Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/22/1991 - Solid Waste Abatement Commission • AGENDA SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION EAGAN, MINNESOTA EAGAN MUNICIPAL CENTER LUNCHROOM TUESDAY, OCTOBER 22, 1991 5:30 P.M. * ** Beginning at 5 o'clock, staff will make a presentation to the Eagan City Council regarding the Eagan Enviromental Quality Survey. While this presentation precedes our regular meeting, Solid Waste Abatement Commission members are cordially invited to attend the presentation meeting. Our regular commission meeting will follow at 5:30 in the Eagan Municipal Center lunchroom. * ** I. ROLL CALL AND ADOPTION OF AGENDA II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES III. STAFF REPORT A. Review Special City Council Presentation/ Environmental Quality Survey IV. OLD BUSINESS V. NEW BUSINESS A. Dakota County Community Landfill Abatement Special Assistance Grants B. Review City Codes 6.37 and 10.01 VI. OTHER BUSINESS VII. DISTRIBUTION VIII. NEXT MEETING IX. ADJOURNMENT MEMO TO: CHAIR SEIS & ALL MEMBERS OF THE SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION FROM: RECYCLING COORDINATOR HAGEMAN DATE: OCTOBER 16, 1991 SUBJECT: EAGAN SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 22, 1991 A regular meeting of the Eagan Solid Waste Abatement Commission will be held on Tuesday, October 22, 1991 at 5:30 p.m. in the Eagan Municipal Center Lunchroom. The City will provide refreshments. 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 October 8, 1991 is enclosed on pages 41 through .4c for your review. These minutes, subject to any change, require approval by the Commission. III. STAFF REPORT A. 1992 Goals Work Session To prepare for the upcoming 1992 goals work session, staff will review the presentation to the Eagan City Council. At the special meeting with the Council, staff hopes to receive feedback from the Council regarding important issues for the future and specific program activities that may need refinement. Tentatively scheduled for our meeting of November 26 will be a work session reviewing 1991 program activities and setting 1992 goals. IV. OLD BUSINESS V. NEW BUSINESS A. Dakota County Community Landfill Abatement Special Assistance Grants At a regular meeting of local and County solid waste management staff, I received a draft copy of the 1992 Dakota County Community Landfill Abatement Special Assistance Grants Program. The draft outlines review criteria, funding allocations, ineligible projects, application procedures and reimbursement /reporting requirements. Local staff reviewed the draft and had concern with two areas. 1) funding allocations which called for a 25% cash match from municipalities and 2) timelines for applications being too narrow and not timely for successful program enhancement. Local municipalities have to date organized 1992 program budgets and secured municipal general fund allocations. With the funding cu s or 1992 and beyond, municipal support for programs has been axed out to maintain program activities at current levels and in so ases lower levels. The draft policy as written with the 25% cash match virtually eliminates all municipalities from any opportunity for applying for additional grant monies. At its meeting of October 15, the Dakota County Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee reviewed the draft grant program guidelines. After some discussion, the Committee voted to remove the 25% match from 1992 requirements, but added the match requirement should be revisited for 1993. The Committee also recommended a two cycle grants application period instead of the one time per year as stated in the draft. SWMAC recommendations will be forwarded to the Dakota County Physical Development Board Committee which meets November 15, 1991. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: Eagan staff requests the Solid Waste Abatement Commission review a draft resolution stating he City of Eagan's concerns with the 25% match requirement. The recommendations regarding the draft policy may then be submitted to the Eagan City Council for review. B. Review City Codes 6.37 & 10.01 As requested by Commission members at our regular meeting of October 8, 1991, staff has included City Codes 6.37 and 10.01 for your review. The two codes include requirements for garbage, refuse and recycling haulers and storage, deposit and disposal of refuse respectively. The items that may need revision include the definitions for yard wastes and "targeted recyclables ". For your information, I have included an informative memo regarding the collection possibilities for rigid plastics in the near future as viewed by County staff. VI. OTHER BUSINESS VII. DISTRIBUTION The following materials are enclosed in your packet. 1. On pages 6 to /c2 you will find a copy of the draft 1992 Dakota County Community Landfill Abatement Special Assistance Grants guidelines. 2. On page /3 you will find a draft resolution regarding the special grants program. a. 3. On pages /4 to ( 2 O you will find copies of City Codes 6.37 and 10.01. 4. On page eD l you will find a copy of a memo regarding collection of rigid plastics. VIII. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of the Solid Waste Abatement Commission will be on Tuesday, November 26, 1991 at 5:30 p.m. Please mark your calendars for that meeting. Ix. ADJOURNMENT 3 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SOUD WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION Eagan, Minnesota October 8, 1991 A regular meeting of the Eagan Solid Waste Abatement Commission was held on Tuesday, October 8, 1991 at 5:30 p.m. Present were Chair Dennis Selz, Terry Davis, Ken Ische, Floyd Hiar, Craig Seim and Darlene Bahr. Absent were Larry Knutson, Earl Miibridge and Terry Jacobs. Also present were Recycling Coordinator Hageman, Assistant to the City Administrator Hohenstein and Joanie Davis. AGENDA Upon motion by Hiar, seconded by Davis, all members voting in favor, the agenda was approved as presented. MINUTES Upon motion by Hiar, seconded by Davis, all members voting in favor, the minutes of the September 10, 1991 meeting were approved as presented. WRAPP REPORT Hageman reported on the City Hall Waste Reduction and Procurement Policy group (WRAPP) which is kicking off its program of additional waste reduction strategies on October 9, 1991. Hiar suggested that the City make further efforts to reflect the fact that they are using recyclable products by indicating so on letterhead and envelopes. He also suggested that the City specify soy based ink in their printing projects. Joanie Davis indicated the City should stress post consumer recyclables in its specifications for paper stock. Hageman stated that the City is already doing many of the things suggested and that she would communicate the additional information to the purchasing person in the Finance Department. VIDEO TAPED RECYCUNG TOURS Hageman stated that she had prepared two video tapes that showed operations at Anchor Glass and Waldorf Paper which had been shown prior to public meetings on local access television. The tapes were then viewed by the commission. Following the presentation, the commission gave positive feedback regarding quality and the content of the tapes and encouraged their continued use for educational purposes. BACK YARD COMPOSTING ORDINANCE Hageman introduced the item and indicated that the questions and concems raised at the previous meeting had been incorporated by the City Attorney's office into a new draft ordinance. Hiar raised questions about certain code sections and the context of the amendments. There was additional discussion by the commission relative to the changes reflected in the ordinance. Following that discussion, upon motion by Davis, seconded by Hiar, all members voting in favor, the commission adopted the ordinance amendment enclosed in the packet with the following changes: In Section 1.K the word diced Is deleted and the word chopped is added, in Section 2.A. the word refuge is deleted and the word refuse is inserted and in Section 2.A. the words biodegradable plastic are deleted. The action further recommended that the City Council adopt this ordinance amendment to become effective on February 1, 1992. Then, upon motion by Davis, seconded by Bahr, all members voting in favor, staff was directed to place on a future agenda City Code section 6.37 and 10.01 for further review by the commission with particular attention to the definitions of yard waste and targeted recyclables. 2-/ SWAC MINUTES OCTOBER 8, 1991 PAGE 2 DAKOTA COUNTY INCINERATOR UPDATE Davis reported that the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency review of the Dakota County • incinerator permit had resulted in some changes since early September. He stated that the Dakota County Citizens Against Buming and other organizations had requested a contested case hearing on the incinerator permit and that the MPCA staff recommended that the requests for the contested case hearing be granted on the basis that garbage volumes are not as high as had been anticipated earlier, recycling percentages are higher than had been anticipated and there appear to be inadequate flows of refuse to the Newport, Elk River, LaCrosse and New Richmond facilities which are already in operation. He stated that PCA citizens board will make a decision to permit or not permit the contested case hearing on Oct.. allr 991. PROMOTIONS Hiar reviewed the series of advertisements which are appearing in the local newspapers conceming recycling. Hageman reported that the ads were developed by the Waste Education Coalition and our standard materials for use by recycling professionals throughout the country. Hiar stated that the general ads were not specific to the Eagan program and asked If the promotions could focus more on Eagan's requirements for haulers and opportunities for residents and less on the general information. Hageman stated that the ads were viewed as an addition to the program specific information which appears in the newspapers, City newsletter and other sources. She stated that the pre - prepared ads are professional and inexpensive to do. Hohenstein stated that the ads seemed to provide important information for the public but that an effort could be made to clarify the connection between the general Information and the City program information. Hiar stated that he would like to see the City's advertisements focus on characteristics of the City's program as well. • ADJOURNMENT Upon motion by Bahr, seconded by Seim, all members voting in favor, the meeting was adjourned at 7:12 p.m. Dated Secretary DRAFT 1992 DAKOTA COUNTY COMMUNITY LANDFILL ABATEMENT SPECIAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS I. INTRODUCTION The Dakota County Board approved on July 9, 1991 long term landfill abatement funding guidelines that recommend the remaining capital monies allotted to communities in 1989 -1992 be used to establish a grant fund for one -time capital needs and specific solid waste abatement needs, approved on a case by case basis consistent with the County's Solid Waste Master Plan and the County Board objectives. II. REVIEW CRITERIA The proposed project must: 1) address a County solid waste management system need that has been previously identified or is determined to be important to the functioning and /or improvement of the system; 2) be likely to address the identified need; 3) be a potentially cost - effective solution to the identified need; 4) be technically feasible, and within the capability of the project sponsor to accomplish; 5) demonstrate financial need and planning and have an appropriate budget. Review criteria and potential factors, which are based on County policies include: 1. Magnitude of landfill abatement being addressed by the proposed project and the significance of anticipated results to fulfill the demonstrated need: o Degree of need in the County for the proposed project which will address an identified landfill abatement area. o Results to be achieved by implementing the proposed project. o Potential abatement results, abatement in addition to current levels or economic results, if applicable, from the proposed project. o Number of actual waste generators or service providers that will be reached during and after the proposed project (possibly serving more than one municipality) in the County. o Economic feasibility for duplication of the proposed activities in the County after completion of the project. 6 DRAFT page two 2. Technical ability of the project sponsor to complete the • proposed project. 3. Multi - community projects will receive additional credit. 4. Appropriateness of the budget and statement of current or projected financial need for the proposed project: o Reasonableness of the budget for work proposed. o Minimum level of funding required for work proposed. o Need for financial assistance for proposed project. o Plans for securing ongoing operating funds, if applicable. o Percentage of matching funds which are cash. 5. Compatibility with County policy encouraging competitive operation. o Impact or potential impact on identified solid waste management service providers currently engaged in similar activities. III. FUNDING ALLOCATION 1. Maximum County funding match for 1992 -93 biennium is $50,000 per community. Host communities must provide a 25% cash match. Other County funds may not be used for the cash match. IV. INELIGIBLE PROJECTS Ineligible projects include but are not limited to yardwaste /tree waste projects, staff salaries and expenses including out of state travel. DRAFT page three V. APPLICATION PROCEDURE 1. All grant applications must be received between June 1, 1992 - July 15, 1992 and / or February 1, 1993 - March 15, 1993. The grant program will sunset at the end of 1994. 2. The application will consist of the following: o Completion of Special Assistance Grant Application Form (see attachment 1). o An official resolution from the governing body requesting the funding allocation at which the request was approved must accompany the grant application. VI. REIMBURSEMENT /REPORTING REOUIREMENTS 1. Project sponsors will be required to submit quarterly reports if the project period is over 6 months long. All project sponsors must complete a final expenditures /project evaluation report. 2. One half of the grant funds will be forwarded once the joint powers agreements between the County and project sponsor is completed and one half will be forwarded after the final expenditures and evaluation report is approved. _ cd 0K - bot-d 1 . 44 , . 54_6 / 7 .,1 r - 7 • Cif_ N:gp -grant • • 1993 COMMUNITY LANDFILL ABATEMENT DRAFT SPECIAL ASSISTANCE GRANT City /Township: Date Submitted: Address: Program Period to I. Proiect Grant Sponsors I. If this is a multi - community project, please list all participating communities and the lead community or agency for the project, and attach a copy of the Joint Powers Agreement. II. Proiect Grant Overview Please provide an overview of the project, outlining the following: o Describe any current abatement activities which would be enhanced or replaced if the abatement activities being proposed were implemented. o When will the project activities occur? o What are the major goals of the project? o If measurable, what are the anticipated or projected landfill abatement results from the proposed activities? o Identify the generators to be served (List the type of solid waste generators that will directly benefit from the project). DRAFT Page two III. Proiect Grant Work Program The work program should describe the activities and tasks that will take place during the grant project period. This information may be shown in a chart form. At a minimum, the work program must identify the activities and tasks, the person or position assigned, and a timetable (month) for the completion of the activity /task. ACTIVITY /TASK PERSON /POSITION TIMELINE • /D Page three DRAFT IV. Project Grant Budget Project Period: to Total Project Cash Assistance Budget Item Cost Local Match Grant Contracted Labor Travel Expenses Transportation Postage Printing Equipment Rent /Lease Purchase Other: TOTALS $ $ $ TOTAL PERCENTAGES Anticipated Project Revenues $ // D I(Ai- Page four V. Itemized Project Costs Please provide details for each budget item included in the line item budget. Detail would include the number of items as per unit cost, number of hours at hourly rates etc. Total Local Assistance Budget Item Amount Cash Match Grant TOTALS $ $ $ N:gp -93gnt /a WHEREAS, the City of has been committed to providing convenient residential recycling opportunities for over three years, and WHEREAS, the citizens of Dakota' County and the City of Eagan have contributed to funding local waste abatement activities through the Dakota County Solid Waste Abatement Fund and general fund monies, and WHEREAS, the Dakota County Landfill Abatement Fund allocations to the City of Eagan have decreased each year since the abatement program inception with a significant reduction for 1992, and WHEREAS, Dakota County is required by the State of Minnesota to meet mandated abatement goals each year and to meet these goals, the County may delegate responsibility to municipalities for reaching said goals and the County must establish a funding mechanism to assure the ability of the entity to adequately carry out the responsibility delegated, and WHEREAS, Dakota County has developed a Special Assistance Grant program to assist communities in continuing program activities, and WHEREAS, traditionally, grant programs ask to secure a match from the interested party in effect to show commitment to a given project, and WHEREAS, current budget constraints and budgeting timelines prohibit matching funds capabilities on the part of the City of Eagan for the year 1992 and beyond, and WHEREAS, the City of Eagan will not be afforded the opportunity to apply for grant funds under the current guidelines, NOT THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Eagan strongly urges the Dakota County Board to remove the requirement of a 25% cash match from municipalities for the Special Assistance Grants program, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the City of Eagan also recommends a minimum of two application grant cycles within a given year to better address program needs. /3 ORDINANCE NO. 2ND SERIES AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EAGAN, MINNESOTA, AMENDING EAGAN CITY CODE CHAPTER 6 ENTITLED "OTHER BUSINESS REGULATION AND LICENSING" BY AMENDING SECTION 6.37 REGARDING GARBAGE, REFUSE AND RECYCLING HAULERS; AND BY ADOPTING BY REFERENCE EAGAN CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 6.99. The City Council of the City of Eagan does ordain: Section 1. Chapter 6 of the Eagan City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION 6.37. GARBAGE, REFUSE AND RECYCLING HAULERS Subd. 1. Definitions. The following terms, as used in this Section, shall have the meanings stated: A. "Garbage" means all putrescible wastes, including animal offal and carcasses of dead animals but excluding human excreta, sewage and other water carried wastes. B. "Other Refuse" means ashes, non - recyclable glass, crockery, cans, paper, boxes, rags and similar nonputrescible wastes including sand, earth, brick, stone and concrete except when on site construction is occurring and trees, tree branches and wood except when stored as firewood. C. "Recyclables" means materials which may be recycled or reused through recycling processes including targeted recyclables. D. "Targeted Recyclables" means metal beverage containers, glass, newsprint, metal food cans,* or other materials as may be defined by Council resolution. *Effective .February 1, 1990 fJ1 s-o r u e c%e s _ �_ ri. ...v aQ _ e , 4 4_,.„7 eq.) r e r u y ax.t." .1 . E. "Yard Waste means leaves and grass clippings or other materials as may be defined by Council resolution. F. "Residential Dwelling" - Any single building consisting of one through four dwelling units with individual kitchen facilities for each. G. "Multiple Residential Dwelling " - Any building used for residential purposes consisting of more than four dwelling units with individual kitchen facilities for each. H. "Commercial Establishment" - Any premises where a commercial or industrial enterprise of any kind is carried on, and shall include restaurants, clubs, churches, and schools where food is prepared or served. n I. "Special Pick -Up" means any collection of' materials other than garbage, other refuse, recyclables or yard waste including white goods, furniture, oversized materials and construction debris. J. "Daily Hauling District" means a residential area in which garbage, other refuse, recyclables and yard waste are collected on the same day, the boundaries and day of collection of which are defined by Council action. Subd. 2. License Required. It is unlawful for any person to haul garbage, other refuse or recyclables for hire without a license therefore from the City, or to haul garbage, other refuse or recyclables from his own residence or business property other than as herein excepted. A. It is unlawful for any person or business to scavenge or otherwise collect garbage, other refuse, recyclables or yard waste at the curb or from containers designated for recyclable materials without a license therefore from the City and an account relationship with the owner of the premises. Subd. 3. Exception. Nothing in this Section shall prevent persons from hauling garbage, other refuse or recyclables from their own residences or business properties provided the following rules are observed: 1) that all garbage is hauled in containers that are water -tight on all sides and the bottom and with tight- fitting covers on top, 2) that all other refuse and recyclables are hauled in vehicles with leak -proof bodies and completely covered or enclosed by canvas or other means or material so as to completely eliminate the possibility of loss of cargo, 3) that all garbage and other refuse shall be dumped or unloaded only at the designated sanitary land -fill or County designated facility, 4) that recyclables may be disposed of at a recycling facility, an organized recyclable drive or through a licensed recyclable hauler, and 5) that yard waste may be composted privately or be disposed of at a composting facility or through a licensed refuse hauler or recyclable hauler. Subd. 4. Hauler License Requirements. A. Hauler licenses shall be granted only upon the condition that the licensee have water -tight packer -type vehicles or, in the case gf recycling hauler, appropriate container vehicles in good condition to prevent loss in transit of liquid or solid cargo, that the vehicle be kept clean and as free from offensive odors as possible and not allowed to stand in any street longer than reasonably necessary to collect garbage, other refuse, yard waste or recyclables. /5— 1. There shall be three license categories defined by the type of account served: 1) Commercial /Multiple Dwelling, 2) Residential Dwelling and 3) Residential /Multiple Dwelling Recycling. 2. Commercial /Multiple Dwelling and Residential Dwelling hauling licenses include Residential Recycling licenses. a. Residential Recycling licensees may only collect recyclables as defined herein. 3. Residential Dwelling hauling licensees shall make curbside recycling collection available to all Residential Dwelling accounts. Commercial /Multiple Dwelling hauling licensees shall make recycling collection available to all multiple residential dwelling accounts no later than October 1, 1990. At a minimum, such service shall include all targeted recyclables as defined herein. 4. Residential Dwelling hauling licensees shall make weekly collection of separated garbage and other refuse, yard waste and recyclables for all Residential Dwelling Accounts within the daily hauling districts as defined by Council action. a. It shall be unlawful for refuse vehicles to operate on residential streets in such districts on any other day, except to collect a missed pick -up, special pick -up or when an observed holiday falls within that week. 5. At a minimum, commercial /multiple dwelling hauling licensees shall make weekly collections of separated garbage, other refuse and recyclables for all multiple residential dwelling accounts no later than October 1, 1990. B. Before a garbage and refuse hauler or recycling license shall be issued, the applicant shall file with the City Clerk- Treasurer evidence that he has provided public liability insurance on all vehicles in at least the sum of $100,000.00 for injury of one person, $300,000.00 for the injury of two or more persons in the same accident, and $50,000.00 for property damages. C. The Council, in the interest of maintaining healthful and sanitary conditions in the City, hereby reserves the right to specify and assign certain areas to all licensees, and to limit the number of licenses issued. D. Each applicant shall file with the City Clerk- Treasurer, before a garbage and refuse hauler or recycling license is issued or renewed, a schedule of proposed rates to be charged by him during the licensed period for which the application is made. Every licensee shall provide prior notification of any change in rates to be implemented during the licensed period. // 1. Residential Dwelling hauling licensees rates shall include a minimum of two levels of regular service, priced on the basis of volume. E. No hauler operating on a route in a residential district shall operate a truck on any City street when the weight of said vehicle exceeds eight tons per axle. F. No hauler shall operate in a residential district after 8:30 o'clock P.M. or before 6:30 A.M. of any day, and no hauler shall operate in a residential district on Sunday. G. Each vehicle for which a hauler's license is issued shall exhibit such license in a prominent position on said vehicle. H. All Residential Dwelling, Commercial /Multiple Dwelling, and Recycling Hauling Licensees shall report to the City, on the form provided for such purpose, the quantity of all recyclables and yard waste abated from the landfills. Such quantities shall be reported by tonnage, with the exception that yard waste may be reported in estimates of cubic yardage abated. Failure to certify accurate volumes in a timely manner may be cause for revocation of hauling license. Section 2. Eagan City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including 'Penalty for Violation'" and Section 6.99, entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety by reference as though repeated verbatim. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect upon its adoption and publication according to law. ATTEST: CITY OF EAGAN City Cou ci By: J. VanOverbeke By: Victor L. Ellison s Clerk Its Mayor Date Ordinance Adopted: December 5, 1989. Date Ordinance Published in the Legal Newspaper: December 14, 1989. ORDINANCE NO. 2ND SERIES AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EAGAN, MINNESOTA, AMENDING EAGAN CITY CODE CHAPTER 10 ENTITLED "PUBLIC PROTECTION, CRIMES AND OFFENSES" BY AMENDING SECTION 10.01 REGARDING STORAGE, DEPOSIT AND DISPOSAL OF REFUSE; AND BY ADOPTING BY REFERENCE EAGAN CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 10.99. The City Council of the City of Eagan does ordain: Section 1. Chapter 10 of the Eagan City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION 10.01. STORAGE, DEPOSIT AND DISPOSAL OF REFUSE. Subd. 1. Definitions. The following terms, as used in this Section, shall have the meanings stated: A. "Garbage" means all putrescible wastes, including animal offal and carcasses of dead animals but excluding human excreta, sewage and other water - carried wastes. B. "Other Refuse" means ashes, non - recyclable glass, crockery, cans, paper, boxes, rags and similar nonputrescible wastes including sand, earth, brick, stone and concrete except when stored for building purposes and trees, tree branches and wood except when stored as firewood. C. "Recyclables" means materials which may be recycled or reused through recycling processes. D. "Yard Waste" - Leaves and grass clippings or other materials as may be defined by Council resolution. E. "Residential Dwelling" - Any single building consisting of one through four dwelling units with individual kitchen facilities for each. F. "Multiple Dwelling" - Any building used for residential purposes consisting of more than four dwelling units with individual kitchen facilities for each. G. "Commercial Establishment" - Any premises where a commercial or industrial enterprise of any kind is carried on, and shall include restaurants, clubs, churches, and school where food is prepared or served. /8' H. "Association" - All cooperative organizations of residential dwelling owners formed for the purpose of joint management of property or services. I. "Curbside" - Collection point for garbage, yard wastes and recyclables. Area within three feet of the street on or near residential driveway, except during the winter months when such materials should be placed a minimum of eight feet behind the curb. Subd. 2. Storage. • A. It is unlawful for any person to store garbage or other refuse on residential dwelling premises for more than one week. All such storage shall be in water - tight, metal or plastic containers of not less than five gallons with tight fitting covers, which shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition; provided, that yard wastes may be stored in biodegradable plastic bags and tree limbs must be stored in bundles weighing no more than sixty pounds and no longer than four feet. B. It is unlawful for any person to store garbage or other refuse on multiple dwelling premises for more than one week. Such storage shall be in containers as for residential dwelling premises, except that so- called "dumpsters" with close - fitting covers may be substituted. C. It is unlawful for any person to store garbage or other refuse on commercial establishment premises for more than forty -eight hours. Such storage shall be in containers as for residential dwelling premises, except that so- called "dumpsters" with close- fitting covers may be substituted. D. In residential dwelling areas, storage containers for garbage, other refuse and recyclables shall be permitted at the curb or other collection point from 6 p.m. of the night preceding collection day until 10 p.m. on the designated collection day. At all other times, such containers must be stored inside the dwelling unit or garage or at a point behind the front of the dwelling unit or garage. Subd. 3. Deposit. It is unlawful for any person to deposit garbage or other refuse from any source, in any place other than a sanitary landfill or County designated facility. Subd. 4. Fire Danger. It is unlawful for any person to store, deposit or dispose of any garbage or other refuse which is in flames or heated to the point where it could cause danger of fire in other refuse. /7 Subd. 5. Disposal. The Council may, by resolution, adopt, and from time to time amend, adjust and revise such rules, regulations, rates and charges as it deems necessary or proper for the operation and management of the sanitary landfill. It may give notice of any such action as it deems necessary. Subd. 6. Joint Management Hauling Contracts. Occupants of residential dwelling properties managed by associations or others shall have the same opportunity to recycle afforded to occupants of other residential dwelling units. It is unlawful for any Residential . Dwelling association or other Residential Dwelling joint management entity to negotiate, execute or maintain a contract for residential garbage or other refuse collection unless it includes as a part of that contract, or as part of a separate contract, weekly collection of recyclables occurring on the same day as its refuse collection. A. Occupants of Multiple /Residential Dwelling properties managed by associations or other management entitles shall have the same opportunity to recycle afforded to occupants of other residential dwelling units. It is unlawful after October 1, 1990 for any Multiple /Residential Dwelling associations or other Multiple /Residential Dwelling joint management entity to negotiate, execute or maintain a contract for Multiple /Residential Dwelling garbage or other refuse collection unless it includes as a part of that contract, or as part of a separate contract, a minimum of weekly collection of recyclables. Section 2. Eagan City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including 'Penalty for Violation'" and Section 10.99, entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety by reference as though repeated verbatim. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect upon its adoption and publication according to law. ATTEST: CITY OF EAGAN City Counc 7 /.- By: . J. Vanoverbeke By: Victor L. Ellison is Clerk Its Mayor Date Ordinance Adopted: December 5, 1989. Date Ordinance Published in the Legal Newspaper: December 14, 1989. 6;2D MEMO TO: ASSISTANT TO THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR HOHENSTEIN FROM: RECYCLING COORDINATOR HAG $MAN DATE: OCTOBER 16, 1991 SUBJECT: COLLECTION OF RIGID PLASTICS /DAKOTA COUNTY At the Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee meeting, I received an update regarding the collection of all rigid plastics in Dakota County. County staff will be recommending to the Dakota County Board to remove the mandate for collection of rigid plastics which is set for January 1, 1992. Staff research indicates there are no current markets for many of the resins found in the rigid plastics. While some markets are available for the microwave trays /plates etc, the remaining varieties have no strong market. County staff also included in their recommendation the clause regarding larger haulers capabilities to collect rigid plastics. If larger haulers, Knutson, BFI, Waste, those with their own processing centers, are able to collect and market the materials, the collection option will be furthered reviewed by County staff to allow for materials to be accepted at the RCC. The action was approved by the Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee. All members were in favor of waiting for established markets before requiring additional items to be included in the recycling collection programs. The next step for the recommendation should be the Dakota County Physical Development Board Committee which meets November 12, 1991. Recycling Coo dinator MEMO TO: SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION MEMBERS FROM: RECYCLING COORDINATOR RAGEMAN DATE: OCTOBER 1, 1991 SUBJECT: PRESENTATION - EAGAN CITY COUNCIL /EAGAN ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY SURVEY On October 8 at 5:00 p.m., staff will make a short presentation to the Eagan City Council regarding the environmental quality survey results and recommendations. The results, compiled by Theresa Ahles of the University of Minnesota, will enable staff, SWAC and City Council members to evaluate current waste abatement activities and focus attention on specific issues for the future. Included in the packet is a copy of the Survey Summary Report. Staff will plan to schedule a presentation, review and goals /issues work session for our next regular SWAC meeting on October 22. Recycling oordi ator Attachment KH /vmd City of Eagan Environmental Quality Survey Waste Management Survey Summary Report Prepared for Kris Hageman Recycling Coordinator City of Eagan City of Eagan Environmental Quality Survey September 1991 Waste Management in Eagan • A Summary of Attitudes, Opinions and Practices of Eagan Residents I. Introduction and Description of Survey Participants In early 1991, officials from the City of Eagan undertook a major project to assess the environmental quality of the area. The result of this endeavor was a city -wide survey of the practices, attitudes and opinions of Eagan's residents concerning the environmental issues. This survey consisted of two parts; one dealing with Solid Waste Management, the other concerning Water Quality and Urban Forestry. Both surveys were mailed to a randomly selected group of residents living in Eagan. Each participant received only one of the surveys. A total of 678 people were asked to participate in the Environmental Quality Surveys (328 Water Quality and 350 Waste Management). The response rate for both surveys was above sixty percent, 69 and 63 percent respectively. The following discussion is a summary of the Waste Management Survey results. This survey consisted of several sections, each dealing with a specific aspect of waste management. These including the following: solid waste (garbage and recyclables) household hazardous waste, and yard care /maintenance. An additional section asked the respondents to indicate what media sources they rely on to obtain information regarding the recycling program and other environmental issues. The Waste Management survey was mailed to 350 Eagan households. Of those receiving the survey, 221 responded for a response rate of sixty -three percent. The majority of respondents (56 %) have lived in Eagan from one to five years. Some (6 %) indicated being newcomers to the area, having moved to Eagan within the past year. A similar number of respondents have been life -long residents of more than 20 years. As indicated Table 1 below, those participating in the survey ranged in age from under 30 to 70 or older, with the majority being in their thirties. Many of the respondents (65 %) live in single family homes with an average of 3 persons per household. In summary, the majority of those participating in the Waste Management survey are homeowners, in their thirties, and have lived in Eagan for an average of seven years. City of Eagan Environmental Quality Survey September 1991 Table 1. Description of respondents participating in the Waste Management Survey Number of Age of Respondents Type of people Length of Residency (n =220) Housing per Household (n =220) (n =220) (n =220) Under 30 24% SF' 67% One 12% Less than 1 yr 6% 30 - 39 39% MF 33% Two 36% 1- 5 yrs 16% 40 - 49 21% Three 21% 6 -10 yrs 17% 50 - 59 12% Four 22% 11 -15 yrs 10% 60 & Above 5% Five 7% 16 -20 yrs 5% Six 1% More than 20 6% Seven * yrs Eight * 1 Single Family (SF) residences include duplexes, twin and quad homes, as well as single unit houses. 2 Multi - Family (MF) residences refer to apartments, townhomes and condos. * Less than one percent. 2 City of Eagan Environmental Quality Survey September 1991 II. Solid Waste Survey participants were asked to provide information concerning how they dispose of their trash, if they participate in a recycling program, what they recycle and how often. As Table 2 indicates, a large percentage of respondents use curbside pickup for their trash, and nearly all (95 %) recycle. The majority of those who recycle indicated using a curbside service. A few also utilize the drop -off centers or pooled efforts of neighborhood and church groups. Table 2. Type of service used by respondents to dispose of regular trash and recyclables Percentage Respondents using service Method of Trash Disposal (n =220) At the Curb 82% At a Central Container 17% At Place of Business 1°/0 Percentage of respondents recycling* Type of Recycling Service used (n =211) Curbside pickup 83% Central Containers 16% Drop -off centers 30% Pooled efforts 9% * Some respondents indicated using more than one type of recycling service, making the total greater than 100 %. 3 City of Eagan Environmental Quality Survey September 1991 Table 3 Percentage of respondents who recycle various kinds of materials: Overall response compared with single family and multi- family residences. Overall Single Family Multi - Family Items Recycled (n =213) (n =148) (n =72) Aluminum Cans 94% 96% 91% Glass 90% 92% 86% Newspaper 88% 88% 88% Steel/Tin Cans 63% 69% 50% Plastics fi5% 74% 44% Cardboard 36% 44% 19% Motor Oil 36% 42% 23% Aluminum Foil 28% 26% 31% White Office Paper 16% 15% 19% As Table 3 above indicates, glass, aluminum cans and newspaper are the most popular items recycled. Those who live in single family dwellings appear to recycle more plastics, cardboard, and tin cans than do those residing in apartment, townhome or condo units. This may be a function of the types of containers available at these complexes. Recycling activity varies little from one age group to another, though respondents under thirty appear to be consistently Tess likely to recycle. See Table 3a. Some respondents also listed additional items that they recycle. These included batteries, tires, cereal boxes, paint and solvents among others. The majority of respondents who participate in a curbside recycling program indicated that they set out their recyclables for collection on a weekly basis. Others do so Tess frequently, from an as needed to monthly basis. A small percentage of respondents (5 %) indicated they did not recycle, and half of these further indicated that they produce too little waste to justify recycling. A few also said that they were unaware of the recycling programs available to them. 4 City of Eagan Environmental Quality Survey September 1991 Table 3a Recycling activity: Percentage of respondents who recycle, recycle service used items recycled and frequency of collection. A comparison of age groups and overall responses. 60 & Under 30 Thirties Forties Fifties above Overall (n =48) (n =86) (n =45) (n =26) (n =11) (n =213) Percentage of respondents currently participating in a recycling program 89% 98% 96% 100% 100% 95% Type of recycling service used: Curbside Pickup 67% 85% 91% 81% 100% 83% Central Containers 33% 12% 7% 15% 10% 16% Drop -off Centers 28% 30% 33% 35% 20% 30% Pooled Efforts 9% 7% 12% 15% -- 9% Items respondents usually recycle: Glass 79% 94% 93% 92% 100% 90% Aluminum Cans 89% 98% 95% 96% 90% 94% Aluminum Foil 30% 29% 14% 35% 50% 28% SteeVTin Cans 51% 61% 65% 85% 80% 63% Corrugated Cardboard 35% 39% 33% 35% 50% 36% Plastics 51% 72% 65% 69% 70% 65% White Office Paper 15% 17% 14% 23% 10% 16% Newspaper 83% 92% 86% 89% 90% 88% Motor Oil 35% 33% 41% 50% 20% 36% Frequency of collection (n =35) (n =76) (n =40) (n =23) (n =11) (n =186) curbside only: Weekly 63% 62% 70% 48% 70% 62% Twice a Month 14% 16% 10% 13% -- 13% Once per Month 3% 9% -- -- 10% 5% As needed 20% 15% 20% 39% 20% 20% The recycling program in Eagan has been in operation for two years. The city has provided a variety of recycling opportunities for its residents including curbside collection, apartment and townhouse services and a drop -off center near City Hall. Respondents were given an opportunity to rate the program in terms of the efficiency, neatness, reliability of collection, information about the program, and the overall operation. On a four point scale with 1 =Poor, 2 =Fair, 3 =Good and 4= Excellent, the recycling program received good or better rating from the respondents. Ratings of the specific aspects of the program are shown in Tables 4 and 4a. 5 City of Eagan Environmental Quality Survey September 1991 Some of the respondents provided written comments about the recycling program. Many of the comments expressed positive feelings about the program, and offered suggestions for improvement. The following are representative of the feelings conveyed. We are eager to recycle! Personally, our curbside garbage has decreased fifty percent from two years ago, and we continue to do better. The idea of a garbage incinerator angers us. We don't feel it is a proper or effective way to deal with garbage. Expand curbside recycling to include shiny cardboard (cereal boxes, pizza), white and non -white office paper junk mail primarily, and expand plastics to include all plastic containers and bags. This would eliminate about 75 to 85% of our waste. You should step up the capacity for recycling plastics. For example, if you can recycle plastics with necks, you surely can recycle caps made from of the same material. But the literature says to discard all caps. As I talk with friends and relatives in other communities, I feel that we in Eagan are doing a commendable job in this area. Keep up the good work and keep improving. Table 4 Respondents' rating of Eagan's recycling program* Aspects of Eagan's 4 3 2 1 Mean Recycling Program Excellent Good Fair Poor score rating Information regarding: program procedure 32% 52% 12% 4% 3.1 program changes 26% 50% 18% 6% 3.0 Collection systems available 46% 42% 10% 2% 3.3 Collection service: Efficiency 50% 44% 5% 1% 3.4 Reliability 50% 44% 5% 2% 3.4 Neatness 44% 45% 8% 3% 3.3 Special events 22% 42% 26% 10% 2.8 Over-all program rating 28% 63% 7% 2% 3.2 Percentages and mean score rating are based on (n =213). Mean scores based on the following scale: 1 =poor, 2 =Fair, 3 =Good, 4=Excellent. 6 City of Eagan Environmental Quality Survey September 1991 Table 4a Recycling program rating: Comparison among age groups of respondents and years of residency in Eagan Age of Respondents Respondents' rating of Eagan's Under Thirties Forties Fifties 60 & Recycling Program: 30 (n =84) (n =43) (n =24) Above (n =50) (n =11) Information regarding program elements and procedures 2.9 3.1 3.2 3.0 3.4 Information regarding program changes 2.7 2.9 3.4 3.1 3.2 Collection systems available 3.3 3.2 3.6 3.4 3.6 Efficiency of Collection 3.4 3.4 3.6 3.0 3.5 Reliability of Collection 3.3 3.4 3.6 3.4 3.5 Neatness of Collection 3.3 3.2 3.5 3.4 3.3 Special Events and programs 2.6 2.8 2.9 2.6 2.2 Over -aII program operations 3.1 3.2 3.2 3.0 3.4 Length of Residency in Eagan Respondents' rating of Eagan's 5 yrs or 6 - 10 11 - 15 16 - 20 More than Recycling Program: Tess yrs yrs yrs 20 yrs (n =134) (n =35) (n =22) (n =10) (n =12) Information regarding program elements and procedures 3.1 3.3 3.0 3.1 3.6 Information regarding program changes 2.9 3.1 2.7 3.0 3.3 Collection systems available 3.3 3.4 3.0 3.1 3.8 Efficiency of Collection 3.4 3.5 3.3 3.1 3.8 Reliability of Collection 3.4 3.5 3.1 3.1 3.8 Neatness of Collection 3.3 3.4 3.4 3.0 3.5 Special Events and programs 2.7 2.7 2.9 2.3 3.3 Over -all program operations 3.2 3.3 2.9 2.7 3.5 Note. Respondents were asked to rate the Recycling Program using the following scale: 1 =Poor, 2 =Fair, 3 =Good, 4= Excellent. Ninety -one percent of all respondents gave the recycling program a rating of good or better. 7 City of Eagan Environmental Quality Survey September 1991 As the availability of state and county funds for use by local communities to support their recycling efforts diminishes or is eliminated, another source of funding may be needed. One way to obtain those funds to support recycling is to add an extra utility charge to the garbage hauling fee. The residents of Eagan participating in this survey were asked to indicate their willingness to pay this additional fee, and the amount they would be willing to pay per month. As Table 5 illustrates, nearly half (46 %) of those responding appear willing to pay an additional fee, in amounts ranging from $.75 to $15 per month. The average amount cited was $4 /month. The largest percentage of respondents (44 %) said they would pay up to $5 /month to help support the recycling program in Eagan. Those residents opposed to an additional fee assessment to cover recycling costs expressed their concerns through written comments. Some felt that those who don't recycle should pay a fee. Others suggested it might be cheaper to let the garbage haulers manage the program. I believe the charges should be made on those who do not recycle. I thought we were already being charged because of recycling. I don't think it should cost more to recycle since there is less waste. To lower cost, could not the current garbage haulers manage this at less cost than the local government. The more convenient recycling is made, the more people will participate. Recycling should not cost the average person any money. It should be publicly funded. Costs for recycling residential waste should be covered through the sale of the recycled material and /or through general taxes. Table 5 Percentage of respondents willing to pay an additional utility fee to cover recycling program costs and the amount they are willing to pay. Support utility charge for Under 30 Thirties Forties Fifties 60 & Overall recycling program: (n =51) (n =85) (n =45) (n =26) Above (n =219) (n =11) Yes 43% 47% 47% 46% 40% 46% Don't Know 41% 29% 20% 27% 40% 30% No 16% 24% 33% 27% 20% 24% Amount willing to pay per month $.75 - 10 $1 - $1 - $1 - $2 - $.75 - $10 $15 $10 $5 $15 Note. Overall, the average amount respondents indicated they are willing to pay for recycling services was $4 /month. 8 City of Eagan Environmental Quality Survey September 1991 According to State Law, it is required that by 1993 thirty -five percent of the waste stream must be recycled, and fifty percent by the year 2000. To reach these goals state and regional planners are proposing to make recycling mandatory. Those participating in the Waste Management survey were asked if they favor such a law and in what ways their recycling habits would change if it was mandatory. As indicated in Table 6 , sixty -five percent of the respondents are in favor of mandatory recycling legislation, though few (26 %) indicated their recycling habits would change. These respondents commented that they would be more thorough in recycling, would change their buying habits to reduce packaging waste, or would try to become more knowledgeable about available recycling programs. The following help to illustrate: (Recycling will) become more of a daily ritual - something I have do like wearing a seatbelt. I would look into a program to make me more knowledgeable of recycling and purchase items that could be recycle. I would be more thorough and faithful in my recycling. I would recycle what ever was required. I also would change my buying habits (packaging). We would recycle everything possible. We believe that the only way to provide for adequate recycling is by legislative mandate - by city, county, and state. 9 City of Eagan Environmental Quality Survey September 1991 III. Household Hazardous Waste /Special Waste Some of the products used in homes, garages and on lawns are toxic and require special disposal methods. Eagan residents participating in the survey were asked if household hazardous waste disposal is a problem in their neighborhood. That is, do some people discard motor oil, paints, solvents, etc, in street gutters, on driveways, or on vacant lots. Many of those responding (54 %) indicated that household hazardous waste disposal is not a problem within their residential area. Disposal of household chemicals Under Thirties Forties Fifties 60 & Overall is a problem in neighborhood... 30 (n =86) (n =45) (n =25) Above (n =218) (n =50) (n =11) Yes 18% 15% 16% 12% -- 15% Don't Know 42% 30% 27% 24% 27% 31% No 40% 55% 58% 64% 73% 54% Respondents were also given an opportunity to indicate the type of disposal method(s) that are appropriate for special wastes such as batteries, tires, large appliances, etc. A list of waste products were provided (Table 7a) and respondents were asked to indicate if those wastes should be placed in a landfill, recycled, reused, composted, or use some other disposal method. The greatest majority of those responding felt that recycling was the proper disposal method for most of the items listed. The exceptions were yard wastes and household hazardous wastes. Ninety -six percent indicated that yard wastes should be composted, and sixty -five percent suggested that household hazardous materials should be disposed of differently (Other response category). No one offered any specific methods for dealing with household hazardous wastes. From the data listed in Table 7a, it appears that many residents of Eagan realize that landfills are no longer an appropriate solution for waste disposal. Recycling seems to be the preferred choice, though in some instances it may not be the most appropriate. There appears to be very little difference in attitudes about waste disposal methods among the different age groups. 10 City of Eagan Environmental Quality Survey September 1991 Table 7a Respondents opinions regarding the proper disposal of various waste materials Proper disposal method for the Under Thirties Forties Fifties 60 & Overall following: 30 (n =82) (n =45) (n =24) Above (n =209) (n =46) (n =11) Tires landfill 2% 4% -- -- -- 2% recycle 72% 84% 89% 71% 73% 80% reuse 39% 33% 20% 38% 18% 31% other 11% 11% 14% 15% 8% 13% Motor Oil landfill -- -- 2% -- -- 1% recycle 89% 84% 89% 79% 70% 85% reuse 24% 33% 30% 46% 30% 31% other 11% 10% 2% -- 10% 7% Large Appliances landfill 6% 7% 5% 9% -- 6% recycle 43% 51 % 55% 48% 50% 50% reuse 26% 33% 21% 26% 10% 27% other 37% 35% 38% 39% 40% 37% Auto Batteries landfill -- -- -- -- 10% 1% recycle 71% 72% 82% 71% 50% 73% reuse 21% 19% 21% 13% 20% 19% other 23% 27% 16% 25% 33% 23% Yard Waste landfill 10% 7% 7% 8% 27% 9% compost 96% 99% 96% 100% 73% 96% other 4% -- 2% -- -- 1% Household/Button batteries landfill 7% 1% 8% 5% 11% 5% recycle 56% 58% 66% 68% 44% 60% reuse 13% 12% 3% 9% -- 10% other 36% 43% 26% 36% 50% 37% Household Hazardous waste landfill 5% 4% 5% -- -- 4% recycle 34% 32% 38% 46% 20% 34% reuse 5% 17% 12% 9% -- 11% other 64% 65% 58% 73% 82% 65% 11 City of Eagan Environmental Quality Survey September 1991 One way to solve the problem of disposing household hazardous waste is to eliminate the use of such products. There are non -toxic alternatives to many of the cleaners used in homes today. Fifty -one percent of the survey participants indicated that they presently use non -toxic household cleaning products such as vinegar and water to clean windows. See Table 7b below. In addition many respondents indicated an interest in receiving more information about alternatives to hazardous waste. Sixty -four percent also expressed the need for more information on the safe disposal of household hazardous waste. This interest demonstrates that many of the residents in Eagan are concerned about the problems such products can create for the environment and appear willing to try non -toxic alternatives. One respondent put it this way, (There needs to be) more opportunities to dispose of hazardous wastes, and more information on alternatives to hazardous products. (I) would also like more information on what's done with the items that are recycled. It would be helpful in explaining to children why recycling is important. Table 7b Percentage of respondents using non -toxic alternatives to hazardous household cleaning products Use Non -Toxic Alternatives Percentage of Respondents for household cleaners (n =217) Yes 51% No 49% Request for more information on (n =209) non -toxic alternatives to household hazardous products 57% safe disposal of household hazardous waste 64% 12 City of Eagan Environmental Quality Survey September 1991 IV. Yard Care and Maintenance Yard care is important in keeping the community of Eagan attractive. However, some of the practices used generate a substantial amount of solid waste and can threaten the water quality in nearby lakes and ponds. One of the goals of the Waste Management survey is to gather information about the yard care practices used by residents in the City of Eagan. More specifically, survey participants were asked to indicate how they dispose of grass clippings and leaves. As Table 8 illustrates, a wide variety of disposal methods are used ranging from leaving the clippings or leaves on the lawn to hiring a lawn service. Some respondents indicated that they compost their yard waste, either in their yard or at a public compost site. Of those that have composts in their yards, sixty -three percent said that the use the finished compost material on their lawn or garden. Many further indicated (62 %) that the compost area is located in the .least used part of their yard. Other locations included the following: in a swale or gully, near garden, within 50 feet of a pond or wetland, in a nearby wooded area, or on a vacant lot. Table 8 Grass clipping and leaf removal practices used by respondents Percentage of Respondents What is done with lawn clippings (n =169) Compost on own property 30% Take to public compost site 20% Refuse /Recycling hauler pick up 1 4% Use /or mulch 27% Lawn service takes clippings 11% Leave clippings on lawn 55% What is done with leaves (n =148) Compost on own property 37% Take to public compost site 34% Refuse /Recycling hauler pick up 21% Lawn service takes leaves 16% Burn (permit) -- 13 City of Eagan Environmental Quality Survey September 1991 Table 8a Respondents who compost: Use finished product in their yard and location of the compost site Percentage of respondents composting* 60% who use finished material on • lawn /garden Location of compost area in yard... (n =66) Least used part of yard 71% Close to garden /area where used 29% Within 50 ft of pond/lake/wetland -- In a swale or gully -- The number of respondents indicating they compost grass clippings is slightly Tess than the number who compost leaves, 51 and 56 respectively. The percentage of those who use the finished compost material is based on n =63, the number choosing to respond to this question. The City of Eagan has had a compost/drop -off area for use by its residents for the past four years. As Table 8b shows, many of the respondents (72 %) indicated that they are aware of the compost site, but nearly half do not know what materials are accepted at the site. Less than half indicated knowing the months or hours the site is open. Some respondents offered comments regarding the compost/drop -off site, as the following illustrate. I think it is crazy that we have to pay for this service. This site should expand or alter its hours to be more convenient for day workers. (i.e. It should be open later on week nights.) Table 8b Respondent awareness of the compost/drop -off site in Eagan Under Thirties Forties Fifties 60 & Overall Are you aware of compost/drop- 30 (n =71) (n =40) (n =22) Above (n =176) off site in Eagan and its... (n =33) (n =10) Location 55% 75% 83% 64% 100% 72% Months of operation 18% 38% 54% 45% 70% 41 % Hours of operation 24% .32% 54% 35% 60% 38% Materials accepted 27% 48% 67% 52% 80% 51% 14 City of Eagan Environmental Quality Survey September 1991 V. Sources of Information regarding yard care, recycling, and other environmental programs There are a wide variety of media sources used to get information to the residents of Eagan about local environmental programs . Respondents were asked which of those sources they rely on the most to provide them with information conceming yard care, and recycling. As Table 9 and 9a indicate, many of the respondents rely on more than one source, with brochures and flyers that are mailed to their homes the most popular. Generally speaking, information that is in a printed form, either newspapers or brochures, tend to be the most helpful to the respondents. Cable TV and Public Meetings are considered the least helpful in relaying information. This is probably a function of the time people have available to attend meetings or watch specific community programs on TV. Respondents preference for newspapers and other printed media is likely a matter of convenience and not necessarily one of quality. ( However, respondents were not asked to comment on the quality of the information they receive.) Table 9 Sources respondents rely on to obtain information about yard care, recycling and other environmental programs Sources relied on for information Under 30 Thirties Forties Fifties 60 & Overall on yard care, recycling, and (n =52) (n =86) (n =44) (n =25) Above (n =218) environmental programs: (n =11) "Eagan This Week" 29% 33% 55% 52% 55% 39% "The Chronicle" 23% 28% 36% 36% 73% 32% Local Cable Access 10% 6% -- -- -- 5% The Eagan City Newsletter 23% 50% 50% 52% 46% 44% Word of Mouth 19% 20% 9% 4% -- 17% Brochures or Fliers 71% 59% 64% 56% 46% 62% Public Meetings -- 1% -- -- -- 1% 15 City of Eagan Environmental Quality Survey September 1991 Table 9a Types of additional information requested by respondents and the format for that information they find most helpful Under Thirties Forties Fifties 60 & Overall More information requested on... 30 (n =82) (n =44) (n =25) Above (n =209) (n =50) (n =8) Recycling 68% 48% 50% 52% 38% 53% Waste Reduction 62% 54% 39% 68% 25% 53% Safe Disposal methods for Household Hazardous Waste 58% 63% 64% 80% 50% 64% Recipes for Alternatives to Household Hazardous Waste 72% 50% 48% 64% 50% 57% Lawn Care & Composting 30% 29% 32% 28% -- 29% Energy Conversation 54% 35 % 34% 40% 25% 40% Format for information respondents find most helpful... (n =52) (n =86) (n =45) (n =25) (n =10) (n =218) Brochures or Fliers 77% 69% 64% 68% 60% 69% Local Newspapers 37% 41% 49% 68% 50% 45% Public Meetings -- 1% -- 8% -- 1% Cable TV 8% 4% 7% 8% -- 6% Workshops 2% 5% 2% 4% -- 3% City Newsletter 42% 61% 53% 56% 60% 54% Providing information to the public concerning city services can be difficult. Using only one type of format may only reach a particular group of people, and using all types of media can be costly and redundant. The challenge is to find the most widely used or preferred format the public uses. And as the survey participants have indicated, they seem to rely most heavily on local newspapers and brochures to provide them with information about yard care and recycling programs. One respondent suggested putting all recycling information in book form. Include recycling information in the Eagan phone book. Its a good reference book, and less likely to lose (as newspapers and newsletters are.) Getting information is the key to successful recycling. (People) need to know when, where, how, what, etc. and (be able) to find this information easily -- Recycler "Yellow Pages." 16 City of Eagan Environmental Quality Survey September 1991 _ Key Findings and Recommendations • Overall, the waste management officials for the City of Eagan are doing a commendable job in their recycling efforts, with 95% of the households surveyed participating in the recycling program. The residents of Eagan also appear very satisfied with the program's operation. Ninety -one percent of those responding rated Eagan's recycling program has good or better. The suggestions for improvement of the service are an indication of the interest residents have in doing all they can to "reduce, reuse and recycle" their waste. • There are mixed feelings among respondents concerning an additional utility fee to help cover the costs of recycling coordination. Nearly half indicated they would support a recycling fee and are willing to pay an average of $4.00 per month. Those opposed commented that the cost of waste removal was already too high and that the money obtained from recycling should cover the costs of the program. • Mandatory recycling legislation is favored by nearly half of those surveyed, with others indicating they need more information about such a law. If recycling was mandatory, many respondents felt they would become more diligent in their efforts to recycle including changing in their buying habits (packaging) at the grocery store. Providing incentives to participate in a recycling program are important to some residents as well. • Generally speaking, the residents of Eagan are informed about proper disposal methods for special waste materials (other than regular trash). The majority seem to realize that landfills are no longer a viable option and recommend recycling as the disposal method of choice for most items. This indicates that there is a high degree of awareness among residents of Eagan concerning the effects of mishandled waste on the environment. Finding appropriate alternatives to landfills is challenging. Though most respondents suggest recycling, that may not be appropriate in all cases. Thus, the need for multiple solutions to the growing waste problem is essential. • Many of the homeowners surveyed in Eagan compost their yard wastes, either on own property or at a public compost site, or set out grass clippings and leaves for pickup by refuse /recycling hauler. Over half of the survey participants sometimes leave grass clippings on lawn after mowing. • The most helpfuVrelied on sources of information on yard care and recycling are those in print, i.e. local newspapers and brochures. The survey responses indicate that the residents of Eagan want more information about recycling, waste reduction, safe disposal methods for household hazardous waste, and non -toxic alternatives to household cleaners. The suggestion of one respondent to put all such information in one book -- Recycler Yellow (Green ?) Pages -- may be a very cost effective way to disseminate all recycling information, concerns /tips on yard care and other environmental programs. 17