HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/11/1990 - Solid Waste Abatement Commission C
AGENDA
SOLID WASTE ABATIOWNT COMMISSION
EAGAN, MINNESOTA
EAGAN MUNICIPAL CENTER CONFERENCE ROOMS A $ B
TUESDAY, DECEXBEER 11, 1990
11:30 A.M.
I. ROLL CALL AND ADOPTION OF AGENDA
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
III. STAFF REPORT
A. Dakota County /Eagan Yard Waste Program/
Christmas Tree Program
B. Additional Curbside Materials Update
C. Household Hazardous Waste Program Update
IV. OLD BUSINESS
V. NEW BUSINESS
A. Organisational Business
B. 1990 Activities Report
VI. OTHER BUSINESS
VII. DISTRIBUTION
VIII. NEXT MEETING
IX. ADJOURNMENT
Subject to Approval
MINUTES OF THE
SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
NOVEMBER 13,1990
A regular meeting of the Eagan Solid Waste Abatement Commission was held on Tuesday,
November 13, 1990 at 11:30 a.m. Present were Cindy Ista, Larry Knutson, Floyd Hiar, Dennis Selz, Bill Easton
(representing Tom Moline) and Darlene Bahr. Absent were Tom Mann, Earl Milbridge and Tim Hoel. Also
present were Recycling Coordinator Hageman, Assistant to the City Administrator Hohenstein and Dakota
County Recycling Specialist, Mike Trdan.
AGENDA
Upon motion by Ista, seconded by Hiar, all members voting in favor, the agenda was approved
as presented.
MINUTES
Upon motion by Hiar, seconded by Ista, all members voting in favor, the minutes of the October
9, 1990 meeting were approved as presented.
DAKOTA COUNTY CHRISTMAS TREE PROGRAM
Hageman reported that the County Christmas tree program would be voluntary for haulers and
residents. She stated that the compost sites would be opened on the two Saturdays following Christmas and that
they would charge approximately S30 per tree for disposal. City staff will be responsible for distributing point
of purchase brochures at Christmas tree lots. Haulers may bring trees to the County compost sites.
MULTI - FAMILY RECYCLING PROGRAM
Hageman reported that 80% of the multi - family units are on line with recycling programs and
that most of the remainder are townhouse apartments which will probably be integrated into the City's residential
program.
THIRD QUARTER TONNAGE REPORTS
Hageman reported that she has received good response from the haulers for their third quarter
tonnage reports. She distributed a draft depicting 1990 tonnages to date (see attachment A) and indicated that
this puts the City on target to reach its 12% abatement goal of 2,693 tons for the year. She stated that if
tonnages fell below that amount, up to 1/3 of the total tonnage could be made up by yard waste.
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT GUIDE
Hageman reported that the Metropolitan Council has released a draft of its Solid Waste
Management Development Guide/Policy Plan. This draft has been reviewed by County staff and is being
reviewed by community recycling coordinators. She stated the County concerns lie in the following areas:
1. Regional Management System - the County supports the existing solid waste coordinating board made up
of County officials from the metropolitan area. The Metropolitan Council wants to add additional business
and public representatives to that board and modify its role.
/
2. Regional Financial Systems - the Met Council is focusing on weight based collection and tipping fee
hierarchies to implement regional priorities and put the cost burden on the solid waste generator. The Met
Council is also recommending a 50% recycling goal by the year 2000 with the potential need to mandate
garbage and recycling collection to achieve that end. The County generally supports these concepts but is
reluctant to support mandates if voluntary efforts are achieving goals.
3. Unmanaged Waste - the County has requested that certain wastes including construction debris, ash residue
and household hazardous waste be more appropriately or more completely discussed in the policy plan.
Hageman indicated that the primary draft would be reviewed and discussed by the counties and
the Met Council through late December. The results of those discussions will be a second draft which will be
distributed for public comment beginning January 15, 1991. The Commission requested that staff bring this new
draft back for consideration and comment at its January, 1991 meeting.
DAKOTA COUNTY LONG TERM FUNDING PLAN
Hageman introduced the item and indicated that the County was engaged in a planning process
to identify long term funding alternatives. Knutson stated that he has attended several meetings concerning this
matter and is pleased by the County's management of the issue. He stated that they are focusing on one issue
at a time and emphasizing the use of user fees upon programs.
Bahr asked what concerns the cities have raised. Hageman stated that the cities have expressed
concern about the continuation of administrative support for local programs. Hohenstein indicated that
reductions of local government aid have resulted in severe restrictions on new and expanded services. As a
consequence of the diminishing County support for administrative services, it would be increasingly difficult for
cities to maintain funding levels necessary to support local staff people for their recycling programs. He stated
that the choice of most Dakota County cities to utilize an open hauling system means that most costs for service
are passed on to the consumer while substantial coordination remains necessary at the City level.
Bahr asked if it would be possible to raise hauler license fees to support local administration.
Hohenstein stated that a number of user fee alternatives could be considered. Bahr stated that the customer
eventually pays for everything and that any system for funding Local programs should be as simple as possible
to maintain high efficiencies for the dollar.
Knutson indicated that not all landfill surcharges and ' _money was flowing back to the
County and the haulers. As a consequence, local customers are paying more than they are receiving back in
services. Trdan stated that the original County recycling program was based on assumptions that have since
changed. Therefore, funding priorities may be different in the 90's than were anticipated in the mid -80's.
Hiar expressed concern about the efficiencies of each city having a recycling coordinator and
the functions of County staff. He stated that haulers might be better served by uniform, coordinated programs
which required less local variation. Knutson indicated that some synergy could be gained by better coordination
but stated that local autonomy reenforced the free enterprise system.
Hiar asked if the Solid Waste Abatement Commission could recommend a solid waste utility
fee. Hohenstein responded that it was possible for the commission to consider such an action, but recommended
that the commission work first with the County to see what support it would provide. Knutson stated that many
of the costs of the original assumptions have either been paid or will sunset in the near future, thereby relieving
funds for other priorities such as administration. He further stated that increasing the cost of waste disposal will
provide an incentive to the customer by raising costs and increasing differentials between levels of service. Bahr
stated that the County could affect the amount of the incentive by setting higher tipping fees.
2--
Knutson stated that increasing tipping fees will cause the differentials between levels of service
to get wider. Easton stated that BFI's highest selling service is the 60 gallon /2 can service. Knutson stated that
the same was the case for Knutson Refuse.
Ista indicated that the County should support local administrative costs since local programs
are meeting County goals and supporting County priorities. Bahr stated that the costs should be supported out
of tipping fees. Hageman indicated that this input would be passed on to the representatives of the long term
funding group.
RECYCLE MINNESOTA RESOURCES EAGAN FACILITY
Hageman indicated that the Recycle Minnesota Facility on Seneca Road continues to receive
materials but has noticed a decrease in recent months, possibly as a result of expanded residential recycling
services. Representatives of RMR have asked what ideas the City may have to expand use of this site. Hageman
stated that the facility has just begun accepting food cans and white office paper. Commission members asked
if the facility could expand the plastics it accepts and also accept household batteries. Hohenstein indicated that
any materials not taken by the current roadside programs would expand the usability of the facility.
Knutson asked what the feeling of the group was about the competitive atmosphere in the
recycling redemption and drop -off area. Bahr stated that Goodwill Industries was a very expensive alternative.
Hiar stated that the success of curbside programs may reduce the need for an RMR facility. It was also stated
that their are an expanding number of locally developed redemption and drop -off alternatives and that it does
not appear necessary for the City to provide financial support to drop -off locations beyond the tonnage support
programs currently in place for such facilities.
Hiar asked if it would be possible for the facility to work with Goodwill to take additional
materials. Bahr stated that RMR should advertise more on their own to attract business to the area. Knutson
pointed out that state law requires MNDot to provide recycling highway signs for such facilities. Hageman
indicated that she would pursue this on behalf of RMR on Highway 13. Hageman further indicated that she
would forward the commission's comments to RMR concerning additional materials.
KNUTSON MATERIALS RECYCLING FACILITY
Hageman asked Larry Knutson to briefly describe the materials recovery facility that his firm
is developing. Knutson Refuse Service recently broke ground for the facility and plans to have it open by late
February. The facility would process source separated residential recyclables as well as certain commingled
commercial recyclables. Knutson stated that the facility had been in the planning stages for approximately two
years and that their is considerable interest for its use within the hauling community.
ADJOURNMENT
Upon motion by Seiz, seconded by Ista, all members voting in favor, the meeting was adjourned
at 1:10 p.m.
Date Secretary
5
F
cC w
0
o >
CL z
111
0
CC 0
r
UJ , r 1
0 !! N% 0
Q
, <
z F. 11
...,
F
zo , *,
w Z M iir z
o ,- , i'j
< F ., co F.1 1 / >-
4t
11
w ?-; % °` a.
17
'4.• P. Ir cc
0 W CO
CD W
z
z ac, % 1 z
o r �
FE- 1-
O O O O O O O
O O 10 O to
CO N N r r
II
MEMO TO: CHAIRS HOEL AND MANN AND ALL MEMBERS OF THE SOLID
WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION
FROM: RECYCLING COORDINATOR HAGEMAN
DATE: DECEMBER 5, 1990
SUBJECT: EAGAN SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION MEETING OF
DECEMBER S, 1990
A regular meeting of the Eagan Solid Waste Abatement Commission
will be held on Tuesday December 11, 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 Monday, December 10
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 Co ission
meeting of November 13, 1990 is enclosed on pages J_ to . These
minutes, subject to any change require approval by the Co ission.
III. STAFF REPORT
A. Dakota County /Eagan YardWaste Program /Christmas Tree Program
Yardwaste Program
City and County staff have met regarding the Dakota County /Eagan
Compost Facility lease agreement for 1991. The document will go
before the Eagan City Council for approval December 18, 1990.
The agreement remains similar to the 1990 agreement with only few
minor changes. The main revision deals with the amount of
yardwastes, grass, leaves and prunings the City of Eagan will be
able to deliver to the site throughout the year. The term for the
lease is one year, which is the same as in the 1990 agreement.
Christmas Tree Program
I have received positive comments regarding the flyers produced by
the county regarding the Christmas tree recycling program. All
three County site will be open January 5 & 6 and 12 & 13. Hours of
operation will be Saturdays 10 -4 and Sundays Noon to 4. Residents
are asked to remove ornaments, tinsel and stands and will be
charged $.50 per tree. Trees will also be accepted from area
haulers at a charge of $3.00 a cubic yard.
B. Additional Curbside Materials Update
Plastics
Dakota County staff has recently been reviewing the report produced
by the Council for Solid Waste Solutions for the Plastics Recycling
Pilot Program in the City of Minneapolis. The pilot project had
divided the City of Minneapolis, Minnetonka and the Hennepin
Recycling Group (Crystal, Brooklyn Park and ) into three
districts each collecting different combinations of bottle and
rigid plastics.
With information based on this report and motivation from within
Dakota County, County staff is preparing a recommendation for
Dakota County Board of commissioners to allow the RCC to accept
plastics "all bottles ", April 1, 1991.
The Council concluded in its report that a two -phase program,
beginning with collection of all plastic bottles and expanding to
all rigid plastic containers, could be implemented in Hennepin
County with in the next 12 months. (A summary of the report is
included on page .)
Currently, the RCC only accepts plastic milk, pop and water jugs.
With the definition of "all bottles' the RCC will accept items from
the kitchen, bathroom and laundry including; ketchup, cooking oils,
shampoo, pill bottles, detergent and others. Individual haulers are
also accepting some plastics curbside.
A few cities throughout the County, including; Farmington,
Rosemount and Inver Grove Heights (4/1/91) include some kinds of
plastics in their curbside program to date.
Corrugated Cardboard
The RCC currently accepts corrugated cardboard from area haulers.
Individual haulers are accepting this material curbside but it is
not accepted citywide.
C. Household Hazardous Waste Program Update
The update we have received for the County is as follows:
The permanent household hazardous waste facility should be open one
Saturday per month beginning in late Winter. Two one day community
based collections will be held in 1991, in the spring and fall, at
sites which have not yet been determined.
Two HHW drop -off sites, open on a weekly basis, are to be sited and
opened by mid - summer. These sites are to be located to afford easy
access by County residents. An HHW recycling center, at which
residents may choose usable paints, fertilizers, or other
materials, will be sited at the same time.
7
IV. OLD BUSINESS
V. NEW BUSINESS
A. Organizational Business
The information included in your letter of December 6th regarding
1). Commission Appointments and 2). Election of officers will be
open for discussion. If you have any questions or concerns we will
be open for comments. Action on these items will take place in
February to follow most other commission reorganization procedures.
B. 1990 Activities Report
When we met in May to discuss our priorities for the year, we came
away with list that included items such as; Multi -unit expansion,
Waste Reduction, Additional Materials, Promotion and Hazardous
Wastes. This report will review our stated goals and program
activities accomplished to meet those goals.
Enclosed in your packet on pagesJL. to /�gou will find a copy of
the April 10, 1990 minutes which recorded the goals established for
the year and some specific ideas for achieving those goals. We can
work from both documents to evaluate program activities.
Multi - Unit Expansion
o The updated unit count is 6,478, with over 40 complexes.
o Revision of City ordinance to include Multi -unit recycling
activity requirements.
o Initial letters sent to both haulers and management companies to
explain requirements and city role in organization.
o Meetings with haulers to define program.
o Expanded promotional materials which included distribution of
posters, flyers with program procedures, doorhanger reminders
and articles in newsletters.
0
Waste Reduction
o procurement of recycled products at city hall.
o published information for junk mail reduction.
o promoted waste reduction in school presentations.
Additional Materials
o Batteries
o RCC currently accepts household type batteries
o City Hall is a collection site for button batteries
o published information regarding drop -off sites and
encouraged use of rechargeable batteries.
o Plastics
o Milk,pop and water jugs accepted at the RCC and RMR
o Individual haulers accepting at curbside
o multiple dropoff center locations for both HDPE and PETE
o Cub Foods accepting grocery and produce bags at stores
o Corrugated Cardboard
o CC accepted at RCC 11/15/90 from haulers
o individual haulers accepting curbside
o RMR and other drop -off centers accept CC
o Other
o Tin food cans added to curbside collections, 2/1/90.
Promotion
o The main goals for promotions were to expand on current
activities and find new outlets for information.
o Cable- production of two 60 second PSA's.
o Brochure -one citywide mailed brochure
o Newsletter -1 and 4 page inserts in citywide newsletter,
delivered four time a year.
o Other -
o Three R's Reminder card
o New resident letter from Mayor and City Administrator with
city and county brochures included.
o Press Releases through community newspapers.
o Haulers use of bill stuffers
o Dakota County program information displayed at city hall
o Business Recycling Brochure
o Earth Day Celebrations
o Earth Day Walk and Celebration
o Community Clean Up Day
o School Presentations
Hazardous Waste
o City not involved in collection day this year.
o Promotion of reminders for proper disposal of some products.
o Direct residents for proper disposal of many materials by phone.
Schools
o Presentations to first through sixth grades. Reached over 900
children this year.
o Schools included: Dakota Hills Middle School, Rahn
Elementary and Thomas Lake Elementary
o Shared informational materials with teachers.
o Encouraged tours to the RCC.
e
Action to be considered on this item: Begin evaluation of goals
accomplished, modification of activities if needed and reworking of
current ideas to accomplish new goals.
VI. OTHER BUSINESS
VII. DISTRIBUTION
1. On pages /0 to you will find a copy of the Executive
Summary of th report prepared by the Council for Solid Waste
Solutions.
2. On pages 1/ to ,/you will find portions of the minutes from
the April 10, 1990 meeting of the Solid Waste Abatement Commission.
This information covers the commission goals 1990 work session.
3. On pages / 3 to /S you will find the minutes from the
November 13, 1990 meeting of the SWMAC Subcommittee on Long -Term
Funding.
4. On page you you will find an article from E magazine.
VIII. NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of the Eagan Solid Waste Abatement Commission will
be Tuesday, January 8, 1991.
IV. ADJOURNMENT
1 44
THE COUNCIL
FOR SOLID WASTE
SOLUTIONS
October 5, 1990
TO: Persons Interested in Plastics Recycling
FR: Dr. Ronald Liesemer, Vice President of Technology
RE: Hennepin County Plastics Recycling Pilot Projects
We're pleased to provide the second in a series of plastics recycling updates prepared for
you by the Council for Solid Waste Solutions. Earlier this summer we informed you that
the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners, the Council for Solid Waste Solutions and
several municipalities joined forces to develop a plastics recycling pilot project to
determine the viability of plastics recycling in Hennepin County. Now we would like to
share with you the results of that project.
PILOT PROJECT RESULTS
On September 19, the Council for Solid Waste Solutions presented its report to Hennepin
County, Minnesota, following a six -month plastics recycling pilot project. In its report,
the Council concluded that a two -phase program, beginning with collection of all plastic
bottles and expanding to all rigid plastic containers, could be implemented in Hennepin
County within the next 12 months.
In order to meet this schedule, the Council recommended that cities within the County
negotiate contracts directly with available markets in Minnesota for the processing of
plastic containers. Long -term contracts (3 to 5 years) are very helpful to the success of
such a program.
Based on the pilot's projections, the incremental collection cost of adding all bottles
and/or all rigid containers was determined to be reasonable. On a monthly basis, this
cost is from 19* to 28e per household served, including all additional capital and
operating costs.* In most cases, existing vehicles can be modified to accomodate
additional plastics without significant cost or disruption of the existing collecting
infrastructure. A County -wide all rigid container collection program would divert 6.4
million pounds of plastics per year from the waste stream.
* This cost does not include revenue from the sale of the material or the reduced cost
due to trash trucks no longer having to pick up the newly recyclable plastics. Hence
the net cost should be even lower.
-More -
1275 K Street, NW Suite 400
Washington, DC. 20005
202.371.5319
FAX. 202.371.5679
A R ram of
The Society of me gasucs inoustry . Inc
100% recyc•O paper
/ U
reached a 19% abatement rate for the year.
MEETING SCHEDULE
Hageman stated to the group that all forms had been returned by
Commission members stating their preference for meeting time. The overall
consensus was to keep the meeting at its original 11:30 a.m. time period on the
second Tuesday of each month.
OLD BUSINESS
NEW BUSINESS
COMMISSION GOALS 1990 WORK SESSION
Hageman began the discussion reminding the group that we wanted to
look at our goals for 1990 and possibly beyond. She hoped that everyone was able
to review the original Eagan Solid Waste Abatement Commission Strategy Statement
and recognize the accomplishments and concentrate on what needs to be
accomplished in the years to come. Also, they need to look at the 1990 work plan
submitted to the County which highlights goals for the year, but does not get
into the specifics, but can be used as an outline to work from. With that
introduction, the group began throwing out ideas for priorities and items to
concentrate on throughout the year. Hageman also stated the funding requirements
for the County in that the multi -unit expansion is worth the majority of the
points for our funding, also, meeting the 12% goal for 1990 and some commercial
and industrial activity are also required.
The main points needed to be prioritized for the year and beyond
include:
-Waste reduction
- Household hazardous waste
- Expand promotion
-Multi -unit expansion
- Additional materials
- Schools - education
- Expanded advocacy role
Additional subpoints are summarized under each heading.
Multi -Unit Expansion
- Currently 1,600 of 4,800 units
-Work with haulers and management companies
- Expand promotion /educational materials - design for multi -unit program
Waste Reduction
- Government level
Recycled products procurement
- Household level
Environmental shopping
- Schools
-Junk mail, mailing rates
- Recycled paper used as "junk mail"
Lower rates
- Consumers - use of reusable containers
- Packaging ordinances
Additional Materials
In order to reach 35% abatement by 1993, materials expansion is
needed. Expansion is also needed to deal with hazardous materials.
Plastics
PET & HDPE, other
Education - watch pilot projects
Cardboard
White goods - appliances
Banned from landfills July 1, 1990
Household batteries
Tires
Need for additional drop -offs - safe and proper disposal options if
not part of collection programs
Promotion /Education
- Expansion
Cable
Speakers
City -wide activities
Bill stuffers
- Hauler promotion
- Additional information regarding area drop -off centers
- Connections with Chamber of Commerce and other organizations
Hazardous Waste
- Permanent site(s)
- Increase number of drop -off days
-Eagan generation
Commercial & residential level
- Increase education
Environmental shopper
Safe alternatives
Schools
- Required to do six presentations during 1990
- Schools required to have collection program for 3 materials by 1991
- Curriculum development
-Use County as resource
- Expanded advocacy role
County level
In the course of a discussion on what Eagan could do to further
increase the level of participation by Eagan residents in the recycling program,
Hoel related an opinion expressed by several of his neighbors and acquaintances.
They had come to him as a member of the Solid Waste Abatement Commission and had
expressed surprise and disappointment that "the community's reward for its
admirable level of recycling to date, was to have its tax increased by Dakota
County because there was less garbage going into landfills." Hoel said that this
new proposed tax may be a disincentive to recycling, and suggested that the SWAC
1
Dakota County
Solid Waste Management Advisory Sub - Committee
on Long -Term Funding
Dakota County
Recyclables Collection Center
1350 Larc Industrial Blvd.
Burnsville, Mn. 55337
November 13, 1990
Member Present: Others Present:
Michael O'Connor Richard Johnson David Locey (RCC)
Pat Akin Jeff Connell Kevin Tritz (BFI)
Mike Bisanz Jeff Harthun Shannon Hofstrand
Ron Larson Gayle Prest (Burnsville Recycling Coord.
Dana Turner Mike Tridan Mike Feist (Mike's Disposal)
Sue Black Sally Patrick
Lynne Anderson (Recycling Coord. So St Paul)
Larry Knutson
Floyd Hiar
Jim Weinzettl
1. Chairman O'Connor called the meeting to order at 4:10 P.M. The motion
was made by Pat Akin, seconded by Dana Turner, to approve the minutes
of the September 25th meeting. The motion carried on a voice vote.
2. Review of Source Separation and Recycling:
a. Presentation by Jeff Connell. Mr. Connell reviewed the County's
Community Collection Program and operation of its Recyclables
Collection Center (see attached handout). He reviewed the goals
of each program, the various policies the County has adopted to
accomplish the goals, and the operation of each program.. He
reviewed the current funding levels and sources of funding and
identified the issues relating to each program.
In reviewing attachment #2 of the handout, it was noted that the
cities' share of operating costs in 1989 included the City of
Burnsville's cost of operating its own compost site. Also, it
was reported that of the $508,265 spent on operations in 1989
approximately $313,000 were distributed to haulers and to fund
drop -off centers. Mr. Bisanz asked what was the County's
contribution to administrative costs during 1989, based on the
disbursement level. It was reported that this was 15% as
compared to 7% in 1990, and 5% in 1991.
Larry Knutson expressed a concern about a section of the Solid
Waste Master Plan which stated that the County would work with
haulers to devise a uniform system of volume -based incentives for
generators to recycle. His concern was with the requirement for
a uniform system and stated that haulers should have the
flexibility to devise a system as they saw fit. Mr. Connell
/3
2
responded that this was in the plan that was developed over tr , e
years ago that the system has evolved in a different directio7_
A discussion of volume based fees and volume based incentives
followed. Shannon Hofstrand noted that haulers are using volume
based fees more than they have in the past, but that she was
unsure as to whether there was enough differential between
various fee levels to provide an incentive to home owners for
recycling. Mr. Knutson responded that the market for yard waste
was working based on volume based fees. Ms. Hofstrand indicated
that perhaps we should think about using the pricing structure to
encourage the use of one option of disposal over another. A
concern was expressed that higher prices would encourage dumping
which may require more enforcement. In terms of the impact of
price differentials, one sentiment was that the differential is
not great enough to encourage homeowners to recycle. Haulers
felt that the incentive was there and that homeowners were using
it.
David Locey made the observation that this program should be
viewed as an interim step which ultimately will lead to mandatory
recycling in order to get broader participation and higher
participation rates.
A question was raised as to why the revenues received at the RCC
have not increased like the tonnage has increased. Mr. Con 1
reported that less salable material is being received although
there is more of it, and also prices for certain materials have
dropped. Mr. O'Connor asked what is the capacity of the RCC?
Mr. Connell responded that it is felt that there is still room to
process up to 17,000 tons in 1991. Due to increased
mechanization and reduction of storage, larger throughput can be
handled. It was also noted that with more private vendors
developing their own facilities there will be less volume coming
through the County's program.
Floyd Hiar stated that the center was an important part of the
recycling strategy of the County since it provided an outlet for
small haulers to dispose of recycled materials. He felt that it
helped small haulers to survive and that the center would
continue to be needed in the event of a glitch in various
markets.
Jim Weinzettel noted that there needed to be concern with the
type of system developed to replace the current structure. He
felt that if customers were forced to pay the total cost of the
bill through the hauler they would make the decision to quit
recycling. He also felt that the center has provided the
stability in the market place that haulers needed.
There was concern expressed that if the County shifts the cos* `o
the consumer through the hauler, there will be double dipping �y
the County and the consumer will have to pay twice. Mr. O'Connor
/ V
3
noted that under the structure as it is today consumers are
paying collectively, but under a system where haulers bill all
costs directly, each consumers will be paying specifically for
service. Mr. Weinzettel expressed the position that the County
will still have to be involved in order to meet state goals.
Kevin Tritz expressed the opinion that as long as surcharges
exist at landfills the system must remain as it is.
Sally Patrick pointed out that we should not forget why
government became involved in this problem in the first place.
She noted that it was important for government to be involved and
provide the incentives for the recycling programs and the
landfill abatement activities to become effective. It was her
observation that this job is not yet complete.
Mr. Akin made the observation that we need to educate the public
as to the true cost of solid waste management. Mr. Locey stated
that we need to be sure about what is our common objective. Are
we only concerned about providing the most efficient, cost
effective system or are we concerned about landfill abatement and
source reduction?
3. It was decided to continue the discussion of Source Separation and
Recycling at the next meeting of the Sub - committee to be held on
November 27th at 4:00 P.M. at the Recyclable Collection Center. The
first item on that agenda will be a presentation by the members of the
panel. Meeting adjourned at 6:00 P.M.
/5
fl ] N.. . ,
rrr ---- , 1 I i . i 41. i 11 :*-..-;...,..
44
. 1 . - . - ,,,.,.. . _
Remember to Give to the Earth
This Holiday Season
BY PAULA CLARK ROBERTS
E arth Day was months ago and now the dars. Or, your gifts could simply invite globe twice, if stretched from end to end.
holiday season is upon us- replete with your loved ones to enjoy the outdoors. Instead, live trees can be planted in pots
shopping, parties and increased consump- Wildflower seeds, plants, hiking boots or a to be used year after year or planted
tion. With all the commercial hype encour- bird feeder will help them feel connected outside where they can help clean the air.
aging us to spend, use and waste, it could to the Earth. The key is to move the live tree outside
be easy to set aside our commitments to Although you can conserve your time before it becomes too acclimated to the
the Earth. However, with a little planning, and energy shopping by mail (many excel- indoor warmth and `wakes up" (usually
it can be just as easy to stick to them. lent catalogs offer Earth - caring products), this happens in three weeks). After Christ -
Starting with a list -and checking mas, leave it in its burlap in your
it twice- decide right away what garage or on your fire escape until
you will need for holiday decorat- F'" f `r ,
,. spring, when the ground is soft
ing, entertaining, card mailing and enough to plant the tree.
gifts. Then, examine your list to e -_ '" , r r , f �� ■ . , With a little imagination, you
see where you can make Earth �" ' :` `� , t
conscious choices. •r . ? :, "'s - can prob c up with a
dozen or more ideas of your own.
Are your decorations easy on a . ^ '' - (, 7 Then relax and enjoy the holidays
energy and the environment? In- 1 .. , ✓ /i' ,� t and the warm feeling you'll get
stead of outdoor lights, consider t ` A � e •- 'w` from knowing that you've given
luminarias - sand -filled paper ‘11,,
? I � ' '' s ���' the Earth a holiday gift this year. •
bags with small candles inside. . _' �►` �' y
Indoors, try decorating with can ' . . � ' 'r:.` r � , ' + H elpful Resources
dies and strings of popcorn, or -, 1 '':!s
cranberries, which can later be , 1 .. '- ^ A- .j1 p - Earth Care Paper Company,
left outside for birds. Planning l L , ° - I - - 1. 608 256 -5522.
a party? Conserve resources by . - - 44 - ,.,., - ( )
using only reusable utensils, • The First Green Christmas:
plates and napkins. At potluck gatherings, a few items may remain which you can How To Make This Holiday An
have your visitors bring their own place only get by car. Plan your route to save Ecological Celebration, Evergreen Alli
settings along with vegetarian food that is time and gas. Can you get most things in ance, Halo Books, P.O. Box 2529, San
easier on the environment (not to mention one or two stops? Maybe the nearest mall Francisco, CA 94126/(415)981 -5144. l
the turkeys!). has most of the shops that you need to • Kind News, National Association for
When you get ready to send your annual visit. Can you carpool with a friend or take Humane and Environmental Education,
greeting cards, look for cards printed on public transportation? The holiday season Box 362, East Haddam, CT 06423/(203)
recycled paper. Many stationery stores now is one for sharing; so $hare your shopping 434 -8666.
carry them. Some cards now also use soy- trips as well! • Nature Company, P.O. Box 2310, Berke -
based inks, though you will be more likely When it comes time to wrap these gifts, ley, CA 94702/(800)227 -1114.
to find those in mail order catalogs. consider alternatives to wrapping paper, • Paperchoice, 303 East 6th Avenue, Van
The most challenging experience -even or at least use the recycled kind. Some couver, BC V5T 1J9/(604)873-5700. 6th 1
when you're not trying to conserve re- options include tote bags, boxes, baskets,
sources -is gift shopping. Deciding what fabric, scarves, decorative tins, or even • Recycled Paper Products, 3636 North
to get each person on your list takes plenty T- shirts. Decorate your packages with Broadway, Chicago, IL 60613/(800)777 -
of thought, especially when you want the useful items like hair ribbons, belts, or 9494.
gift to be meaningful and Earth - friendly. suspenders. Use paper ribbon or colored • Seventh Generation, Colchester, VT
For example, almost everyone likes books string; avoid resin - coated plastic ribbon. 05446 - 1672/(800)441 -2538
that teach them something about our Will you be putting these treasures • Widget Factory Cards, 11 North Han -
world and its inhabitants. Magazine sub- under a Christmas tree? If so, consider cock Street, Lexington, MA 02173/(611
scriptions also make nice gifts -to periodi- using a live tree this year. Enough trees 863 -5365. y
cats such as Kind News for children, for are cut down each Christmas to cover the
example, or to E Magazine for adults. state of Rhode Island. And, according to PAULA CLARK ROBERTS is editor of i
And gift memberships to environmental the National Christmas Tree Association, Arizona Windstar Connection, a newslet-
groups often include magazines or calen- enough are left in landfills to circle the ter based in Chandler, Arizona.
i
52 NOVEMBER /DECEMBER 1990 / {p