Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/11/1987 - Solid Waste Abatement Commission AGENDA SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION EAGAN, MINNESOTA EAGAN MUNICIPAL CENTER CONFERENCE ROOMS A & B AUGUST 11, 1987 11:30 A.M. I. ROLL CALL AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES II. ADOPTION OF AGENDA III. OLD BUSINESS A. Draft Solid Waste Abatement Strategy B. Recycling Facility Tour IV. NEW BUSINESS V. OTHER BUSINESS VI. ADJOURNMENT MEMO TO: CHAIRS MANN AND HOEL AND ALL MEMBERS OF THE SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION FROM: JON HOHENSTEIN, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT DATE: AUGUST 7, 1987 SUBJECT: SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION MEETING FOR TUESDAY, AUGUST 11, 1987 A meeting of the Eagan Solid Waste Abatement Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, August 11, 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. Staff will make an effort to contact you on the day preceeding the meeting to confirm your attendance. I. ROLL CALL AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES A copy of the minutes of the Eagan Solid Waste Abatement Commission meeting of July 14, 1987 is enclosed on pages ,3 through 4 These minutes, subject to any change, require approval by the Commission. II. ADOPTION OF AGENDA In the past, we have acted without the formality of approving the agenda for each meeting. To comply with general accepted form for such meetings, it would be appropriate to begin including this matter of business. III. OLD BUSINESS A. Draft Solid Waste Abatement Strategy -- Enclosed on pages 5 through 11,, you will find an updated version of the Draft Solid Waste Abatement Strategy. Administrative Intern Robertson and Engineering Intern Meuwissen are developing text for I and II. Based on comments at the last meeting, elements under each of the other categories have been modified as appropriate. Principal among these is the articulated reference to the real costs associated with source separation and emphasis on the impact of economic realities and incentives to encourage recycling to occur. As was mentioned at the last meeting, please review the Draft Strategy in the context of the 1986 Staff Report, the Citizens League Report, and copies you have received from the the Dakota County Solid Waste Masterplan. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS MATTER: To modify and /or approve the Draft Solid Waste Abatement Strategy Statement. B. Recycling Facility Tour - -As you may know, the make -up tour of the Reuter facility was postponed due to several scheduling conflicts. Therefore, please bring your calendars to set up a certain date for our make -up tour of the Reuter facility. 1. Solid Waste Abatement Commission August 11, 1987 Page Two IV. NEW BUSINESS V. OTHER BUSINESS There are no matters of other business to become before the meeting at this time; however, as a matter of distribution, I would direct your attention to the article found on page )3 __ pertinent to organized collection. ADJOURNMENT The meeting will adjourn at or about 1:00 p.m. A 'inistrative Assistant JH/mc cc: City Administrator Hedges City Planner Runkle Subject of Approval MINUTES OF THE SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION MEETING Eagan, Minnesota July 14, 1987 A meeting of the Eagan Solid Waste Abatement Commission was held on Tuesday, July 14, 1987 at 11:30 a.m. The following members were present: Earl Milbridge, Tim Hoel, Tom Yehle, Larry Knutson, Dar].[ene Bahr, Peter Patrick, Terry Schnell, Tom Mann, and Jon Hohenstein. Absent were Duane Soutor, and Delmar DeBilzan. Also present were Warren Wilson, Dakota County Solid Waste Planner, Bruce Robertson, Administrative Intern, and Catherine Meuwissen, Engineering Intern. MINUTES Upon motion by Knutson, seconded by Bahr, with all members voting in favor, the minutes of the June 9th, 1987, Solid Waste Abatement Commission meeting were approved. REUTER RESOURCE RECOVERY RESOLUTION Hohenstein discussed a resolution prepared by Reuter Resource Recovery to exempt Eagan from the Dakota County Waste Designation Program. He continued by expressing concern over Reuter's proposal that would obligate Eagan to use their facilities exclusively. Hoel stated that the City should not stand alone on this issue, but rather interact with the county and their decision regarding their waste abatement methodology. Wilson reiterated Hohenstein's concerns regarding the questionable approach of individual cities within Dakota County opting out of the county system. After additional discussion, upon motion by Mann, seconded by Knutson, the Commission voted to reject the Reuter Resolution and continue further correspondence with Reuter regarding Eagan's position. Hohenstein introduced a draft waste abatement strategy recounting statements made by the Commission during its fact - finding phases. Hohenstein also distributed and discussed the Citizens League report on Waste Management and Recycling in the metro area. He stated that the League positions regarding guided free enterprise solutions are similar to Commission positions. Bahr expressed her concerns about source separation costs at the household level. Wilson provided a different insight by noting when weighing tipping cost against source separation, the cost difference is negligible. Knutson indicated that there will be long run benefits of recycling, especially when prohibitive disposal costs change waste management economics. He then asked if the City wants to support source separation. Hohenstein responded that the Commission was formed to study and recommend such things in an appropriate waste abatement strategy and would be strongly considered by the Council. The Commission indicated general support for the draft but Milbridge suggested further review of the documents would be necessary before any decision on a motion could be made. 3. DISTRIBUTION Hohenstein distributed information on Waste Management Legislation, Recycling Lesson Plans and Northland Recycling. He briefly discussed these pamphlets as part of the waste management /recycling scheme. COMPOST UPDATE Hohenstein discussed the future of a composting fdcility in Eagan and concluded that the City will hold up any decision on additional sites or expanded uses of existing sites until the county acts in 1988. EDUCATION SUBCOMMITTEE Mann initiated discussion regarding the need for education of students in the area of waste management /recycling. Mann also suggested a possible "Waste Week" in area schools. Knutson followed by discussing the "Climb Theater" and the possibility of incorporating their presentation into the school systems. Wilson stated the county's desire to be informed on any educational programs implemented by the City or SWAC members. Upon motion by Yehle, seconded by Knutson, all members voting in favor to establish an education subcommittee to research and implement educational programs that would inform youth on the future of waste management and recycling. Knutson, Yehle and Mann volunteered to serve on this committee. NEXT MEETING The next meeting was set for Tuesday, August 11, 1987. ADJOURNMENT Upon motion by Bahr, seconded by Milbridge, with all members voting in favor, the meeting was adjourned at 1:05 p.m. JH Date Secretary `i' DRAFT EAGAN SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION STRATEGY STATEMENT I. LEGISLATIVE MANDATE AND AUTHORIZATION A. Minnesota Waste Management Act of 1980 B. Metropolitan Council Solid Waste Management Development Guide and Policy Plan C. Dakota County Solid Waste Masterplan II. GENERAL CONCEPTS A. Waste Reduction B. Source Separation C. Centralized Separation D. Centralized Processing E. Land Disposal III. REVIEW OF CONCEPTS AND VENDORS - Since August of 1986, the SWAC has studied and discussed the folowing issues and concepts with the listed resource persons. A. Metropolitan Council Mandate - Jim Uttley B. Dakota County Waste Abatement Planning - Warren Wilson C. Dakota County Hazardous Waste Planning - George Kinney D. Goodwill Industries - Attended Donation Center - Del Edwards E. MSD /Supercycle - Recycling Redemption Center, Curbside Collection, Reverse Vending - Linda Bartels F. Rohn Industries - Business Paper Recycling - Dennis Fields G. Reuter Resource Recovery - Centralized Separation and Refuse Derived Fuel - Doug Reuter and Jerry Misukanis H. Waste Management Inc. - Co- Composting - Lanny Ross I. Tours - Reuter RDF Facility and 3M Hazardous Waste Incinerator J. Monitoring Legislation - Organized Collection and Container Deposit K. Monitoring Citizens League Recycling Study IV. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS A. General Findings 1. The mandate for solid waste management clearly states the responsibility of cities to implement a landfill abatement strategy. The nature of such a strategy may be flexible within certain paramaters, most specifically that source separation opportunities be made available within communities. 2. Landfill abatement through recycling, etc. has a positive effect on the Metropolitan systems and environment by reducing landfill use and resource contamination while reducing demand for non - renewable resources. 3. A system which includes waste reduction, reuse and recycling is preferable to one which does not because it optimizes the use of non - renewable resources. 4. Waste management is a public service due to its health, safety and welfare implications. In the past, Eagan has provided for this publice service through privatization by free enterprise. 5. Recycling, due to its larger public purpose of reducing environmental and other impacts, can be viewed as part of that public service. 6. The private sector and market may continue to provide a mechanism for waste abatement, given appropriate conditions. However, government mechanisms may be necessary to guide market forces and to quantify hidden costs. 7. Education and the modification of waste disposal habits will be the keys to any successful waste abatement strategy. 8. The City Code currently requires the disposal of wastes in area landfills. Recycling, composting and other means of landfill abatement will requre an amendment of the Code. B. Recycling and Resource Recovery 1. Given an adequate delivery system and incentive structure, recyclable resources can be effectively removed from the waste stream. 2. The Metropolitan Council targets for waste abatement cannot be met by the 1988 deadline, due to the stage of Dakota County's waste management development. The City would be premature in implementing any comprehensive waste abatement strategy until the County program is better developed. 3. Convenience and a sense of personal benefit will be keys to the implementation of a recycling program. Where a clear public purpose or economic benefit are perceived by the public (WW II metal and rubber drives, deposit bottles, etc.) waste reduction, reuse and recycling have been accepted by the public. 4. Source separation of recyclables maintains the integrity of most recyclables better than centralized or mechanized separation. Both the Metropolitan Council and Dakota County have mandated that cities provide source separation alternatives as a part of their waste abatement /management strategies. 5. No recycling program will receive 100% compliance and, therefore, there is a need for centralized separation technologies to effectively remove recoverable resources. The costs of such centralized processing should be focused on those who do not source separate, thereby contributing to the economic incentive structure of the waste mangement system. 6. Residential and business recycling needs are of a different character and must be addressed separately. C. Economic Considerations 1. The current open hauling system, with relatively inexpensive land disposal, does not address landfill abatement objectives and will have to be modified by new market realities, rate structures, local regulation and /or public demand for waste abatement. 2. The type of centralized processing technology adopted by the County may dramatically impact the nature of the waste abatement obligations of the City and the costs it may have to . \,`- .= bear. % � vn 3. While source separated recyclables are . 6 generally of higher quality, the extra effort of each source separating household or business is a hidden cost. Source separation strategies will require economic realities which reward separation. 4. Volume based fees will be an essential element of an effective waste abatement strategy. 5. The County is in a unique position to affect the rate structure and the economic realities of recycling due to its intention to designate County wastes to a centralized processing facility. By charging more for mixed wastes and less for that with recyclables removed, the County facility can encourage recycling through the market mechanism and reduce the need for unnecessary public expenditures. 6. Certain abatement alternatives will benefit from centralization among cities or for the County as a whole due to economies of scale. V. DRAFT STRATEGY FOR WASTE ABATEMENT The City of Eagan Solid Waste Abatement Commission 1- recommends a strategy which considers the role of Dakota County in defining the waste abatement realities of its cities. It also recognizes the functional opportunity afforded the City to influence the shape of the County's waste management system. In the immediate future, the City would be best served by a conservative approach to waste abatement which functions to provide recycling and waste reduction alternatives to residents and businesses at a minimal public cost. As Dakota County's waste abatement system evolves, the City's can mature with it to address community needs in the future. A general description of such a system is outlined below. The Solid Waste Abatement Commission recommends that the City of Eagan: A. Provide voluntary recycling and source separation opportunities to Eagan residents at the least possible public cost and through the private sector where possible (recycling centers, compost, business recycling). B. Provide voluntary waste reduction alternatives like back yard composting through ordinance amendment. C. Address hazardous waste collection issues including physical collection, costs and liability. D. Analyze collection and recycling alternatives through the Organized Collection Study. Prepare to implement as rising disposal costs increase incentives to source separate and centrally ' separate. x E. Recommend that Dakota County: Jp 1. Choose a central processing alternative which w- ,�l'� includes a centralized separation component. 1 6`" 2. Identify the preferred central processing technology and the City obligations and costs it implies prior to enactment of the designation ordinance. 3. Implement a rate structure for the processing facility which encourages source separation by passing through the real costs of mixed waste processing. 4. Centralize and coordinate programs which will benefit from economies of scale: centralized separation, compost, recycling markets, etc. 5. Act or require the central facility to act as a market of last resort for recycling contractors and programs, haulers and residents. 6. Standardize education materials for schools and cities to help develop habits and attitudes for separation and recycling. 114 Specifically request a blanket exclusion from the Metropolitan Council's 1988 mandatory source separation requirement for all Dakota County cities to allow them to come into compliance as the County implements its waste processing facility. F. Develop a comprehensive waste management system combining appropriate public and private elements by modifying and expanding upon these initial recommendations. Such modification to be consistent with the development of Dakota County's waste management program. VI. CONCLUSION The City of Eagan has a mandated public policy obligation to address landfill and solid waste abatement in the immediate future. The mandate will require some expenditure of public funds and public effort, but such costs can be substantially mitigated by the proper application of incentives to and regulation of free enterprise. Dakota County is in a unique position to encourage recycling by establishing a two - tiered price structure mixed and separated wastes at its centralized processing facility. The City of Eagan has an obligation to insure the provision of this service through the appropriate application of public and private effort. G. POTENTIAL WASTE MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT MODEL 1988 -89 Drop-off Centers (Compost & Recycling) (Collection Modifications) 1989 -90 Routed Collection Alternatives y (Rising Costs) 1990 -91 Incr Desire to Separate 1 1991 -92 Comprehensive Waste Abatement System 10• 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 11. ,i 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 7L. Fewer trash runs could save street Vear To the editor: add to the accelerated deteriora- and sewer billing. That would Look outside your home to the tion of our residential street sur- mean just one trash pickup per street in front of your house. faces. day der week per street, only Every weekday along every How can we beautify the one day per week that everyone residential street and block of residential streets of Eagan? in an area would have unsightly Eagan there are trash cans, How can we prolong the life of trash setting at the front curb - bags and boxes setting at the our residential streets of Eagan? side, only one day per week that front curbside for trash pickup. Is there a simple solution? a multi -ton weight trash truck That means that every weekday I can offer one suggestion. The would travel the street in front of there is at least one multi -ton city of Eagan should contract for Your home. Youngner Y Betty o weir trash truck traveing the trash pickup with the various BetEagan street outside your home and trash pickup companies and bill mine. These heavy trucks surely residents similar to city water : 13.