products Number Percent 1 = No 91 43.5 % 2 = Yes 118 56.5 % Total 209 100.0 % Missing cases = 12 Response percent = 94.6 % More Info - Lawn care & Composting Number Percent 1 = No 149 71.3 % 2 = Yes 60 28.7 % Total 209 100.0 % Missing cases = 12 Response percent = 94.6 % 24 More Info - Energy Conservation Number Percent 1 = No 126 60.3 % 2 = Yes 83 39.7 % Total 209 100.0 % Missing cases = 12 Response percent = 94.6 % More Info - Other Number Percent Stopping junk mail = 1 20.0 % Fetilizer runoff effects = 1 20.0 % Acceptable material for landfill = 1 20.0 % Disposal of old gas, antifreeze = 1 20.0 % Ongoing methods & information = 1 20.0 % Total 5 100.0 % Missing cases = 216 Response percent = 2.3 % Format for information respondents find most helpful Q23. Brochures most helpful Number Percent 1 = No 67 30.7 % 2 = Yes 151 69.3 % Total 218 100.0 % Missing cases = 3 Response percent = 98.6 % (' Local Newspapers most helpful Number Percent 1 = No 120 55.0 % 2 = Yes 98 45.0 % Total 218 100.0 % Missing cases = 3 Response percent = 98.6 % Public Meetings most helpful Number • Percent - 1 = No 215 98.6 % 2 = Yes 3 1.4 % Total 218 100.0 % Missing cases = 3 Response percent = 98.6 % 25 Cable TV most helpful Number Percent 1 = No 206 94.5 % 2 = Yes 12 5.5 % Total 218 100.0 % Missing cases = 3 Response percent = 98.6 % Workshops most helpful Number Percent 1 = No 210 96.8 % 2 = Yes 7 3.2 % Total 217 100.0 % Missing cases = 4 Response percent = 98.2 % City Newsletter most helpful Number Percent 1 = No 100 45.9 % 2 = Yes 118 54.1 % Total 218 100.0 % Missing cases = 3 Response percent = 98.6 % E. Additional information about Respondents Q24. Years of residence in Eagan Number Percent Less than one year = 13 5.9 % One to Five years = 124 56.3 % Six to Ten years = 38 17.3 % Eleven to Fifteen years = 22 10.0 % Sixteen to Twenty years = 11 5.0 % More than Twenty years = 12 5.5 % Total 220 100.0 % Mean = 7 years Range = 2 months to 45 years Missing cases = 1 Response percent = 99.5 % 26 Q25. Housing Type Number Percent 1 = Single family residence 143 65.0 % 2 = Duplex 3 1.4 % 3 = Townhome /Condo 39 17.7 % 4 = Apartment 33 15.0 % 5 = Twin Home 1 0.5 6 = Quad Home 1 . 0.5 % Total 220 100.0 % Missing cases = 1 Response percent = 99.5 % Q26. Number of people in household Number Percent 1 = 27 12.3 % 2 = 78 35.5 % 3 = 47 21.4 % 4 = 49 22.3 % 5 = 15 6.8 % 6 = 2 0.9 % 7 = 1 0.5 % 8 = 1 0.5 % Total 220 100.0 % Mean = 3 Missing cases = 1 Response percent = 99.5 % Q27. Age of Respondent Number Percent 1 = Less than 30 yrs 52 23.6 % 2 = 30 -39 yrs 86 39.1 % 3 = 40 -49 yrs 45 20.5 % 4 = 50 -59 yrs 26 11.8 % 5 = 60 -69 yrs 10 4.5 % 6 = 70 or older 1 0.5 % Total 220 100.0 % Mean = Thirties Missing cases = 1 Response percent = 99.5 % 27