Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/13/1990 - Solid Waste Abatement Commission ) AGENDA SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION EAGAN, MINNESOTA EAGAN MUNICIPAL CENTER CONFERENCE ROOMS A & B TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1990 11:30 A.M. I. ROLL CALL AND ADOPTION OF AGENDA II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES III. STAFF REPORT A. Christmas Tree Program B. Multi -Unit Update C. Third Quarter Tonnage Report D. Metropolitan Council Draft Solid Waste Management Development Guide /Policy Plan IV. OLD BUSINESS V. NEW BUSINESS A. Dakota County Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee- Long Term Funding B. Recycle Minnesota Resources Eagan Redemption Center VI. OTHER BUSINESS VII. NEXT MEETING VIII. ADJOURNMENT MEMO TO: CHAIRS HOEL AND MANN AND ALL MEMBERS OF THE SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION FROM: RECYCLING COORDINATOR HAGEMAN DATE: NOVEMBER 6, 1990 SUBJECT: EAGAN SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 13, 1990 A regular meeting of the Eagan Solid Waste Abatement Commission will be held on Tuesday November 13, 1990 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 4 p.m. Friday, November 9 (City offices will be closed Monday, Nov. 12).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 October 9, 1990 is enclosed on pages to . These minutes, subject to any change require approval by the Commission. III. STAFF REPORT A. Christmas Tree Program After County Board approval of the voluntary Christmas Tree Program for this season, County and City staff have begun organizing promotional activities. The County will produce a brochure /flyer to be distributed to all vendors of Christmas trees throughout the County. City staff will be delivering these materials to businesses, scout troops and others involved in tree sales in the next few weeks. The final decision regarding sites and costs involved for drop off are the following: 1. All County operated yard waste compost sites will be open the first two Saturdays in January to accept trees from both residents and haulers. In addition to these days, hauler may deliver additional loads by appointment with Pecar's company. 2. There will be a small fee for residents to drop off the trees. The rate will follow the current wood waste fee of $2 per cubic yard which should average about $.50 per tree. B. Multi -Unit Program Update There is continued work on expansion. The final buildings to go on line will be a few townhome complexes which need hauler clarification and initial contact. These complexes will most likely be placed on the curbside program and will be added to the program fairly easily. C. Third Quarter Tonnage Report Third quarter activity for most haulers rose from second quarter figures. a currently on target for reaching our 12% abatement goal of ,693 ons. This 2,693 figure has been revised since the census repo and increased by 193 tons. The figures for recycla collected by area refuse /recycling haulers and at Recycle Minnesota Resources are as follows: Area Haulers 1,850.24 tons RMR 134.5 tons TOTAL TONS 1,984.74 We are able to use our yard waste tonnages for 1/3 of our total at the end of the year. D. Metropolitan Council Draft Solid Waste Management Development Guide /Policy Plan. Enclosed in your packet on page you will find a summary of the goals and policy plans in the Solid Waste Management Development Guide /Policy Plan drafted by the Metropolitan Council September 27, 1990. The summary sheet has been included in the packet to give you an idea of the issues presented in the plan. The seven metropolitan counties have 90 days to respond to the draft. After the Council has reviewed the responses from the counties a 30 day period is established for additional review and comment by other interested parties, i.e. municipalities, citizens groups, SWAC, etc. This review period is scheduled to begin January 15, 1991. I have also received an overview from Jeff Connell, Director of Planning and Program Management for Dakota County regarding county concerns and interpretations of the plan. The three main areas in the plan that Mr. Connell discussed included; 1. Regional Management System, 2. Financial System and 3. Unmanaged Waste. 1. Regional Management System o Currently the seven metro counties work together on waste management issues during regular monthly meetings with the Solid Waste Coordinating Board. The board is comprised of 14 members; 2 county commissioners from each metropolitan county and a lead staff person from each county. o County staff is statisfied with this arrangement for metrowide coordination of activities through the Coordinating Board. o Currently, there is no sharing of the waste stream which is not as yair efficient Asystem as it could be. Counties need to work together to manage residual wastes from RDF or incineration. o The county questions what the 1992 Regional Operations Plan is, and the requirements for the plan are also vague. o The large amount of agreements needed for regional transactions, which are encompassed in such a plan i.e. accepted liability for landfills are enormous. 2. Financial System o Weight based collection, put burden on generator. o Development of Tip Fee Hierarchy. Disposal at landfill should cost more than incinerator, disposal at incinerator should cost more than a compost facility and so on. o Reaching the 50% recycling goal by 2000. To reach this goal the plan supports mandatory garbage and recyclable collections. o should be implemented in steps o enforcement issues o why the need for mandates if current goals are being reached o public health issues 3. Unmanaged Wastes o Construction /Demolition Landfills o Ash Residue o Household Hazardous Waste I will be receiving an updated draft after the counties input and will be able to supply copies for your review. We can place the review of the document on the agenda at the January meeting if you would like to send any recommendation to the Metropolitan Council. If you would like a copy of the Sept. 27, 1990 draft please let me know. IV. OLD BUSINESS V. NEW BUSINESS A. Dakota County Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee- Long Term Funding Local Recycling Staff has had the opportunity to review a set of questions compiled by the Long Term Funding subcommitte regarding Dakota County Recycling Program operations. At the next subcommittee meeting of Tuesday, November 13, these concerns will be addressed by a panel comprised of local recycling coordinator, refuse /recycling haulers and others. The questions are enclosed on page for your review. Action to be considered on this item: Discussion and /or recommendations to the Subcommittee on Long Term Funding regarding Dakota County recycling activities. B. Recycle Minnesota Resources - Eagan. As of October 15, 1990, RMR is now accepting tin food cans and white office papers from area residents. Although the drop -off center has grown in terms of variety of materials is now accepts, the tonnages for the center have been noticably low in comparison to other drop -off centers throughout the county. As our multi -unit collection program expands and the value of aluminum fluctuates, the activity at our site has deminished. The City of Eagan encourages RMR's operation within the city limits and would like to work closely with RMR to facilitate its growth in the business community and their efforts to support recycling activity throughout the area. Action to be considered on this item: Discussion and recommendation to staff regarding RMR successful operations in conjunction with residential collection programs. VI. OTHER BUSINESS VII. DISTRIBUTION 1. On page you will find a copy of the Metropolitan Council Solid Waste Management Deveolpment Guide /Policy Plan goals and policy statement summary. 2. On page you will find a copy of the questions presented to panely members at the LongTerm Funding Subcommittee panel discussion. 3. On pages to you will find minutes from the October 9, 1990 meeting of the Long Term Funding Subcommittee. 4. On pages to you will find articles from local newspapers regarding; the new composting facility in Burnsville operated by Kraemer and Sons, Inc., the new AMG Resources Corp. De- tinning plant operating in St. Paul, and additional information on the MIRF being constructed by Knutson Services, Inc. in Rosemount. VIII. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of the Eagan Solid Waste Abatement Commission will be Tuesday, December 11, 1990. IV. ADJOURNMENT Subject to Approval MINUTES OF THE SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION Eagan, Minnesota October 19, 1990 A regular meeting of the Eagan Solid Waste Abatement Commission was held on Tuesday, October'', 1990 at 11:30 a.m. Present were Tom Mann, Larry Knutson, Denny Seiz, Floyd Hiar and Bill Easton (representing Tom Moline). Absent were Cindy Ista, Earl Milbridge, Darlene Bahr, Tim Hoel and Tom Moline. Also present were Recycling Coordinator Hageman and Dakota County Recycling Specialist Mike Trdan. AGENDA Upon motion by Knutson, seconded by Hiar, all members voting in favor, the agenda was approved as presented. MINUTES Upon motion by Knutson, seconded by Mann, all members voting in favor, the minutes of the September 11, 1990 meeting were approved as presented. STAFF REPORT Christmas Tree Program Hageman began the staff report with a quick update regarding the Christmas Tree Program which has been discussed at length among the hauling community and local and county level officials. The County Board has decided to encourage a voluntary collection /drop -off program for the 1990 Christmas season and will mandate a program for the 1991 season. The County operated Yardwaste Facilities will be the main points of collection from both the local haulers and residents who choose to deliver the materials after the holiday. Hageman was not sure about a specific time period for collections but will keep in contact with county officials on program activities. MULTI -UNIT PROGRAM UPDATE Hageman updated the commission on expansion levels. Hageman also noted the revised totals for multi -unit housing counts (6,478 from 5,248). Hageman also noted that currently 80% of the complexes are on line. DAKOTA COUNTY RECYCLING COLLECTION CENTER Hageman began the update by informing the commission of the additional materials the center will be accepting in the near future. The two items under consideration are corrugated cardboard from local haulers and also phonebooks. Trdan also added that the cardboard collection will be voluntary until 12/31/90 but should be mandatory for collection in '91. Currently plastics are still accepted on a voluntary basis by haulers and the County is looking at a possible mandate for plastics collection at the curb. Currently, the space available at the RCC is a limiting factor in accepting the large volumes of plastice expected when the program is countywide. BUTTON BATTERY RECYCLING PROGRAM Hageman informed the commission of the current button battery collection system organized by the county. The Eagan Municipal Center is one of many locations around the county accepting the batteries in this program. Other locations include; senior highrises, Target and other retail stores and jewelers. IV. OLD BUSINESS V. NEW BUSINESS A. 1991 Performance Funding Level Hageman began the business item by reiterating the process the commission took in reaching the current funding levels and the factors driving those decisions. Hageman also noted the funding levels and program activities for other municipalities located throughout the county. Most of the larger cities have opted to remain as consistant with their subsidies as possible which reflects the 1991 support levels. In addition to the overall review of other munipalities plans, the issue of longterm funding was also a factor in the final decision. Dakota County has not yet set final program support levels for 1992 and beyond, therefore, our own support levels need to reflect the uncertainty of the issue. Hageman also reminded the commission that funding being considered is only the per ton payment for residential collections and does not address the multi -unit support which has been set through December 31, 1991. Hair asked if our budget estimates reflect our abatement goals and if there is any leway if our goals are met and surpassed. Hiar also asked what figures were used to calculate our budget need for hauler funding. Hair also commented that we should come beck in January or February to look at abatement levels and how our set amounts will be sustained. Hageman answered Hiar's questions by stating that for budgeting purposes she estimated 16% abatment X $30 /ton. Hageman noted that our abatement goal for 1991 is 14% but feels we will surpass that mark. Hageman also noted that the county allows for budget revisions until July 1, 1991 if we find we need additional operations money to support our program. Additional Operations money is still available if needed and we are also able to transfer Capital money to operations if the need arises. Knutson noted we should remain as consistant with other cities to keep the system as uniform as possible. Trdan added that the long term funding issue was the driving force behind most of the other cities throughout the county to remain at the $30 /ton level. With a motion by Knutson, seconded by Hiar, all members voted in favor to remain at the $30 per ton support level for residential recycling collection for 1991. VII. OTHER BUSINESS A number of miscellaneous items were brought up under other business. Mann asked some questions regarding SuperCycle and other waste management firms throughout the area and the status of their operations. Trdan commented on SupeCycle's activity by saying that the company originally colleted materials from about 35% of the metro area during '86 -'89 but have down -sized the operation considerably in 1990. Comments surrounding the Reuter plant noted that it is still a very hot poliical item. Questions are still being raised at the capacity levels and recycling potential of such an operation. Trdan also mentioned the activities growing with Material Recovery Facilities going on line throughout the metro area. Trdan felt this in a good sign for recycling and will give haulers additional options for processing materials. Hiar asked if the 1991 Budget attached to our Funding Application received a "rubber stamp" from the City Council. Hageman noted that the budget was approved as presented. Hiar also asked about the Commercial Recycling Brochure and the timetable for distribution. Hageman stated the original timetable may still be met. Seiz noted that he has received some complaints from Municipal Center neighbors regarding the compost site odors. The issue of site expansion for the fall season came into discussion and Hageman noted that the YardWaste issue will be addressed as a business item at the November of December meeting. Knutson added that thay have noticed a significant drop in yard waste materials from the low /end users, but the full service unlimited service residents still take advantage of the no extra cost yard waste collection. NEXT MEETING Hagmena indicated that the next regular meeting of the Solid Waste Abatement Commission will be Tuesday, NtatAgte 3, 1990, at 11:30 p.m. in the Eagan Municipal Center. A ADJOURNMENT Upon motion by Knutson, seconded by Easton, all members voting in favor, the meeting adjourned at 1:00 p.m. Date Chair SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT GUIDE /POLICY PLAN GOALS I. . J The toxicity and quantity of waste generated must be significantly reduced through influencing generators to produce less waste and substitute,less or non -toxic products for toxic products. Policies 1. The tipping fees for land disposal of all metropolitan area wastes will be increased to reflect all related costs and to encourage generators to participate in further waste reduction efforts. 2. A tax or fee on identified hazardous materials will be sought, at the point of purchase, to encourage waste reduction and provide funds for household hazardous waste management in the region. II. All solid waste generated in the metropolitan area should be collected and marketed in a manner that maximizes the potential reuse of the materials and allows for the greatest possible reduction in amount of waste that must ultimately be disposed. Policies 3. Cities and counties will be required to enact ordinances that specify that each waste generator shall have a waste collection service. 4. Cities and counties will be required to mandate volume- or weight -based waste collection fees for each waste generator and each type of collection service. 5. Cities and counties will be required to establish recyclable collection for each generator and mandatory participation in recycling programs by generators. 6. Regional market development efforts will concentrate on identifying and expanding end markets to purchase increasing supplies of recyclable and recycled materials. 7. The council will implement procurement procedures that will require the consideration of recycled content and recyclability in the preparation of bid specifications. The council will work to assure that other metropolitan agencies and the counties implement similar procedures and wherever possible, engage in joint purchasing agreements. Ill. Achieve efficient, integrated operation of existing and future solid waste resource recovery and disposal facilities to minimize the use of land disposal and potential environmental effects, and maximize recovery of resources and energy. Policies 8. Counties are encouraged to support the development of privately operated waste management facilities and to develop joint waste processing agreements and common programs for addressing solid waste management issues. 9. The impact of metropolitan area programs and proposed facilities on other Minnesota processing and land disposal facilities will be considered prior to approving plans or facility permit applications. 10. All waste management processing facilities serving the region are required to certify on a semi- annual basis the amount of waste sent to landfills and the reasons the waste could not be processed. The counties will be required to report to the council on how they have abated the need for land disposal of the waste they manage to the greatest extent feasible. 11. The council will require Anoka and Hennepin Counties to complete the current landfill siting process by January 1992, and Washington County by January 1993. If the counties fail to meet these deadlines the council will take the alternative steps necessary to complete the siting process. 12. The council will require the counties to develop the selected landfill sites within the region according to the landfill schedule; or, in lieu of their development, the counties must provide documentation to the council that they have arranged secure, long -term contracts for disposal outside the region in facilities that meet the same or higher environmental standards as metropolitan area landfills . having liners and leachate collection systems. Counties must plan for needed landfill capacity through 2010. IV. In order to manage all of the region's solid waste in an environmentally safe and economic manner, waste management facilities must be established and operated as part of an interdependent regional solid waste management system. Policies 13. By June 1, 1991, the council will require the establishment of a formal regionwide administrative structure that will address cooperatively the development and operational requirements necessary to assure that the council's solid waste management plan will be achieved. The organization will be required to prepare and initiate implementation of a regional operations plan by June 1, ' 992. 14. The seven metropolitan counties should establish an organization to fulfill the requirements of policy 13. If the seven metropolitan counties cannot formulate the centralized administrative organization to address cooperative solid waste implementation needs, or if the organizational body created by the counties fails to accomplish the joint operational activities necessary to achieve the policy and criteria contained in the solid waste management policy plan, the council will take the alternative steps to accomplish the task. 15. As the primary implementors of the regional solid waste system, each county will be required to establish as part of its revised solid waste master plan mutual inter -county coordination agreements for cooperatively developing and operating solid waste management facilities. 16. Each county solid waste master plan will be required to indicate the steps that will be taken to individually and jointly develop, construct, finance, regulate, and share in the flow of waste to, as well as the operation and liability of, solid waste facilities to assure that all solid waste in the region is properly managed. 17. Over the next two years the council will study the need for public management of all solid wastes (particularly those privately managed wastes such as demolition /construction and industrial materials) for which the counties do not have management responsibility. V. The solid waste management system must make efficient use of public resources and allocate costs equnabie to waste generators. 18. The total cost of providing solid waste services should be paid by generators and from revenues derived from energy and recyclable sales. 19. The regional operations plan (policy 13) will be required to contain a finance section addressing; 1) a strategy for the use of revenues from a land disposal surcharge and a tax or fee on hazardous materials, and 2) regionwide financing for special and household hazardous waste management and detoxification of the waste stream. • • tl�Zp -S n1 � - OA au — In terms of format, a brief description of the administrative and legislative frameworks which shaped the present program(s), and a brief description of the County's program will be given by County staff. This will be followed by the panel discussion and follow -up by Sub- committee members. The Subcommittee has drafted several questions which will frame the discussion. The Subcommittee is seeking to understand these issues so its recommendations can be put into perspective. The prepared questions panel members are asked to address are: O What are the strengths of the current programs (both private and public)? O What are the weaknesses of the current programs? O Do you think the County has assumed the proper role? O How would you evaluate the current funding arrangements? O What changes in funding would you recommend? O Are there alternative approaches you would recommend? O Are time -lines reasonable (for adding new programs or additions to programs)? O What are your thoughts about adding other recyclable materials for collection (e.g. plastics)? O Are we accomplishing the goals and objectives that we want? Additional follow-up questions will come from the Subcommittee, with an informal discussion of the issues. c:pltfoct 1 Dakota County Solid Waste Management Advisory Sub- Committee on Long Term Funding 7300 West 147th Street Apple Valley, Minnesota 55124 October 9, 1990 Members Present: Others Present: Michael O'Connor Richard Johnson Ron Larson Jeff Connell Pat Akin Donna Anderson Mike Bisanz Larry Knutson Dana Turner Floyd Hiar Ken Wolf John Morley (Kraemer & Son) Richard Pecar (Compost Facility Operator) Bill Eastin (BFI) Jim Weinzettel (Mendota Hgts. Rubbish) Andrea Davis (Recycling Coord.- W. St. Paul) Larry Thompson Shannon Hofstrand Warren Wilson 1. Chairman O'Connor called the meeting to order at 4:05 P.M. The motion was made by Pat Akin, seconded by Dana Turner, to approve the minuteF of the September 25th meeting. The motion carried on a voice vote. 2. Review of Yard Waste Composting: a. Presentation by Warren Wilson. Mr. Wilson reviewed the Yard Waste Composting Program within Dakota County (see attached handout). He reviewed the goal of the program, the various policies the County has adopted to accomplish the goal, and the operational program. He reviewed the collection and disposal of yard waste as well as how the program is funded by private and public sector. He also discussed the County's proposed permanent facility. Ken Wolf reported that the City of Burnsville plans to discontinue the operation of its site. Questions were raised regarding the County's permanent site. Mr. Wilson reported that proposals have been received and the County is currently in discussion with two vendors for provision of the services at a permanent site. The vendor would receive tip fees as well as a percentage of the revenue from sale of the product. It was felt that this would be an incentive to the vendor to more aggressively market the compost product. Mr. Pecar, the current operator of the County's temporary facility, reported that to date he has marketed approximately 50% of the 1989 volume of compost produced at the County site. Pat Akin stated that the County policy should cover the disposi m of wood waste from natural disasters. 2 b. Panel Discussion. There were 5 members on the panel: Jim Weinzettl- Mendota Heights Rubbish Andrea Davis- West St Paul Recycling Coordinator John Morley- Kraemer & Sons, Inc. Richard Pecar- Dakota County's Compost Vendor Bill Eastin- BFI Jim Weinzettl identified the major strength of the County's program being the commitment to a yard waste ban. He supported the County's role as having been the proper role. He felt that the County should now begin to step aside as the private sector begins to play a more active role. He also stated that the County should do more education. He noted a weakness in that the County is not stepping forward and handling the Christmas tree problem more aggressively. He felt that Christmas trees should be handled as a yard waste. For funding, he liked the progression of the County's attempting to move out of public funding and move it into a user pay situation. He stated that the private sector should be able to handle the problem. Andrea Davis identified the following strengths of the County's program: Multiple sites, allowing backyard composting, reasonable charges, reasonable hours of operations, and banning of yard waste. She noted the problems included that there was no definite assurance for the cities and the residents that satellite sites would remain open. She also noted that more public education was valuable but that the emphasis on backyard composting is creating municipal problems in terms of nuisance issues relating to odors etc.. She identified no concerns on funding and felt that it would . be important to maintain satellite sites in the future, particularly given the cost of energy. John Morley reported that Kraemer & Sons had just opened their site on October 8th. He noted that the strengths of the program were the instituting of the yard waste ban and that it was a publicly funded program at the beginning. He observed no weaknesses. He felt the County had assumed it's proper role up to now, but that the County should begin to re- evaluate its role over the next two to three years and that the private sector should be able to do the job. For funding, he did not want the public and private sector competing and he did not support the establishment of a County permanent site. He did feel that an appropriate area for County involvement would be in the provision of satellite sites and that this should be done through a bid process. Ken Wolf brought up a concern that the private vendors are not accomodating to local residents who want to drop off their own yard waste. They tend to be geared primarily for commercial haulers. Mr. Morley acknowledged that Kraemer does not want individuals at its main site. Ron Larson reported that BFI has a special area marked for individuals to drop off yard waste at the Pine Bend location. Mr. Weinzettl commented that the hauling community can handle all of the yard waste and that it is not necessary for 3 citizens to be going to the site. He felt that the competitive nature of the business would keep prices in check. Richard Pecar identified the strengths of the program being the satellites sites and the use of the sites by the public. He noted that the public likes to take its own prunings to the site. He said that this is also a useful time to educate the public about the compost product and by- products. He felt the County's program had made good use of the private sector up to this point. In terms of weaknesses, he felt that the County and cities have not worked as closely together as possible to provide coordination of the program. For example, the County needs to communicate sooner regarding what is going to be the future status of the satellite sites. For funding, he thought that it was time for the County to step aside and that the County's involvement should become oversight and regulatory. Bill Easton noted that the major strength of the program was that the County provided sites at the beginning and did not just tell the private sector that they had to do something. He felt that there had been good promotion of the program. In terms of whether there are alternative approaches, he was not sure backyard composting would work. He also noted that in a year or two the County should be removing itself from the program and allowing the private sector to work. c. Subcommittee Discussion. Ken Wolf expressed a concern about the loss of small haulers if this program and other programs are tui d over to the private sector. John Morley noted that large companies are becoming more actively involved just because of the large capital investment. Larry Thompson, City Administrator of Farmington, reported on Farmington's program. He noted that the County operation has gone well and that it has been a good neighbor to the City of Farmington. He also reported that the City picks up very little yard waste and that the residents of Farmington appear to haul their own yard waste to the County site since it is so convenient. He also noted that he agreed with Mr. Weinzettl regarding the Christmas tree program. He also felt that their should be more recognition of haulers for the County's success. In terms of a regulatory role, there was discussion about the County setting minimum standards as to what was proper compost. It was the feeling that there needed to be a definition of the product and define the quality so the people knew what they were getting. Floyd Hiar suggested that there be a more active educational effort by distributing other materials at yard waste composting sites. The question was raised regarding the volume of yard waste and whether or not it is reaching expectation levels. What is happening to it? Is it being diverted out of the County like o' r municipal solid waste? 4 d. Consensus of Sub - Committee (1). The County needs to continue to improve its educational program. (2). The County should continue to reduce its subsidy and to remove itself from operating a portion of the yard waste program to one of oversight and regulation. (3). The provision of satellite sites needs to be evaluated more fully. THe County should look at reducing subsidy but ensure that prices are kept reasonable. Also, the County needs to evaluate what would be the true cost to residents if satellites were not subsidized, and will the private sector provide collection at the satellite sites. 3. It was decided that the next meeting of the Sub - Committee would be held on November 6th at 4:00 P.M. in Apple Valley. Meeting adjourned at 6:00 P.M. 10D -04rj LONG -TERM FUNDING EVALUATION Presentation to SWMAC Subcommittee Yard Waste PROGRAMMATIC LEGISLATIVE O Waste Management Act, 1980, as amended O SCORE Legislation Metropolitan Council Policy Plan, 1985 (Draft) Amended Metropolitan Council Policy Plan. 1991 * Each generator must have a waste collection service * There must be volume based collection fees * Recyclable collection for each generator & mandatory source - separation /participation * Yard waste will be one material which can be used to meet the materials recovery targets * Dakota County must submit an amended solid waste master plan Current Dakota County Solid Waste Master Plan GOAL (included in the Source Separation Goal): Separation of Municipal solid waste into fractions...., and process yard waste as compost for use as a soil amendment. OBJECTIVE (included in the Source Separation Objectives): Reduce the amount of waste disposed of in Dakota County.... POLICIES: * Establish a yard waste compost facility....by April 1, 1988 (operations began in November, 1988). * Work with all urban cities that do not have a yard waste compost program, toward development in the Spring of 1989, of a community yard waste compost site, or a site which will serve as a collection point for transfer of yard wastes to the County site. (Now have sites in Lakeville, Eagan, and South St. Paul.) * Provide Technical assistance and information for promoting and implementing backyard composting programs for yardwaste to homeowners and residential developers. (Backyard composting packets are distributed on request, have worked with the U of M Extension on their program, and the City of Farmington has a presentation and demonstration project.) * In the event voluntary efforts or passage of ordinances by municipalities is not effective in keeping yard waste out of the central processing facility, Dakota County will consider the feasibility of adopting an ordinance in 1992 which will eliminate the processing of yard waste at the central processing facility. (Implemented mandatory source - separation and banned disposal at landfills and resource recovery facilities beginning August 1, 1989.) Dakota County Recycling Implementation Strategy * It was within the recommended Source - Separation Ordinance that mandatory source - separation was adopted. OPERATIONAL Generally operational /administrative drivers for a program are local. There is one exception: Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board O The Coordinating Board addresses the issue of yard waste from the perspective of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area and recommends policies and actions to ensure implementation of a coordinated regional management system. O A series of observations were made, and technical needs were identified. O To address the observations and needs, the following recommendations were made: * Grants. The Council's grant program should place priority on addressing the technical work needed to develop: debagging equipment land application of yard waste distribution and marketing of finished compost * Waste Reduction. The region can manage significant quantities of yard waste through yard waste reduction. Regional education efforts should emphasize backyard composting and mulching. The Council's and Counties' Joint Waste Education Staff Task Force and OWM's Waste Education Coalition should develop needed yard waste education programs (emphasis would be regional). * Subsidies. Some counties wish to develop county - owned sites with the private sector operating the waste system. Other counties would like to give the private sector an opportunity to develop the entire yard waste system. Counties are now subsidizing the yard waste program to various degrees. Continued public subsidy of yard waste programs would not: A. Provide full reimbursement for actual costs; B. Provide incentive for private sector development; C. Pass actual costs back to generators; and D. Encourage residential composting. The Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board recommends that public subsidy of yard waste management, including all land, capital and operating costs, be phased out by 1993. (Yard waste, in this recommendation, includes prunings up to four inches in diameter.) Current yard waste management in Dakota County Collection O With two exceptions, collection of yard waste is done within an open hauling system. The exceptions are the City of Farmington which has municipal collection, and the City of Hastings which licenses one hauler for all residential collection. O The City of Eagan does have organized collection, however; the City does not limit the number of haulers. The City is divided into sectors and all collection within one sector must take place on a given day. O Three cities require collection of source - separated yard waste, at least during part of the year, as a condition of their hauler licenses. O All funding for the collection of yard waste is within the private sector. Processing - Current Facilities Currently, there are three types of administrative formats operating at yard waste composting facilities in Dakota County. Within each format there is also variation in funding. O Privately owned and operated, including: Pine Bend, Inc. Empire Organic Gardens, Inc. Edward Kraemer and Sons, Inc. * Pine Bend, Inc., and Edward Kraemer and Sons, Inc. are funded totally within the private sector through user fees or possible internal subsidy. * Empire Organic Gardens, Inc. received a Metropolitan Council grant for capital expenditures. Administration and continued operations are funded through user fees. Users are limited to commercial users. O Publicly owned and operated, including: City of Burnsville City of Hastings City of South St. Paul * All of these facilities have received partial funding through the Dakota County Community Landfill Abatement Funding Program. The balance of funding is from the City budgets. * Beginning in 1991, yard waste programs are no longer eligible for funding through the Community Landfill Abatement Funding Program, unless specially approved by the County Board of Commissioners. 0 Publicly owned and privately operated, including: Dakota County Yardwaste Compost Site - Lakeville Dakota County Yardwaste Compost Site - Eagan R. D. Pecar & Co., Inc. Compost Site - South St. Paul * The R. D. Pecar & Co. site is owned and operated by the company; Dakota County has reserved capacity at the facility. * In 1989, approximately 50% of total costs were paid by user fees; and the remainder was subsidized by the County. * In 1990, it is estimated that 85 % -90% of total costs could be paid by user fees; the remainder will be subsidized by the County. * In 1991, it will be staff's recommendation to eliminate the subsidy completely. * The source of revenues used to fund County subsidies to date is solid waste surcharge. Processing - Proposed County Facility 0 It is proposed to develop a yard waste composting facility which will replace the County's facility in Lakeville as the central processing facility. Two vendors are currently being considered as the operator. 0 Reasons for Dakota County to be involved in yard waste management include: * The County desires to maintain the opportunity for responsible disposal of yard waste; this includes the disposal of prunings. * Combining the ability of the public sector to finance a project and promote its use, and the private sector to efficiently operate a project, should result in a lower cost per unit to County residents. 0 It is anticipated that user fees and shared revenue from product sales could fund this project. fundpres M M n n '• ...).-.A W n / I LIfl!1 I I ] 1 1 1 R < A M , ,0,� � M N fD I I !!: 1 M 01 �° A M �. O 6 I ° E R �0 a. 7. ! Mli i� O „ i� A ^ ge o " 13 16 l• * mg,:-..es .< m© 5 : a i F * 95 g -.Lb ,t, 15 o a i .1 1 .0g_ I . ii t �a �a � ° '4 S E r p. _ ac . . y < = c e F • g 'ligi g W 5 a . : , 1 ' 4 inr91 0 0 i `+ a Ei 0s° ` < •aq � 0 � ° : aro • s M 0 g5.4 "+l A+ ""'E ss m 1a•o 1 1 m glil g i : =Fia Ea ° m '. =• ' i su CO QQ c g cE' L t; i ! g o g I m 5 A R ^ g se M " ° M o v a -- ,w C a °' rz s a a . E^ �� O i m i+ G G HQ y E 41 t O : a . 4t w 4 &1 p • g ... g it EaA a a t 4 j g g R g o y �� d oa -�°i� -`°i w '�., €OZ , �a eo°SoE5' 3 R' -'< • i5:� A=° . 5 • 4 ( it. E.Irgi - - - - - • n ti E ,r• v' A 14 ,F-- ■ L11 a "' . y � R fl s 1 1 1 rg 1� I.. , S ;' , l > 0o of _ a . g§ -r.Fs xi. • ,. V ," 1 4 6 6 -111.14z EL , : ,..4.--- 101 • t • iU 1 1 t • q 1151100 I/ 5 ' . �i g 1 i f ' A� at m R O w� �� J - Pi - ., 4111 th etc ir � ' i Lw' ► • Pi tt' ° s `� .14, ► � : L hi m S' ..,4 .gym ' g itg 1 0 � 1 v s tk - S n E t 1 1 i et . \ •_ .5 Oa 0 41 .0 - riti*I'S Ira 11 head- I i A • *t . 0 p- cr2 __ • E -1 c ? • -o * -i v m oo -1 V) � . N co 9 A, 0 ( c C 111 • g C.> O' C• .a ;c = v ) $ o 5... c .--1,(5, Fes, E g y 0 o Es, sT = A • y w AO0 a n U p, = �� Irl x D o ;. *, + • W. "A w M W : \ ivi M oog xs g d g. n- 2'0D i �. ' fl.g * § ,.. ^, C P, =J'" . - i n Pt p, C7 O „ G g H fl } M v w \ ga• o ... 0 $, 1 P 3 p 4-. di + y . i . ID ammo. 0 siso3 uopeuodsuui sot pia ti C* 0 4 o d g 1 a i 3 7 t ;a1IJEW Jasop E 2AE4 IIIM SwvJBoJd Lt < o+ a Na w e+ a w • + _ 1X TV 811934331 way ie sapp 1u o $ a E o § e A+ 4 • '' � . ;veld Ined 1S alp yuM 'Pres ay -�, w 9 C x s g "p uisaagwn isE a oj a soma di 9 S 5 g n . a w s 4° 8 ° i .4k. r ' � 'r , 3 lq t P Pad y c h w c w w w ='° # . e uaaq aney medal(' aplsgma 5 g ? h c 1.6. ,, ; , 4 q noJ paiaalloa sues ay; Jo pow o o S H o • �,�r-, ,4 y,. ti A aall3o ;uawa8euew to y . w o » c �� 4 '7 a ) aiseM Om is isTlgiaads ivawdolanap c o y • o CD o H CD . ° • Jima. A , a `1. 1. )031.1111.11 JOIU3S `IlauuoQ.O ca :9 5 a c 1.5,-,i 5 O tt.• " j, .' UTAa�i pm WnuIwnle Jo; um 8 ? H .4 a . 4. + ; t.. OOgs o; do pue pals apv - wnlwaid ., f Jo,; uoi s 001$ of 05$ m1,16. p3.z dwoa c- CD m p + ' , '` 1 'um g OSS of Oz$ [UM ) sagueJ SUEa -, w 3;"g" y m a 1 ', ' Jo; SJapAaaJ of pled aoud 13/.11E111 I R i g g 6 6 `6' 0) ' •.i pt - ' I ay" :Reim Jayio awos o; paJedwoa o _ w c = n �, ," 3 Ofil: •-. 'e •! anlgA la�IJew MoI �(IaAiielaJ •9 9 E H 0. a ' - 0 0 0 o +f " . � .. ' � ft- , A ii N oo R • ' •..1• n ry e anvil Amp `suea alp woJ3 panowaJ . o •. ." (7 c r° < . 5 - y sI up ay; =jag •p►es ay syypUe1 - r 5 0 a —b w y 9 9. m • .. d • t • t se 'CJnq o1 40°3 a.10111 a.10111 pus JalAgay < < . n w 5 CD I , • _., •. • , y , • ale e iiayl inq aisem pgos sale ;s ayl < .» , � _. . . • o F • *• . r • , Jo ue i ssa do a w su " o - ° o ° w aJ . �►� 3 O1 y t �J y � 9?� 7� ' M Z #te S. . op . ;UawaBEtJEi�I p ° O� � ' a ; a • it • }. . ' . ' r a;seM JO x3WO siosauury� J, H ff _ 4 ?' L ayi 3o Jo ;ga1pJ00� ;uawdolanap p m c E. O y "`•', ,.: j .J = . • 1, , •. p ljEW gugaA3aJ usIoN wi,i pm = 'o a. n ��� - . .. . r 1 ' ug OI+(Iy ayi o; Jsa(e suEO3o sum 6 3 y' a • t • 000'61 Pug 000`,1 uaaMiaq apAoid •D ° - " ': 4 Hun y Ptes sey lurid JaA!2I ma a41 n c '�, . ' . ' • ` �mo� o se asnjai filmy ley) weld leoppala ea > 0 '° o n 9 g - . �} ..- •: v • el SJamo Sa;eiS UJaqu p -, 0 ' 0 O , o c co — c • A. in x[13 d o JaAI way se yam se ` unteQ y;no5 pue a = g c �- 9 = °. o 1` °'� yuoN `extol `ulsuoasIM `e;osauuryv g 2 — H In 8 o' w c w,' « 1, it 111! sww oid 8uga�(aai apIsgina a ' 2 •` x a 9a. l-: • •, 0 , _ a IlloJ suea ssaaoJd II ►M ;usld au, 8 • . 1 H 3 0' H = . CD [: o 8 saa,Coldwa Q � o c - - a 9 Hogi Hi a8sd um.; panuliuoD iv' = 5 H �. w - SUe3 . N � °' � °' w w 0 N v Imillimill YETIR1 Iplitig 0 s x cn . 8 O flm' . .. . . ;. u _ 4 :0 104 al- i ;..: i R. [ .• x ..c, ._ . , 1 1 :iQ : at' ' - ... le . • ' r 1 ii 1 if . i . 11 - 51 6' � �. � . R r CO K sly 4R • i CU � s s s pr.. A ^ r ill110 . - -s ,, OH Tim @ s � V _ !r , ..„, 0 taarellit ‹ g. tg v-.E d < $ �° to a ac, �,E 8. '� e '< -m edp e � r ��� aAR gas� w p - < G1 g • .l 8 y s tn i� g g S v � 0 WE ti M2125. 6 :41P14 6 1 1 11 : 114 agil 15 11511 W;VigmgE 1 6 : . Fig. or 1w•+ ooa�W Q " o w c S bd M Xi !iH k f i i_ h k 1.8 ca t¢ ri a z O 0 n ��,��' `° �a = t 1 S . ' �F.��lu 110- ipa t s $ H `.� 99=2;4 L ' n g ,� i tts...6• ga ^e o � c �� Mr. "" ' ° .+ as CC ei rQi. $ o o . °, E0 e. 6o“a ii. 6 El ii. dw 2i s , m Ws pil 14w G b s rn O e � to S c $ w < !n. Gar°"aim eFe .. : 1 1 74 ge- Sl IIuII 1 1b 5 t E w EE R ! g ij � � �� �.8 Pi r: Yo O FA O a p - 1A—EL� " ew41ssEag.S Viwg a .to cRm . E w kt