Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/12/1987 - Solid Waste Abatement Commission AGENDA EAGAN SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION TUESDAY MAY 12, 1987, 11:30 A.M. EAGAN MUNICIPAL CENTER I. ROLL CALL AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES II. OLD BUSINESS A. Analysis of Recycling Alternatives B. Centralized Processing Tour III. NEW BUSINESS IV. OTHER BUSINESS V. DISTRIBUTION A. Solid Waste Abatement Legislation VI. ADJOURNMENT MEMO TO: CHAIRS HOEL AND MANN & ALL MEMBERS OF THE SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION FROM: JON HOHENSTEIN, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT DATE: MAY 5, 1987 SUBJECT: SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION MEETING FOR MAY 12, 1987 The meeting of the Eagan Solid Waste Abatement Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, May 12, 1987 at 11:30 A.M. in the Eagan Municipal Center Conference Rooms A and B. Lunch will be served. Please contact Jon Hohenstein at 454 -8100 if you are unable to attend this meeting. The following discussion is intended to provide background on those items to be reviewed at the meeting on Tuesday: I. ROLL CALL AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES A copy of the minutes of the Solid Waste Abatement Commission Meeting of April 8, 1987 is enclosed for your review on pages .5' through _7 These minutes, subject to any change, require approval by the Commission. r II. OLD BUSINESS A. Analysis of Recycling Alternatives Enclosed on pages through /0 you will find a copy of the Solid Waste Abatement Issues and Scenarios prepared for the last meeting. It will be appropriate at this meeting to attempt to finish up our discussion on a solid waste management philosphy and begin consideration of the alternatives themselves. Several points were raised at the last meeting which bear some clarification. When the group discusses the concept of waste management and recycling as a public service or self - supporting business, it should be born in mind that these two concepts are not mutually exclusive. Many services which are public services are provided by private firms. For example, many cities contract with private firms for their snow removal and streets maintenance. Likewise, most city capital improvements are technically public services and paid for with public dollars but are actually contracted to private firms. In fact, our current open hauling system can be considered a public service to the extent the City would have to provide the service if the vendors were not available in that the City has chosen the option to license certain vendors and allow them to operate within the community to provide the service. For matters of discussion, the question should not be focused as much on the mechanics of how the service is paid for as it should on the concept of whether or not it is a service which the community should promote and, if necessary, support. Once this question is answered, it would be possible to move on to discussions of such things as user fees, volume based fees for other wastes and various means of encouraging this type of service to occur. It would also be appropriate upon completion of that discussion to discuss whether or not the public service needs to be provided at a local level through source separation or at a county level through intermediate processing and centralized processing. Staff offers this clarification because the earlier discussions of the concept intended to blend these issues and for claritys sake, they should probably best be handled separately and then integrated afterward. Upon completion of the discussion of philosphy, it would be appropriate to move on to a discussion of the long term concepts and possible scenarios for combinations of those concepts. B. Centralized Processing Tour Staff has tenatively scheduled a tour of the Reuter Refuse Derived Fuel Plant in Eden Prairie for Tuesday, May 26 at 10:30 A.M. In order to be at Eden Prairie by 10:30, staff will be leaving Eagan City Hall at approximately 10:00 A.M. Reuter executives will be on hand to discuss the concept of a plan and respond to questions and lead the tour of the facility under operation. The City Council will also be invited to join the group to view this facility. The Commission can discuss logistics for this tour at the meeting. At the request of the Commission, the possibility of a tour of the 3M incineration facility will be taken up after the Reuter tour is complete. III. NEW BUSINESS IV. OTHER BUSINESS V. DISTRIBUTION A. Solid Waste Abatement Legislation Enclosed on pages //-/6_ you will find a copy of a letter from the City of Champlin pertinent to the Waste Management Act Amendments under House File 794. Champlin is specifically interested in the organized collection section because it extends certain anti -trust liability ammunity to the cities from the state and therefore smooths the way for organized collection using consortia of smaller haulers. There is not sufficient time between the receipt of this letter and the end of the regular legislative session to adopt a formal city resolution through the City Council at your recommendation. However, you are encouraged to review the letter from the City of Champlin and forward correspondence to your legislators at your convenience if you are so moved. The summary of the legislation also includes descriptions of various other recycling and waste management issues. Please review those and feel free to bring up issues raised by them at the meeting. ..3 VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting will adjourn at or about 1:30 P.M. Ad istrative Assistant Enclosures JH /af cc: Thomas L. Hedges, City Administrator Dale Runkle, City Planner '7' Subject to Approval MINUTES OF THE SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION MEETING Eagan, Minnesota April 8, 1987 A meeting of the Solid Waste Abatement Commission was held on Wednesday, April 8, 1987, at the Eagan Municipal Center at 7:10 A.M. The following members were present: Tom Mann, Duane Soutor, Darlene Bahr, Earl Milbridge, Delmer DeBilzan, Tim Hoel, Jon Hohenstein, and Terry Schnell alternate. Absent were Larry Knutson and Tom Yehle. Also present was Warren Wilson of the Dakota County Planning Office. MINUTES After the correction of a typographical error on page 4 and upon motion by DeBilzan, seconded by Bahr, all members voting in favor, the minutes of the March llth, 1987 Solid Waste Abatement Commission Meeting were approved as amended. WASTE ABATEMENT ALTERNATIVES Administrative Assistant Hohenstein provided an overview of the alternatives which the Commission has discussed to date. He discussed short term issues including the 1987 Compost Program, clean -up promotions and the organized collection study. Staff was given direction to promote a Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday schedule with hours from 1 until 7 p.m. for the Compost Program. It was further suggested that a request for proposals be prepared for a 1988 clean -up promotion due to the low turnout experienced at recent clean -up events. It was suggested that a target date be established for mid - May, 1988 and that resources be applied to that date. Hohenstein also updated the Commission on the organized collection study RFP and indicated that it would be distributed in late April or early May. WASTE ABATEMENT PHILOSPHY Hohenstein indicated that any decisions the Commission might make in the future hinge on the decision about community philosphy on waste management and recycling. Hohenstein introduced the question by asking whether the group believed waste management and recycling should be treated as a public service or a self- supporting business. DeBilzan stated that waste management should run as a business but that people bear in mind its a business which may lose money. Bahr stated that regardless of the philosphy of its management, it is essential that user fees be utilized to direct costs to users in an equitable fashion. Mann stated that he believed it could still be a public service but that the user fees offset the costs of that service. Hoel indicated that if waste abatement is the point of the Commissions effort, it will be essential to maintain records of the flow and amount abated. Bahr indicated that the need for an economic element is essential because people will not otherwise take the extra effort to separate. Hoel stated that even without economic incentives, certain people do recycle but such people find it difficult to locate outlets and markets for their recycle materials. He stated that he and his family recycle and he feels that there are many others like him who would find a City sponsored program to be more convenient than the programs they must currently use. Schnell stated that part of the problem is that recycling remains unique in the area. Soutor stated that he feels waste management should be a self - sufficient, free enterprise system. Hohenstein described the Super Cycle service in St. Paul and various suburbs in which the collection itself operates as a business but is paid for through user fees or waste collection fees much like other public services. He asked if the group considered this arrangement to be a business or a public service. The group concensous was that it was a public service. Soutor stated that he believes that centralized or intermediate processing should be preferred over source separation which requires a great change in household waste management habits. Upon motion by Soutor, seconded by Schnell, all members voting in favor, the matter was continued to the next meeting. WASTE PROCESSING FACILITY TOURS Hohenstein indicated that Reuter Incorporated had several options for tours of its facility. It invites groups to view the plant on any weekday afternoon or if groups wish to see the plant in operation, they hold tours on Tuesdays at 10:30 in the morning. Direction was given for staff to attempt to schedule a tour for May 5th. Hohenstein also indicated that the Cottage Grove 3M facility which incinerates hazardous wastes has offered to accept a tour in May. Direction was given to put the 3M tour on hold until after the Reuter tour had been completed. CONTAINER DEPOSIT LEGISLATION Hohenstein indicated that correspondence was received of League of Women Voters pertinent to the currently considered Container Deposit Legislation. He stated that the Solid Waste Commission would be the appropriate body to make a recommendation if there was one to come from the City, but that its makeup might reduce the liklihood of a concensus. Schnell stated that he has lived in a deposit state and that the legislation definitely helps keep containers from being thrown away or littering the roadside. DeBilzan described the impact the current legislation would have on the beverage industry and indicated that the industry believes it's being unfairly singled out when other recyclable packaging materials are not included in the legislation. He also stated that any costs added for recycling will be passed on to the consumer. Hoel expressed reservations about the current bill because of its potential impacts on the recycling industry. He said that many recyclers believe that the act will remove aluminum from the recyclable stream thereby reducing incomes since aluminum recycling carries many programs. The Commission could not form a consensus on the matter and, therefore, chose to take no action on it. NEXT MEETING The next meeting was scheduled for Tuesday, May 12th at 11:30 A.M. to accommodate certain committee schedules. ADJOURNMENT Upon motion by Milbridge, seconded by Soutor, all members voting in favor, the meeting was adjourned at 9:03 A.M. JH Date Secretary 7 CITY OF EAGAN SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION ISSUES I. Short Term A. Compost Program - Schedule, Costs, Marketing B. Clean Up Promotion - Haulers v. Central Pick -up, Now or Fall C. Organized Collection Study • II. Waste Abatement Philosophy A. Waste Management /Recycling as a Public Service or a Self - Supporting Business B. Timing - What decisions can be made before the county masterplan is finalized? III. Long Term A. Education - Essential to any program 1. Who should be responsible? 2. Who are the targets? B. Waste Reduction 1. How much is packaging, how much education? 2. How is this best effected? C. Source Separation and Collection 1. Donation centers and /or routed collection 2. Channels of responsibility 3. Role of volume based fees 4. Scattered site v. centralized 5. Hazardous waste D. Intermediate Processing 1. Role as compliment or alternative to source seperation 2. Role of the City in its utilization E. Centralized Processing • 1. Alternatives 2. Proper input from the City J5 SCENARIO EXAMPLES I. Low Tech - Low Cost (Example: Attended donation center with compost program) A. Education - Emphasis on waste abatement, ease of separation, and location of donation centers B. Source Separation /Donation Centers - Location of one or more full- service donation centers (Costs dependent on number and responsibility) C. Yard Waste Composting - Maintenance of community program utilizing County system as market D. Collection - Require either volume -based fees or separate collection of recyclables E. Pros and Cons 1. Pros - Low cost - Limited City responsibility 2. Cons - Metropolitan Council requires mandatory separation if voluntary separation fails to meet targets. II. Low Tech - High Cost (Example: Curbside recyclable collection with donation center backup) A. Education - Emphasis on separation, convenience and relative costs B. Source Separation /Collection - Routed residential collection of separated recyclables, yard wastes, and mixed wastes. C. Yard Waste Composting - Full scale independent program to assure high quality compost and marketing. D. Donation Centers - Location of relatively few donation opportunities as safety valve for routed collection. E. Pros and Cons 1. Pros - Higher participation - Economies of scale . 2. Cons -High cost - Possible duplication with County programs 9 ,1 • III. High Tech - Low Cost (Example: Reliance on County intermediate processing with voluntary programs) A. Education - Minimal B. Source Separation - Limited to hazardous and special wastes and voluntary programs C. Collection /Intermediate Processing - Designate all wastes to County facility and rely on it for separation D. Pros and Cons 1. Pros - Low cost -No need to change disposal habits 2. Cons - Metropolitan Council and County plans require source separation - Reduces quality of recovered recyclables IV. High Tech - High Cost (Example: City participation in RDF or co- compost system) A. Education - High intensity - locally managed B. Source Separation - Variable depending upon technology, allowing for voluntary programs C. Collection /Processing - Locally managed waste processing system D. Intermediate Processing - Locally managed and operated E. Pros and Cons 1. Pros - Local direction 2. Cons - Costs and duplication - County designation of wastes limits viability ,y T. City of � E�_ C « 7 e ` 's 12001 JEFFERSON HIGHWAY CHAMPLIN, MN 55316 (612) 421 -8064 April 17, 1987 Dear Mayor: The Minnesota Legislature is currently considering legislation which I believe may be of specific interest and importance to you and your community. House File 794 (enclosed) which is a comprehensive amendment to the State Waste Management Act, includes a provision (Section 19) that would authorize local governments to organize solid waste collection within their local communities. Organized garbage collection means that the City would designate only one garbage hauler to serve each neighborhood or district within the City. The City of Champlin strongly supports organized garbage collection legislation for the following reasons: 1. Reduced traffic, noise and air pollution, and lower long -term street maintenance costs in residential areas. 2. More efficient and economical garbage hauling service for both the haulers and customers, due to manpower and energy savings. 3. Organized collection systems encourage competition among haulers of all sizes, thus insuring that local customers pay a fair price for garbage service. 4. An organized collection system establishes a foundation for future curbside recycling programs, which will be required to effectively reduce our dependence on expensive and potentially hazardous landfills. The Champlin City Council recently adopted the enclosed resolution in support of the pending legislation. I ask that you and your council also consider the adoption of a similar resolution of support for organized collection, and • that you forward a copy of your community's resolution to your local State Senator and Representative as soon as possible. Thank you for dour c. sider.•tion of this important issue. Si cereh,r v Wm. G. gaas, J.. Mayor WGH /JJ Enclosure • // • ry t , Councilmember Johnson introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION RESOLUTION SUPPORTING PROPOSED LEGISLATION REGARDING ORGANIZED COLLECTION OF SOLID WASTE. WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council "Solid Waste Policy Plan" calls for rapid development of recycling and other forms of resource recovery in place of landfills, and WHEREAS, organized garbage collection is essential for development of a curbside recycling program, and WHEREAS, current landfill sites are at or near capacity and new landfills are severely limited in number, and WHEREAS, the City of Champlin currently has multiple garbage collectors duplicating service on City streets which causes deterioration of streets, and produces additional traffic and redundant noise which detracts from the safety and welfare of the community, and WHEREAS, organized collection would benefit the taxpayers since collection costs are anticipated to be lower,•and reducing the number of garbage trucks on streets will reduce maintenance costs, and WHEREAS, organized garbage collection will benefit the waste haulers by providing more efficient and economical operations, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Champlin City Council that the City supports proposed legislation regarding organized garbage collection. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Isom, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Mayor Pro Tem Rick, Councilmenbers Isom, Johnson and Simpkins, and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was passed this 14th day of April, 1987. 4 �• t -1_ Wm. G. Haas, Jr., Mayor ATTEST: M. Brown, City Clerk • HOUSE RESEARCH • h Bill •Summar H.F• 794 S.F. SUBJECT: Waste Management Act Amendments AUTHORS: Long, Munger, R. Anderson, D. Nelson, Ozment COMMITTEE: Governmental Operations DATE 3 -24 -87 • This bill is a collection of amendments to the Waste Management Act and related statutes. The bill is of interest to the Governmental Operations committee because it changes powers and duties of the following state agencies: a. Waste Management Board - may make grants for industrial waste management (sec. 3); - will coordinate public education on waste (sec. 4); - may revise the hazardous waste management plan after a public meeting • (sec. 5); • • - will join with PCA to prepare a comprehensive report on non -metro waste management (sec. 6); • - may make grants for market development for•recyciables (sec. 9); • - will have sole authority for the solid waste management demonstration program grants (sec. 10 -14). - Repeals the June 30, 1992 sunset of the Board (Sec. 43) b. Pollution Control Agency - has clearer responsibility with the Metro Council for providing planning assistance to counties for solid waste management (sec. 7 -8); - must establish a household hazardous waste management program (sec. 21); - may use a training account to provide general waste disposal training (sec. 23); - must approve used oil storage tanks for grant approval by DEED (sec. 24); - volunteers to be covered by workers compensation (sec. 25); and - must establish a waste pesticide pilot project (sec. 39). c. Department of Public Service - must enforce law requiring retailers of oil to notify customers of where to take used oil and requiring retailers of lead acid batteries to accept used batteries for recycling. (Sec. 26, 27, 29) • d: Department of Administration - must establish a program to test the purchase of recycled paper and writing paper by the state. Legislative Analyst: ' Linda Taylor (296 -3961) Tom Todd (296 -5043) Research Department . Minnesota House of Representatives . 600 State Office Building !3 Bill Summary H.F. 794 March 24, 1987 Page 3 • _ Subdivision 2 authorizes the WMB to make matching grants to persons seeking to develop or operate facilities or services using recyclable " materials. :. Subdivision 3 requires the board to provide technical assistance to public entities and agencies to encourage waste reduction and development of markets for recyclables through procurement policies and practices. Sections 10 to 13. Solid Waste Management Project Assistance. Amend sections 115A.49, 115A.51, 115A.52, and 115A.53, to remove PCA involvement in the funding of local solid waste management projects making it administered by the WMB alone and to clarify that grants for waste.reduction and separation projects are for development and implementation and may be given to projects ;hat include the management of household hazardous waste. Section 14. Capital Assistance. Amends section 115A.54 to allow grants for solid waste management projects in recylcling, composting and co- composting of up to 50Y of capital costs or a maximum of $2,000,000 whichever is less. Section 15. Waste Designation. Amends section 115A.81 to allow designation to a specified resource recovery facility of all solid waste regardless of whether • it is currently deposited outside the state. Section 16. Automotive Batteries. Creates section 115A.915 to ban disposal 'of lead acid (automotive) batteries or placement of them in the solid waste stream. Section 17. Used Motor Oil. Creates section 115A.916 to ban placement of used motor oil in the solid waste stream or in a disposal facility unless authorized by the PCA. Section 18. Landfill Disposal Fee. Amends section 115A.921 t� provide that the 15 cent fee a city or town may impose per cubic yard of waste disposed at a facility located in the city or town may be used for landfill abatement as well as for mitigating risks, costs or other adverse effects of facilities. Section 19. Organized Collection of Solid Waste.. Creates section 115A.94 to authorize local governments to organize solid waste within geographic • service areas. Subdivision 1 defines organized collection. Subdivision 2 grants a city or town authority to organize collection as a municipal service or by ordinance, franchise, license, negotiated or bidded contract or other means. If done by contract or as a municipal service, a waste facility may be designated as long as any such provision conforms to any designation ordinance adopted under section 115A.86. Subdivision 3 grants counties authority to require cities and towns to organize collection. The county ordinance may require: . • Bill Summary H.F. 794 March 24, 1987 Page 5 Section 27, 28. Used Oil Collection; Notice. Specifies language for signs required at retail outlets of motor oil to direct customers to collection tanks for used oil. Section 29. Used Batteries Collection; Notice. Creates 325E.115 to require wholesalers and retailers of automotive batteries to accept used batteries for recycling and requires retailers to post a specified notice of collection. Section 30. Metro Land Disposal Abatement Plan. Amends section 473.149, subdivision 2d, to remove the requirement of a separate report on metro land disposal abatement to the Legislative Commission on Waste Management. • Section 31. Report. Amends section 473.149, subdivision 6, to add the landfill abatement report as part of the biennial report currently required from the Metropolitan Council to the legislature on operation of solid waste facilities. ' Section 32. Metro Recycling Implementation Strategy. Amends section 473.803 by adding a subdivision to require each metro county to submit a local recycling implementation strategy to the Council by December 1, 1988. Section 33. Allocation of Debt Service. Amends section 473.834 to delete . allocation of debt service for metro waste bonds based on degree of success in waste abatement. . Section 34. Market Development. Amends section 473.842 to remove "economic" as a modifier of markets in the definition of market development. Section 35. Metro Landfill Abatement Fund. Amends section 473.844, subdivision 1, to clarify that money in the fund may be spend only for: (1) assistance for resource recovery projects or market development for recyclables; • (2) grants to counties under section 36; (3) program administration. Section 36. Metro Resource Recovery Grants and Loans. Amends section 473.844, subdivision 4, to require that a grant or loan to a city or town be reviewed and approved by the county for conformance with the county master plan. • • Section 37. Metro Local Recycling Development. Creates section 473.8441 to :2 authorize the Metropolitan Council to make matching grants to counties for planning, developing and operating yard waste composting and recycling programs. Grants will be allocated as follows: (1) to each county, 525,000 plus (2) a proportionate share based on number of households in two distributions: (a) one -third of the county's proportionate share, not more than half of which may be spent on planning and consultants; and (b) remaining funds to counties that receive a grant under (a), have reported on expenditures and have a local recycling implementation strategy. ' /.5 REVISOR ) JC HF0794 -1E ' :+t:•.1' • :;» gP794 FIRST ENGROSSMENT ( 1; 3 :1 the appropriate city or town. ' .44!..,' 1 2 4800. 19. (115A.94) (ORGANIZED COLLECTION.] `` i 3 Subdivision 1. (DEFINITION.) "Organized collection means ,': y ,.:• 4 a system for collecting solid waste in which a specified ;` 5 collector, or a member of an organization of collectors, is )^- 6 authorized to collect some or all of the solid waste that is ) . 7 generated within a defined geographic service area or areas. v 0 • 8 Subd. 2. (LOCAL AUTHORITY.) A city or town may organize .� 1.-i 9 collection. A county may organize collection as provided in E... 10 subdivision 3. The local government unit may organize 11 collection as a municipal service or by ordinance, franchise, • t 12 license, negotiated or bidded contract, or other means, using . 13 one or more collectors or an•organiza of collectors. • 14 Organized collection brought about by contract or as a municipal • t. . 15 service may include a requirement that all or any portion of the . • 16 solid waste (except recyclable materials and materials that are • 17 processed at a resource recovery facility at the capacity in • 18 operation at the time that the requirement is imposed) be 19 delivered to a waste facility identified by the local ilnit. • 20 Where a resource recovery facility has been designated by 21 ordinance under section 115A.86, organized collection must 22 conform to the requirements of the designation•ordirance. 23 Subd. 3. (COUNTY ORGANIZED COLLECTION.]' A county may by 24 ordinance require cities and towns within the county to organize 25 collection. Organized collection ordinances of counties may: • 26 (1) require cities and towns to require the separation and • 27 . separate collection of recyclable materials, (2) specify the 28• material to be separated, and (3) require cities and towni to '.• • . 29 meet any'perfor-.ance standards for•bource separation that are 30 contained in the county solid waste plan. A county may itself 31 organize collection in any city or town that does not comply 32 with a county organized collection ordinance adopted under this !� 33 subdivision, •ar.l the county may impl:eri.ent, as part of its i ;.; {' pp� 1991 ' Iv:C .:5) �1 i 34 organized collection, the source separation program and <S .., 'C1: i� 35 performance stc::dards required by its o ti rganized collection . 36 ordinance. • •'` Aa • • CITY OF EAGAN SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION ISSUES I. Short Term A. Compost Program - Schedule, Costs, Marketing B. Clean Up Promotion - Haulers v. Central Pick -up, Now or Fall C. Organized Collection Study II. Waste Abatement Philosophy A. Waste Management /Recycling as a Public Service or a Self - Supporting Business B. Timing - What decisions can be made before the county masterplan is finalized? III. Long Term A. Education - Essential to any program 1. Who should be responsible? 2. Who are the targets? B. Waste Reduction 1. How much is packaging, how much education? 2. How is this best effected? C. Source Separation and Collection 1. Donation centers and /or routed collection 2. Channels of responsibility 3. Role of volume based fees 4. Scattered site v. centralized 5. Hazardous waste D. Intermediate Processing 1. Role as compliment or alternative to source seperation 2. Role of the City in its utilization E. Centralized Processing 1. Alternatives 2. Proper input from the City 13 SCENARIO EXAMPLES I. Low Tech - Low Cost (Example: Attended donation center with compost program) A. Education - Emphasis on waste abatement, ease of separation, and location of donation centers B. Source Separation /Donation Centers - Location of one or more full- service donation centers (Costs dependent on number and responsibility) C. Yard Waste Composting - Maintenance of community program utilizing County system as market D. Collection - Require either volume -based fees or separate collection of recyclables E. Pros and Cons 1. Pros - Low cost - Limited City responsibility 2. Cons - Metropolitan Council requires mandatory separation if voluntary separation fails to meet targets. II. Low Tech - High Cost (Example: Curbside recyclable collection with donation center backup) A. Education - Emphasis on separation, convenience and relative costs B. Source Separation /Collection - Routed residential collection of separated recyclables, yard wastes, and mixed wastes. C. Yard Waste Composting - Full scale independent program to assure high quality compost and marketing. D. Donation Centers - Location of relatively few donation opportunities as safety valve for routed collection. E. Pros and Cons 1. Pros - Higher participation - Economies of scale 2. Cons - High cost - Possible duplication with County programs 14 III. High Tech - Low Cost (Example: Reliance on County intermediate processing with voluntary programs) A. Education - Minimal B. Source Separation - Limited to hazardous and special wastes and voluntary programs C. Collection /Intermediate Processing - Designate all wastes to County facility and rely on it for separation D. Pros and Cons 1. Pros - Low cost -No need to change disposal habits 2. Cons - Metropolitan Council and County plans require source separation - Reduces quality of recovered recyclables IV. High Tech - High Cost (Example: City participation in RDF or co- compost system) A. Education - High intensity - locally managed B. Source Separation - Variable depending upon technology, allowing for voluntary programs C. Collection /Processing - Locally managed waste processing system D. Intermediate Processing - Locally managed and operated E. Pros and Cons 1. Pros - Local direction 2. Cons - Costs and duplication - County designation of wastes limits viability 1. February 20, 1987 • Dear Minnesota Recycler: For over ten years, the League of Women Voters, and more recently the Container Conservation Coalition, have worked to pass a beverage container deposit law in Minnesota. Although a deposit law enjoys the support of the majority of Minnesotans, intensive lobbying (often financed by national interests) on the part of the beverage industry, labor and retailers has defeated this legislation. Nine states presently have such laws in place and they are working well A beverage container deposit bill will shortly be introduced in the Minnesota Legislature, with the support and assistance of the Governor and the State and regional agencies involved in waste management. As part of their policies, the Metropolitan Council has set a standard and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has set a goal for recycling 16% and 25% (respectively) of the total solid waste stream. We feel that a beverage container law would give a big boost to recycling programs so these ideals can be met. Claims have been made by opponents of beverage legislation that may mislead citizens into believing that passage of such legislation will kill recycling in Minnesota. Is this really true? The Container Conservation Coalition contacted the states with deposit legislation and were told that multi- material recycling programs, including curbside programs are viable, useful and that existing programs are expanding and new programs are being implemented. Those with curbside programs report a drop in beverage containers balanced by increased participation, and higher volumes of newspaper, metal and glass. "We have high beverage container return and recycling rates, strong markets for a full range of recyclable materials, and over 100 cities with multi - material on -route recycling....Tne experience here in Oregon proves that beverage container deposit laws and comprehensive residential recycling are very compatible. We credit some of the success of our residential recycling programs to the strong public support and participation in the deposit law. Recycling is benefited and supported by successful deposit legislation." William R. Bree Oregon Department of Environmental Quality February, 1987 IT