Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/25/1987 - Solid Waste Abatement Commission AGENDA EAGAN SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION WEDNESDAY FEBRUARY 25, 1987 7:00 A.M. EAGAN MUNICIPAL CENTER I. ROLE CALL AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES II. ORGANIZATIONAL BUSINESS III. DISCUSSION OF SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT ALTERNATIVES IV. PRESENTATION - BUSINESS RECYCLING A. Dennis Fields, Rohn Industries V. DISTRIBUTION A. Curbside Collection Survey VI. ADJOURNMENT /— MEMO TO: ALL MEMBERS OF THE SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION FROM: JON HOHENSTEIN, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT DATE: FEBRUARY 17, 1987 SUBJECT: SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION MEETING FOR FEBRUARY 25, 1987 A meeting of the Eagan Solid Waste Abatement Commission is scheduled for Wednesday, February 25, 1987 at 7:00 a.m. in the Eagan Municipal Center Conference Rooms A and B. 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 Wednesday. I. ROLL CALL AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES A copy of the minutes of the Solid Waste Abatement Commission meeting of February 25, 1987 is enclosed for your review on pages L= These minutes, subject to any change, require approval by the Commission. II. ORGANIZATIONAL BUSINESS City Administrator Tom Hedges will be present at the meeting to discuss Council policy pertinent to its advisory committees and commissions. Commission members should take advantage of this opportunity to share their feelings about the process being undertaken with City Administrator Hedges and to discuss general City Council positions on waste abatement issues. III. DISCUSSION OF SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT ALTERNATIVES Enclosed on pages g you will find two additional solid waste abatement alternative profiles. Please add these to those distributed for the last commission meeting and be prepared to continue the discussion of alternatives. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To provide additional direction and initial priorities of alternatives for further staff investigation. IV. PRESENTATION - BUSINESS RECYCLING A. Dennis Fields, Rohn Industries - -Mr. Dennis Fields of Rohn Industries will join the meeting at 8:00 to discuss services which are available for business recycling. Rohn Industries is an office paper and corrugated recycling firm which can dispose of high grade office paper, security documents and corrugated products from a variety of businesses. In addition, Mr. Fields works for a division of Rohn Industries which does business recycling feasibility studies. These studies can be undertaken by individual businesses, owners of multi - tenant buildings or custodial services for businesses. Along with the feasibility study, Rohn can design pilot programs or refer businesses to other recyclers, depending upon the outcome of the study. Ultimately, the studies are to result in a permanent recycling program for business which can cut their waste disposal costs and, depending upon quantity, could result in income for the business. Mr. Fields is interested in the City of Eagan supporting the efforts of Rohn Industries by making a general statement concerning office paper and corrugated recycling for distribution to area businesses. While the City must be careful not to endorse a particular business, it may be appropriate to undertake some program which will recognize the need for office paper recycling as a part of the Metropolitan Council mandate. If Mr. Fields' program can benefit from such a statement, that could be positive for the City. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To recommend that the City Council make a general statement concerning office paper recycling which can be distributed to area businesses to encourage them to undertake office paper recycling programs. V. DISTRIBUTION A. Curbside Collection Survey -- Enclosed on pages 9 33is a report of curbside collection programs completed by the Metropolitan Council. The report does a good job of reviewing community programs including general costs, number of households served, participation rates, etc. Please use this resource to help make decisions concerning source separation alternatives. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting will adjourn at or about 9:00 a.m. Ad nistrative Assistant cc: Tom Hedges, City Administrator Dale Runkle, City Planner JDH /j eh Subject to Approval MINUTES OF THE SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION MEETING Eagan, Minnesota February 4, 1987 A regular meeting of the Eagan Solid Waste Abatement Commission was held on Wednesday, February 4, 1987 at the Eagan Municipal Center at 7:00 a.m. The following members were present: Earl Milbridge, Darlene Bahr, Tim Hoel, Delmar DeBilzan and Jon Hohenstein. Absent were Duane Soutor, Larry Knutson, Thom Yehle and Tom Mann. Also present was Warren Wilson, Dakota County Solid Waste Planner. MINUTES Upon motion by Bahr, seconded by Milbridge, all members voting in favor, the minutes of the January 14, 1987 Solid Waste Abatement Commission meeting were approved. DAKOTA COUNTY SOLID WASTE MASTER PLAN DRAFT Administrative Assistant Hohenstein introduce the item and indicated that staff had forwarded comments based upon their review and the input of the Solid Waste Abatement Commission concerning the Dakota County Solid Waste Master Plan draft. Warren Wilson discussed the format of the plan and indicated that comments including those from the Metropolitan Council and the City of Eagan would be included in future updates of the draft. Hohenstein asked if there were additional comments concerning the draft. Bahr asked about the landfill fill rates listed for Dakota County landfills. Wilson indicated that the rates listed were for unrestrained disposal and that the implementation of recycling and processing programs would reduce the annual fill rates and extend the closing date for each. DeBilzan indicated that attention on this issue has begun to increase and that it will accelerate as the 1990 mandated deadline approaches. Bahr asked about the list of Eagan recyclers. Hohenstein indicated that there have been some changes in terms of which were still active. Most notably, Goodwill Industries no longer operates a donation center in the City. Wilson indicated that the request for proposals being prepared by the County for a new vendor had taken some time away from an update of the Master Plan. He further indicated that the new RFP will keep open opportunities for a number of alternative technologies. He said, however, that the County may negotiate with more than one firm to prevent narrowing its options too early and that it would require certain financial guarantees to prevent a repetition of the Swentec- Westinghouse experience. REVIEW OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES Hohenstein introduced the Solid Waste Abatement Alternative Profiles. Bahr asked what funds were available for each of the alternatives if they were recommended by the Commission. Hohenstein indicated that there remained certain unexpended funds from the 1986 Dakota County Landfill Abatement Funding program. He stated further that approximately $21,000 would be available in the winter of 1987/88, if County and Metropolitan Council programs remain funded. Wilson indicated that they not only would remain funded but might actually increase in per household value. Hohenstein indicated that the whole purpose for having the group meet was to make recommendation to the City Council on the appropriate strategies which may merit local support. He stated that until the County's goals are clarified and the Solid Waste Commission has made recommendation, the City Council's posture has been that any solid waste abatement activities be supported through available waste abatement funding from other sources. Therefore, if the Commission develops a proposal in time for the 1988 budget preparation cycle, the group could get a strategy funded in the next calendar year. Hohenstein cautioned, however, that the City Council would probably only consider strategies which are compatible with the known goals of the City Council or ones that would compliment any strategy undertaken by the County. Therefore, the extent of the program recommended should be consistent with those directions. Hohenstein indicated that the one expenditure which does have City Council approval is an organized collection study to be funded through the Dakota County Solid Waste Abatement Funding program. He said that staff was in the process of preparing a scope of work for that study and that the Commission would be kept abreast of developments in that area. He said that the scope of work would involve identifying not only costs but different alternatives for organized collection and an element concerning anti trust problems associated with organized hauling. Bahr indicated that there would also be a need to address the growth issue as the population expands. Members also expressed concern that firms dropping out of an organized collection program be covered through bonding or some other method and that new entrance to the market be protected as well. Hoel said that it would be necessary to develop a means to field complaints and direct them to the appropriate party. Hohenstein said all of these issues could be incorporated into the study. Wilson said that the study should focus on flexibility to change or refine the system over time. Hohenstein stated that an element would also address volume -based fee structures which would introduce an economic incentive to the waste management issue. Hohenstein said that as the group reviewed the alternatives it should bear in mind that it can also recommend positions on larger picture issues, including the proposed container legislation, the current definition of recycling in state statute, and the 1988 mandatory source separation regulation of the Metropolitan Council. Bahr supported the concept of changing the concept of recycling intermediate processing of wastes to separate recyclables at a waste facility. Bahr also suggested that incentives are necessary for any program to work. Wilson indicated that Wisconsin has some experience with non - incentive programs which are merely convenient and that high levels of participation are achieved in them. Hohenstein agreed but suggested that incentives can be an important part of a program to increase participation above the natural level achieved through convenient alternatives. C;2 The group next reviewed the Waste Abatement Alternative Profiles. Hohenstein stated that a certain level of waste reduction would occur through education about container reuse. He stated further that education must be part of any program to make it succeed. The group reviewed Goodwill Industries' proposal for an attended donation center. Hoel indicated that he was more positive about this alternative after having an alternative to review the costs and opportunities related to other programs. Wilson indicated that the track record of the Goodwill Program had raised its viability for some communities. DeBilzan agreed that the attended donation center was far superior to the drop boxes because of its reduction of waste. Similar comments were made concerning MSD Recycling's redemption and donation centers in St. Paul and Minneapolis. Hohenstein indicated that given appropriate direction, staff could pursue the possibility of such a location in Eagan and request additional information about costs. The matter of MSD's reverse vending machines was discussed. Wilson indicated that MSD is largely working with Cub Foods outlets in locating such machines. Hoel indicated that he had gone to the machine in Burnsville and found it to be out of order. Wilson also indicated that the machines require very specific types and quantities of material to prevent tampering with the machines. Next, State container legislation was discussed. DeBilzan indicated that container legislation had been introduced in this legislative session. He said that the industry has had an opportunity to review the legislation currently proposed and that the industry could probably accept it. However, he said that the industry continues to have reservations about requiring vendors to undertake such a substantial program. He further indicated that he believes a container law of some kind will probably pass in the near future. DeBilzan went on to say that a container law would impact recyclers who need aluminum income to support their programs. Bahr suggested, however, that if source separation is to work, a container law is necessary to provide incentives and funds for the system. The group next reviewed the City Compost Program. Hohenstein indicated the program would probably continue operations at the present site for the next one to two years unless Dakota County indicated that it would manage yard wastes in an entirely different fashion or the City Council determined it to be in their best interests to relocate the site. Hohenstein further indicated that staff had recommended that Dakota County serve as a central service location for such things as compost shredding, anlaysis and, perhaps, marketing. Wilson indicated that this was a possibility or that a regional system of yard waste composting might be established. He also stated that the city of Farmington was purchasing shredding material for their co- composting facility and that the County was attempting to work out an agreement with them to provide the equipment and personnel on a lease basis to other communities with compost programs. The use of Dakota County Court Services juvenile and adult offenders as labor for a routed collection and intermediate processing pilot program was next discussed. Hoel asked how much supervision was necessary for such a program. Wilson responded that supervision was necessary and that such programs work best when there is at least one adult supervisor per work group. Hohenstein indicated that this proposal has been slow to develop due to competing priorities and questions about funding positions such as the supervisors. Supercyc1e's curb side recycling service was introduced by Hohenstein. He indicated that such a system could be compatible with either the current open hauling system or an organized collection system. He stated, however, that it is necessary to control fees to be certain that there was a financial incentive for its use. He further stated that Supercycle would be considered as one of the recycling alternatives within the organized collection study. The systems promoted by Waste Processing Corporation and Reuter Resource Recovery were discussed in the context of the Dakota County RFP. Wilson indicated that the County is interested in an owner operated system and that both companies were likely to make proposal along those lines. Following the discussion, the Commission suggested that the issue be retained for the next agenda for a brief discussion, in addition to other matters of business. DeBilzan suggested that in the interim, the organized collection study should be the primary thrust since it currently has Council direction and approved funding from the County. Hohenstein indicated that he would put this item on the next agenda for additional recommendations and discussion. NEXT MEETING The next meeting was tentatively scheduled for Wednesday, February 25 at 7:00 a.m. ADJOURNMENT Upon motion by DeBilzan, seconded by Milbridge, all members voting in favor, the meeting was adjourned at 9:16 a.m. JDH Date Chairman Secretary SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT SERVICE ALTERNATIVE PROFILE FIRM: BFI /MPCA /Other PHONE: ADDRESS: SERVICE DESCRIPTION: Hazardous Waste Promotion COLLECTION METHOD /MATERIALS: Method: Curb -Side Separate: Drop Site Separate: X Curb -Side Mixed: Drop Site Mixed: Materials: Aluminum: Glass: Newsprint: Other: Household Hazardous Wastes Responsible Party: City /Vendor Equipment: N/A INTERMEDIATE PROCESSING: Extent: N/A Responsible Party: Equipment: SYSTEM PROCESS: Description: N/A Responsible Party: Equipment: MARKETING: Market Description: Removal to approved locations Responsible Party: Equipment /Transport: COST /REVENUE: Expense: Capital: Useful Life: Operations: Unspecified Other: Revenues /Assets: Equity: City Funds: Unspecified Other Funding Sources: Potential Operating Revenue: COMMENTS: Inver Grove Heights, Roseville & others have done promotion in the past. MPCA Hazardous Waste Disposal WASTE MANAGEMENT CONCEPT FLOW CHART EDUCATION [GENERATORS WASTE REDUCTION] 4 DROP OFF/ [SOLID SEPARATION � REDEMPTION CTR 4 , COLLECTION [ J SEPARATED WASTES ' MIXED SOLID WASTE INTERMEDIATE J SEWAS PARATETES DL. PROCESSING Y WASTE P ROCESSING -1 COMPOST/ CO- COMPOST )1 PRODUCT} - -- 4 REF � } PRODUCT] -- - -MASS BURN] LANDFILL ��- [MARKET SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT SERVICE ALTERNATIVE PROFILE FIRM: MSD/Goodwill PHONE: ADDRESS: SERVICE DESCRIPTION: Clean Up Day/Recycling Day Promotions COLLECTION METHOD/MATERIALS: Method: Curb-Side Separate: Drop Site Separate: X Curb-Side Mixed: Drop Site Mixed: Materials: Aluminum: X Glass: X Newsprint: X Other: Household Goods Responsible Party: City/Vendor Equipment: Trucks/Trailers INTERMEDIATE PROCESSING: Extent: N/A Responsible Party: Equipment: SYSTEM PROCESS: Description: N/A Responsible Party: Equipment: MARKETING: Market Description: Regional Markets Responsible Party: Vendor Equipment/Transport: COST/REVENUE: Expense: Capital: Useful Life: Operations: Unspecified Other: Revenues/Assets: Equity: City Funds: Unspecified Other Funding Sources: Potential Operating Revenue: COMMENTS: r7 MSD /Goodwill Recycling Day WASTE MANAGEMENT CONCEPT FLOW CHART EDUCATION GENERATORS ~HASTE REDUCT MIXED SOURCE DROP OFF/ ( SOLID WASTE SEPARATION `�' REDEMPTION CTA} 1 4, COLLECTION_ L S WASTE �" MIXED SOLID WASTE INTERMEDIATE _JSEPARATEDF_ PROCESSING WASTES WASTE [PROCESSING COMPOST/ iPRODUCTI— CO—COMPOST RDF [PRODUCT]- .- BURN [LANDFILL A- [MARKET g I r CURBSIDE COLLECTION SURVEY Profiles of Curbside Recycling Programs in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area and Selected National Programs • Sp�rinn Lake Park Fridleyr Plymouth• `M+inneapolis Mound• Pv tk• •( • St. Paul \?‘ • .lna Richfield Shakopee S t . 401/ C l o u d _ • ,/,' 4 An n Arbor ; urbane 1111L, V1WV s • r San d ose I mi Bu • Austin I rk • October 1986 Q 0.. e W T ' P dk SIN c1T� CONTENTS Page I. PURPOSE 1 II. TABLES Review of Local and Selected National Curbside Recycling Projects 2 National Curbside Recycling Programs Compiled for the Massachusetts Bureau of Solid Waste Disposal 4 III. PROFILES Profiles of Curbside Recycling Programs in the Twin Cities Cities of Edina and Fridley 6 Cities of Minneapolis and Mound 7 Cities of Plymouth and Richfield 8 City of St. Louis Park 9 City of St. Paul (two programs) 10 Cities of Shakopee and Spring Lake Park 11 Profiles of Selected National Curbside Recycling Programs Voorhees Township, NJ 13 Austin, TX 114 Islip, NY 15 San Jose, CA 16 St. Cloud, MN 17 Urbana, IL (proposed) '8 Ann Arbor, MI 19 Burbank, CA 20 IV. CURBSIDE COLLECTION SURVEY FILE SUMMARY 21 o Y PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to provide background information on selected curbside collection programs, including the 10 in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area and eight others located in other parts of' the country. All of these were contacted by telephone survey between June 10 and August 15, 1986. Also included are 12 programs surveyed in 1985 for the Massachusetts Bureau of Solid Waste Disposal. The best way to use this report is to first review the tables on pages 2 through 4 for the basics of the programs surveyed. Because each of these programs has such an individual nature, the tables are followed by profiles giving more specifics. After reading a program's profile, there are two ways to go about finding out more. The curbside survey file includes the latest available documents received from contacts, as well as recent magazine coverage of' curbside recycling activity in this country, Canada and Europe. If the curbside file is not available to you, or it does not contain the specific information you are seeking, names, phone numbers and addresses of contacts are provided at the end of each profile. An extended list of contacts is provided in the curbside survey file. The tables and profiles are designed to allow for comparison of programs and to reflect their individual characteristics as much as possible. If it was available at the time of the survey, information on cost and financing, tonnage and materials collected, participation rates, start -up dates, haulers, number of households served, collection frequency, provision of collection materials, whether or not the program is mandatory, volunteer services and expansions are provided. The tables and program profiles provide information on many of the character- istics of the curbside projects contacted; however, to round out the informa- tion on the projects, further research needs to be done on market information, collection characteristics and costs of other forms of waste disposal for each municipality. The curbside collection survey file is available for temporary use at the Data Center of the Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities Area, 300 Metro Square Bldg., St. Paul, MN 55101. If you have further questions, contact Katy Boone, Solid Waste Abatement Supervisor, Solid Waste Division of the Metropolitan Council. / ( >, >1 >1 L >, >1 >1 >1 >1 T >1 >i >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >-, L L A L 1- L 1- L L L 1- L L L L L S- O A a+ A A A A A A A A A A 0 A 0 0 a. a• C .r ♦.) N 4- ., V N 44 N .-■ a+ 4.. .-1 4- L A C 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A 0 A A A 13 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 '0 7 C 0 U _ C C C .41 0 > 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A 0 A A 1 Y E 7• > > > > > > > > > > E 7• E = CC L5 1>- L O N 17 '0 a+ p 0 0 01 7 O A >1 C . 0 0 01 U C L L A >, E ^ 0 0 0 O 0. 0 t..) 0 >) ■ L C 0 >+ 0 0 CO N >.1 E O 10 A L) 0 0 0 = 0) 0 0 N C • 0 0 1 A A L CC 7 1 U L of U N O C • r ^ Cl 0/ 0. 01 0 1/) 0 >, 0 C C >9 a.1 .0 A A A O • - a+ 0. C 0 L) 0) C L) 7 U N C1 0. C. 0) E • 0 A 0 A A . ++ 4.) ^ A O N - r r> d E 0 L 0 U EE L U . • ^ • � • 0 A • C C C G 1..) 7 0 7 >, C 0) N • C > N 7 L 7 0 C • 0. U • 0 0. .0 U A • 0 C • C C E Ca. E 0 W O 7 0 0) 0) 7 7 • L 7 7 7 L A CO X > N > C 03 N (...) N W E E E 0 . U C 1 w 1 N 0 > a+ 0 ^ r 00)) u .- >, >, >, >, >, >, >, >, >, >, >, >, >, o C 4.., .0 O 0 U 4.) .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 0 t .0 .0 ^ .1c ^ L L C. 0) C ./-s �+ +� +' +' +� E Y Y A O. CTr 0 C 0 C 0 C C C C O C 0 0 0 O 0 r E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O O 0 0 0) .0 L O E E E E E E E .0 E E E 3 3 3 A C W U u 0 0 0 a' W A C 0) o1 y 7 O A L C L .,- o N C U • •- M It! • 7 +) N 1 in NI 1 be N. t N. ..1 A 01 N O co K it Q �! it Q it O 1 >< K U Cr' 11') O CO • --1 v O O A O 1N 2 N N M M N 2 N N Z <T 10 I... N . CO N C L r 01 >• L A 0 as 7 r A U C. f0 .0 0- •-. A 2 �•1 C .-. 10 r d '0 0 6) 10 1(1 O i 0 1 4, • 7 A # CT CO 01 N N CO U M C # - 2 O - r CU 0 . < M 4 4 < O < M •••• C 1 • O E !- N Z LC CO 10 N. 2 Z Z - N 2 N M r-1 O V) ••••• • VI E 2 •-+ .J y • N C N V1 A f0 W . E C r y C7 1 A C # V1 0 r 10 . 17 CD E CO I U U 0 0 H Y- 1- S ,; .� Cy O 10 aJ - - _ _ - J U 4 - 2 •'1 N = N r 0 O- 1. <2 < < < CO <m < Q < < _ _ 1- 0) Z f..: _ . _ • C U r • 1-) . . U C O -1 O C7 2 V t..) y 2 v < 2 3 2 2 Z 2 Q Q u_ ° N 3 E 1 - ) (.A 1..) CD (..) C9 V) C7 U 2 O 0>- O CD 0 0 0 2 H 2< < A 0) 0 1 > M C O N _ 0 = U7 01 0 A 01 10 0) 2 2 r•. CO O L L 2 n 10 >1 • L M 0 CO a en e 0) 1. 21 .0 01 CO CO L r• T O •^ CU 1- EE • 04 0 .•y .- 0. •-n 7 0 _ L 1 > A . - 1 to >, 0 N 0 "• +) v 0 N M L r M C. A u A C > Y 0 0. C. C CO >y >1 CO .o -- CO CO 7 1r O N E 7 0 0 0. 0) 0) 7 C1 A A 01 0) C. C1 01 N 3 E r 7 2 O < V) V) - - E E r I- ••■ - w Z n 0 0) 0 N C Z v . N r C .., • A .0 0 > 0 0 M O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N p C y Y O 0 1( O O O O O O O O O O A A 7 C) - 0 0 O 0 0 an 0 0 1c 1O N O 0 117 ^C7 A O r... O M 0 0 M O 01 10 M >- = N r or 1el 1\ .0 1 r-• A 1 r f.^ A Y > .. rj A Z' a Z 0 , .0 ... of '" Y 0. O U A • C 0 C N . f0 0 .0 C r 1 N y r N 0 O O 0 O A 0.. 4., E 0 •"' V C N 0. 0 r 3 .-1 r A N >C 0 .6... '0 1 10 T U w - 0 1 - H > E r V V 0 .0 r 0 J Z - 7 . A 0 >, C. a - 7 • 7 0 •^ A 0 N O •� . tel 0 A 7 A 0 0. O)+4 0 0 0 • t 1.. L Cv A C 0) 1 7 0 ._ 4 1 J 0 C 0 0 U •^ 0 C. C C: 0 c U •� L C C EE .0 A 4-. • L r L • N .� r �+ v C 0 -0 •- C 7 > ', � r t A .+ •J r .-1 .0 G C. A a•l 7 0 ` # M A C. J W IL. E E C. C V) N to N -••• Z N Q > # t.0 1/1 • 1 l02_ >, >, >, >, \ >, L L L L >, L •7 b la IO L •a .., .+ .+ .r O ..) C C C C i .. C 7 7 7 7 r0 7 U C O 0 0 7. >• 7. 1 F m U 0 L 0 al _ 0 CU O - z O ml v., a+ O C - �O p, 1 3 a) o •e a) C 0. ca 0 E c..-. a) 3I ..• d C � Y o ^ au .) o , u u > V ' • V C 7CL wzz E vs •a z u c I- ...+ 1 c 0 c O I- o u :7 >, Y > • •^ ^ a) U .+ a) i N C V Y ... ,Q . 1 a) a) a) Q C 1 0 a) c - 3 z 0 m -o t O CU ) , L U u L u a v C1.1 ^ y •O 71 V ..r 7 q L U 2 L y 0 C U O a) ✓ U vt v+ • •sO *o M Q 0 0 C,) O) .0 L . F. Z 0 0 O 60 .1_ 2 N to •m L ^ us 7 C L -I 7 .- o U 0 AI O, .0 CL ••. ,^ 1 ca C 7 .+ K, a) O a) ON CU 1 ..+ o 1, v N m Z. 2 a) C 0 < r... 0 I v ..+ o m r- 0 ., u a) •0 1- 2 4n N •^ •.1 E u .'1 a) .• 2 • '5 tel , CI N C - tn W CO H• U Q N O. a F- u a v I 2 •O - s m 2 F . CO C1 IO U • m m Ci •- N L. < Q • �1 N u a) /- •-• m .- C O w 0 < C7 CO U CO I- .-- 0 - X i u w I O ,- ;e 6 C ¢ 0 n T L E i i v co .•. a a a) as n m CC .+ .� • •a a) •O >, 0. CO CO d 1 .J 4.1 •p a) 01 ON V) 0 2 m 1 • 2 .., N r •0 v • • 4 .- V 0 yr 3 4 v .0 L 0 0 0 - I- CU a ON O In c3 o Inv, 0 7 N r- 0 CO 1 O N I C.0 3 v • a) CU N ■• O+G u•om '5 0 > a) U Q UCL' '3 - L) y1 L . L - a ,- N O ) 0 • O a) 2 U v) • d 0 •a c •••• L C L L I N 0 < •O V ) v •) q .0 .� .-' Q 0 U 0 0 0 L a .r 0 0 •o L 0 0 f O Z O J 1,1 0 Q CO w .,0 w N i►1 1 • >, >, T >.. >, >4 >Y >, >Y >, >) >, - L L L L L L L L L L L L q 0 O .0 '0 A V T .3 .O O •0 ' 0 i .+ 4.1 a.1 4-1 a, .•+ +•+ b L '0 a .3 C C A "- ,0 ,0 C C C C O a+ - b C C L) T3 C 7 C 7 • 7 .- C 7 . 7 ^ -- C 7 .O 0 0 . .0 O O 0 0 t o 0 . q 0 > 2 > ? > 2 > > m Z 0 > 0 L 0 L Q1 y .- « 1 LI a, C L. 0 C O O.2 u N L 7 -' >+ al > E ■ _ ,-- '^ ' MI 3 , 0 '0 CU 3 3. U O. C.7 N CG O. O. Q C N C tel N 0. .-+ 3 •- L - >) - ..- I 0 '7 >1 p .- '0 N U U 3 V al V) C U u L 0 0 3 N O. U > ••• •- 0 •- a+ .- N L 3 .3 > C N 0 N L 0 C A N C �•'t C 0 7 5 a) 3 '0 '0 3 5 L < O 0 u • 0 -.y G 2 d' 2 3 2 2 2 I- 1 C H C N I. 1 3 N N '0 1 4- Y ^ > Y O 0l 3 .0 3 0 T. -i ,. .. . T N N >, C >, .T >, ^ 3- O 3... Y Y . Y .O 0 N U V Y Y Y 3 Y E - 0 • a) 3) a1 Q) Ql I V L 0 a) d 1 Q) Q7 - r0 a) •- .0 a) a) a) a) L 0 Cr 3 3 3 d a) 3 .0 a) 3 3 3 3 q N • 9 a) O U a) a) L L 3- 4 q 3 a .- 7 (0 C O .0 V 0 >1 y 3 u y a) L a) y Q L. C rts a) 7 2CO U 0 t L 0 M u 0 C) 0 O • C Ill N U 01 • O M ' Q It Vt A 3. � 0 v � 0 4) � 44) Lf) \ In O 0 '0 a+ 2 141 - tD 01 N N CO M 2 N. 4) 2 3.0 •t CO - U N CO U C S- .- >•• L 0 0 U 14J ,. 7 - d LI0 .00. a) 4/ O 3 ++ a) 1 C 5 O 4) Z ..... 01 n N a 0) Q 2 .0 0 0 0 0 Li, t0 S n t0 1 L • _ 3 - y 7 tD 0 t0 O O N 10 N 0 0 Cr t0 N 0 U c '0 - . -- i N. 0) N •--• CO tD N .--. al ID -4 .) E .• N C.) y 3. .a • N - 2 0 2 L W 2 Q 0 01 L - 1 0 U U O �^ m N N 1 U U N CO 10 L O. O ^ al V '0 1 2 1-- 30 U 44,4 C 3- O. 13 < y U Q 2 < C.) 03 _ Q Z U Q V) < t' - - c L- 2 V) Z 2 1 2 L) CO Q 2 1 2 2 v 2 2 9 N • i 0 O 1- '0 CO CD CO 2 2 I•- CO CO 2 CO - CO v CO CO Q u T 0 U I 0 ✓ 2 a •- '� ) 0 1 u N � Q .../ a) I) CO 01 q C 01 • - L C y •-• >f a)•- O 44 - L NCO • C a .o N y N - J 5 _ 0. 1 a) L 5 - n Q N. C Q N 2 1- Li Cl.) '0 Q •• - 01 Q O CO 3 2 7 . ..• 2 2 2 < 7 = 01 01 01 Z . 01 A Z a) •.• N V b to Z Z Z = •-• -- •- 2 --1 2 203 -• O 1 4) 0 a) N O 2 ++ 7 O N _ - q U '0 N pp p p pp N 3 '0 2 73 > O S O .--1 O 0 0 0 O O 0 O 0.5 4, - L Q 0 M 0 v 0 0 4'f 0 ..D 0 0 O. '0 2 al a) ^ . -r 01 0) c+1 3- N N 01 IL] CO N l)1 CO O Q t L O t.•) ••• l") .•. N 1 p O CO w = r N • •0 - a) (1) N - w 2 0 r+ OI 0 2 Cl '0 'O = Q C. a) CL 0 U O. 3- Q .3 - .- y .- I '0 - 2 - 2 >, N 2 - CJ O U 2 '0 E 2 - ^7 .3 C C N - .-1 O 2 0 C 0 - - 41 - Q O L 7 0 H . a a 0 C) '0 a Z W U Si .3 d '0 0 - b C 0 L Q C a) L L 1 N N - J a 0 = C 0 V m .0 •O L N _ . a) V Q - - a) 3 '.}I -- L ..+ 0 . 0 < y 0 y ' > '0 7 - 0 N O 0 a) '0 '0 CJ 2 '0 aJ 2 ` 0 7 'O T 0 A Z 0 0 L) 0 W J J 2 E Z 2 Ct. V1 Y 4 .3 a 4 N /y PROFILES OF CURBSIDE RECYCLING PROGRAM IN THE TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA SUMMER 1986 CITY OF EDINA Edina has operated a drop -off recycling site since 1970. In May of this year, Edina's pilot curbside recycling program began providing service to 3,000 households. Participation rates of 19 percent for the first month and 23 percent for the second month were achieved. Collection of glass, newspaper, and aluminum has been provided by both city employees and Waldorf Paper Co. on a once - per -month basis. The city recently received an incentive grant of $7,800 from the Metropolitan Council which it will use to continue its six -month pilot program (May - December 1986). Estimated cost for the grant period, which is also May - December, is $32,294. This figure includes equipment, salaries, benefits and publicity. In addition to the Council grant, the city will receive $12,247 in funding from Hennepin County, matching the amount that Edina itself will supply. The city expects to abate 127.5 tons of waste from landfilling during' the six -month pilot project. CONTACT: Janet Chandler, Recycling Coordinator City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55436 (612) 927 -8861 CITY OF FRIDLEY Fridley's city - sponsored program serves approximately 7,000 of 10,000households in the area. Glass, newspaper, aluminum, corrugated cardboard, car batteries and motor oil have been collected by the city's most recent contractor, Beermann Recycling. Collection takes place in Districts 1, 2 and 3 on the second, third and fourth Fridays, respectively, each month. Study of participation rates is currently under way. The program is 13 months old. Financial support for the project has been provided by the Metropolitan Council's Household Rebate and Tonnage Payment Programs and the City of Fridley. Cost information is unavailable at this time. CONTACT: Myra Gibson City of Fridley 6431 University Avenue, NE Fridley, MN 55432 (612) 571 -3450 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS Curbside service is provided to 120,000 single- family homes in this three -year- old program. The participation rate is 22 to 25 percent. It is calculated by dividing the total number of potential stops by the number of stops made. Two contractors are responsible for collection of glass, newspaper, aluminum, card- board and tin food cans: the Minneapolis Educational Recycling Center (MERC) (providing 40 percent of the city's service) and Supercycle (with 60 percent of the service). MERC also provides one city -wide drop -off center. Collection frequency is once per month. The two contractors keep revenues from marketing recyc.Lables. The cost of the project for 1986 is estimated at $402,000. The cost of collec- tion is roughly $35 /ton. Approximately 7,000 tons will have been collected in 1986. Administrative and publicity fees make up the bulk of the remaining cost. Financing for the project is anticipated as follows: $81,000 from the Metropoli- tan Council Household Rebate, $28,000 from the Metropolitan Council Tonnage Payment Program; city and Hennepin County funds will make up the rest, each paying half. CONTACT: Mike Trdan, Mgr. or John Hickey, Administrative Asst. City of Minneapolis Recycling Program 203 City Hall Minneapolis, MN 55415 (612) 348 -8077 CITY OF MOUND Mound's city -wide project has served 3,053 households since October of 1985. The city's pilot project served 500 homes from April to September 1985. - he participation rate for the city -wide project is about 20 percent, calculated by dividing the number of stops along the collection route by total number of potential stops per collection. The contractor, Beermann Recycling, collects and markets an average of 16 tons of glass, newspaper; steel, tin and aluminum cans; motor oil and rags once per month. Collection is scheduled for the first Friday of each month. The city budgeted $18,000 for the project in 1985. Costs include contractor fees ($985 per month), publicity and part of one city worker's salary (for secretarial and other work). The Household Rebate and Tonnage Payment Programs provide roughly $2,468. Hennepin County pays 50 percent of the project's remaining cost. CONTACT: Joyce Nelson Mound Recycling Program 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 (612) 472 -1251 Ir1 CITY OF PLYMOUTH This city- sponsored program began in April 1986 and serves all the city's approximately 10,000 households, with'an estimated 30 percent participation rate. The 30 percent figure was derived by dividing 45 lbs. (the average amount per month of material collected per recycling collection stop in St. Louis Park) by the total tonnage collected. (The St. Louis Park figure was used as the only available average at the time.) Supercycle haulers are responsible for the collection of glass, newspaper, aluminum and metal cans, corrugated cardboard, motor oil and batteries. Seventy tons of these materials were collected in April and 81 tons in May of this year. Collection is once per month. The total 1986 estimated cost of the program is $59,335. The breakdown of that figure to major costs is as follows: contrator fees are $27,000 per year; staff coordinator, $10,775; 3,000 recyclable collection bags supplied to residents, $7,560 per year; publicity and advertisement costs, $14,000. Supercycle's hauler fee is $2,250 per month for the first 80 tons collected. After 80 tons, an additional charge of $30 per ton is made. Supercycle retains revenues from marketing the material. Part of the project's financing comes from Metropolitan Council, $6,852 from the Household Rebate and $3,540 from the Tonnage Payment Progam. The remaining $49,243 is funded by the city's general fund and Hennepin County through the cost sharing program, each entity paying one half. CONTACT: Dick Pouliot, Project Coordinator City of Plymouth 3400 Plymouth Blvd. Plymouth, MN 55447 (612) 559 - 2800 CITY OF RICHFIELD Richfield's program began in September 1984. Volunteer organizations serve 10,000 homes for newspaper collection (participation rate: 35 percent). Collection of glass, aluminum, newspaper and tin is provided to 3,500 homes by Recycling Unlimited (participation rate: 20 percent). All collection is on a once - per -month basis. Participation rates are calculated by dividing stops made by tonnage collected. Costs of the program include Recycling Unlimited's contractor fees ($500 per month), the salary of the coordinator ($8 year) and city in -kind expenses (about $3,000 to $5,000). The organizations providing newspaper collection are the Scouts, Jaycees, softball teams, Optimist Club and churches. They retain revenues from marketing the newspaper collected. Financing has been provided by a Community Development Block Grant ($13,000), $10,000 from Hennepin County and $10,000 of in -kind funds from the city through cost- sharing. CONTACT: Paula Okerstrom, Recycling Coordinator City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue, South Richfield, MN 55423 (612) 869 -7521 M,W,F `.(s3 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK This four - year -old, city- sponsored program serves 12,000 of the approximately 16,699 single - family households in the St. Louis Park area. Collection is by Supercycle haulers two times per month on the first and third garbage collec- tion days. A monthly flat fee of $5,500 is paid under ccn tract to the haulers for the collection of approximately 300,000 pounds per month of glass, news- paper, aluminum and tin. The participation rate is estimated at 28 percent, derived by dividing total tonnage collected by the average number of pounds ( collected per household /per month. The major costs of the project are collection fees to Supercycle, one -third of the recycling supervisor's salary and secretarial fees. The city provides stackable plastic collection bins to residents at no charge. A detailed break- down of' costs is currently being organized by the city in order to more accurately reflect the total amount spent on the program. Financing for the program has been provided by a user fee charge included in utility bills. The user fee charge, or refuse fund, pays Woodlake Sanitation's contract fees for regular trash hauling and for the recycling program. Only the 12,000 single- family homes receive these services and pay the user fee. The remaining 5,669 dwellings do not. Each resident is billed on a quarterly basis for refuse collection, and a portion (about $.60) of the charge goes toward recycling collection. The Household Rebate and Tonnage Payment Programs provide additional funding. CONTACT: Wally Wysopal St. Louis Park Recycling Program 5005 Minnetonka Blvd. St. Louis Park, MN 55 (612) 92 9 r ST. PAUL- DISTRICT 14 COMMUNITY COUNCIL The District 14 program began July 1, 1986. Beermann Recycling was awarded the program contract and is paid a fee of $4,500 per month to collect glass, newspaper, aluminum, motor oil, yard wastes and car batteries from approx- imately 8,000 households. Collection takes place once per month. The Community Council recently received a $10,000 incentive grant from the Metropolitan Council for one year. Total estimated program cost is $57,790 for the incentive grant period of one year. Additional funding will be provided by the Household Rebate and Tonnage Payment Programs through the City of St. Paul. CONTACT: Katherine Tarnowski, Community Organizer District 14 Community Council 1523 Fairmont Avenue St. Paul, MN 55105 (612) 698 -7973 PROPOSED CURBSIDE RECYCLING PROGRAM: ST. PAUL- NEIGHBORHOOD ENERGY CONSORTIUM The Neig:borhood Energy Consortium (NEC) recently received a $10,000 incentive grant from the Metropolitan Council to assist in development and implementation of a new curbside recycling program in five sections of the city. Program focus is on approximately 80,000 residential buildings with less than 12 living units each. The NEC plans to negotiate hauler contracts during the months of July- September for the collection of glass, newspaper and metals. Total program cost is estimated at $71,275 per year. Additional funding has been provided by a grant from the McKnight Self Help Initiatives Program of the Minneapolis Foundation in the amount of $25,000. Funds also come from the budgets of individual member organizations. CONTACT: Executive Director St. Paul Neighborhood Energy Consortium 287 N. Snelling Av. St. Paul, MN (612) 644 -5436 • CITY OF SHAKOPEE Shakopee's muncipally- sponsored program began in May 1985 and serves three target areas of the city and includes 600 households with approximately 95 percent of the population. In 1985, the program achieved an average participa- tion rate of 21 percent. Broken down by recyclable materials, the participa- tion rates for the 600 households are as follows: glass, 20 percent; paper, 29 percent; and aluminum, 15 percent. Rates were derived by monitoring the number of stops made divided by the number of potential stops. Collection of these materials takes place once per month on second Saturdays. Collection services are provided by three organizations: Cub Scouts (glass, averaging four tons per month), Shakopee Catholic Schools (aluminum, averaging one ton per month) and Boy Scouts (paper, averaging 15 tons per month). The collectors keep revenues gained from marketing the recyclables. The total cost of the program is $3,000 per month (this includes a portion of' the recycling coordinator's salary). The city receives funding for the project from the Household Rebate and Tonnage Payment Programs. CONTACT: Barry Stock, Recycling Coordinator City of Shakopee 129 First Av., E. Shakopee, MN 55379 (612) 445 -3650 CITY OF SPRING LAKE PARK The city's pilot project (5/29/86- 9/24/86) serves 600 of the approximately 1,712 households in the area. The participation rate is not yet available. Frank's Recycling and Salvage is responsible for pick -up of glass, newspaper and aluminum, earning a monthly fee of $300 per month or $1,500 total during the pilot project. The total cost of the pilot project including publicity, staff and contractor fees, is estimated at $11,650; cost is expected to increase to $16,150 when the project expands. One grant of $4,050 was received from the Department of Energy and Economic Development. Other funding will come from Anoka County ($1,500) and the Household Rebate and Tonnage Payment Programs. CONTACT: Paula Okerstrom, Recycling Coordinator City of Spring Lake Park 1301 81st Av., NE Spring Lake Park, MN 55432 (612) 784 -6491 T,Th PROFILES OF SELECTED NATIONAL CURBSIDE RECYCLING PROGRAMS SUMMER 1986 • ssa VOORHEES TOWNSHIP, NEW JERSEY* The Voorhees curbside collection project began in 1983 as a voluntary program and was made mandatory in March 1986. Collection is weekly, coinciding with regular trash pick -up, is township -wide and serves 6,000 households. Residents are required to make three separations for collection: ncnrecyclables; paper and paper products; and glass, steel, bi- metal, tin and aluminum cans. Each household is provided with one five - gallon plastic bucket for glass and cans. Municipal crews provide collection service. Although the participation rate has not been recently calculated, it is roughly estimated that 75 percent of the households are in compliance with the mandatory ordinance. Penalties for nonparticipation are withholding collection of unseparated trash and fines. One representative of Voorhees suggested that if the participation rate were calculated, the city would be put in the position of having to fine the nonparticipating residents. So, at this early stage in the mandatory program, only the penalty of withholding collection is enforced, providing a reminder and incentive. Recyclable glass, metal and paper collected in Voorhees amounts to about 2,050 tons per year. The township markets its own paper products, while glass and metals are delivered to the county processing facility for separation and marketin6. There is no tipping fee at the facility. The total cost of the 1986 program will be about $265,000 and includes labor, equipment, maintenance and publicity. In contrast, disposal cost at the landfill, where the tip fee is $65 per ton, is estimated at $400,000 per year. Financing for the project comes completely from the township. CONTACT: Fred Mann, Township Administrator -or- John Purvis 620 Berlin Road Administrator Voorhees, NJ 08043 or (609) 429 -7174 Jack Sworaski, Chief, Adm. Servs. Camden County Adm. Bldg. 600 Market St. Camden, NJ 08101 (609) 757 -6914 *The state of New Jersey generates approximately $4.5 million per year, with a 12 cent per cubic yard landfill surcharge. These funds are dispensed to municipalities through a rebate program offering $4 per ton for collected recyclable material. In April of this year, Camden County, of which Voorhees is a part, opened a Resource Recovery System processing facility for recyclable glass and metals. Revenues from the recyclables marketed (there is no tipping fee) are retained by the operator unless the total is above $100,000. If revenues exceed that amount, the excess is divided, depending on the size of the sum, between the operator and the county. Materials from all 37 municipalities in the county should eventually be routed there for separation and marketing. Source separation in all municipalities was mandated in 1985 and all but one have or will be operating curbside collection programs. All municipalities should be in compliance with the mandate by the end of this year. It is estimated the county's waste stream will be reduced through these efforts by 25 percent. ��3 AUSTIN, TEXAS* In February 1982, Austin began a pilot program serving 3,000 homes. Service has expanded since that time to 55,000 homes and will serve from 111,000 (currently served with regular trash collection) to 120,000 homes by 1987- 1988. The program is municipally sponsored and run under the Austin Tomorrow Comprehensive Plan, which states that waste recovery programs in the city need not be financially self - sufficient. The voluntary program's participation rate varies on a weekly basis between 30 and 35 percent and monthly between 60 and 70 percent. Approximately 1 450 block leaders have been recruited to stimulate public participation. Also, five - gallon plastic buckets are available to residents. These collection containers are made available to residents at neighborhood fire stations at a cost of $1.50 each. The city works in cooperation with Ecology Action Community Recycling, (EACR) a local nonprofit organization that processes and markets materials. EACR is contracted to process and market glass, aluminum, steel, and bi -metal cans. Weekly collection is accomplished by city crews coinciding with regular waste collection. The amount of recyclable material collected is projected at about 4,000 tons for the 1985 -86 fiscal year. The estimated cost and the amount approved for fiscal year 1986 -1987 is $710,000. Costs include staff salaries (for 30 personnel), publicity and public education, contract fees for EACR, and equipment. CONTACT: Richard M. Atramowitz Manager, Waste Reduction Programs City of Austin- Solid Waste Services Division P.O. Box 1088 Austin, TX 78767 (512) 472 -0500 *For further details on the project see the Curbside Survey file: Austin, TX. 0 a1-1 ISLIP, NEW YORK Islip has one of the largest mandatory recycling programs in the country. The legislation making the program mandatory was passed in 1981. Curbside collec- tion is city -wide, serving approximately 73,500 single - family, duplex and triplex dwellings. Recyclables are collected separately from trash every Wednesday. The participation rate is approximately 20 percent, derived by dividing the total tonnage collected by the average number of pounds set out per household. No collection materials are provided for residents. Collection service for the city's 70 districts (encompassing about 110 square miles) is provided by 17 private haulers who are under city contract. Mixed materials are collected and then sorted at the municipally -owned processing facility. The waste haulers pay thg tipping fee of $18 /ton at the processing facility. The facility receives 200 -300 tons of newspaper, corrugated cardboard, ferrous, bi -metal and aluminum cans, glass and plastic soft drink bottles per week. Revenues from the processing facility's tipping fee and marketing the recyclables amounted to approximately $ in 1985. The disposal fee for municipal solid waste is $18 /ton at the area landfill. With operation and maintenance costs at about $300,000 per year (including salaries, hauler contract costs and publicity), the project has been realizing a profit for the last three years. In 1983, Islip received approval for Environmental Quality Bond Act monies from the state amounting to $169,000, but has not yet collected the funds. No volunteer services, labor or goods are provided to the project, and no support from local tax monies is needed because the operation is supported entirely by revenues and the processing facility's tipping fee. CONTACT: Elizabeth Galleger Department of Environmental Control 401 Main St. Islip, NY 11751 (516) 224 -5640 SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA San Jose's 14- month -old pilot program began in May 1985 and is minicipally sponsored, currently serving 20,000 of 177,000 homes, with weekly collection of recyclables. The program will begin expanding in September 1986, by adding 40,000 more homes to the collection route. If the program growth remains feasible during the 60,000 home phase, 60,000 more homes will be added for the next two years until collection is city -wide. By 1988, it is estimated that 180,000 homes will be constructed in San Jose. Under a contract with the city, mixed cans (tin, aluminum and bi- metal), color - mixed glass and newspaper are collected by Empire Waste Management (EWM). The city also pays EWM to supply and distribute the Recycle 3 plastic collection bins* that cost about $16 per household. Voluntary participation in the program has been as high as 75 percent, derived by monitoring the number of stops made on the collection route. Currently, participation is estimated at 55 percent. The decrease from 75 percent is due mainly to the fact that residents were requested not to place materials on the curb as often. While the rate went docn, tonnage collected (about 180 tons per month) remained the same. City Hinds support the project. The cost of the pilot curbside collection program was about $140,000. That figure includes contractor fees, collection bins, publicity and municipal staff. When collection service expands, the cost will increase to approximately $725,000 for service to 60,000 homes. This increase is the result of three major factors. First, the contractor lost money in marketing the materials during the pilot program, and the city would like to provide an incentive for them to continue operations. Second, the contractor will need a new processing facility to handle the larger quantity. Third, 120,000 more collection containers will be supplied to new participants (three containers per household for glass, metals and paper). Contact: Richard Gertman Recycling Program Coordinator City of San Jose 801 N. 1st Street, Room 460 San Jose, CA 95110 (408) 277 -5208 Stu Clark Recycle 3, Manager Empire Waste Management Santa Rosa, CA (707) 585 -0291 *See Curbside Survey file: San Jose, CA for more information on the EWM contract and Recycle 3. ST. CLOUD, MINNESOTA St. Cloud's approximately three - year -old program is city- sponsored with municipal collection once per month. The 9,200 residential buildings served range in size from single- family to triplex. Approximately 10,200 larger buildings make up the balance of the city's total number of dwellings. The program is mandatory, and the participation rate is about 44 percent, derived by monitoring the number of households placing recyclables on the curb in a test area. A total of 690,828 lbs. (345 tons) was collected in 1985. There is currently no publicity campaign. Python's Recycling operates the area's processing and buy -back center to which glass, newspaper and aluminum cans generated by the city's curbside program are delivered. Python's pays $10 /ton for glass and $.18/lb for aluminum. Although Python's continues to accept newspaper, it does not pay anything for it because end - market prices are too low. Operational costs, including labor and equipment, amounted to about $50,000 in 1985. The city ran a deficit of approximately $4,100 per month, although the city is saving money by shifting garbage collection from twice to once a week, aided by the implementation of the mandatory recycling program. Collection for recyclables falls on a different day of the week than garbage pickup. Contact: Jerry Zerbus, Asst. Operational Maintenance Director City of St. Cloud 400 2nd St. S. St. Cloud, MN 56301 (612)255 -7224 Steve Hamilton Python's Recycling (612)253 -2054 • PROPOSED CURBSIDE RECYCLING PROJECT: URBANA, ILLINOIS Urbana's project will be operated in cooperation with the area's Community Recycling Center, located in Champaign. It will begin in mid - September 1986. The total population in Urbana is about 38,000; 18,000 (47 percent) of the residents will receive curbside collection service from municipal crews. Mixed glass, aluminum, bi -metal and tin cans will be collected from the approximately 7,941 housing units. The program will be voluntary. The Community Recycling Center operates a buy -back center and will be paying special rates to the city for curbside collected materials. The rates are $15 /ton of paper, $20 /ton for glass, $520 /ton for aluminum, and $20 /ton for tin. Materials are processed and marketed by the center. The annual cost to the center is roughly estimated at $630,000. This is the total cost, including buy -back and publicity for the project. The collection program's cost to the city of Urbana is estimated at $85,304 (publicity, $13,200; labor, 49,000; operation and materials, 7,300; and debt service for $62,000 borrowed at 10 percent for five years in 1986, $15,800 /year). Urbana and Champaign (which will be beginning a pilot program about two months after the program begins in Urbana) have guaranteed a flat fee of $180,000 per year to the center. Part of this amount comes from revenues created by the area's landfill tipping fee. The balance of the cost to the center for the project will be made up by revenues from marketing the materials and contributions. Volunteer services for the curbside projects in Urbana and Champaign have been offered by local radio and TV stations. CONTACT: Steve Apotheker Jim Darling or Rod Fletcher Community Recycling Center City of Urbana 720 North Market Street 706 South Glover Champaign, IL 61820 Urbana, IL 61801 (217) 351 -4495 (217) 384 -2327 Dick Larson City of Champaign (217) 351 -4421 ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN Curbside collection began in Ann Arbor in 1978, conducted by a group of citizen volunteers called Recycle Ann Arbor. In 1981, the volunteer collectors merged with the nonprofit Ecology Center of Ann Arbor (which was operating a dropoff station for glass at the time) aiming to provide curbside collection city- wide. In 1983, the city began to provide subsidies for operation of the pro- gram and in 1985 provided 60 percent of operating Hinds and 95 percent of capital funds so that service could be provided to 80 percent of the total population. Currently, service is provided and promoted to 20,000 single - family to triplex dwellings (about 40 percent of these are multifamily). Although no promotion is geared toward them, quadruplex to six -plex buildings are served if re- cyelables are placed on the curb on the collection route. Collection is monthly and is conducted by employees of the Ecology Center under contract from the city. Mixed glass, bundled newspaper, aluminum, flattened tin cans, corrugated cardboard, car batteries, paper bags and synthetic oils are collected, coinciding with municipal garbage collection. Participation is voluntary, and is estimated at 20 percent. Participation rates ar' derived through tallies taken of participating households, per pick- up, over a three -month period. In 1985, 2,128 tons of material were collected. The average value of materials per ton in 1985 was $36.66 (total revenue from sales being $78,021.13). Accurate cost information is not available. The Ecology Center was awarded a grant from the state's Clean Michigan Find in January 1986, and once the grant money is received, it will begin a pilot project using stackable plastic bins. CONTACT: Nancy Stone, Coordinator or Brian Weinert of Recycle Arm Arbor Ecology Center of Ann Arbor (same address and phone) 417 Detroit St. Ann Arbor, MI 48104 (313) 761 -3186 *See Curbside Survey file: Ann Arbor, MI for further details. BURBANK, CALIFORNIA Burbank's curbside collection program was started by the municipality in September 1982 by the municipality and is now operated by the city's con - tractor, Commonwealth Recycling, a subsidiary of Garden State Paper Company. Commonwealth provides biweekly collection to all approximately 18,500 single - family dwellings in the city. Collection is on the same days as regular garbage pickup. Bi- metal, tin, and aluminum cans, glass and newspaper are collected. The voluntary program's participation rate is estimated at 50 percent, derived by monitoring the number of homes setting out recyclables per month on the collection route. According to Commonwealth Recycling, participation in the curbside program varies depending on the amount paid for materials at the buy -back center, which is owned by the city, but operated by Commonwealth. As the amount paid increases, more citizens bring materials to the center instead of leaving them on the curb for pick -up. The average tonnage from curbside pickup and the buy -back center is 500 tons per month. The city paid the start -up cost of $350,000 with the assistance of a $250,000 state grant. Included in the capital cost were equipment (three recycling collection trucks), two plastic buckets per single- family household for collec- tion of cans and glass and construction of the buy -back center. Commonwealth Recycling is responsible for all operational costs of the project. Commonwealth markets both the materials garthered from curbside collection and those brought to the buy -back center. It keeps the revenues brought in from the marketing of the materials, but under ccn tract, pays the city $5 per ton of material marketed. The business estimates the cost of operating the curbside project at $42 per hour or roughly $10,080 per month (12 hours per day, five days per week, four weeks per month). End markets are all within one hour of the buy -back center.* CONTACT: Gene Owsley, Manager or Joy Hamilton Commonwealth Recycling City of Burbank 720 N. Lake St. Burbank, CA 91502 Burbank, CA 91502 (818) 953 -9599 (818) 841 -9700 *See Curbside Survey file: Burbank, CA for further details. 0 (3U CURBSIDE COLLECTION SURVEY FILE CONTENTS SUMMARY Massachusetts Regional Recycling Program: "A Strategy for Regional Recycling" Issued in June 1985, this report contains the following documents that have led to the development of Massachusetts' regional recycling strategy: o The Regional Recycling Strategy Proposal to Communities o The Materials Recovery Facility Feasibility Study o The Preliminary Market Report o Questions and Answers About the Regional Recycling Strategy o The Massachusetts Recycling Report Massachusetts Regional Recycling Program: "Curbside Collection of Recyclables" Issued in December 1985, this report's purpose is to provide assistance to Massachusetts municipalities interested in planning curbside collection programs. It includes the following 14 profiles of recyclables collection programs, surveyed and compiled by the consultant firm of Ferrand & Scheinberg Associates: Ann Arbor, MI Davis, CA East Lyme, CT Hyde Park, IL Linwood, NJ Longmeadow, MA Mar in County, CA Monroe, NJ Montclair, NJ New Britain, CT Palo Alto, CA Santa Rosa, CA Woodbury, NJ Kitchener, Ontario These programs are described and include information on equipment, participation, percent reduction of waste stream as a result of curbside collection, service area size, markets and other characteristics. The above programs are also included in the last section of the curbside recycling table on page 2. Waste Age Report: Recycling in Municipal Solid Waste Management /NWSMA Survey This is the original report on which two 1986 Waste Age magazine articles are based. They are, "Trends in Collecting Recyclables," page 49, July issue, and "Cost vs. Benefits," page 57, August issue. CCP 3 The report seeks to describe the experience of curbside recycling in its various forms, weighing the costs and benefits and its effective- ness in solid waste management. A survey of 43 national projects, conducted by staff of the National Solid Waste Management Association, is included in the report. Those responses which been compared with other data collected have been inaccurate. So, although much of the data may be accurate, it should be taken with a grain of salt until the results are knocn to be correct or incorrect. General Some contacts surveyed this summer for program information sent additional information. Also, some good reference articles were found relating to the programs; these are included in the file for review, listed under the municipality in which the program is located. Additional Contacts for Information This file includes a listings of all people contacted in compiling the surveys and others who may be contacted for information on programs that are not included. International Recycling Activity This file contains articles on and /or sources of information for Canadian and other international curbside recycling programs. 10.16.86 EP054P /PROTX06 E2 30'