The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05/14/1991 - Solid Waste Abatement Commission • February 27, 1991 Dear Legislator: The undersigned members of the Waste Reduction and Recycling Coalition want to express our qualified support for the recommendations from the • Governor's Select Committee on Packaging and the Environment (SCOPE) contained in HF wand SF Given that HF and SF represent a significant compromise for the environmental community, we can support the HF and SF only as .a complete package. Obviously, there are elements of the package which, taken individually, we believe are not in the best interests of the environment, the State of Minnesota, or local jurisdictions within Minnesota. However, we believe that taken in their entirety, HF .and SF represent a minimum first step toward effective management of packaging . waste. Should HF and /or SF be weakened through amendments which we consider detrimental to the environment, we will reconsider our support for this legislation. In our view, one absolutely critical feature of both HF and SF is the proposed fee on environmental priority materials (EPNs). The Waste Reduction and Recycling Coalition supports strongly this fee on EPNs. The fee on EPMs follows the generally agreed upon principle wherein the t "polluter toward internalizing fee on EPMs is a alizingin theproductprisignificant and ethetrueco tofusing materials. • We look forward to working with you on this important piece of legislation. Please'do not hesitate to contact any one of us should you have questions or comments. • • Sincerely, The members of the Waste Reduction and Recycling Coalition (WRRC) • • • cc SCOPE Members • • • PRESSURE ON PRIVATE SECTOR etc. Tertiary or "transport" packaging is de- fined as all packaging that is used to protect the products shipped from the producer to the retailer —for example, barrels, boxes, bags, crates, and many kinds of wrappings. Starting in December 1991, all transport PACKAGING IS packaging will have to be taken back by the retailer and producer and either reused or recycled. From April 1992, retailers will have to offer customers the possibility of TARGETED leaving their secondary packaging in the store. From January 1993, they also have to collect all sales packaging in or near their stores. In addition, deposits of 50 Pfennigs (about 33 cents) will be placed on all bever- age containers— presently only plastic bot- tles have mandatory deposits — including paper cartons, cans, and nonrefillable glass bottles. This part of the regulation is a re- sponse to the EEC's criticism that a deposit on plastic bottles only would be restraint of trade. Deposits will also apply for detergent . REDUCTION containers except those containing concen- trates. Businesses only have to take back the containers of products they actually sell. All of these materials have to be handled outside of the public waste collection sys- NEW executive order from the tem. Producers and retailers are required to German Cabinet attacks the reuse, recycle or compost the packaging German executive flood of packaging waste by materials. making producers and retailers Retailers and producers can avoid having order would responsible for its collection. to take back the packaging as well as the de- Under its provisions, customers posit obligations if they participate in the place major may even be able to leave pack- establishment of statewide recycling pro - aging in the stores where they made pur- grams. These programs may be curbside col- responsibility on chases. Faced with the difficulty of dispos- lection or dropoff centers which have to meet ing of 32 million tons of household -type strict standards and obtain approval from retailers to curb waste from homes and businesses and the the state government. Initially, from Jan - fact that most landfills will reach their final uary 1993 until June 1995, these business - w of packag capacity in two to five years, the Ministry for run recycling systems have to collect 50 per - the Environment proposed several innova- cent of all packaging. After this, the quota tine approaches to reduce the amount of increases to 80 percent. The recovery rates in solid waste packaging that normally ends up in the apply to individual materials. stream. waste stream. Packaging accounts for 50 For example, from 1995 on, 90 percent of percent by volume and 30 percent by weight all aluminum, tin, and glass and 80 percent of Germany's household waste. of the paper cartons, paper, and plastic is The aim of the Waste Avoidance, Utiliza- supposed to be recovered. If these goals are Kirsten Struve tion, and Disposal Act of 1986 was mainly to not met, the exemption from the obligations reduce or recycle what is commonly thrown can be terminated for individual materi- away. The new packaging regulation, which als —in which case retailers again become implements the main concerns of the act, is responsible for these materials in their now before the Bundesrat (the Upper House stores. of Parliament). Finally, it will also have to Overall, the government wants to encour- be approved by the EEC commission. Cen- age source reduction through the polluter - tral to the regulation are complex reaccep- pays - principle which underlies this regula- tance and deposit obligations that make re- tion. It is expected that the private sector tailers assume much of the responsibility for will reduce packaging to the minimum packaging waste. amount necessary or use refillable /reusable In the regulation, packaging is classified or recyclable types of packaging. The re- in three categories, roughly analogous to the sponsibility for reducing packaging waste American classification of packaging as pri- has been primarily placed in the hands of re- mary, secondary, and tertiary. Primary–or tailers, because they are seen as determin- in the German system "sale" packaging –is ing which kinds of products in which pack - the container that is necessary for use at the aging will be sold. • consumer level, including cans, bottles, cups, tubes, etc. Secondary packaging is any Kirsten Struve is a first year student at the Yale additional packaging used to prevent theft, School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, to advertise the product, or to aid in a self originally from Berlin (Germany). This begins service situation. A good example of this the second year of a series of articles edited by kind of packaging is the box around a tube Marian Chertou', Director of the Project on Sol - of toothpaste, but also foils, blister packs, id Waste and the Environment at Yale. BIOCYCLE MARCH 1991 45 31 MEMO TO: CHAIR SEIZ AND ALL MEMBERS OF THE EAGAN SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION FROM: RECYCLING COORDINATOR HAGEMAN DATE: MAY 7, 1991 SUBJECT: EAGAN SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 14, 1991 A regular meeting of the Eagan Solid Waste Abatement Commission will be held on Tuesday May 14, 1991 at 11:30 a.m., in the Eagan Municipal Center conference rooms A & B. The City will provide a box lunch to those requesting one by Monday, May 13, by 4 p.m. Please contact Kris Hageman or Jane Helebrant at 454 -8100 to indicate whether you will attend and your luncheon preference. I. ROLL CALL AND ADOPTION OF AGENDA The agenda, as presented or modified, requires adoption by the Commission. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A copy of the minutes of the Solid Waste Abatement Commission meeting of April 9, 1991 is enclosed on pages 7 to 9 . These minutes, subject to any change require approval by the Commission. III. STAFF REPORT A. Pilot Project /Recycling in the Parks Beginning in March of 1991 I began working with Parks Operation Supervisor Pelletier to organize a recycling program in the parks. After evaluating past experiences and reviewing current options we established a pilot project for the summer of 1991 at the Northview Athletic Complex /Park. Please see the memo on pages /0 to /02 for a complete description of the project. B. Environmental Survey In addition to the memo enclosed on pages /3 to ./Y please note the update at follows. Our targeted return date was set for May 1. As of that date, we received an average of 55% of the surveys in response to our original mailing. Since May 1, we have sent a reminder post card to all residents who had not returned a completed survey. Our second wave of response has been good. The graduate student from the University of Minnesota has been contracted for the analysis and will be starting her work during the week of May 6. l C. Earth Day /Community Clean up Day Over 100 people participated in the 1991 Earth Day Celebration at Thomas Lake Park. Our contributors to the day's activities included; Dakota County Extension Service; Master Gardeners, Dakota County Recycling, MPCA, Dakota County Water and Soil Conservation District, and People Magic. Additional supplies and food /refreshments were donated by Coca -Cola Midwest, Eagan Lions Club, Cub Foods and Heartland Pets. Over 225 scout troops, brownie troops, families and residents gathered April 27th to clean up our area parks and neighborhoods. Sixteen parts were highlighted this year. In addition, two neighborhood groups organized themselves as part of the day's activities. The volunteers collected enough material to fill a 30 yard roll -off container plus a large amount of tires and scrap metal. Parks Department employees were in charge of collection of materials from designated collection points at each clean -up area. Local support for the clean up day came from Coca -Cola Midwest, Eagan Lions and Cub Foods. D. Dakota County Long -Term Funding Enclosed on pages to a s please find a copy of the final report from the Long -Term Funding Subcommittee. This report has been submitted to the Dakota County Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee and will be reviewed at its next meeting on May 22, 4 p.m. The report incorporates a change in the Administration /Promotion funding level to $2 /hh /yr. In addition to this change the committee also included the acceptance of reimbursement for mileage expenses to be covered in administrative costs. Please note the change in the Capital Costs Subhead. The subcommittee is recommending that the balance of the capital monies at the end of 1991 be established as a grant fund for one -time capital needs and specific solid waste abatement needs. This recommendation differs slightly from the City of Eagan's suggestion in that the subcommittee has lumped all capital funds together for the grant program. In addition, another change in program operation will be the County taking over the responsibility of paying haulers and collecting recycling information or residential tonnage beginning January 1, 1992, although the cities will remain responsible for collection of all yard waste information. E. Local staff Tour of Aptus Environmental Services Dakota County Local Recycling staff toured the Aptus Environmental Services Facility in Lakeville, Monday May 6. Tim Hincliff, Supervisor of Environmental Affairs /Compliance led the group through the facility and answered our questions. Tim commented on the success of the first four Dakota County HHW collection to date. The most cars on a given day was 160 on Saturday, April 27. Handling of materials runs very smoothly due to the low number of cars through the site. This low turn out also adds to the high cost involved per vehicle in handling such materials. George Kinney has documented approximately $200 per vehicle at this site versus $65 -70 per vehicle at the one -day collections. Tim also noted that the majority of materials brought to the site is paint. After handling commercial and residential hazardous wastes the material is shipped /trucked to various locations throughout the country to be either incinerated or reclaimed. F. Legislative Update Members of the League of Minnesota Cities /Association of Metropolitan Municipalities received a Legislative update from AMM Executive Director Vern Peterson and League Counsel Joel Jamnik at our last meeting of April 26. The updates, while accurate at the time of presentation, may not be exactly where the bills sit today. The three main sets of bills which deal with solid waste management are as follows: 1. SF 256 and HF 353- Waste Management Act Amendments 2. SF 775 and HF 890- Requirements for Recycling Goals Burner Moratorium 3. SF 731 and HF 779- SCOPE 1. The main features of this year's amendments to the Waste Management Act and how they affect cities; o require cities to license refuse haulers 7/1/93 o refuse haulers cannot charge residents that recycle more than another residents that does not recycle. o covers override of local zoning /conditional use permits for MRF or transfer station. OWM can override. o cities with population of (SF) 10,000 (HF) 5,000 must require refuse collection service 7/1/92. o enforcement issue raised o if made a state law it can be enforced only if complaint is made, etc. no garbage police. 2. SF 775 currently half dead /half alive. The discussion surrounds the states obligation to pay back Dakota County the monies spent to date as they have worked to follow its Solid Waste Master Plan. The length of the moratorium is set for 7/1/96. HF 890 also prohibits the sighting of new landfills or expansion of existing landfills through 7/1/94. HF 890 also increases recycling goals to 50% metro /30% greater Minnesota 7/1/96. In addition, HF890 requires cities over 5,000 to have mandatory recycling participation (residential and commercial). 7/1/92. 3. Currently, neither SCOPE bill has gotten out of committee. Is presumed dead for the session. These may be heard in interim hearings this summer. Will be alive for next year automatically. IV. OLD BUSINESS V. NEW BUSINESS A. 1991 Outlook /Issues In review of the 1991 goals and objectives, three main goals have been prioritized for program administration. The 3 goals are; 1. Expand Recycling Promotions 2. Household Hazardous Wastes 3. Enhance /Maintain Single Family and Multi - family Recycling These areas have been outlined with main objectives for achieving these goals. Enclosed on page c 26 you will find a copy of these defined goals. In addition, a few topics surrounding solid waste management have surfaced recently that may need our attention over the next few months. These topics include; mandatory recycling and /or refuse collection, organized hauling, yard waste composting /management ordinances and additional materials for collections. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: Review and recommend direction for staff to pursue objectives for 1991. B. Facilities Tour Options As directed by the commission during our meeting of April 9, I have compiled a list facilities the commission may be interested in touring over the next few months. 1. AMG Resources Corporation The new AMG plant in St. Paul is the first of its kind. It was built exclusively for the processing and detinning and recycling of used steel cans and other ferrous material separated from municipal waste. The plant is the largest post - consumer steel can recycling and detinning facility in the world. Initially, it will have the capacity to process 40,000 tons of steel and bimetal cans annually, including food, beverage, paint and aerosol cans. 2. BFI Recyclery, Inver Grove Heights 3. Knutson MRF, Rosemount 4. Anchor Glass, Shakopee 5. Materials Recovery Limited, Rosemount This facility has been built as an alternate to landfilling demolition material from construction sites. Raw materials are brought to the site to be shredded and sorted into at least four categories: cardboard, wood, sanitary landfill material and demolition landfill material. MRL's intent is to process mainly the wood material into a marketable product. They estimate an abatement rate of 15,000 tons from sanitary landfills. 6. Waldorf Paper Company, St. Paul This company processes post - consumer corrugated cardboard, newsprint, white office type papers and obsolete books and business forms into corrugate filler paper and paper board. 7. Aptus Environmental Services 8. Other ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To recommend and prioritize three choices for facitlity tours to be scheduled over the next few months. VI. OTHER BUSINESS VII. DISTRIBUTION The following materials are enclosed in your packet. 1. On pages /Q to /a you will find a memo in regards to the pilot recycling project at Northview Athletic Complex /Park. 2. On pages /3 to / you will find a memo in regards to the Eagan Environmental Qu Survey. 3. On pages /5- to you will find a copy of the Final Report from the Subcommittee on Long -Term Funding. 4. On pages 0 2 7 to 02g you will find a copy of a letter sent to City Administrator Hedges from County Board Chairman Turner in regards to the long -term funding issue. 5. On pages .Q? to 1 7 4 r you will find a copy of the Final Report from the Governor's Select Committee on Packaging and the Environment. 6. On page 4 /3 you will find a copy of a newspaper photo taken at Fish Lake park hi ghlighting some young clean up day volunteers. 7. On page you you will find a copy of the 1991 Goals and Objectives. 8. Please also find enclosed a copy of the May HERO Highlights. 9. Please also find enclosed a copy of the Solid Waste Version of the Eagan Environmental Quality Survey. 10. Please also find enclosed a copy of a brochure from the Waldorf Corporation. VIII. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of the Eagan Solid Waste Abatement Commission will be Tuesday, June 11, 1991. IX. ADJOURNMENT 6 Subiect to Approval MINUTES OF THE SOUD WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION Eagan, Minnesota April 9, 1991 A regular meeting of the Eagan Solid Waste Abatement Commission was held on Tuesday, April 9, 1991 at 11:30 am. Present were Denny Seiz, Floyd Hiar, Darlene Bahr, Earl Milbridge, Craig Seim, Terry Davis and Terry Jacobs. Absent were Larry Knutson and Ken lsche. Also present were Recycling Coordinator Hageman and Dakota County Recycling Specialist Mike Trdan. AGENDA Upon motion by Hiar to include an item under other business regarding the incinerator moratorium issue, seconded by Bahr, all members voting in favor, the agenda was approved as amended. MINUTES Upon motion by Bahr, seconded by Seim, all members voting in favor, the minutes of the March 12, 1991 meeting were approved as presented. STAFF REPORT Revised 1990 tonnage Report Hageman began the staff report with a quick update regarding the revised 1990 tonnage report submitted by Dakota County to the City of Eagan. The documentation highlighted all recycling activity from Eagan residents. Additional items included in the report were appliances, batteries and additional yard waste figures. The total abatement for the City of Eagan was 5,839 tons (23 %) combining all yard wastes, recyclables and appliances. Hageman also reminded the commission of the 1990 goal which was 2,693 tons. Additional questions arose regarding possibilities of adding materials collected in the curbside program. Bahr asked about batteries and tires and questioned efficiencies on the routes. Seim noted that those materials, i.e. batteries and tires are not applicable to current systems/vehicles and there are hazards involved with collection and storage. Seim encouraged further education on proper disposal and alternative disposal options for residents. Bahr concluded by saying that an additional educational piece regarding safe disposal of hazardous wastes should be produced. Another idea regarding residential information would be to produce a 'clip -n -save' type of piece regarding special wastes and disposal options. Jacobs added that another way of keeping these hazardous materials out of the landfill would be for the landfill operators to monitor loads and inform the hauler of materials brought to the site to in tum allow haulers to inform their customers of improper disposal. Citywide Environmental Survey Hageman reported to the commission that the format for the survey had been changed due to its original length. To solve the length problem, the decision was made to distribute two surveys each with their own emphasis. Hageman added that samples of the surveys and an additional update will be available at the May commission meeting. 2 Page 2/EAGAN SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION April 9, 1991 Earth Day /Community Clean Up Day Hageman noted that final preparations for both activities are underway. As of the meeting date, only 50 residents had signed up for the Earth Day event on April 21. Much worked had been done coordinating both events with Parks and Recreation Dept. staff. Hageman also noted a slow response for sign ups for the community clean up day. Dakota County Household Hazardous Waste Program Hageman reported to the commission about a recent update local recycling staff received from George Kinney, Environmental Health Supervisor, regarding the County's HHW program. The first collection at the permanent facility had only 14 cars through the gate. Kinney also mentioned the estimated cost of handling the materials from these 14 cars was $4,000. The March collection had 70 cars visit the site and $210 had been donated. County staff estimates a workable number of cars through the site at 200 per collection day. Dakota County Long -Term Funding Hageman began by giving background information on the Long -Term Funding Subcommittee work. Hageman directed the commission to review the letter sent to Dakota County in response to the subcommittee's current work. The letter was reviewed by the City Council and submitted to Dakota County for review. A variety of comments followed regarding the funding options facing the County and specific items within the letter. Bahr asked about the Surcharge monies and what percentage the County receives from that amount. Hiar said the monies are divided on a non - population basis throughout the state by county. Trdan noted that many organizations including the Metropolitan Council, Office of Waste Management and the MPCA also receive portions of the tax. Comments from Davis focused on the $2-3 amount submitted as being too broad and the availability open to the subcommittee to choose the low end was wide open. Davis thought including specific costs involved with adding materials, achieving rising abatement goals may have added support to the information submitted. Additional question arose about meeting increased abatement goals. Davis noted no separate funds for commercial activities yet the goal includes residential, yard wastes and commercial. Hiar asked if the 50% goal included just residential or all. Trdan noted that in the Waste Management Act that question is not clearly defined. Currently, there is no way to get a clear picture of commercial activity. Trdan also mentioned the problem of including yard wastes which will be needed to reach these goals while at the same time we are encouraging mulching and back yard composting. IV. OLD BUSINESS V. NEW BUSINESS SCOPE - Legislative Action Hageman brought the commission up to date on the current life of the SCOPE legislation. The bill, sponsored by Representatives Munger, Wagenius, Baverly, R. Johnson and Weaver has not moved out of the Environment and Natural Resources Committee and will most likely be heard in committee hearings over the summer months. Page 3 /EAGAN SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION April 9, 1991 Although the timing for support was not as critical at our meeting time, the City of Eagan should address the issues raised in the report and final bill. The City has the option to show support the entire bill or submit approval with qualifications. Hiar began the discussion by supporting the incorporation of uniform, regional or statewide, requirements for packaging. The system would not work on an individual city by city or county by county basis. Hair suggested that our comments should also be directed to our own representatives Seaberg and Halberg. Bahr supported the principle of waste reduction. Upon motion by Hiar, seconded by Davis, all members voting in favor, it was recommended that the City Council support the concept of the SCOPE report and encourage committed work toward achieving stated goals. Hageman noted that a copy of the final report will be included in the May packet. Participation Rate Guidelines After a short discussion on the importance of local impact and current methods of collection for participation rates, upon motion by Davis, seconded by Hiar, all members voting in favor, the item was tabled indefinitely. Davis added that the item may need to discussed again at the time the subject of mandatory participation is raised with the commission. VII. OTHER BUSINESS Future Agenda Items Due to the fact our meeting time draws to a close before the commission has had an opportunity to review options and issues for future agenda items, Hageman suggested she put together a synopsis of options for the group to review as a regular agenda item for the May meeting. This item was continued to the May 14, 1991 meeting by acclamation. An additional comment was made by Hiar regarding the special City Council meeting held Tuesday, April 16, 1991 with representatives of Dakota County. Hiar felt the Solid Waste Abatement Commission members were ignored by city staff and County staff and should have been informed of the scheduled meeting. NEXT MEETING Hageman indicated that the next regular meeting of the Solid Waste Abatement Commission will be Tuesday, May 14, 1991, at 11:30 p.m. in the Eagan Municipal Center. ADJOURNMENT Upon motion by Hiar, seconded by Seim, all members voting in favor, the meeting adjourned at 1:00 p.m. Date Chair ?' MEMO TO ASSISTANT TO THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR HOHENSTEIN FROM: RECYCLING COORDINATOR HAGEMAN DATE: MAY 3, 1991 SUBJECT: RECYCLING PILOT PROJECT /NORTHVIEW ATHLETIC COMPLEX I would like to bring you up to date on the recycling pilot project at the Northview Park /Athletic Complex scheduled to begin May 6, 1991. After several meetings with Park Operations Supervisor Pelletier and Parks Superintendent VonDeLinde our program has been mapped out and operations and monitoring factors established. After reviewing a variety of containers and container systems in addition to reviewing past program experiences collection and container choices were made. The Recycling Program has purchased 18 containers for use in the park to collect aluminum cans. These containers were purchased from Upbeat Inc. out of St. Louis Mo. The containers have arrived and are scheduled to be placed in the park by May 4. The Main Elements of the project are as follows: Initial Promotion o Managers meeting, two minute video message Continued Promotion o Containers themselves o Extra Signage (option to be evaluated) o Extra message on containers themselves (to be decided) o Cable messages o Local Papers Operations Placement o A total of 14 containers will be used in the park. Please see attached map. o 8 containers at the ball fields. o containers placed in a variety of locations near each field. For example, behind back stops or next to one bleacher. o 1 container at the building near the pop machine. o 5 containers placed throughout the parking lot. Recycling containers will be adjacent to the trash containers. Park staff /attendants will empty containers daily. o store bags or take to drop -off as necessary o revenue generated will be monitored and will remain in parks system o responsible for cleaning containers as needed Monitoring of program. o reporting form developed to monitor - o volumes of cans in recycling container. o volumes of cans in trash container. o placement /usage o contamination o durability Other Park buildings o Two (2) containers will be placed at the community parks, Trapp Farm and Thomas Lake to be used for special events and reserved gatherings. o attendants will be responsible for set out and emptying of containers. Security o Containers and /or lids will be secured as needed. This is how the project has been mapped out to date. If you have any questions or comments, please let me know. Recycling Coordinator // • ..i I • .. i . .,.. i -: • ' 1 - i - .1 -------- 1 0.. l 1 .:•• ..' j ..! _ :):,..1 • / 1 la ) I , i 1 ....D. > . 1 ,,.......,...:1.1..., ..: *." • ; . •-• 0 1 ...)--, . . . , .. . r , V ��' 1 • 4 ) • • • . I i L 8'" • L. J�. — --__ /c2 MEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES FROM: RECYCLING COORDINATOR HAGEMAN DATE: APRIL 12, 1991 SUBJECT: EAGAN ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY SURVEY Progress To Date Water Resources Coordinator Brasch and myself would like to inform the Mayor and City Council that the Eagan Environmental Quality Survey has been mailed to the 700 randomly chosen residents of Eagan. The survey was sent in a slightly different style than originally planned due to its original length and depth of issues incorporated. We have chosen to send two versions of the survey with approximately half of our sample receiving one version and the other half the second version. The surveys have been divided as follows: one survey highlights solid waste, household hazardous /special wastes and yard care issues and the second survey highlights water quality and yard care and urban forestry issues. Each survey contains approximately 30 questions. In addition, both surveys ask important questions regarding the amounts of information received regarding city programs as well as what is viewed as the best vehicle or media to receive such information. This key information will help both programs (Water Resources Management and Recycling /Solid Waste) with the community's future information needs. University of Minnesota Extension Service Contribution We would also like to inform the Mayor and Council of the significant contribution the City of Eagan has received from the University of Minnesota Extension Services on this project. Not only has the Extension Service helped to guide the format and design of the survey, they also will be responsible for the data recording and analysis of the survey results. As part of a program currently established at the U of M Extension Service, a graduate student has been contracted to coordinate the analysis process. The cost for the computer software, computer time, student staff time and analysis is estimated at $2 -4,000 and will be paid for by the Extension Service. The U of M Extension Service has recognized solid waste as one of its 6 major focus issues. As a result, our survey may be helpful to the Extension service in developing educational materials and focusing their resources to better serve the urban audience. Project Timetable The surveys were mailed with a self addressed, stamped envelope and /3 a letter from Mayor Egan encouraging resident participation. Residents have been asked to return the survey by May 1, 1991. The City of Eagan and the Extension Service have estimated data entry and analysis will be complete by mid -July. We look forward to presenting the survey results and information to the Council at that time. Attached, please find a copy of each survey (Water Quality & Solid Waste) for your review. The questions asked in the surveys will help guide the City in coordinating these programs for the future. If you have any questions regarding the survey, please contact either Water Resources Coordinator Brasch or myself. Thank you. Recycling Coordinator cc: Assistant to the City Administrator Hohenstein Director, Parks and Recreation Vraa Parks Superintendent VonDeLinde //,‘ eol'id Waste? xanagemeet Advi,so FY SUb- Committee on Ion Term Fundin DATE: April 24, 1991 TO: Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee FROM: Sub - Committee on Long -Term Funding SUBJECT: Conclusions and Recommendations on Long -Term Funding Program INTRODUCTION On July 10, 1990 the Dakota County Board of Commissioners authorized the Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee to identify a recommended long -term strategy to the County Board for financing the County's landfill abatement efforts and remedial cleanup actions at solid waste sites. The Board also requested that the Committee establish a process that would actively involve communities, businessess, and residents. Subsequently, the Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee developed a sub - committee consisting of six members, including Michael O'Connor, Pat Akin, Michael Bisanz, Ron Larson, Dana Turner, and Ken Wolf, ex- officio, from the full committee to carry forward this effort. The sub - committee held its initital meeting on July 24th and has been meeting frequently since that time reviewing the solid waste management system in depth. CONCLUSIONS After intensive review, the sub - committee has arrived at a number of general conclusions regarding the long -term funding of landfill abatement: o The consumer (generators) needs to understand the full cost of the solid waste managment system. The consumer pays the cost currently, but it is indirect through a number of different methods of collection. Therefore, the total cost is not readily apparent. o There are elements of the system which should be privatized to reduce government involvement and to make the relationship between the consumers and haulers more direct. o There are elements of the system which should remain a public responsibility; i.e. Household hazardous waste and Remedial Investigation /Action. /Lc- o The solid waste industry is continuing to evolve and it is difficult to make any definitive long- term recommendations, but it is proposed that a direction be set. o Because of the present sound financial condition of the funding system, there is an opportunity to safely and conservatively modify the system over a period of time. Therefore, the County should re- evaluate the system each year to determine the current impact of its funding program and to review the market place. o The County role under state legislation will continue to expand at least in terms of planning, coordinating, and management of the system. o The County needs to provide a safety net for the system until markets are more established and there is a longer history from which to evaluate results. There is also a need to ensure that haulers of all sizes remain a part of the system. RECYCLING 1. Community Programs: a. Capital Costs - It is recommended that the projected balance of remaining capital monies at the end of 1991 (see Exhibit 1) be established as a grant fund for one -time capital needs and specific solid waste abatement needs, approved on a case by case basis. Future on -going capital costs of the cities after 1991 will be their responsibility. o No additional capital dollars will be allocated to cities beyond what is remaining after 1991 since the original purpose was to purchase bins to initiate the program, and this has been largely completed. o The grant program shall be administered on the basis of special needs consistent with the County's Master Plan and County Board objectives. o The grant program will sunset at the end of 1994. b. Administration and Promotion It is recommended that administrative and promotion costs continue to be funded under the following formula: Communities over 5,000 population, $2.00 /household. Communities under 5,000 population, $1,000 base plus $2.00 /household (see Exhibit 2) based on 1990 households. o The only administrative costs eligible for reimbursement are the salary, benefits, and mileage for reasonable use of personal vehicles of personnel only while working directly, part -time or full -time, on the planning, coordinating, implementing and promoting of eligible programs (documentation may be required). o Cities will produce, and distribute at a minimum one abatement and recycling promotional item per year. The eligible costs are the production and distribution of flyers, brochures and posters. o; i The County will produce and distrubute at least three generic promotional items per year, and the County will assist, as needed, in coordinating cities efforts so as to avoid duplication and excess costs. o Cities are encouraged to work together, to cooperatively implement their recycling programs. c. Collection of Residential Recyclables - It is recommended that haulers continue to be partially subsidized to ensure continued flow of information and monitoring of the program, but to begin a phased reduction of the subsidization level. o The phased reduction shall be over four years at the following rates: 1992- $25 /ton 1993- $20 /ton 1994- $15 /ton 1995- $10 /ton Exhibit 3 presents the projected costs. o The County will be responsible for paying haulers and collecting recycling information for single family and multi - family units beginning January 1, 1992. The County will establish a uniform reporting system. o Cities will be responsible for collecting information on yard waste and drop -off sites. o The County will set rates for drop -off centers with the rates being no higher than the RCC rates. o • The County will set rural rates. 2. Recycling Collection Center (RCC): The subsidy that the County is making through the RCC is primarily for hauler subsidies. Therefore, the subsidy should be evaluated in conjunction with the subsidy being received for single family and multi- family collection (see above). o The subsidy through the RCC should also be reduced over time. It is recommended that the maximum dollar amount to be subsidized to the haulers through the RCC be established on an annual basis. This would allow the vendor to adjust individual commodity rates based upon market conditions while limiting the overall exposure to the County. o The following maximum levels for 1992 and 1993 are recommended: 1992- $360,000 1993- $300,000 o Contracts between haulers and the RCC should be pursued in order to provide greater stability for planning and budgeting. There will be an evaluation of providing an incentive to those haulers entering into contracts. 3. New Initiatives: It is recommended that the County provide initial funding for new initiatives such as plastics collection, adding new plastics, magazines and other materials yet to be identified until such time that there is market capability to support the programs. This funding is to be separate from the amount identified above for the RCC. • YARD WASTE COMPOSTING It is recommended that the County continue to privatize the compost site operation and reduce the County's administrative oversight. o The County should continue to provide sites through 1992. o The County should continue to work to have the facilities in a revenue neutral position in 1991. o The County should continue to monitor the market place to ensure adequate disposal is available. SPECIAL WASTES It is recommended that Special Wastes continue to be handled by the private sector with minimal involvement and funding by the County except for necessary regulation. o The County should continue to fund household battery collection while the program matures and additional legislation is implemented. HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE It is recommended that Household Hazardous Waste continue to be funded by the County. REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION /ACTION It is recommended Remedial Investigation /Action continue to be funded by the County. However, the available funds for this effort and the current status of the effort should be reviewed on an annual basis. FINANCIAL IMPACT OF RECOMMENDATIONS The financial impact of the sub - committee recommendations are summarized in Exhibit 6. 03D -02rj /7 EXHIBIT 1 n O 0 O N O 0 V 0 N 10 I0 N 0 0 .1 N 0 0 1. 0 n 0 41 n 0+ 0 1 1 n 0 0% 1 01 1 N 0 0 gr U 01 v 0 0 0 N IA in 0 v O N 0 N m ✓ N 01 0 1 1 In ./ n I .i 1 0 N O0 n _) 'r% O 0I .-1 . OI ♦ .-1 < .1 l0 a . N .-1 10 n N ' CO .4 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 l• 0 N O N 0 03 0 10 N 0 01 0 .4 0 P 0 1. 0 01 CO 0 O. 1 10 N n .4 1 0 .r 1 0 1 .4 1 O. 0 01'O 0 0 O O 0 .r 7 1 N N 0 1 1• .-I 1 0 1 n 1 N O .1 n V N •-1 N Ut N •i N .i n 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 111 w n N 0 0 0 0 .-1 N 0 0 1` 0 n 0 IV • LI U n Co N 0 N n CO r` 01 CO O N f C7 01 O OI Q .-1 O 1` I11 CO .1 I sr 1 CO ID 0 CO .0 OI 4 N N N. n .4 In .i CO 0 01 0 01 N 04 n EO+ 1 0 CD .-1 A O+ P l0 l0 O+ .1 .-1 14 .1 r• 10 U N N v v 10 10 n O. n n C] N o 0 NO In O r NIn V) 0 0 0 0 1• 0 !` O N V IT 14 0 0 0 Co In VI I0 CO 7 0 0 I` 0 IT N r N C C A 0 4 .-1 n 10 . n In .-1 4 In C V 41 4 0% T3 •a I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 .0 1 CO In 1 .-I n CO CO 7 0 .1 .-■ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .-1 n w u d I 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 N N V w v 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . • 1 A. _ .. y I 4 O A 4 4 O. A U U U u 0 i v n 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 10 0 o O 01 N 0 0 0 0 .4 N 0 0 1• 0 .4 0 • CJ en d n OI N O N n CO 1 1 CO 1 N 0 • CO Ir 0 On < .4 o r. In CO .1 0 .. O n ID 01 0 01 Os C n us r- n .-1 In .1 0 I N 1 10 N III N .0 00 A E OS .4 n r. 10 10 05 .1 .i 10 10 01 OI U �@ . N sr i IV a 10 W n 0 .4. n CI rt .1 0 N WI N 00 Os .1 0 00 0 CO 00 0 00 00 �0 00 .0. Co N t f r 0l• 00 Ion 0 00 01 s 00 0 00 10t cow oo nn 0 • ID CO . . . . . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . . N Ill .-I 0 .i CO O5 0 CO 0 10 .-1 N ` n 1D n .-1 0 ■ r n 10 .r h 10 C M o 0 00 01 10 .-110 0 a) .r Q .4 N10 0 NN CO .4 N0 'N n10 O. hN L O 10 O n • n n v v In 1 co N e O O e. .1 CO O n CO N 04 mr 0 f r. 7 •• •• •• . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. . . . . . . O.JJ .4 In 01 n Ill 1• 0 NI N < n N n O0 N 1. 05 .1 1.1 04 C0 400 0 10 .'1 1D .•1 Ill N N CO n 01 .-1 N N ge .4 N n 10 'O .- 01 1 .1 10 0 1 CO N O 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 a s a. a. a. a. a as a a as a as a.a. as as as IA ono U O 0 O 0 U ono to to U U 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O U O V O 0 0 0 o O o o o o o O o o 0 o 0 0 0 .-1 O 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 y 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 In 0 0 0 0 h 0 V N ••4 A 0 0 0 0 CO N 10 K1 Of 0 10 N N 10 w ea '••I els U N n n . .1 .4 sr .1 0.1 0 m 1. 0 ..I N N 10 .-1 0) C > 41 • X 4 0 a S a u a - 4' 0 0 4 z ..4 4 0 11 .-.1 V 4.1 O . 2 E� � ..II -P, - > ..-e IT IT t9 .1 •' 4 4 7 •C 4) 51 0 14 C > C C -4 4 4' 41 0 • 4 CO El .-I -I 7 01 N C -.4 -.I 1. > '0 0 0 1$ 41 ..1 .4 01 E .1 C A E 41 01 15 >, '0 V d CO b.4 y 4 .., I E co 0. 1.I 0+ 1.I CO > . . C C b • C 0 1 + O. CI 0 ) a 7 A .. 4 C .. ..7 X X a 5 IA 3 a 0 U 1Q W fa. S N 02 0 LAE11011 L ADMINISTRATION AND PROMOTION FUNDING Proposed 1992 Level: 1990 $2.00 Per CITY Households* Household Apple Valley 11,538 $ 23,076 Burnsville 20,244 40,488 Eagan 18,450 36,900 Farmington • 2,124 4,248 Hastings 5,545 11,090 Inver Grove Hts. 8,149 16,298 Lakeville 8,105 16,210 Mendota Heights 3,410 6,820 Rosemount 2,866 5,732 South St. Paul 8,294 16,588 West St. Paul 8,767 17,534 Mendota 77 1,154 Lilydale 342 1,684 Sunfish Lake 144 1,288 RSWC (19 entities) 4,652 28,304 TOTAL: 102,707 $227,414 * 1990 housing units from Metropolitan Council based on 1990 census. 01D -03rj • DU - 11B1T J • CURBSIDE REIMBURSEMENT* Year $ /Ton Projected Volume ** Total Subsidy 1992 $25 19,000 tons $475,000 1993 20 19,950 tons 399,000 1994 15 20,950 tons 314,250 1995 10 22,000 tons 220,000 * Single Family and Multi- family ** Assumes tonnage increases by five percent per year. 03D -05rj 0 ■.o v, i;i A A ao eh t0 N O 0 N . . . N r-4 10 N .-f 10 - ri 00 v ri v io 1 N O 1n Ot O N 0 ri .-1 r-1 E4 t!r tR VT Vr N> to ri 0 «i co 1.0 C) •4 0 0 1 1 1 1 1.1 r1 0 CO 1 1 4 1 P 0 0 - . 1 I 1 I 0) N 10 in C a 41 )' v> s b d .0 IA 0 CO a CO 0 $4 .0 a 0 O 0) N i 1 v CO .0 if O N O U H * 0 r-i eh 1 1 1 Of 34 1 1 I 0) 0) 0) d' co s 1 1 1 tO • 4 N r0 CO C 0) 0) 14 0 t/r cr} 0 C I.4 co II 0 124 CP C Cd 31 O C eC A O 0) s en ,c, 0 0 0 d • 0 ri 31 4.) t0 N N o 0 in ICI r-1 0) A 4L 0 In O 0 0 0 N C.) C N O.p O c en v Ln a1 v a. W .„.. 10 P. 0 a' .-i N ON ri 0 0) 0) 1.1 x CO N '.0 01 v ri r) 0) 0) 0 ?r - w iir i r i!� v> (r trr j.1 • - r1 W O 0 N 10 O 3a . O C.) C) * * * C) O 0 f•-4 • 4.1 * * * 0 0) 0) r-1 er k .11 r 1n 0 0 0 0 W w ' a O r-1 N 0 .-i N N (11 3.1 0) W 1 - 1 .14 0 N a\ N '.0 10 10 a 1.0 0 r-1 Q OA v* ei .- .-1 -1 O O 0 4.) O 10 S eh N N N b b 14 -•-1 ea C) 'r tR th th th «r 0) C b 14 C -.-4 CO 0 0) $4 • 14 ■ 0) 0) 0) 0 0 0 b 4)� a% Ch to 0) 0 O 01 ■D C y w 0 N It) • 0 -ri C 0 -el • t0 4. O o t 0 r-1 V-1 r-1 - 3i a o O 10 4) O) CO 1 - 'V d' d' 0 O d 0 O+ CL 0 N r'1 .-i ri 4. 1.1 .ri r 4 -r4 0 N ON v sr d' d' 01 la rI 0 3.4 A N rn 0 - 30 0 E -4 N N 4 0 C) 0) E N 0 ' ri N N N d) 0 14 0 TS ON 00 t0 N N N 'Cf $4 3 d: a t!r Vr if/- t/} t!r th C a . 0) V w , .4-)w ^ -.. N tO 0 ri ri 4) --. 4 4 - ) 0) 0) 4' 4 '0 In 0 In 0 • 0 -.- g r1 IA -4 - - co 0 0 O 1.1 $.4 4.4 p, Pi C) - r1 C •n a a w a a a 10 CO C .0 O 34 C.) 04 14 E-1 1/) r1 0 1-0 01 0 ri N ri v 11 b o0 a■ 01 al a1 al * 0 0) rn 0'. 01 01 a, ON * * v >4 ri ri ri • ra ri 4 * * * 0 a3 EXHIBIT 5 Comparison of Hauler Payments From Dakota County Funding Community RCC Reimbursements* Reimbursements Total 1989 (Actual): $ 204,567 $ 232,086 $ 436,653 1990 (Actual): $ 643,873 $ 358,428 $1,002,301 1991 (Budgeted): $ 914,026 $ 390,000 $1,304,026 1992 (Projected): $ 475,000 $ 360,000 $ 835,000 1993 (Projected): $ 399,000 $ 300,000 $ 699,000 * There may have been additional reimbursement from city funding sources. • 04D -02rj c:22/ DQUBIT 6 O O O I O CO N O I O 1 O • CO 01 11 40 0 0 0 11 11 0 101 0 0 0 .0 .0 O 0 0 1 0 .O N O I O 1 0 N N N 0 n 0 0 0 0. r N O h r 0. r O 0 n -1 . I .1 .D nh o 4+ • n P O 1 0 .0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Mono 0 01 n 0 0 W 4 sr n 4 4f1 m m � O 0 • ate 1 on on I N I 0 4/1 n 41.4.44.0 N 0nNM .400 .4 d! O n 01 CO P. n PrC. 1-4 C4 r4 N Sr .D nn rl .O • P1 C. . O N .-1 .1 1♦ C. V• N H o O O 0 0 0 O O O x 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O 0 O 0 0 O NNO I O 1 0 n t-Nm0000 N 10NCO 0 x0 4-1 'O 1 0 00 1 0000 1 0 1 O 0000/0000 O Y)PO4 P O P P d n . 1 • 1 . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4J 0 n N O 1 0.0 NO 1 0 1 N r1.ON C4 r4r Or f O O • b to I C O C O 1 4. 1 4f1 V. OCO.- 10 0 0.4 CO -1 pO.p r O V n .DP 1 P 040 n On .O .i N.4 P4 n 10 NN N "- O -4 r .-1 r1 14 0. 40 40 MIA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O x 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 '0 O 0 0 1 044440 1 0 1 O ntN V00000 0 I's N co o nto r- O O n 00 1 0 n00 1 0 1 O On0o.000CD r t•n0 NOO rl 4J n - 1 - 1 • 1 V O • ino 1 0 P00 1 0 1 N ■Po400000 oa. nn ..0 0. O 0 n Ch VI I CON 1 4. 1 N r1 CO N. - IONOO 40NNO2 00 COO. n O ▪ t.1 0.10 r- 0 n CO 4 0. .0 .4 rl rl N n In NN N 14 •■ r .4 N CL to ;A Vl N W W W 1 o 0000000 O O 0 04/00000 0000 000 n 14 E 0 I O 004100000 00+00 r 0N t1 0. 14 4.1 4) 0 n o 00 1 0 1 0 0a.D0co00on 0000 0.ts.0 to M > 4) ■ n .1 .1 x N 0.04 0 to Oou1000 1 0 1 N 00.1%0 4 004. OCONO O.00D .D (. 'O 0 n C1N V P N On 1 N 1 11 NO..D. -•N N10.D < NCIU4 r. u) OD O. P O U V r4 to 01 4f1 .-4 P V 11 n O .-I 11 .-1 n 11 N N U 4 Ca Q r+ r.-1 r1 .-1 0 1 V) V) Vf 0 Z 4% W t,,C'+C 11 0 0.- .- 1.-441CO o 0 40 NN.-I V r W 41P 4.400 N Z 0 40 co 0N r44D1.4 r r co C4 10r.D r n en e. OnP n N .-4 0 N u1rCOD a n r4 n n CD C4 r1114t1 1 1 0 .D 1 VD CO CD en u) 40 C1 41 - 4 1 . 1 Z '0 0 O • P C.n CO C1 CPI .D r0 V rI P.O tor V 1 1 N 4D 1 110. no n.4 r 4- O N C1nN CO CT NrfulN.-1 r- n 41 N C P n 0. 0 V' 41 u1 nn.-C r4 N N on r1 NN P x OD 'C Nr 1 N .ti V) trk trl N W .0 F S 1 0 x 414.11 N CO n P rin.)r r Np. r o. P o 0 n 1.44 04.4 I I O 1 1 0. r.OPcon 1 1 P 40 .40 P 114D 01 4 O .4 n N .Nonni'! 1 1 40 1 I O 4 4 40r P I I r CO rOP OPO at I 4 64 a N - P 40 0. O C. 1 1 m 1 1 04 .4 n rI N n 1 I r 44 N 04 ...0 41 P N C% C. O P 0. 11 r1 1 1 r P r r 1 ' 1 O 1 1 0. f N 0 O 11 1 O r4 r N .4 .4 P0.4 nr1 .4 40 1 n co rl 4" th 41) H 4 • 4 to 0 c e -• 44 4 4 0 C x44 a 4 CP4 > -404 4 0 4 • 4 C 0 0 •4 C 0 4 14 0) 0 0 0 'C N 14 04 0 C1 0 0 -4-.1 0 0 413 1:4 >' .0 0 C •.1 0 0 .4 14 -4 p. 44) 0 ...4 0 C 0 4JEW 1411b% >.00V C 0414.4 . U C01 • > a 0 OICC 4 404 a • yy C4 V) C > - 00> •01.000. .0 0 -.1 -1 C1 41 4 .-1 41 41 4 0 0 .0 -.444 0 C(0..43.1"40 4J E .4 4 •1 1 . • 4 .-1 0 C .-1.4 3 4J 'CI 0 0 a 0. 0 4 41 s o W 0 0 114G 0. 14 E40 0 000.4p(f00.>. 0 0> - 4 0 C.) 00 14 4J.0 0 14 ..4 a 41 '.4 > 0 0 - 4 . 4 0 '0 4 4 0 0 12 V) E+ 14 0 •> 0• 0b•C0041C 040C401444.4•.0 .T.0'. -•434. .000140 W0-1 0 C4 .400 41 - 4 4 3 •.101 0 12•404.0001K 0x1 4 4/> 4.00 =0 O. O e4 4. ••• 0 -4 0 00 U > 4 DG U -•4 0• 1 • • • 1 0 ' 0 = . 4 0 0 > 0 . •• •• Z Z 0 0 .0 0 .4 00. C440 0 e awCC. •la4 1E03.4 44 40410)4 WW o to C) C 0 00.0 3Ea •0•>.D '4'0440 41043 >•• > -1 . - 'o • 0 >. -4 0 0 0 t4) -4 41 .0 C •4 0 -4 ••• -4 W C 0 'O 0 .-1 4 S .-4 4 W x Sr 4) 0 3 0 0 1T E4 -•4 14 014 .-1 ‚4410-4-441 aJ 4J C1 •440140 4 . .4 • W 0 0 41 4. 1 0 4 4140 •• a[�-40%44 E 0er40>.C1U140000 AC 1640>.44 > 4 - E+ .030000000•••1 E C O C 4 • - - 41 14 41 4..-. 0 'O 0 14.0 • 14.414000 /- 1144'O0007• 0 i 00 .00IJJ .0>.0CE 0 • W 0 01 00 4 .4 V 4J 0 W 10G> 02.0.0100 04+- •40.0000O0-+O -1110 Ca ca OG - 0 0. 14 C 2144100001444.44 •'- 1 0G000 04 >Z.70x 2C1.0.01.) N O - O W po 9 ' 0 o aC•00soo 14 0 C 0 r -40 C 0 I4 • 0 1 0 0 Zo1- 41AC:UU39CPC XGtn 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 43 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 I U.-• d 0 ` 0 4 3 14 14 CC CG it r 0 c::::Q EAGAN SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION 1991 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The Commission's primary goals are listed below. Highest priority was given to the first two goals listed. I. Expand Recycling Promotions II. Household Hazardous Waste III. Enhance /Maintain Single Family and Multi- Family Recycling IV. Waste Reduction V. Schools /Education VI. Expanded Advocacy Role Goals and Objectives I. Expand Recycling Promotions /Education A. Expand the use of the following media: - Cable television - Public speaking opportunities - City -wide activities - Bill stuffers - City /Hauler - Newspaper advertising B. Maintain /enhance use of City Newsletter C. Encourage /support hauler promotions D. Develop additional information about drop -off centers E. Utilize connections with Chamber of Commerce and other organizations II. Household Hazardous Waste A. Promote permanent County drop -off site and mobile /satellite sites B. Develop information relative to Eagan's generation - household and commercial C. Increase education - Environmental shopping information - Safe alternatives to hazardous materials III. Enhance /Maintain Single Family and Multi Family Recycling (Recent state mandates require 35% recycling beginning in 1993. It will be necessary both to add materials and increase participation to achieve this goal.) A. Work with County /Haulers to implement additional materials into program and insure that outlets are available for special materials - Plastics - Corrugated cardboard - Batteries - White goods - appliances - Tires B. Continue to work with haulers and property management companies C. Expand promotional educational materials a6 MICHAEL E. TURNER DAKOTA COUNTY COMMISSIONER URNSVILLE, MN 55337 DISTRICT DAKOTA COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER OELE8HONE HOME 890 -6766 n rpt, + 1560 HWY. 55 - HASTINGS, MINNESOTA 55033 - PHONE 438 -4431 OFFICE 895 -9078 r I1 `:�s� iI Jr APR 1 i t April 17, 1991 Mr. Thomas L. Hedges City Administrator City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Minnesota 55122 -1897 Dear Mr. Hedges: Your recent letter regarding funding levels for local administration, promotion and operation of city recycling programs was referred to the Sub- Committee on Long -Term Funding. The Sub - Committee is currently reviewing the issue and will be making a final recommendation the Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee in May and this recommendation will be forwarded to the Physical Development Committee of the County Board. There was preliminary discussion of this issue at the Subcommittee's April 15th meeting. It appears that there will be a recommendation coming forward to increase the amount of funding to $2.00 /per household. They are also evaluating a change in the proposed Grant Program. The County Board and the Sub - Committee are sensitive to your concerns about the amount of effort it will take to meet the waste abatement goals established by the State Legislature. We also recognize that it is important for there to be continuation of the existing partnership between the cities and the County for the accomplishment of the goals and want to be responsive to your concerns. c2 7 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER April 17, 1991 Thomas L. Hedges Page 2 If I can be of further assistance or answer other questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, 1i\ - Michael . Turner, 4 " Dakota County Board of Commissioners cc: County Board Members Lyle Wray, County Administrator Jeffrey Connell, Director of Planning and Program Management Ken Wolf, Chairman Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee Michael O'Connor, Chair Long Term Funding Sub - Committee c;21 FINAL REPORT GOVERNOR'S SELECT COMMITTEE ON PACKAGING AND THE ENVIRONMENT (SCOPE) State of Minnesota December 18, 1990 • I. INTRODUCTION In November 1989 Governor Rudy Perpich appointed twenty-nine Minnesotans to serve on the Select Committee on Packaging and the Environment (SCOPE). We came from city and county governments; the ∎∎ aste management industry; the food processing industry; trade unions; glass, plastic, paper and can manufacturing; public - interest and environmental groups; the legislative and executive branches; and the retail sector. We first met as a committee on Dec. 6, 1989, and began with the Governor's charge: The Committee shall recommend a strategy to promote environmentally sound packaging in Minnesota. The goals of the strategy shall be environmental protection and resource conservation; to be achieved through waste reduction and recyclability, consumer education, and a reduction in the toxic components of packaging materials." We reported our progress to the Governor and the Legislature in February. In our progress report, we agreed to work toward a coherent, statewide plan to achieve more environmentally sound packaging. We agreed that this would be a worthy replacement for local ordinances directed at package recycling. We agreed that if "e assembled such a plan we would recommend the pre - emption of such ordinances. Our plan follows. II. PREAMBLE The last two years have seen a new energy in the recycling and redesign of packaging. We think this environmental awareness is a major step forward. An example is the recent cooperation from a number of producers in removing toxic metals from packaging materials. We feel that the time is right to organize the effort now underway in many sectors, and direct it toward specific goals. The best strategy Is one that forms a partnership between business, government at all levels, and concerned consumers. We think the "partnership" term is apt, because recycling is breaking down some of the traditional barriers between government, citizens and business. For example, local governments that collect recyclable materials find themselves making the same decisions that businesses face every day: what market should we get into and how do costs balance against returns? This new partnership can make fundamental changes in the design, purchasing and disposal of packaging. It can achieve significant reduction and reuse of packaging, which reflect the highest priorities of Minnesota's waste management hierarchy. Specifically, we suggest that the forces of change be directed at meeting three goals: • Goal 1: Achieve a significant net reduction in the amount of packaging materials discarded into the waste stream. This can he achieved with "source reduction" -- meaning reducing the use of packaging 30 SCOPE Final Report materials at the manufacturing end -- and with more recycling. We suggest a goal of reducing packaging discards by 25 percent between 1991 and 1994, per person. However, we add that this percentage is not a scientifically derived number. Goal 2: Maximize recovery of materials that contribute more than an insignificant quantity to the waste and recycling streams. This will mean raising our collection efforts, meanwhile pursuing opportunities to develop markets for all materials. Goal 3: Ensure that any packaging that does reach the waste stream presents no environmental problem. This will assist in the siting of new disposal facilities -- composting, incineration and land disposal -- when they are needed. While we expect at this time that voluntary action may get the job done without any persuasion from the state, no one can predict the performance of an evolving system with certainty. Therefore, the state should prepare a contingency plan, maturing in 1994, that is capable of accelerating change in areas where environmental progress proves inadequate. At regular intervals over the coming years the Legislature should examine even more ambitious goals, to be implemented when appropriate. III. CONSERVATION OF MATERIALS Principle 1: We propose that this new partnership of business, consumers and government commit to a conperative program promising source reduction and maximum recovery of packaging materials that contribute more than an insignificant quantity to the waste and recycling streams. A. Targets and Measurement 1. Set 1994 goal for overall eduction in disposed packaging: The state should set a goal of reducing the amount of discarded packaging by 25 percent between 1991 and 1994, per capita. 2. Recoverability threshold: By September 1, 1991, and each year thereafter, the responsible state agency, after consultation with interested parties, should Identify the threshold of significance by which it will be determined whether a particular material is subject to recovery targets. 3. Set 1994 targets by material: We recommend that the state adopt ambitious but realistic recovery targets now-for every packaging material except those that constitute an insignificant portion of the waste and recycling streams. These targets should reflect current progress as well as the effect of recycling on material quality. The responsible state agency shouts consult with interested groups and packaging representatives In setting these targets within six months after the enactment of authorizing 3/ SCOPE Final Rennrt legislation in 1991. Reflecting our goal of reducing discarded packaging by one - quarter, we suggest the following guideline in setting targets: (a) for each material, estimate the current recycling recovery percentage; (b) take one -fourth of the unrecovered percentage; (c) add the current recovery rate and one- fourth of the unrecovered percentage; and (d) the sum is the 1994 target. To illustrate: we expect that corrugated containers would have a 1994 recovery target of 62 percent, and PET containers would have a 1994 recovery target of 29 percent. As to paper materials, we suggest that any given paper material will be in compliance if its individual target is met, or if all paper packaging meets an aggregate goal. 4. Credit for source reduction: Source reduction within a given package should count as progress toward these targets. What constitutes true source reduction should be based on a survey of the relevant industry, for the most efficient use of packaging in delivering a given product in a comparable market. Where evaluators need a baseline year for their comparisons, we suggest 1985. 5. Targets for plastic: Among plastic packaging, only rigid containers should be subject to 1994 recovery targets. Our rationale is that the 1989 municipal ordinances relating to packaging recyclability made a similar distinction between rigid and non -rigid plastics. • 6. Measure progress yearly: The state should set up a credible measurement system now that can monitor progress toward the recovery goals every year. We caution that this may require research and innovation, because no conventional measurement method that we have seen appears fully satisfactory. We are not convinced that accurate characterization of the waste stream by specific packaging materials will ever be possible. 7. Pursue environmentally appropriate disposal method: Packaging materials not separated for recycling should be routed to the disposal method posing the least burden on the environment. Food - contaminated paper, for example, should be routed to composting and waste-to-energy incineration rather than landfilling. Unrecyclable glass, on the other hand, should be routed to landfills rather than composting sites or incinerators. Appropriate routing will minimize the environmental impacts of our existing facilities. B. Consumer Behavior Change Begin with buying habits. Broad and effective public education is essential to harnessing the apparent willingness of consumers, to seek out environmentally sound packaging and buy products using these packages. Industry can and should support this effort. Focused consumer demand Is important because it will support producers' efforts to be environmentally responsible. The other half of consumers' behavior is their disposal habits. To reform these habits, the state needs to provide economic incentives sending the clear message to SCOPE Final Report consumers that package reduction and recycling are preferable to disposal. 8. Weight or volume - based fees: The state should require that local governments implement volume or weight -based waste fees -- at the local government's choice -- by a date certain. The fees must be arranged in such a way that waste generators pay a distinct and visible additional cost for disposing additional quantities of waste. Also, there must be a significant financial incentive that encourages recycling over disposal. It is preferable that recycling costs be included in service billings, because this would provide an incentive to seek out source - reduced packaging. 9. Environmental labeling. By July 1, 1992, the packaging advisory council (see Finding 17, below) should report on progress toward a uniform, national system for accurate environmental labeling. we believe that such a system is likely by this date. But if an effective program is not in existence or scheduled for implementation, Minnesota should proceed with its own voluntary or mandatory standards for labeling, including rigorous definitions for key terms. 10. Public education: Current public education programs on solid waste should be accelerated to accomplish the following. (a) The state and industry should help build consumer demand for products in recycled content and source - reduced packaging by supporting public education programs on environmentally sound packaging; and (b) The state and industry should educate citizens on the importance of managing their disposed packaging waste properly. This should include information and perhaps public displays about the consequences of burning various packaging materials at low temperatures, and about the comparative environmental consequences of source reduction, recycling and disposal. 11. "Leave - behind" option: The state's public education effort should inform consumers that they have the right to remove unwanted packaging at the point of sale and leave it with the seller. We call this the "leave- behind" option. The state should caution that this option must be tempered with common sense, and due regard for sanitation and safety hazards. . 12. Award program: The state should create a public award program to recognize packagers, sellers and recyclers who are doing their part to make consumer and distribution packaging more environmentally sound. 33 SCOPE Final Report C. Government Collection Because we are endorsing a system built around recovering substantially more packaging materials for recycling, a significantly greater collection effort is critical to our plan. We realize that counties and cities cannot afford to collect any and all materials; some materials will have no market and other materials may be so small in volume as to make collection impractical. Our intent is that local governments should offer collection opportunities for all materials that constitute more than an insignificant amount of the waste and recycling stream, barring extenuating circumstances based on local conditions. 13. Required collection opportunities: The state should require counties to provide collection opportunities for all packaging materials that constitute more than an insignificant amount of the waste and recycling streams. 14. Exemptions from collection requirements: Counties and their communities should be able to request exemptions from state's collection requirements, for specific packaging materials, based on local conditions. An exemption is appropriate where the local avoided collection and disposal cost is less than the local net recycling cost for that material. The state should review these exemptions and require that they be renewed yearly. We caution that this system of exemptions will require economic research over the next two years, to develop accurate measures for figuring local costs. 15. Funding for collection: We doubt that state and local governments have enough money to support the significantly larger recycling effort indicated by our report. By proposing a means by which products with toxic contents can begin to pay their special handling costs (see Finding 21), it is our belief that revenues from this fee will free up state and local funds now going to pay costs imposed by toxics in the wastestream. After toxic materials begin to pay their own way, it is essential that policymakers allocate this newly - released money to waste reduction and recycling, rather than treat It as a source of additional general revenue. D. Business Sector We expect that changes in consumer demand and increases in collection will bring significant progress toward reduction and recovery of packaging materials. While hoping for the best, however, we should make arrangements for a scenario in which performance falls below our expectations. In case the market at large needs a clearer signal by 1994, the state should pass the essentials of a packaging - material fee system now, meanwhile working out the details with advice and assistance from recyclers, citizen groups and business. The Legislature should authorize the system in 1991, but set the fee scales at zero initially. If all packaging materials meet their recovery goals, the responsible agency will never need to activate any fees. The 3,1 SCOPE Final Report purpose of the fees, if activated, would be to persuade packagers and packaging material suppliers to recover more material; or to persuade packagers to shift away from materials that are not meeting reasonable recovery rates, or that are producing significant environmental burdens when disposed. In short, the purpose of fees k to encourage environmental responsibility, and not to raise revenue. Therefore it is important that when a material meets its recovery goal, the fee applying to that material must be removed. 16. Establish packaging- material fees: We recommend that the Legislature establish a framework of packaging - material fees, set several years in the future, that will be available if any packaging materials fall short of their recovery targets at the evaluation date of 1994, or if some packaging when disposed is producing significant environmental burdens. The details of this fee should be worked out in state agency rules, aided by regular input from a packaging advisory council (see Finding 17). The advisory council also would report on the accuracy and fairness of recovery targets, based on the latest information. The designated agency's rules should be in place by the end of 1993. In outline, the legislation should implement a fee system that would: (a) Apply to packaging materials that (1) fell significantly short of reasonable recovery targets (the "low recovery" fee); or (2) are producing significant environmental consequences in the disposal stream (the "environmental burden" fee); (b) Suspend any of the "low- recovery" fee as to packaging material types that are an insignificant portion of the waste stream; (c) Give products complete or partial credit toward payment of the "low- recovery" fee, based on any of the following factors: (1) significant source reduction achieved; (2) reused at least five times in the distribution system; (3) recycled content; (4) the progress those materials have made toward their recovery targets; • (5) packaging laws or regulations pertaining to specific products (e.g., pharmaceuticals) SCOPE Final Report that prevent or Impede recovery; or (6) objective evidence that no commercially feasible substitute material would offer any environmental advantage; (d) Be levied according to the weight of the noncomplying materials used in products' packages, if possible; (e) Permit fees to go up substantially in phases if monitoring every two years indicates that the initial fees are having no major effect on raising recovery rates or reducing environmental burdens; and (f) Apply as high up the production and distribution chain as is practical, making packagers and/or their material suppliers responsible for paying the fee. 1.7. Create a packaging advisory council: In 1991, the state should create an advisory council with membership from business, citizen groups, solid waste managers, and producers. The council will meet regularly to make findings and recommendations to the responsible state agency, but its reports will • have no binding force. This council will: (a) Have the opportunity to advise during the rulemaking process on the most practical implementation of the fee system above. Our intent is that the system, if ever needed, should be as responsive, fair and effective as possible. The advisory council should be alert to unintended consequences of public policy in this area, such as exemptions that in practice would encourage producers to shift into packaging materials classified as insubstantial portions of the waste stream, because these are unregulated; (b) Assess performance in 1993 and 1994 to compare initial targets against experience gained following the 1991 legislation. For each packaging material, the advisory council will report to the responsible state agency as to recovery performance, targets, waste composition and environmental consequences of disposal; (c) Review progress toward environmentally sound packaging on an annual basis thereafter; (d) Report by July 1, 1992, on whether an effective, nationwide environmental labeling program is in place or near implementation (see Finding 9); and 36 SCOPE Final Report (e) Research, and report by July 1, 1994, on the full range of public policies that might encourage source reduction. IV. TOXICS IN THE WASTE AND RECYCLING STREAMS Principle 2: No packaging that is composted, incinerated or landfilled should pollute the environment. The first source of pollution is toxic metals and compounds used in packaging materials' manufacture. The second source is chemical byproducts caused by disposing of certain packaging materials in a certain way, such as by incineration. The third source Is hazardous compounds contained In products that are recycled or discarded. 18. Toxic metals in packaging materials: The state should enact legislation, similar to that enacted in other states and drafted by the Source Reduction Council of the Coalition of Northeastern Governors (CONEG), to place strict limits on four priority toxic metals in packaging. These are lead, cadmium, mercury and hexavalent chromium. However, no industry should be subject to penalties for presence of these metals above permitted levels in necessary packaging where it can show that a more environmentally safe substitute is lacking. 19. Pigments in trash bags: The state should prohibit the sale of plastic garbage disposal bags in which pigments have been intentionally added to the virgin or recycled resin. These pigments serve no public purpose, but do interfere with enforcing current disposal prohibitions on certain materials, such as waste oil. This change would apply only to mixed -waste disposal bags, and therefore not to bags intended for hazardous materials or medical waste. Printing on bags, such as for communities with metered -bag systems, would be permitted. 20. Label problem materials: Because citizens should be aware of the toxic consequences of the packaged products they buy, the state should proceed with its existing authority by funding and Implementing a shelf -based labeling system for problem materials. 21. Products with environmental priority materials: The consensus of our committee members is that products containing "environmental priority materials' (EPMs) are a problem that must be faced promptly. (For a definition, see section (a), below). In 1991 the Legislature should authorize a fee on these products. All these products should be registered, and a fee collected in the form of a registration payment. The fee should be on manufactured products intended for ultimate use or consumption in Minnesota, with the exception of products that have a dedicated industrial disposal system. This subject was a controversial one for the committee, and an explanatory note follows. (a) Identification of products covered: The law should be written to cover products into which "environmental priority" compounds or metals have been deliberately introduced. By 3 7 SCOPE Final Report "environmental priority," we mean hazardous substances (as defined by Minn. Stat. ch. l 15 B.02, subd. 8) that have been detected in (1) leachate from at least 50 percent of those Minnesota MSW land disposal facilities that collect leachate, or (2) ash from at least 50 percent of MSW incinerator facilities in Minnesota. The EPM list should be updated each year following certification by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency as to all the hazardous substances that exceeded the above threshold during the preceding year. This list also should include the metals identified under the CONEG model legislation on heavy metals in packaging. In 1991, the responsible state agency should convene a technical group that will begin identifying additional hazardous substances found in products, and which are more likely than not to cause environmental problems when disposed or recycled. The technical group should report its findings to the responsible agency by October 1, 1993. At this point, the agency shall report to the Legislature concerning which compounds should be added to the EPM list. (b) Administration of fee: We suggest that the fairest system would be one in which the fee is based on the amount of EPM used in the product, and the volume of product sold. The legislation should set up a system by which producers can receive an expedited exemption from the fee, upon a showing that they have removed one or more EPMs from their products. The legislative authorization should be complete enough that any necessary rulemaking can be completed within one year. Products sold as food or medications would be exempt from any of this fee. The Legislature should set the fee to cover the estimated additional costs imposed by handling products with EPMs in the waste and recycling streams, such as remediation of MSW disposal sites, household hazardous waste collection and handling, costs of problem materials shelf labeling, health - related research and the increased costs of ash disposal attributable to EPMs. This list is not in order of priority; we discussed at length whether the fee should help pay for landfill remediation and whether it should be capped. We recognise that this recommendation will remain controversial; indeed, we place it among our consensus findings despite objections from some members. They assert that recommendations as to product residues in discarded or recycled.packages are outside the Governor's charge to SCOPE; and that new policies covering chemicals in products should await a group appointed for this particular purpose, and including chemical industry membership. We acknowledge the sensitivity of the membership issue, but nonetheless we reached a consensus that packaging policy cannot be complete without attention to hazardous product contents. Some members on SCOPE also objected to using statutory lists of hazardous substances as one element in identifying chemicals subject to a special fee. Those members said that this implied a level of toxicity for products containing these chemicals that no one has substantiated scientifically. They proposed, as an 3 S SCOPE Final Report alternative, creating a technical review panel to advise the responsible agency on hazardous or toxic substances and on the rulemaking process for placing a registration fee on each. These members did agree with the proposition that toxic and hazardous materials impose genuine costs that must be met. However, they said that a fee on toxic and hazardous products, if created, should raise no more than to pay the costs of diverting those containers from the waste and recycling streams. Where landfill cleanup costs must be met, they preferred to rely on general revenue measures, such as increases in the retail sales tax, corporate taxes or the SCORE tax on garbage collection. V. RESEARCH We discovered several subjects in which concerns have been raised about packaging and the environment, but no clear scientific consensus appears. In other subjects, recycling technologies and waste stream composition are changing and periodic reviews are needed. Further research will be required in these areas. Wherever possible, research should be managed through compacts between states and the private sector. We offer no recommendation on where the funds necessary for this research will come from. 22. Environmental studies: Minnesota should join with other states in agreeing on methodology and disclosure procedures for "life -cycle assessments" (LCAs) carried out in the future. This will allow 'policymakers to determine which environmental studies should be given weight. 23. Recycling worker safety: The state should commission research on the health and safety of workers in sorting and processing operations related to recycling. This research would characterize the occupational health environment at a list of representative locations. 24. Economic research: The state should commission or augment the following economic research: (1) toward methods to determine the true costs of disposal and recycling various packaging, and methods to internalize those costs; (2) for specified materials, to identify innovative collection systems and processing, with the goal of increasing the types and volumes of packaging material collected; (3) to provide economic guidelines that will indicate when a community should add collection of a material; and (4) toward methods to compensate for existing subsidies that encourage the use of virgin materials. VI. STATEWIDE PLAN 25. Pre-empt local ordinances in favor of a statewide plan: If the state adopts a plan with the above essential elements, we recommend that the state pre-empt local packaging and labeling ordinances related to recycling. 3t7 SCOPE Final Report While supporting thls renewal of pre - emption, our support Is predicated on the presumption that discarded packaging in Minnesota will achieve 25 percent overall reduction, per capita, by the end of 1994. If this fails, we believe that Minnesota policymakers should take a fresh look at packaging policy. By January 1, 1995, the responsible state agency should report to the Legislature on statewide progress toward SCOPE's goals. This consensus point also saw considerable discussion and controversy. Some members said they were willing to ask local governments to suspend action on their packaging ordinances, but said that state pre- emption of those ordinances should wait until after a statewide plan showed real progress toward recycling and reduction. They said that these ordinances were the motivating force behind SCOPE's work, and therefore should be held in reserve if our proposal is not adopted and acted upon as rapidly as possible by all sectors: business, local governments and consumers. VII. CONCLUSIONS We have described how Minnesota could undertake a long -term effort to keep substantial amounts of packaging out of landfills and incinerators, and how it can take steps to make the flow of materials reaching the disposal system safer for the environment. As with all worthy efforts, achieving substantial recovery goals needs commitment on all sides. No single sector can do the whole job. Food packagers cannot order consumers to put their soup cans out for recycling; consumers cannot put their cans out for recycling if no one collects them; and governments and businesses that collect cans must have someone willing to buy steel for recycling. We believe that this effort is coming together. We endorse a cooperative plan, aimed at common goals and timed to achieve substantial results by 1994. We offer our plan to the people of Minnesota and to the governments and businesses who serve them. • °1O MEMBERS Curt Johnson (Chair) Citizens League Mark Andrew Representing Association of Minnesota Counties Bill Barnhart Representing Association of Metropolitan Municipalities Judy Basks Representing Waste Reduction and Recycling Coalition Bernard Brommer Minnesota AFL-C10 Judy Cook Minnesota Retail Merchants' Association Donald Crysler Representing Can Manufacturers' Institute Senator Greg Dahl Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee Frauds Fitzgerald II Council for Solid Waste Solutions Joel Holland Minnesota Grocers' Association Representative Bob Johnson House Environment and Natural Resources Committee Steve Keefe Metropolitan Council Chuck Kutter Representing Minnesota Waste Association Bob Long Representing League of Minnesota Cities Senator Bob Lessard Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee Dean Massett Representing League of Minnesota Cities Senator Gene Merriam Legislative Commission on Waste Management Lynn Morph Representing National Solid Waste Management Assoc Tom Mort mer Representing American Paper Institute Representative Willard Munger boos. Environment and Natural Resources Committee Robert Ortb Metropolitan Inter-County Association Leroy Paddock Oflka of the Attorney General Doe Peterson Representing Association of Minnesota Counties Marilyn Powell Representing Glass Packaging Institute Michael Robertson Minnesota Office of Waste Management Larry Sawyer Representing Minnesota Business Partnership Susan Schmidt Minnesota Project Representative Jean Wagenias Legislative Commission on Waste Management Gerald WWet Minnesota Pollution Control Agency • ALTERNATES Kim Austrian For Senator Merriam and Representathe %Vagenius Linda Broemmer For Michael Robertson Mary Aide For Chuck Kugler Bob Cudahy For Bob Long Mike Flannigan For Francis Fitzgerald Betty Coi For Representative Munger Terry Holman For Lynn Morgan Joel Jamnik For Dean Massett Tony Kwilaa For Senator Lessard Janet Leick For Mark Andrew Rod Massey For Gerald Wiliet Vern Peterson For BIU Barnhart Debra Pfaff For Senator Dahl Representative Len Price For Representative Bob Johnson John Rafferty For Steve Keefe Lola Scboenrich For Susan Schmidt Waldo Sherman y..a�t� For Bernard Brommer ghda Sweeny For Judy BaUain Pat Van Searen For Donald Cryskr Mike Westerns= For Tom Mortimer STAFF CONTACT: • James R. Chiles Minnesota Office of Waste Management M.. ratite tame it Pima, MIN MO i1 gi flit gl 51 e1� L o 1 r _? w 8iMil tHHi ,... , , , 1 , ii i , , .„ f 1 ' ), h i I i f i i l,1 '1 iior 1 i \ • fi w , ) I P , i ' • ' , . , 1 IS I f 1 i! I -1 0 \II p il 1 1 C , et t ' . t rfit °` • V I • ■ 1 • 'z e . _ ., _ . ,.„... .‘,.... r , p :# t q, t t• I di/4 t • z - 93