HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/10/1987 - Solid Waste Abatement Commission V "a .gi,ir ' "fit a ).,)i� 00
. ED
I ti r V � 3 a) �D O
• 3 , � f <'k.. • t zc � . .. <.fi u y,•* r i n d . ., y r . CV N
L.w � e 1, N. � P l t ,,1 a. ' _. N .
C;) v-- 5
• .. s ,��3 ,,,, ' iA 4 t t: �r T � 1 t 1 1 ♦ N CI
.� 7 SY " '� u? % -a Sty; i , -}+ 7 Q V
L. j r�� ..+. rry. y ! Vh '
t 1M 1 ( ( L kA /A.__ :., : 5,... ,1 — _ + 17 C h- Cl) ) 'I D
,Zr NI
,..-,,.+) ''. f ‘\ ,,, ret, 4 1/44 , 1 i =
V 1
. )t om ;.;.. c � j
" • i; -) fig\ ' . 'a i i - b ii i iimpormin . :, CO z
1 j 1 F ry! `. s ^ N ..„, .., , \_11:Li .Q.
�J1 _ s \„_ to
x
. En'
m j.,
r,
.� co I
C+
a) c ii
H I r W " 0 r-3 Vi _ U Z "'1'_ w 0 ,X , E .R OC c
ti
y 0 0 m vi z
�, o . r
p4 . o ai a c°'. 3 v co y W
j 01 U f] V y O t. OD W 8 R
F--� O ✓ N
Ii• a3 y .a u R cn .- ,ti a
g W
"E• 0 a , � 3A1I 111033 3
W +) .0
3
g c6 /� M i., O U ,0 W rr ob V1 0 T •.F"• Ca c w a) • •N
P U 0 g .a c. co
V1 8 U ° o " -Li c
m o m °? �, a) a;
W w w y 0 U a GD ca 0 >, d ca ^Q a) 4 to
U W� o z 0" � 0 te a,
U 0 a� n �C�1 p 413 0 O c� a > a> y y • v G
W r�i oo ti-• a� a as pp .x v c > > ro d
W O O c O O 0 ui 03 O a3 u w 0 CGS W G O U U Z a.) c. an 4E.) 0 z co O U m Q cn
PI a F...4
03 G.) b .cy 0 .17 0 0 ai 43 a, .4 co d
O M 0 i. 0 O, F, W ' c, c. • c..[ m c� a> ,:=,
c0
g in �•� 'O O O .� O y .i] u`� p '� CO GD
cz c y E 'a, - a ,zQ uJ a) 0 c „- cu > 0 -0 I ce- Q +� Q) O 0
g 0 i. �.n ro u1 a a3 •
a> N CO ,, 1-° U CO O 'O - a ,--', GV M n ,, N v a v a3 as y c n CD .< in cti
0 `�
U `d y oo a, m o La , 3 m
a � i n 'd Q. y an c 2 `' �v U . ;
• x• , ... E-i 0 0 d F-' as m u • O c a i° . a •., U: = c
d
0.) ' a> ° m W ;; C7 C7 E... .F. o . � . w a UE- E' ii C) r= O o
� � w � 0 .+csiri vU� a. riciM �' �
O O s, al .,, • � Cn EA U T J
�, En
C
o d 0 • -. 0 0 i `r!, 0
S R: x Q 0. ✓ C7 z F ca r,
69
d:= LI W 0 � •� an a v 5 ai ` �w w 3 0 CU ^ M � 4 Q • y ^ ••-' °q a °n a CU V US CU y .d b N y CU
ZJO' g� cn a -ci .o ) '� .0 � ) 0 - a).5 - 0 a)
CU 1.4
U U r-7 0 q 2 o ro -,-) ,' G ai .. a) .� &) a , .C2' S to 0 b ° p C G 2 3 T.
r %, o . fl >, a, 5 . (° 0 .. :' 0 t u' a� 0 m ` ' e 3 ` o y t.. a) al
..• L� ca o m .d O t O` a) ca a,
LJ firrai td W M U C .� • U
• y c a ° . � O ca " ° ,.y N • m N
0 N 0
u V �'�"� * Cr w W • re W o ` . •„ a i , 0 . t. U do +' a
t,. 7 ,. `T , b . r.J• e. , O cn a> N O y " >, • 2 a y - 75 3 u{ � . �" "" N , 0 w an D O ci, c.) ° a) . z y cl) on ti s. ti‘ Us C\1 ;4 to o .o ca sy, m .. `� au O O G 'o a> 0
s--, - ,� d E, o o • w a •� ro a ti - 0 a s a�+' m y .ns N - b 4r°
q &T N E. E ., co E . a y s.9 ' -. ca . a 0 c� a d a; o '�, 'a
a w O d .-^ O t � ^ t a a ' ti �' a, O N n y t•. v s - +" to 5 0 al 0 0
` '• i ' 7' "a W q a> - ° O m a, C • 3 ca 0 a a a ) w +� ca to .b ¢' c.
G;, o .-7
c") , a 5 � � , `� c F c n . ° N > ~ 2 • >~ w0 ca pn c
�" d 4 (. , ca 0 ba O ° '' 0 a' = a> P: a. . B 0 0
O d U I., U . 2, y (: ° ca . ^O ti s c . , a> co 4, C 0 - y • r 3 r.
C/) n z, °' d q f4 ) 5 0 ca t.. 0 U Z ' c x . cn a 0 ` c i 3 cn ca ) `d y 0
'r. 5 q w 1~ w p 0 O m v N w a O •� s y O . N C S■4 ,I..,
w O O _ d oU °bo � a q a� ;>,Ug atca T.. 3 00 - 'a1—,.. .0 co0
H Z W d o a' g - x u ca - c'i c •x• `~ .--; ci M '
w !r
q
Q W
a, C P u) d N P.
P.. x o cn q �
4 ' 0 -X 0 c.) 53 0 N V' 4.1 U
3U0a aW �
CU 0 a y a W .ap W ri WF
°�- u y x Cn� p
t ttp w ° y CA w w CD w.�,- w -+, a c d
I L W u J = O
- pu b x ` ' �S� a) o m 0 C7 $ ` .. I g o a W 3 � ` om 0 Q i ► J , 3 w 4 ` g G 4 H
di 1 L L .-. CO's m U `' m: - "' 4; U C!] s i V. Z 5 E- r ia. o W
•v.�' 0� > may' Up Ud� d
U
d
z � • co •4,x W W a
P a -o > ,... Z E � 4" � ,..,d '6 � •
O CO o 081 A C74 44g
o X -u' OO>,
y s. O is 0 a� O i. �, o `� p O �, a� ca 7:1 y •
o y to 0 cn o 5 O to 0 a O 44 �. O to .�-, . . d :� cn O • N y
,42 w . a a ca 0 O cn m O a aa) 0 b • N m -0 b u a) a
^ a�
>' a 0 y v" d a; a' y O a) b an ° 0 N° > a)
0 W a `. a y � 8 a O o ro 0 a o to a A . m- m
+' z v $ a'- 5 °' ` ° 5 5� v.. o O t j c _ o •S y ca
c a 0 O . CO `"
a 5 O v c.) cn ` .o a a, aa) n �' a ' a a; A °: a o ti
ui ..A ,•.,;, w y +^'d , co p .- bo m m o m `° 0 0 m �' .� 0 . • 3 � :� 8� Q Z y C E TA 04= 0 r -o 0 R 0 . ° y `° O `" 0
i �.i+ "i L o 0 0 . .�° 0 "0 a • @ � �,, o O : � L�' to , 0 O , � •' v G 0 y `a o •
0.. Z 0 =� o ro ^ > > •;..., i.:. 0 0 y ,n 0 0-) to 1_; '� " O 0 t. S 0 ro °
A Ob 0 � to �oY �� n u ° rn ov >"° �, a m ca 0
C!1 a y y G m as 0 a' .' 0 a' m a o O m . a ° u on O
X a, ., ^, 0 a m'r/ 0 -^ ° o > -...0 m a o F, 0 O N T � en. 0 �
W S-i O ,Q t .0 w O - E ., ai O a) E.' E.' x x . (I, " .D 0 0 t u 0
CC c ca g o w ca u a A to a c � O 'D ca
'O : r . n Y `� O .�+ ca O n O
FLI ro
c „, ;.,2 . 0 . . , 3 ca z 0 a' a °: 5 v w 0 a 3 - 0 �' aVi •
r . .).- °_ is ..0 v > ° m .4 •5 as • � z v >; , o v. O • w 4, "1.;:! rn . � H c' o o .0 y Q, `"
1 "`q N :n ca y v; ai a) ` a, ca . ' �+ ) • ^ a 'a,
M % p O O y >'+ m y t. g ca y a, ^ y a t. ca c . a G s `a — . .n a te , 2 rC u) • F+ti m s .O 'D 'O y y �, C° .L U ^ ' v: y . a, cu O G a 5 -c ,
r o L J y a, O O c a t O - O ca y .. y
.. .-.5 - r i P . 9 - 1 , , : - 2 . " = . . . 1 ' 5 C/) .. ...0 Lt, .r U .0 <n P. 0 O o ca 5 t..
70
�✓'� �► ,l Knutson Rubbish Service, Inc. offers you incentives for recycling.
Aluminum
„ � ,,,�y ; ,, y • Waste Oil
�r ® Reduce your refuse bill by $2.00 each billing period by participating in our new
Recycling Klub.
, 'air- yr, ® Here's how the Recycling Klub works:
fl �.
- �d `' :. Glass 1. Collect and store your recyclables (at least two items from the Fact Sheet).
e : `" 1. Green 2. Bring your recyclables to our Recycling Center (see map for directions). On your first
' "' 2. Clear visit we'll record your name, address, and phone number on the Recycling Klub card,
y1 . ' f 3 Brown w e
f . Th ' first ep ng bo
the c r ti ard on on of your file and discount you'll receive: coupo n.
c c 1, V 'z:' 2. C olor ke e i
- Y'1' 1' (1 N ewspr i n t 3. Litter bag for your car.
U Uu 4. One kitchen magnet.
_ • Tire 3. The second time you bring recyclables to our Recycling Center you'll receive the
FOR 'ME second portion of your discount coupon.
t _
r c • .-
v • Ba
4. On your third visit to our Recycling Center you'll receive the third portion of your
discount coupon, we'll keep the fourth portion for our billing department and
423 -2294 they'll discount your next quarterly billing by $2.00.*
*Only one $2.00 discount coupon can be used for any one billing period
•
•
•
•
•
•
7/
AGENDA
SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION
EAGAN, MINNESOTA
EAGAN MUNICIPAL CENTER CONFERENCE ROOMS A & B
TUESDAY
NOVEMBER 10, 1987
11:30 A.M.
I. ROLL CALL AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES
II. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
III. STAFF REPORT
A. Joint City Council /Commission Meeting -
October 13, 1987
B. Household Hazardous Waste Collection
C. Dakota County Funding Application
IV. OLD BUSINESS
A. Organized Collection Study Status
B. Reuter Resource Recovery Correspondence
V. NEW BUSINESS
A. Criteria for Establishment of a Recycling
Drop -Off Center
VI. OTHER BUSINESS
VII. NEXT MEETING
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
M E E T I N G N O T I C E
The Eagan Solid Waste Abatement Commission
will hold a Regular Meeting
beginning at 11:30 a.m.
on Tuesday, 10 November 1987
in Conference Rooms A & B at Eagan City Hall
3830 Pilot Knob Road, Eagan, Minnesota
Packet information will follow for Commission members.
For more information about this meeting, please call
Jon Hohenstein at 454 -8100.
MEMO TO: CHAIRS HOEL AND MANN AND ALL MEMBERS OF THE
SOLID WASTE ABABEMENT COMMISSION
FROM: JON HOHENSTEIN, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
DATE: NOVEMBER 6, 1987
SUBJECT: SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
FOR NOVEMBER 10, 1987
A meeting of the Eagan Solid Waste Abatement Commission is
scheduled for Tuesday, November 10, 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.
I. ROLL CALL AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A copy of the minutes of the Eagan Solid Waste Abatement
Commission meeting of October 13, 1987, is enclosed on pages
S1-( for your review. These minutes, subject to any change,
require approval by the Commission.
II. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
The agenda, as prepared or modified, requires approval by the
Commission.
III. STAFF REPORT
A. Joint City Council /Commission Meeting - October 13, 1987- -
Staff has enclosed City Council minutes on the Special Joint
Meeting on pages f7 through S . Generally, the Council was
very supportive of the draft solid waste abatement strategy
statement prepared by the Commission and has directed the
Commission to move forward in recommending implementation steps
for the first phase of the strategy. This will involve efforts
to implement a full service recyclable drop off center and to
initiate educational programs for local schools, community groups
and community at large.
The City Council also requested additional information on the
status of Dakota County planning efforts and its relationship to
the community. Concurrent with that, the Council has requested a
resolution adopting the draft strategy statement and making its
recommendations to Dakota County.
Discussion on this matter may make use of members who were
present at the meeting as resources. No action is required on
this matter at this time, however, the Commission's item of new
business relates to it.
1
B. Household Hazardous Waste Collection - -The joint Unisys /Dakota
County /City of Eagan household hazardous waste collection is
scheduled for Friday, November 6 and Saturday November 7 at the
Unisys Defense System's parking lot. Enclosed on pages q-aA you
will find examples of material distributed at the collection.
Staff and participants will report on the collection activity at
Tuesday's meeting.
C. Dakota County Funding Application -- Enclosed on pages 33 -y7
you will find a copy of the landfill abatement funding assistance
application filed with Dakota County for operation of the compost
program, support of Commission activities and the development of
a recyclable drop off center. The budget is largely consistent
with that approved by the Commission and the Council last summer.
Staff will respond to any questions concerning the application or
programs.
IV. OLD BUSINESS
A. Organized Collection Study Status -- Enclosed on pages 0
you will find a copy of the Eagan Organized Collection Study as
submitted by Terry Guggenbuehl of Pope -Reid Associates. Staff
would urge the Commission to thoroughly review the study and its
contents for possible action at Tuesday's meeting. Staff will
complete a review prior to Tuesday to determine whether or not
all facets of the requests for proposals have been met. In the
event that no significant changes or alterations arise at the
meeting, recommendation to the City Council may be in order.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve, deny or
continue a recommendation of the Organized Collection Study to
the City Council.
B. Reuter Resource Recovery Correspondence -- Enclosed on pages
q c .fyou will find a copy of correspondence from Doug Reuter
f Reuter Resource Recovery. Mr. Reuter raises concern for the
fact that Dakota County has chosen to negotiate with three firms
for its central processing facility. All three firms propose to
develop a mass burn technology facility. Reuter was the only
proposal among those presented offering a refuse - derived fuel
alternative.
Mr. Reuter has requested City consideration of the possibility of
requesting an exemption from the Dakota County Designation Plan
to designate City wastes to the Reuter Eden Prairie Facility.
This may only be done in advance of the County's completion of
its Waste Designation Plan.
The City Council at the joint meeting stated that it would prefer
to maintain a cooperative with Dakota County unless the
interests of the City are so substantially harmed by such a
relationship as to recommend alternative service delivery
systems. If, upon review of the pertinent of findings of the
Draft Solid Waste Strategy and other resources discussed by the
Commission, it is the feeling of the group that the current
County direction operates substantially to the detriment of the
community's best interests, Mr. Reuter's proposal should be
considered. If, on the other hand, such a finding is not valid,
such an action should not be recommended to the City Council.
Depending upon the action of the Commission, staff may direct
correspondence to Reuter Incorporated reflecting your position or
draft recommendation on behalf of the Commission for Council
consideration.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny the
request of Reuter Incorporated for consideration of an exemption
to the County Waste Designation Plan and to direct staff action
consistent with the motion.
V. NEW BUSINESS
A. Criteria for Establishment of a Recycling Drop Off Center- -
Staff has received a request from Minnesota Soft Drink Recyclers
to consider possible assistance through city funds or county
landfill abatement funds for a recycling drop off center to be
located west of Highway 13 on Seneca Road. MSD is currently in
the process of securing a site and wishes to be considered for
possible assistance in implementing and developing a full service
drop off program.
In the past, when Minnesota Soft Drink Recycling has discussed
possible location in the City of Eagan, it has been the company's
intention to operate entirely as an independent business as it
does at other locations throughout the Twin Cities. The company
has determined that the cost of doing business in a young
community such as Eagan exceeds the typical budgets of such
centers and due to the public purpose nature of their business
would like consideration for assistance in center development.
As you are aware, implementation of and support of a full service
drop off recycling center is part of the commission budget and
has been submitted as such in the Dakota County landfill
abatement funding application included in this packet.
With City Council direction to support such a program, it may be
appropriate at this time for the Commission to consider criteria
for such assistance. This need is heightened by the fact that
other recycling concerns including Goodwill Industries have made
overtures to the Commission or the City directly for permission
to develop programs or for direct assistance in developing
programs. As such, it may be appropriate to define criteria of
choice or define parameters of use of landfill abatement funds in
support of projects in Eagan.
The basic alternatives available to the Commission are as
follows:
1. Direct negotiation with an actively interested firm or firms
to develop one or more programs within the community.
2. Given the scarce resources of the Commission in this regard,
it may wish to consider a request for proposal or other
means of direct comparison of proposals with the express
purpose of defining an individual city- sponsored program.
3
3. Development of a city- sponsored recycling program co- located
with the compost program, currently located south of Eagan
City Hall.
4. Other alternatives defined by the Commission.
Staff would suggest that you carefully consider a philosophically
based decision in this regard. Staff would suggest, however,
that the Commission be prepared to move forward with a
recommendation at Tuesday's meeting as MSD is close to
consummating a lease agreement and would like an opportunity to
present a proposal to the Commission at its next possible
meeting.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny a
mechanism for allocating recycling center development resources
to the implementation of a recyclable drop off center.
VI. OTHER BUSINESS
VII. NEXT MEETING
The next regular meeting of the Commission will be on Tuesday,
December 8 at 11:30 a.m.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting will adjourn at or about 1:00 p.m.
e tutAilliA
AST inistrative Assi- an
cc: City Administrator Hedges
City Planner Runkle
1/
Subject to Approval
SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION
Eagan, Minnesota
October 13, 1987
A regular meeting of the Eagan Solid Waste Abatement Commission was
held on Tuesday, October 13, 1987 at the Eagan Municipal Center at 7:00 P.M.
The following members were present: Co -Chair Tom Mann, Co -Chair Tim Hoel, Earl
Milbridge, Thom Yehle, and Jon Hohenstein. Absent were Larry Knutson, Duane
Soutor, Delmar Debilzan, and Darlene Bahr. Also present was Terry
Guggenbuehl, of Pope -Reid Associates.
MINUTES
Upon motion by Hoel, seconded by Milbridge, all members voting in
favor, the minutes of the September 8, 1987 Solid Waste Abatement Commission
meeting were approved as presented.
AGENDA
Upon motion by Yehle, seconded by Milbridge, all members voting in
favor, the agenda was approved.
ORGANIZED COLLECTION STUDY
Hohenstein introduced Terry Guggenbuehl of Pope -Reid Associates, the
City's consultant for the organized collection study. Guggenbuehl reviewed
the October draft of the Organized Collection Study, specifically as it
pertains to the alternatives to the City's current open hauling system. The
alternatives reviewed included municipal collection, contracting with the same
number of haulers as currently serve the City, contracting fewer haulers in
larger districts, contracting with a single citywide hauler, and modifications
of existing license requirements. Mr. Guggenbuehl explained that each of
these five alternatives has benefits and drawbacks relative to impact on City
streets and facilities, equipment requirements, environmental impacts, public
costs, impact on the hauling industry, legal implications and recycling
opportunities.
Hohenstein asked how many stops a typical truck makes on a hauling
route. Guggenbuehl responded that an individual truck could make 500 - 700
stops per day in an open hauling system and 700 - 1,000 stops per day under an
organized system due to increased efficiencies. Mann asked if anyone used
smaller tender trucks to serve a larger compactor truck as he has observed in
the past. Guggenbuehl responded that he knows of no one currently using the
system and presumes it to be less cost effective than simply running large
trucks because the free market would tend toward the least cost alternative.
Guggenbuehl stated that 1987 legislation enabled cities to organize
collection. Hohenstein asked whether similar protection extended to haulers
as a criticism of the act was that it protected the cities but not private
business from anti -trust litigation. Guggenbuehl indicated he would
investigate hauler protections within current legislation.
Yehle pointed out that while efficiencies may increase as
organization increases, that may not result in less expensive service because
of the possibility of price fixing. Hoel also stated that by reducing the
need to compete, organization tends to take away the cost and quality control
of the free market. Guggenbuehl responded that these concerns are valid but
that even an organized system involves competitive bidding which can act to
maintain certain controls.
Members asked if the street wear issue could be quantified in terms
of cost as well as reduced street life. Hoel asked if Guggenbuehl could
attempt to develop a maintenance cost for the current system as it pertains to
street wear.
Guggenbuehl closed his presentation and excused himself from the
meeting.
HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE COLLECTION
Hohenstein confirmed that the household hazardous waste collection
will occur on Friday, November 6 and Saturday, November 7 at the Unisys
defense systems building at Pilot Knob and Yankee Doodle Roads. He requested
assistance from volunteers among Commission members. Members expressed
interest in providing assistance and further suggested that scout groups and
police reserves be contacted as possible assistants for traffic control.
Hohenstein indicated that he would be sending out a reminder and firming up
commitments for assistance at the event.
RUETER RESOURCE RECOVERY CORRESPONDENCE
Hohenstein quickly reviewed the correspondence received of Rueter
Resource Recovery and reviewed for the Commission the current status of the
Dakota County central processing facility negotiations. Mann indicated that
the matter required additional review by the entire commission and directed
that it be placed on the next regular commission agenda.
NEXT MEETING
The next meeting was set for Tuesday, November 10, 1987, at 11:30
A.M.
ADJOURNMENT
Upon motion by Milbridge, seconded by Yehle, all members voting in
favor, the meeting was adjourned at 8:10 P.M. to be reconvened as a joint
meeting with the Eagan City Council immediately following.
JDH
Date Secretary
(S!
MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
EAGAN CITY COUNCIL
Otober 13, 1987
•
A special meeting itCounc11 was held on Tuesday,
October 13, 1987, at 7:00 p at the Eagan Municipal Center Building.
Present were Mayor Blomquist ii& City Councilmembers Egan, Smith, Ellison and
Wachter. Also present was CiiY* Hedges.
NORTHWEST AIRLINES
John Shardlow, Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban, appeared representing
Northwest Airlines to present: procs that property owners located in the
Laukka Beck/Northwest Airlin0 plaiO40 developments are using to address
future planning efforts. He 140oducfi Tim Thornton, legal counsel for NWA,
and Steve Wheeler, corporate representative for NWA. Mr. Shardlow stated that
the firm of BRW is preparine:4::::04* study entitled "Lone Oak
Transportation and Travel De for the entire Lone Oak
Development site.
Mr. Dick Ringrose, BRW, appeared on behalf of NWA, Incorporated and
L.A. Laukka Development/Wachovia and presented. a methodology regarding the
travel demand management plan. He state4 NWA, Inc., has approved land
uses in the amount of 845,000..A4.64,760 parking spaces while
Cray/Wachovia has 2,296,510 S.F spaces which are important
factors for the evaluation of trie1 denikid study. Mr. Ringrose stated that
both NWA and L.A. Laukka DevelopiRe0.*WAchoVia are planning to coordinate their
plan with the City's Master TranstiOAO to
.........
1. Gain agreement with SEH on existing traffic volumes and site generated
traffic,
2. Gain agreement with SEH on background traffic forecasts,
3. Coordinate review by SEH of the Lone Oak TDM plan.
Both Tim Thornton, 1.A$0,. counAsA: NWA, and Steve Wheeler,
corporate secretary for NWA, .00 would be attached to the
approved TDM plan. Mr. RingrO: fur40::•tated that landowners are proposing
a voluntary plan and propose" manage*the traffic. John Shardlow stressed
the importance of intergOr communications with neighboring
communities to ensure aecep.t40.9 transportation management
plan. Mr. Wheeler briefed the:44Vi:i00:04::::0;i:long range expansion plans for
Northwest Airlines reporting that the City . e'aii expect additional expansion.
FIREMAN'S RELIEF
•
City Administrator Hedges: amount of 2% premium tax and
general fund contributions for : :ffkini;f1:4::VICiolunteer fire department relief
pension fund. He outlined thq::::aiy's coni since 1981 and addressed
the projected level of fundirig.*:*based on a request for increased benefits as
requested by the pension commi:t..4e and the amont revised by the City Council.
He further indicated that it 14iiittieC4,t opinion that the City can
administer a step plan that cre in the firemen's pension
plan to those years of January 1, 1988. The City
Administrator was given further direction on the monthly amount, duration of
the new pension amount and other pertinent information for review and
discussion with the kension committee.
O'NEIL PROPERTY TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
City Administrator:::€iedges stated that the City's special legal
counsel, Chris Dietzen, who is handling the O'Neil vs. City of Eagan
litigation has requested that:: the::: : 'm ::;:o iPr"t, Elliot and Hendrickson, who
is performing the City's Masten =: r ee:i06i tat3oii: Study, be retained to perform a
specific traffic analysis for. : : : 4.11 roadways adjacent to the O'Neil property.
The City Administrator sta:te4 that the overall cost of the study is
approximately $8,300 of which ortion of that cost would be credited to the
overall transportation master plan. After reviewing the request, a motion was
made by City Councilmember Egan, seconded by Councilmember Smith, with all
members voting in favor, that the firm of Short, Elliot and Hendrickson be
retained at a cost not to exceed $8,300 to perform a traffic impact study for
the Robert O'Neil property as :
JOINT SOLID WASTE ABAT (ENT (Q /CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Members of the Soli4 W4 ?at Commission appeared including
co- chairpersons Tom Mann and T iYri' Toel' "a'oiig "with members Thom Yehle and Earl
Milbridge to present preliminary findings for the waste management development
plan they have developed during the past several months. Administrative
Assistant Hohenstein presented the potential waste management development plan
and list of findings. He stated that the basic findings involve recycling,
resource recovery and economic considers. Administrative Assistant
Hohenstein also reviewed the draft stratE 3t:::foP" waste abatement covering eight
recommendations. After a presen at? 4 df"'lengthy document by Administrative
Assistant Hohenstein, there i3a:s' 'a general discussion relating to current
compost operations, expansion.the,.ex"'sting compost site and education
opportunities for local schools: " :t a:yOt Bl,omquist stated that a concerted
effort should be made by the City to sel"ecf iii ste management program that is
long term. City Council and Commission members also discussed the necessity
that a waste management system be consistent in the County where there are
several school districts.
Administrative Assistant Hohenstein reviewed the Pope -Reid study
that is addressing hauling rou.t. nd u : r t:her, that the study would be
completed in the near future 1e fur ;t; dicated that Pope -Reid will
address source separation whU:ii is 44 important issue in the City's waste
management plan. Members of tfie City'eouncil expressed their appreciation to
the commission for all the w00 they : : love coordinated in recent months and
encouraged a community wide edu acceptance of Appendix B and
their support of a drop oft ::sij :ZW tion was given to the City
Administrator to prepare the appropriate resolution for consideration at this
time.
OTHER BUSINESS
:70OURNM'T;:
There being no furtff6r businessj:::::the meeting was adjourned at
approximately 9:45 p.m.
TLH
Dated City Clerk
f ,
Dakota County Public Health Department
3S E. Ave W. $t. Paul
Oil Drop Off Centers
The businesses listed below have agreed to accept the items listed as
a public service to their customers. We at the Dakota County Public
Health Department are distributing this list to promote proper
recycling of these materials. For additional information concerning
household hazardous waste, call 450 -2793.
Business Hours Volume Batteries Purchase
accepted? required?
Burnsville
Mr. Tire 8 -6
12520 Nicollet Ave M -Sa 4 gal no no
Burnsville
Burnsville Amoco 8 -10
12001 Co Rd 11 M -Su 5 gal yes no
Burnsville
Crown Auto 10 -7 5 gal yes no
3050 W Hwy 13 M -F
Burnsville
Eagan
Amoco- Yankee Sq. 6am -12pm 5 gal no no
1424 Yankee Doodle M -F
Eagan
Cedar Cliff Amoco 6am -12 10 gal yes no
4600 Slater Rd M -F possible
Eagan fee
Crown Auto 10 -7 5 gal yes no
3925 Hwy 13 M -F
Eagan
Eagan Amoco 7am -9pm
4205 Nicols Rd M -Sa 5 gal yes no
Eagan
Hastings
Jim`s 66 7am -8pm no limit yes no
223 W llth St M -F
Hastings
Toyota of Hastings 8am -5pm 300 gal no no
Hwy 61 South M -F
Hastings
Ed's 66 7am -7pm no limit yes no
5th & Vermillion everyday
Hastings
Hastings Amoco 6am -11pm no limit yes no
1500 Vermillion everyday
Hastings
Bahls Motor & Imp 8 -5,M -F 55 gal yes no
1017 Vermillion 8 -12,Sa with
Hastings purchase
Inver Grove Heights
Village Square 76 6- 11,M -F 20 gal. no no
6500 Cahill Ave. 7 -9,S -S
IGH
The Garage 8 -6,M -F 5 gal yes no
6466 Cahill Ave
IGH
Crown Auto 10 -7 5 gal yes no
6475 Cahill M -F
IGH
Bud's 66 5- 8,M -Sa no limit no no
6976 Cahill Ave
IGH
Inver Grove Tire 7 -9,M -F 20 gal yes no
3065 E. 65th 7 -6,Sa
IGH 10 -5,Su
Ries Texaco 7 -6 5 gal no no
6592 Concord M -F
IGH
Mendota Heights
Mendota Hts Amoco 8 -5 5 gal no no
2030 Dodd Rd M -F
Mendota Hts
ID
ti
Rosemount
Crown Auto 10 -7 5 gal yes. no
14555 S Robert M -F
Rosemount
Larry's Amoco 8 -5,M -F 20 gal no no
14460 S Robert Tr
Rosemount
Knutson Rubbish 8 -3 30 gal yes no
14345 Biscayne M -Sa
Rosemount
South St. Paul
John's Union 76 8- 7,M -Sa no limit yes no
103 5th Ave N
S. St Paul
Southview 66 7 -5:30 10 gal yes no
725 Southview M -Th
S St Paul 8 -4, Sa
Bunny's Service 7 -7 10 gal yes no
920 Southview M -Sa
S St Paul
Nipp's 66 8 -6 no limit yes no
702 Southview M -Sa
S St Paul
West St. Paul
Crown Auto 10 -7 5 gal yes no
1720 S Robert M -F
W St Paul
W St Paul Amoco 7 -10 20 gal yes no
1820 S Robert Su -Sa
W St Paul
HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE
DISTRIBUTED BY DAKOTA COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CALL 450 -2793
PAINT;
Paint is a common product that can become household hazardous waste when it is
not used up. In•this fact sheet, paint refers to a*wide range of coating
materials that can be divided into two types -- oil -based and water - based.
Enamels, varnishes, shellacs, laquers, stains
and sealers are all oil -based paints. Water- 4 11111111 based paints are called latex paints. One way to identify paint as latex or oil is by .���
dg e caitrons on the paint _ ________ __ _________
�rj!
can If water can be used for . cleanup, the paint •� '�
paint; if solvents -- such as paint p p R+ R
is a latex ""' e� +
'./
thinner, mineral spirits or brush cleaner -- must rL�
be used, the paint is oil- based. (Solvents can e
also become household hazardous wastes. A
separate fact sheet is available on solvents.)
Paint protects wood by preventing water from
penetrating the surface. Products called
wood preservatives contain chemicals that are
toxic to the organisms that cause wood to decay and are not considered paint.
The chemicals in wood preservatives are also hazardous, but must be handled dif-
ferently. A separate fact sheet is available on wood preservatives.
Why is disposal of paint a problem?
Paint contains chemicals, such as solvents and metals, that can damage the
environment and endanger human health if disposed of improperly. Paint should
not be poured down the drain, dumped on the ground, or thrown in the trash.
• When poured down the drain, many of the chemicals in paint will not be
treated by sewage treatment or septic systems. The untreated chemicals may
be discharged to lakes or streams, and contaminate these waters.
• When thrown in the trash, liquid paint can also be a hazard. Eventually,
most household trash is compacted, releasing the paint from the can. In a
landfill, as water seeps through the garbage, the paint will move with the
water and may eventually contaminate ground water. As a general rule,
liquids are not allowed in landfills. For this reason, full or partially
} full cans of liquid paint should not be placed in the trash and are not
accepted by many garbage collectors.
A MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
'I
ic.41:0„.., i
How can I dispose of left over paint?
m I L
The easiest way for you to dispose of
your paint is to use it up for its ‘ 4
intended purpose. If you do not have \ lP
future use for the paint, give it to 4., • V
someone who does. Usable paint can be 1 .. .� /
given to neighbors, friends, relatives , I ,
or local outlets such as community ser- , A _: ;,•, ,� ./ . ,
vice organizations, theater groups, or .- - \�.■ i
recreation departments. The Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has a 1
list of outlets in the Twin Cities ' .1
metropolitan area that will accept
usable paint and may be able to help you ,
find non -metro area outlets. Call •i• I =_- V
612/296 -6300 for more information. a. — r . •,
How do I know if my paint is usable?
Check to see if the paint is in good condition. Stir the paint -- if it will
mix up, it is probably usable. As a general rule, for paint to be usable by
someone else, at least one -third of the contents should remain in the original
can that has a legible label. Oil paint can be good for up to fifteen years.
Latex paint is usable if it is less than ten years old and has not been exposed
to repeated freezing and thawing. The best way to see if latex paint is usable
after it has been frozen is to brush it on newspaper to see if it has any lumps.
If there are lumps, the paint is not usable. Finally, paint containing lead
should not be used on interior surfaces.
What if I cannot find an outlet for my paint?
If you have unusable paint or you are unable to find local outlets for usable
paint, as a last resort, you can follow the instructions below to dry out the
paint, allowing the liquids to evaporate:
• Where? Find an area which is protected from open flame, children, pets and
rain, but has adequate air flow. A locked, screened porch is an ideal .
place, although a well- ventilated garage or shed may be suitable.
When evaporating oil -based paint or varnish, proper ventilation is
especially important to prevent solvent -fume build -up, which is a fire and
health hazard.
•
• How? The simplest way is to remove the lid and allow the liquids (either
water or solvents) to evaporate. This works well for small' quantities, such
as an inch or two in the bottom of the can. Larger quantities of paint take
longer to dry out and may require other methods listed on page 3.
-2-
(A
f • Then what? When thoroughly dry, the remaining hardened material can be
discarded with your regular trash. Leave the lid off the can so your gar-
bage hauler can see that the paint is hardened. In a hardened form, the
material is stable and less likely to seep through the landfill to the
ground water below.
How long will this take?
Depending on the type and quanitity of paint you have, the drying process can be
lengthy and may take from several days to several months. The length of this
process can be decreased by using one or more of the following methods. Once
the paint has completely dried and hardened, it can be discarded with your
regular trash.
• Speeding It Up:
- Paint excess amounts of paint on cardboard or newspaper to use it up.
•
- When drying paint out in the can, occasionally stir it to break the
surface scum, allowing the evaporation process to proceed.
- Pour thin layers (about one inch) of paint into a cardboard box lined
with plastic. Allow the paint to dry one layer at a time until all
the paint has hardened.
• • d
•
t_ s tir
.40 fit
- For paint that has separated and cannot be mixed, pour off the clear
liquids on top, leaving the semi -solid paint sludge in the can to dry.
The clear liquid can be poured into a cardboard box lined with plastic
and mixed with an equal amount of absorbent material, such as "kitty
litter," and allowed to dry.
- Some types of oil paints and stains may be difficult to dry out in the
can. These can be mixed with "kitty litter" or other absorbent
material in a cardboard box lined with plastic and allowed to dry.
Note: All handling and drying should be done in a well - ventilated area.
-3-
1s
1,
What if I am moving soon?
If you are moving or need to dispose of the paint quickly, and are unable to
find an outlet for the unwanted paint, you may have to make arrangements with a
friend or the next resident to carry out the drying procedure (give them this
fact sheet). Another option is to bring the paint with you to your new address
and do it there.
How can I avoid future paint disposal problems?
Be a careful consumer! Paint and varnish become a disposal problem only when
they are not used up.
• Buy only the amount of paint you need. Measure the space you need to paint
and request the assistance of hardware or paint store personnel in
purchasing the correct amount.
• Use up existing paint before purchasing more.
• Avoid purchasing exotic colors that you will not be able to use for another
project.
• Apply another coat to use up left -over paint.
• Store cans of left -over paint lid side down. Be sure to tightly close the
lid before doing this! The paint will form a seal and this will prevent
hardening or moisture damage. Store paint in a dry area, as well as in an
area where it will not freeze.
What about other painting supplies?
Other paint - related products, including wood preservatives, roofing tars and
paint thinners, require different handling and disposal. For disposal infor-
mation on these and other household hazardous wastes, write to the MPCA at 520
Lafayette Road North, St. Paul, MN 55155, or call 612/296 -6300.
-4-
DISTRIBUTED BY DAKOTA COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CALL 450 -2793
HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE
f) 21111 E
AEROSOLS
WHY ARE AEROSOL CONTAINERS A HAZARD?
• ,
Household products in aerosol containers t>, •
pose a safety hazard because the` �r
containers are pressurized. When
disposed of in the trash, the containers ; „ r,og
can be punctured in the garbage truck or
at the landfill, releasing the chemicals ' " q ' ;�; ••
in the containers. Punctured aerosol 1 � � �� '' i. : ; ' ' :�� ' v
containers may cause an explosion or
‘7 " 11.1i
fire and possible injury to sanitation "
workers. Stored improperly in your _
home, the containers can also explode or
cause a fire.
Use of aerosol products can present a health threat. The smaller size of
aerosol - propelled particles allows easier absorption into the lungs and
bloodstream, significantly increasing the potential for harm from the active
ingredients contained in the product.
HOW CAN I DISPOSE OF PRODUCTS IN AEROSOL CONTAINERS?
1. The best way to dispose of these products is to use them up for their
intended purpose, according to the label directions. If you can't use it
up, give it to a friend or neighbor who can. Check with local service
organizations - they may welcome usable spray paint, aerosol solvents, etc.
2. If you cannot use the product up or cannot find someone who will, the
following suggestions are provided for disposal:
Discharge the contents of the container into a cardboard box outdoors,
and allow to dry. When the container is empty, the box and container
can be discarded with your trash. BE VERY CAREFUL - avoid inhaling the
vapors, especially if the product contains a solvent (spray paint or
carburetor cleaner, for example). Avoid discharging the vapors in an
area near a hot surface or open flame. Do not spray near areas of
human or animal contact, such as your child's play area or your garden.
Always use care when handling chemicals - wear gloves, clothing to
cover exposed skin, and eye protection.
If the spray nozzle on the aerosol container is clogged and will plot
work, try replacing it with a different nozzle. If you cannot find a
way to discharge the contents of the container, you can store the con-
tainer in a safe place until better methods are available for disposal
of household hazardol's wastes or you can wrap the container in two
plastic bags and throw it away with your regular trash.
•�' MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
HOW CAN I AVOID FUTURE PROBLEMS WITH DISPOSAL OF AEROSOLS?
Shop environmentally! When purchasing a household product, weigh the environ-
mental risk and extra cost of an aerosol container against the convenience of
the packaging. Most products are available in non - aerosol forms - pump- sprays,
liquids, pastes, powders, and creams. Be a careful consumer.
For information on disposal of other types of household hazardous waste, write
to the Household Hazardous Waste Program, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,
520 Lafayette Road, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 or call (612) 296 -6300.
1�1
HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE 1
DISTRIBUTED BY DAKOTA COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CALL 450 -2793
PESTICIDES
WHY IS THROWING AWAY PESTICIDES A PROBLEM?
Pesticides are chemicals designed to
kill insects, rodents and weeds.
(Herbicides are pesticides that are used 4!!i!!17 —
specifically to kill plants.) These
products are poisonous to humans, pets,
livestock and wildlife. Dumped on the Mat
ground, the chemicals can run off into
lakes or streams and kill fish or seep ,
SPRAY
and contaminate ground water. ��
Unfortunately, even when pesticides are
thrown out with our garbage and buried –
in landfills, they can seep into ground \ \�/
water and may contaminate nearby
drinking water wells. • \
\ ‘
Some pesticides have been found to cause
long -range environmental damage or to
enter food and water supplies used by �-
humans and wildlife. For these reasons,
sale and use of certain pesticides have
been restricted or banned in order to
protect our health and environment.
HOW CAN I GET RID OF LEFTOVER PESTICIDES AND HERBICIDES?
Pesticides should never be burned, buried, mixed together, poured on the ground,
dumped in the water, or poured down the drain. Because certain ingredients in
pesticides have been banned from use (see table below), products with these
ingredients must be treated differently than usable pesticides.
When handling pesticides, it's recommended that you wear heavy, rubber gloves;
clothing that covers exposed skin; and eye protection. After handling
pesticides, always wash your hands and any exposed skin before eating or
smoking.
On the following pages are guidelines for getting rid of small quantities of
pesticides from your home.
`1116 MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
VA
HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE
DISTRIBUTED BY DAKOTA COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CALL 450 -2793
PESTIC3DES
WHY IS THROWING AWAY PESTICIDES A PROBLEM?
Pesticides are chemicals designed to
kill insects, rodents and weeds.
(Herbicides are pesticides that are used
specifically to kill plants.) These •
products are poisonous to humans, pets,
livestock and wildlife. Dumped on the
ground, the chemicals can run off into C,` AR
lakes or streams and kill fish or seep h
down and contaminate ground water.
Unfortunately, even when pesticides are
thrown out with our garbage and buried
in landfills, they can seep into ground
water and may contaminate nearby
drinking water wells.
Some pesticides have been found to cause
N*
long -range environmental damage or to
enter food and water supplies used by
humans and wildlife. For these reasons,
sale and use of certain pesticides have
been restricted or banned in order to
protect our health and environment.
HOW CAN I GET RID OF LEFTOVER PESTICIDES AND HERBICIDES?
Pesticides should never be burned, buried, mixed together, poured on the ground,
dumped in the water, or poured down the drain. Because certain ingredients in
pesticides have been banned from use (see table below), products with these
ingredients must be treated differently than usable pesticides.
When handling pesticides, it's recommended that you wear heavy, rubber gloves;
clothing that covers exposed skin; and eye protection. After handling
pesticides, always wash your hands and any exposed skin before eating or
smoking.
On the following pages are guidelines for getting rid of small quantities of
pesticides from your home.
1
•�• MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
1°\
2
STORING PESTICIDES
In order to store pesticides safely, place the product in its original
labelled container inside a large sealed plastic container (ice cream buckets
work well), a box lined with two plastic garbage bags, or a large metal
container with a lid. Clearly label the outside container with the name and
the quantity of the pesticide.
Store on a high shelf, in a locked cabinet or closet, or in other locations
out of the reach of children and pets. Do not store metal containers in wet
locations that might cause them to rust.
GUIDELINES FOR UNLABELLED OR BANNED PESTICIDES (see list below)
1. Continue to store unlabelled or banned pesticides until
better disposal methods are available for household
hazardous chemicals. (See storage instructions above)
2. Find a business with similar pesticide wastes that are
disposed of by a licensed hazardous waste disposal
company. The business may be willing to include your
wastes with their own, possibly for a small fee.
3. Contact the MPCA for information on other possible
disposal methods.
BANNED PESTICIDES
The following ingredients have been banned from use because they can cause
long -range damage to the environment and human health. Check container labels
to see if your pesticide contains any of these ingredients:
Aldrin OMPA (tradename: Schraden)
Arsenic Trioxide (more than 1.5 %) PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls)
Chlordane Phenarzine chloride
Copper arsenate Safrole (dog repellent)
Cyanide Silvex
DDT Sodium arsenite (more than 2.0 %)
Dieldrin Sodium cyanide
EDB (ethylene dibromide) Strobane
Endrin Strychnine *
Goal (oxyfluorfen- containing) * 2,4,5 -T
Heptachlor Toxaphene *
Kepone
Mirex Vinyl chloride
* Some uses are allowed. Contact the Minnesota Department of Agriculture at
(612) 296 -6121 for more information.
3
GUIDELINES FOR USABLE PESTICIDES
1. Use the product up according to label directions. Do not
overuse pesticides. Pesticide jugs and cans should be
triple rinsed before throwing them away, and the rinse
water should be used along with the pesticide. Do not
reuse or burn any pesticide jug, can or bag.
2. Give the product to someone else who can use it up safely:
neighbors, greenhouses, plant nurseries, farmers,
churches, garden clubs, city park departments, FFA
classes. Contact your county agricultural extension
agent for the names of others who can use up pesticides.
• 3. If you or someone else can't use up a pesticide right now,
store it until it can be used (see storage instructions
on page 2) or until a disposal system for household hazar-
dous wastes is available. Be sure to see if the product
has a limited shelf life before storing it.
4. Using the pesticide up, giving it to someone who can use
it up safely, or storing the pesticide until later are the
preferred alternatives for handling a usable pesticide.
If you absolutely cannot use it up or store it, and you
have tried but were unable to find anyone else to use it
up safely, you may follow the instructions below.
(Because of the potential environmental impacts of these
options, they should only be used as a last resort.)
Less than one -half gallon or one pound
• For solids or powders, wrap the pesticide (in its
original container) securely in newspaper or other
absorbent material. Place it inside two plastic garbage
bags or a large, sealed plastic container (such as an ice
cream bucket). This package can then be disposed of in
your garbage.
• For liquid pesticides, pack the product in its original
container inside two plastic garbage bags or a sealed
plastic container with an equal amount of "kitty
litter." This package can then go into your garbage.
More than one -half gallon or one pound
• Follow the instructions on page 2 for banned or
unlabelled pesticides. Larger quantities of pesticides
can potentially cause greater environmental damage and
should not be disposed of in the same way as small
quantities.
While you may use these methods to dispose of
pesticides, it is best to use them up or store them
for later use.
4
HOW CAN I AVOID HAVING LEFTOVER PESTICIDES?
As with all household hazardous wastes, the best protection for our health and
environment is to prevent pesticide products from becoming wastes in the first
place. Here are some ways:
1. Be sure you need a pesticide to control your pest or weed
problem. Contact your local agricultural extension
service for information on when and when not to use
pesticides.
2. Use alternatives to pesticides whenever possible.
Information handouts on pesticide alternatives are
available from:
Citizens for a Better Environment (CBE)
1515 East Lake Street
Minneapolis, MN 55407
(612) 724 -3066
Copies are also available from the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (MPCA). You can also consult books and
magazines on organic gardening for more ideas.
3. Purchase and use only what is needed to control your pest
or weed problem.
4. Use up pesticides on your shelf before buying more. Use
up older pesticides before they exceed their shelf life.
QUESTIONS?
If you have other questions about pesticides or household hazardous wastes,
write or call the MPCA at 520 Lafayette Road, St. Paul, MN 55155 (612) 296 -6300.
a
I
,,,,,, 0i.,,.. .
i .
13- HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE
DISTRIBUTED BY DAKOTA COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CALL 450 -2793
PESTICIDES
WHY IS THROWING AWAY PESTICIDES A PROBLEM?
Pesticides are chemicals designed to
kill insects, rodents and weeds. .__---.
(Herbicides are pesticides that are used ��
sspecifically to kill plants.) These - _
products are poisonous to humans, pets,
livestock and wildlife. Dumped on the i
ground, the chemicals can run off into • c,,
lakes or streams and kill fish or seep W LIQUID
and contaminate ground water. BRAY
Unfortunately, even when pesticides are
thrown out with our garbage and buried
in landfills, they can seep into ground
water and may contaminate nearby ,
drinking water wells. i ` 3� \
,
Some pesticides have been found to cause
long -range environmental damage or to
enter food and water supplies used by -
humans and wildlife. For these reasons,
sale and use of certain pesticides have
been restricted or banned in order to
protect our health and environment.
HOW CAN I GET RID OF LEFTOVER PESTICIDES AND HERBICIDES?
Pesticides should never be burned, buried, mixed together, poured on the ground,
dumped in the water, or poured down the drain. Because certain ingredients in
pesticides have been banned from use (see table below), products with these
ingredients must be treated differently than usable pesticides.
When handling pesticides, it's recommended that you wear heavy, rubber gloves;
clothing that covers exposed skin; and eye protection. After handling
pesticides, always wash your hands and any exposed skin before eating or
smoking.
On the following pages are guidelines for getting rid of small quantities of
pesticides from your home.
•1116 MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
2
STORING PESTICIDES
In order to store pesticides safely, place the product in its original
labelled container inside a large sealed plastic container (ice cream buckets
work well), a box lined with two plastic garbage bags, or a large metal
container with a lid. Clearly label the outside container with the name and
the quantity of the pesticide.
Store on a high shelf, in a locked cabinet or closet, or in other locations
out of the reach of children and pets. Do not store metal containers in wet
locations that might cause them to rust.
•
GUIDELINES FOR UNLABELLED OR BANNED PESTICIDES (see list below)
1. Continue to store unlabelled or banned pesticides until
better disposal methods are available for household
hazardous chemicals. (See storage instructions above)
2. Find a business with similar pesticide wastes that are
disposed of by a licensed hazardous waste disposal
company. The business may be willing to include your
wastes with their own, possibly for a small fee.
3. Contact the MPCA for information on other possible
disposal methods.
BANNED PESTICIDES
The following ingredients have been banned from use because they can cause
long -range damage to the environment and human health. Check container labels
to see if your pesticide contains any of these ingredients:
•
Aldrin OMPA (tradename: Schraden)
Arsenic Trioxide (more than 1.5 %) PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls)
Chlordane Phenarzine chloride
Copper arsenate Safrole (dog repellent)
Cyanide Silvex
DDT Sodium arsenite (more than 2.0 %)
Dieldrin Sodium cyanide
EDB (ethylene dibromide) Strobane
Endrin Strychnine *
Goal (oxyfluorfen- containing) * 2,4,5 -T
Heptachlor Toxaphene *
Kepone TOK
Mirex Vinyl chloride
* Some uses are allowed. Contact the Minnesota Department of Agriculture at
(612) 296 -6121 for more information.
3
GUIDELINES FOR USABLE PESTICIDES
1. Use the product up according to label directions. Do not
overuse pesticides. Pesticide jugs and cans should be
triple rinsed before throwing them away, and the rinse
water should be used along with the pesticide. Do not
reuse or burn any pesticide jug, can or bag.
2. Give the product to someone else who can use it up safely:
neighbors, greenhouses, plant nurseries, farmers,
churches, garden clubs, city park departments, FFA
classes. Contact your county agricultural extension
agent for the names of others who can use up pesticides.
3. If you or someone else can't use up a pesticide right now,
store it until it can be used (see storage instructions
on page 2) or until a disposal system for household hazar-
dous wastes is available. Be sure to see if the product
has a limited shelf life before storing it.
4. Using the pesticide up, giving it to someone who can use
it up safely, or storing the pesticide until later are the
preferred alternatives for handling a usable pesticide.
If you absolutely cannot use it up or store it, and you
have tried but were unable to find anyone else to use it
up safely, you may follow the instructions below.
(Because of the potential environmental impacts of these
options, they should only be used as a last resort.)
Less than one -half gallon or one pound
• For solids or powders, wrap the pesticide (in its
original container) securely in newspaper or other
absorbent material. Place it inside two plastic garbage
bags or a large, sealed plastic container (such as an ice
cream bucket). This package can then be disposed of in
your garbage.
• For liquid pesticides, pack the product in its original
container inside two plastic garbage bags or a sealed
plastic container with an equal amount of "kitty
litter." This package can then go into your garbage.
More than one -half gallon or one pound
• Follow the instructions on page 2 for banned or
unlabelled pesticides. Larger quantities of pesticides
can potentially cause greater environmental damage and
should not be disposed of in the same way as small
quantities.
While you may use these methods to dispose of
pesticides, it is best to use them up or store them
for later use.
as
4
HOW CAN I AVOID HAVING LEFTOVER PESTICIDES?
As with all household hazardous wastes, the best protection for our health and
environment is to prevent pesticide products from becoming wastes in the first
place. Here are some ways:
1. Be sure you need a pesticide to control your pest or weed
problem. Contact your local agricultural extension
service for information on when and when not to use
pesticides.
2. Use alternatives to pesticides whenever possible.
Information handouts on pesticide alternatives are
•
available from:
Citizens for a Better Environment (CBE)
1515 East Lake Street
Minneapolis, MN 55407
(612) 724 -3066
Copies are also available from the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (MPCA). You can also consult books and
magazines on organic gardening for more ideas.
3. Purchase and use only what is needed to control your pest
or weed problem.
4. Use up pesticides on your shelf before buying more. Use
up older pesticides before they exceed their shelf life.
QUESTIONS?
If you have other questions about pesticides or household hazardous wastes,
write or call the MPCA at 520 Lafayette Road, St. Paul, MN 55155 (612) 296 -6300.
C90
DISTRIBUTED BY DAKOTA COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT
40:17.2: FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CALL 450 -2793
HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE
SOLVENTS
WHY ARE SOLVENTS A HAZARD?
Household solvents - liquid or aerosol
chemicals used to dissolve other
substances - contain the same chemicals
as their industrial counterparts. When
used, stored or disposed of improperly,
solvents can present a health, safety --_
and environmental hazard. `
Solvents can be flammable, poisonous or
pose a serious health risk through skin -
absorption or inhalation. .
‘>
Improper disposal of the chemicals - in
the trash, on the ground or down the 41,1A ✓/ ' «;
drain - threatens the environment. Il� f�rNt
Disposed of with your garbage in land-
fills, even the small household amounts � _� -_ (//!
of the chemicals can accumulate and seep _.
into ground water and contaminate
drinking water wells.
HOW CAN I DISPOSE OF LEFT -OVER SOLVENTS?
The best way to dispose of left -over solvents is to use them up for their
intended purpose. Store the products in the original container in a safe place
away from children or pets until you can use them again. When using solvents,
always carefully follow all label directions and precautions.
If you cannot use the products up, give them to someone who will. Check with
your neighbors. Check other local outlets - for example, left -over paint
strippers may.be useful to a local furniture stripping shop. Neighborhood and
service organizations may welcome usable paint thinner. Exhaust all options -
reuse and recycling are always the best way to dispose of these wastes.
A common example of a reusable solvent that often is not reused is "dirty" paint
solvent (paint is mixed with the solvent). This solvent can easily be recycled
at home for reuse. Pour the dirty solvent into a container with a good seal and
store it for several months until the paint sludge settles on the bottom.
Carefully pour the clean solvent off the top - this solvent can be reused.
Allow the remaining paint sludge to dry completely in a well - ventilated area,
away from children and pets. When all of the liquids have evaporated, the har-
dened material can be discarded with your regular trash.
Small amounts of "dirty" paint solvent can be poured back into the paint
and mixed well. The paint can be used for a second coat or another
project.
'�' MINNESOTA POLL 'ION CONTROL AGENCY
. t '
2
ARE THERE OTHER DISPOSAL OPTIONS FOR WASTE SOLVENTS?
Other disposal options for solvents depend on the type of solvent you have -
whether it is chlorinated or non - chlorinated.
A chlorinated solvent contains chlorine as part of its chemical structure. You
can tell if a solvent is chlorinated if it has "chloro" or "chlor" or "chloride"
as part of a chemical name in any of the ingredients listed on the label (for
example, trichloroethylene or methylene chloride).
COMMON HOUSEHOLD CHLORINATED SOLVENTS:
paint strippers, carbon tetrachloride, dry cleaning products
( perchloroethylene, for example) and many degreasing and cleaning
products (trichloroethylene, for example).
Non - chlorinated solvents usually are labeled "flammable" or "combustible."
COMMON HOUSEHOLD NON- CHLORINATED SOLVENTS:
most paint thinners, toluene, acetone, mineral spirits, lacquer
thinner, methanol (wood alcohol), and methyl ethyl ketone (MEK).
Once you have determined what type of solvent you have, follow the disposal
suggestions for that type. If you are not sure whether your solvent is
chlorinated or non - chlorinated, call the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency at
(612) 296 -6300.
Although the following options for disposal of waste chlorinated, non -
chlorinated and aerosol solvents are provided, they should be used only as a
last resort. The best option is to use the solvents up for their intended pur-
pose.
ALWAYS USE CARE when handling solvents. Wear heavy, rubber gloves, clothing
that covers exposed skin, and eye protection. Do not inhale the solvent
fumes. After handling solvents, always wash your hands and any exposed skin
before eating or smoking.
1
t
3
FOR CHLORINATED SOLVENTS
1. For chlorinated solvents in aerosol containers, follow the instructions
for aerosols in the box below.
2. For less than one quart of liquid, the chlorinated solvent can be
poured over "kitty litter" in a box lined with a plastic bag and allowed
to evaporate. When the solvent has evaporated, the box and its contents
can be discarded with your regular trash. Evaporating the solvent should
be done outdoors in an area away from pets or children. (A high shelf in
your garage with all of the windows open or a locked screen porch may be
good places to use.) BE VERY CAREFUL - evaporating chlorinated solvents
can be dangerous if done improperly. Avoid inhaling fumes when eva-
porating a chlorinated solvent. Studies have indicated that exposure to
high concentrations of chlorinated solvents present serious health risks.
Call the MPCA at (612) 296 -6300 if you have any questions about how to
evaporate the solvent.
3. Large quantities of chlorinated solvents have a greater potential for
causing environmental damage and must be handled differently. Some quan-
tities and types of solvents have no good disposal options, other than
using them up. For more than one quart of a chlorinated solvent, store
the solvent in an area away from children or pets, in a box lined with two
plastic bags until better disposal methods are available for household
hazardous wastes.
FOR NON- CHLORINATED SOLVENTS
1. For non - chlorinated solvents in aerosol containers, follow the instruc-
tions for aerosols in the box below.
2. For less than one quart of the following non - aerosol liquid solvents:
• methanol (wood alcohol)
• isopropranol (rubbing alcohol)
• ethanol (grain alcohol)
• acetone (nail polish remover)
• methyl ethyl ketone (MEK)
if your house is connnected to a sewer system (not a septic system), the
solvents can be disposed of in the sink or toilet diluted with large
amounts of water. If your house has a septic system, take the solvent to
the house of a friend, neighbor or relative that is connected to a sewer
system. BE CAREFUL when pouring the solvents; the products are flammable
and the fumes can be toxic.
DO NOT pour the solvents into storm sewers. Storm sewers lead directly to
lakes and streams, without passing through a wastewater treatment plant.
For more than one quart of the above solvents, there are no good disposal
options. These solvents can be used up for their intended purpose or
stored safely until better disposal methods are available for household
hazardous wastes.
cj(2\
4 4 '.
3. Other non - chlorinated liquid solvents, such as most paint thinners,
toluene, mineral spirits, and lacquer thinner, must be handled
differently.
For less than one gallon of these solvents, evaporate the solvent by
pouring over "kitty litter" or sand in a box lined with a plastic bag.
This should be done outdoors in an area away from children, pets or open
flames. When the solvent has evaporated, the box and its contents can be
discarded with your regular trash.
Large quantities of non - chlorinated solvents have a greater potential for
causing environmental damage and must be handled differently. Some
quantities and types of solvents have no good disposal options, other than
using them up. For more than one gallon of a non - chlorinated solvent,
call the MPCA at (612) 296 -6300 for disposal information.
FOR SOLVENTS IN AEROSOL CONTAINERS
Spray the contents of the container into a cardboard box outside.
Continue spraying until the container is completely empty. The box and
aerosol container can then be discarded with your regular trash. BE VERY
CAREFUL not to inhale the fumes, especially if the solvent is a chlori-
nated solvent.
HOW CAN I AVOID FUTURE SOLVENT DISPOSAL PROBLEMS?
Be a careful consumer! Solvents become a disposal problem only when they are
not used up.
• Make sure that a chemical solvent is necessary for your cleaning,
degreasing, painting or other project.
• Buy only the amount of solvent you will need.
• Solvents in aerosol containers present an additional risk because the
contents are under pressure and may explode and cause a fire. The
smaller, aerosol particles are more easily inhaled, presenting an added
health risk. Before purchasing a solvent in an aerosol container, weigh
the additional risks and extra cost against the convenience of the
packaging.
• Store left -over solvents carefully, in the original containers away from
children and pets, until you need them again.
• Always use your existing solvents before purchasing more.
• If you can no longer use your left -over solvents, find someone who can.
For information on disposal of other types of household hazardous waste, write
to the Household Hazardous Waste Program, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,
520 Lafayette Road, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 or call (612) 296 -6300.
<30
ffj DISTRIBUTED BY DAKOTA COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CALL 450 -2793
1 ® HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE
P HARMACEUTICALS, COSMETICS
AND HOUSEHOLD CLEANERS
HOW CAN 1 DISPOSE OF PHARMACEUTICALS
AND COSMETICS?
Household quantities of pharmaceuti- I .,'
cals and cosmetics can be disposed of at -
home, without presenting a threat to the I t mm
environment.
Most outdated drugs and prescription
medicines from households (except
chemotherapeutic drugs) can be
flushed down your toilet. The �P�?O'. 4 • y am'
wastewater treatment plant, if your it ^ ' --
house is connected to a sanitary � ® ` 1
sewer, or your septic system will �/ ,
treat the chemicals. DO NOT DISPOSE � w
OF CHEMOTHERAPY DRUGS in this way. .. ;.. .
Call the Minnesota Pollution Control '•!;::
Agency (MPCA) at (612) 296 -6300 for _� � e�
information on disposing of chemo- ..
therapy drugs.
•
Cosmetics and perfumes can also be disposed of safely at home. Liquids can be
flushed down the toilet. Solids can be disposed of with your regular household
trash.
WHAT ABOUT HOUSEHOLD CLEANERS?
The best way to dispose of household cleaning products is to use them up for
their intended purpose. If you cannot use the products up, give them to someone
who can - check with relatives, neighbors and local service organizations.
If you cannot find someone to use the products, many common household cleaning
products can be disposed of in an environmentally sound manner:
Read the label carefully. If the product is a spot remover or degreaser con-
taining solvents, or if the label says "flammable" or "poison," call the MPCA
for information on disposal.
Other household cleaners - including cleansers, ammonia cleaners, pine oil
cleaners, bleaches, window cleaners, floor and car wax, most furniture polishes,
and bathroom cleaners - can be flushed down the toilet if they are liquids or
thrown away with your regular household trash if they are solids.
BE CAREFUL - never mix products containing ammonia with products
containing chlorine bleach (toilet bowl cleaners, oven cleaners,
I etc.) Toxic fumes will result.
'410' MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
(� I .
t 1
Products in aerosol containers should be handled differently. Call the MPCA for
a fact sheet on how to dispose of products in aerosol containers.
For more information on household hazardous wastes, call the MPCA at (612)
296 -6300.
(=IN
-1111Ia Cob) of ecagcan
3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD PO BOX 21199 BEA BLOMQUIST
EAGAN. MINNESOTA 55121 MOVOr
PHONE (612) 454 -8100 THOMAS EGAN
JAMES A. SMITH
VIC ELLISON
THEODORE WACHIER
Counal Members
October 28, 1987 THOMASIIEDGES
GN Admrnistwtcr
L UGEN( VAN OVEl AkL
C,r Clerk
MR JEFF CONNELL
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING SERVICES
DAKOTA COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER
1560 HIGHWAY 55
HASTINGS MN 55033
Re: City of Eagan Landfill Abatement
Funding Assitance Application
Dear Mr. Connell:
Enclosed please find three copies of the City of Eagan
application for Landfill Abatement Funding Assistance. We are
pleased to have this opportunity to make application under this
program and look forward to a challenging, positive program made
possible by its assistance.
As you can see from the application, the City Council has given
direction to staff to move beyond the strict bounds of the
Compost Program to consider alternatives for waste management in
addition to the current program. The City is actively working
through its Solid Waste Abatement Commission to develop a
comprehensive strategy for Eagan waste abatement which
complements the Dakota County and Metropolitan Council Master
Plans.
Our staff looks forward to discussing this application with you.
If you have any questions concerning it, please contact our
office. Once again, thank you for the opportunity to take part
in this program.
Sincerely yours,
9 / \
Thomas L. Hedges
City Administrator
Enclosures
TLH /jeh
THE LONE OAK TREE THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY
3
Landfill Abatement Funding; Assistance
APPLICATION
Naive of City or Township City of eagan
Contact Person Jon llohenstein
Address 3830 Pilot Knob Rd., Ragan MN 55
Phone Number 454 -8100
Project Description
- Describe the Proposed Activity including: location, personnel, equipment
needed, collection method, publicity, roles and responsibilities of various
agencies, and schedule for implementing the activity. (Use additional
sheets, if necessary.) Indicate the means for attaining financial self-
sufficiency by 1990.
See Attachment
- Proposed Service Area - Identify the area of the city or cities served by
the proposed activity. Provide a map, if applicable.
See Attachment
- Impact on the Waste Stream - Estimate the quantity of waste in tons and /or
cubic yards diverted from sanitary landfills. flow will the material be
marketed or disposed of? Is this a new activity or funding for an existing
activity?
See Attachment
- Proposed Budget of Expenditures
Sec Attachment
A. Personnel (List Positions) Hourly Rate 1 of (lours Total Cost
Administration 18.30 + o.h. 200 $5,200
Maintenance 4.25 -12.50 + o.h. 150 1,300
Site Monitor 4.25 -6.00 500 2,500
Rental /Lease Purchase Total Cost
B. Land /Buildings
C. Equipment /Materials $100 $100
D. Utilities & Maintenance 300 300
E. Publicity 1,700 1,700
F. Contract Services 14,000 14,000
C. Other (Specify) Employment Advertising, etc. 350 350
Total Program Cost • $25,450
Probable Dakota County
Amount of Other Funds (Specify Source) Household Rebate 7,080.50
Amount of Local Funds (Specify Source) General Fund 4,208.50
14,161 X 1.00 = $14,161 14,161
f of Households (S1 /Household) (Total (Total
Allocation) Requested)
Signature of Applicant Date
•
Attach Resolution Erom City or Township.
3 LI
CITY OF EAGAN
SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT AND COMPOSTING PROGRAM
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The City of Eagan has made a commitment to provide its residents
with resource recovery and recycling alternatives to landfilling.
In 1985, the City Council authorized the development of the
composting program as a first phase in implementing this
commitment. The program's objectives, as updated, are listed
below:
1. To establish a waste reduction and resource recovery system
that can be easily expanded to meet future demands.
2. To reduce the impact on county landfills by collecting 3,000
cubic yards of compostable materials and tree waste in 1988.
3. To coordinate a composting program with other waste
reduction and resource recovery programs within the City,
county and metropolitan area.
4. To establish a waste management program that is accessible,
convenient and easily understandable for residents.
5. To provide material drop -off and pick -up services at a
minimal or no charge to the user.
6. To conduct an ongoing public education program on the
benefits of composting and recycling.
Currently, the composting program accepts organic materials such
as leaves, grass clippings, garden wastes and residential tree
wastes. The material is processed through ordinary composting
and wood chipping. Compost and wood chips are made available to
residents at no charge.
At a special meeting of the City Council held on Thursday,
September 25, 1986, the Eagan City Council gave direction to
staff to expand the scope of Eagan's resource recovery and
recycling alternative development by authorizing application for
funds to conduct an Organized Collection Study on behalf of the
City. This study, combined with the work being performed by the
City's Solid Waste Abatement Commission, will result in the
development of a comprehensive strategy to implement successive
phases of the City's landfill abatement effort.
Over the past year, the Solid Waste Abatement Commission has met
at least monthly to study landfill abatement on behalf of the
City Council. On October 13, 1987, the Commission and Council
met in joint session to discuss the Commission's Draft Solid
Waste Abatement Strategy Report, a copy of which is attached.
?)S
The Council accepted the report and directed the Commission to
move forward to develop recycling drop -off alternatives
consistent with the strategy statement. To that end, funding has
been included for such a center in the 1988 budget.
In addition, the City Council has authorized participation in two
Household Hazardous Waste Collections to address the quality of
wastes entering area landfills as well as the quantity. The
first of these is scheduled for late 1987. The application
covers two such collections for 1988. This effort is likewise
consistent with the Draft Strategy.
LOCATION
The City Compost Program works from a single, centralized,
monitored drop -off site (see site location map enclosed). The
site operates from April through November to provide access
throughout the growing season. The site is open on Tuesdays,
Thursdays and Saturdays from 1:00 to 7:00 p.m. throughout this
period.
The City is currently negotiating to develop and implement a
recyclable redemption center within the community. Its location
is not yet established. The Household Hazardous Waste Collection
will be at Unisys Park, 3333 Pilot Knob Road. The first
collection is scheduled for November 6 and 7, 1987. Future days
are not yet set.
PERSONNEL
As outlined in the application, personnel for the compost site
consist of permanent City personnel performing the roles of
administration and site and material processing and maintenance.
In addition, the City has hired part -time temporary personnel to
monitor the site on the schedule described above. Volunteers are
used to publicize the City's programs and to assist site monitors
during scheduled hours. The recycling center is intended to be a
private system, while the Hazardous Waste Collection will be
staffed by current City peronnel and volunteers.
EQUIPMENT NEEDED
The City makes use of a variety of equipment for the conduct of
the compost program. In the past, the City has utilized landfill
abatement funds to purchase additional equipment for the program
and has made application for additional equipment in this funding
cycle. Currently, the City has the following equipment partially
or substantially dedicated to the composting program:
Front end loader
Hauling truck with dump box
Skidster front end loader
Wood chipper
Under the application presented for consideration, the City has
included no items of new equipment for the waste reduction
program. However, the City may participte in the purchase of
certain equipment to assist in the development of a recycling
(-EY.°
C ITY OF EAGAN .
SITE LOCATIONS
/ .. ! I _ _._ _ _ cf:- _ _ _. _. .... _ _
,,
C kri I'l '',---.-....................,.......
I,
m ;' '� Hwy 55
E
Hwy 13/ c �,
✓ 1
e ,,
o i,
U
f
ankee Doodle Road
;/
r - ea o
7"\ ,,'
II V
I
.
I ; rr e
II o <
II Y
/I c
1 ■ IP.- / // 2
I ' ..
/ J
• e
4. Q
.i,l D ufley Road ■
■
I V' o
l�,f � v •
//, "3 a (1(
/•• 1'� Wilderness
Run
I \\ I ;;," G11.. Road
i 1
;i
f .. .. .. —.. 1 .., .. ..y
1.) CENTRAL LOCATION (PERMANENT SITE)
JUST SOUTH OF THE EAGAN MUNICIPAL
CENTER ON PILOT KNOB RD.
37
C 1TY OF EAGAN .
SITE LOCATIONS
1,
/
"
/'
/r I
Ii
r/
r, '..'--.--.-"".......-''''''''''''s'.........''''''''''.....t.
m Hwy 55
E //
Hwy 1 c ',
V //
e //
O //
V
Yankee Doodle Road .I
y,
r, O
Cr
. /......\ .
ll
- � / { mil \l ey ` \ o <
" J
0
4
/ .A Dueler Road
I ■ v •
' f 4/ o
1/ y o
1 /,
!' Wilderness Run
/r
1 1
/.4 1- . (
I ; ,,. Cliff Road
.. .. .. n .. r 1 .. ..�
/ .
1.) CENTRAL LOCATION (PERMANENT SITE)
JUST SOUTH OF THE EAGAN MUNICIPAL
CENTER ON PILOT KNOB RD.
37
center. Such costs would be negotiated as part of the Recycling
Center development costs in the application.
COLLECTION METHOD
The compost program operates as a drop site on the schedule and
in the manner described above. Individuals bringing the
materials to the site are directed to deposit them in approved
locations by the site monitor. The only material brought to the
site by City staff is that which is collected and reduced as a
part of the City's boulevard tree trimming program.
The recycling center is expected to operate as a drop
off /redemption facility for aluminum, newsprint, glass and
plastic PET containers. It is anticipated to be operated as a
private enterprise. The Household Hazardous Waste Collection
will also be a drop -off program accepting household quantities of
acids, pesticides, thinners, motor oil, aerosol cans,
preservatives, caustics, out -dated medicines, paint and paint
removers, and auto batteries.
In addition, the City is completing a study of organized
collection alternatives which may impact the collection of all
wastes and recyclables. The results of the study will be
integral to future implementation of the waste management
strategy.
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
The City of Eagan operates the compost program and meets its
attendant responsibilities. It derives funding for these
operations from its general fund, County Landfill Abatement
Assistance and the Metropolitan Council. It is assisted in site
operation by volunteer personnel from time to time as described
above. No other agency or entity has responsibilities within the
described program. However, the City is considering development
of a full service recyclable drop -off center which would involve
one or more independent agencies.
SCHEDULE
The compost program, as described, is currently implemented and
has been in operation for two years. In the past, the City has
made application for costs incurred in the current year. This
year the City intends to come into conformance with the County
funding cycle. Costs indicated in the application are based upon
reasonable estimates of the time and costs expected to be
incurred through budget year 1988. The lone exception is the
first of two household hazardous waste collections which is
scheduled for November 1987.
INTERNALIZATION OF PROGRAM COSTS
By 1990, the compost program may attain financial self
sufficiency by one of two methods. First, it will become
necessary to charge a fee for compost site disposal and marketed
material in the future. The City has chosen not to pursue this
alternative in the initial phases of the program to develop use
S?)
patterns on the part of its residents. As alternatives for
disposal are reduced as 1990 approaches, the City will be able to
begin charging user fees to support the program. The other
alternative would be that additional general fund resources be
applied to the program for its administration and maintenance.
Any determinations concerning general fund allocations will have
to be made as part of the overall strategy of the community with
respect to solid waste abatement. The mix of user fees to
general fund allocations depends upon the relative level of use
and the availability of alternative disposal means.
The City anticipates that it will be better able to make plans
with regard to financing its solid waste abatement activities
when the county master plan is completed. Moreover, the
Organized Collection Study together with a broader metropolitan
area data base concerning resource recovery alternatives will
better define the financial commitments of all parties.
Ultimately the user will pay for disposal in some manner as the
costs of alternative disposal escalate.
SERVICE AREA
The entire City of Eagan will continue to be served by the
compost program (see service area map attached). The current
program allows for compostable disposal to all Eagan residents
and businesses and wood product disposal to Eagan residents. It
is anticipated that the recycling center will likewise serve the
City as a whole.
IMPACT ON THE WASTE STREAM
The City compost program diverted roughly 750 cubic yards of
compostable material in 1986. It also diverted a substantial
amount of residential tree waste, but the difficulty in measuring
the compacted volume of such materials precluded an accurate
estimate of the quantity. Based upon the heightened awareness
of the program and the availability of the site for grass
clipping disposal throughout the summer months, the City
anticipates that it will divert roughly 1,000 cubic yards of
compostable material from the landfill in 1987. In addition, the
City anticipates the diversion of roughly 250 cubic yards of
reduced wood chip material from the landfill in 1987. The
reduced material being easier to measure then the raw material,
this goal will be easier to gauge.
The complement to material collection is the marketing of a
finished product. The City of Eagan has engaged in a substantial
marketing campaign through the local press and City publications
to dispose of the wood chip and compost material. It is being
marketed to residents and businesses free of charge with the
potential for service fee charges as the program develops. This
market has grown and improved over the last year.
The activities described within this application are
continuations of the previous City composting program with
several additions designed to expand the effectiveness and scope
of the service.
�1
CITY OF EAGA
AREA SERVED BY PROGRAM
/ 7._,
/ MENDOTA HE -__—
• ' xl ' s 1 —, 7
/ I,
/
m
' E /' Hwy 55
Hwy 1 E /
/ m ,�
o •
U , i ir
I
/ `(ankee Doodle Roa q�,� �
N
rr m m W
/ o 3
11 ¢ m
i II n > r ,
II m
I i c
II Y
C CC
/ ;
••• i o. c
// Q o
1- /
IZ
/ I
� , � DIffley Road
V
/ v •
J 7
r i / y v
o
J // 9 0
j I/
I / 1 � / Wilderness
C73 1 I //'
I ,'✓ C1111 Road 1 I \ r7
I
1
•
I PL VALLEY ( ROSEMOUNT -
1\-.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTS
Attached for your review are copies of the enabling resolution by
the Eagan City Council, instituting the leaf composting /landfill
abatement program on September 17, 1985; a budget detail
itemizing costs reflected in the application; and a progress
report outlining uses of funds approved under last year's
landfill abatement assistance application.
� I
t\ I
CITY OF EAGAN
RESOLUTION
AUTHORIZATION FOR PARTICIPATION IN LEAF
COMPOSTING /LANDFILL ABATEMENT PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the Dakota County Human Services Board approved
a funding assistance policy to financially assist municipalities
within Dakota County for specific landfill abatement projects; and
WHEREAS, the City of Eagan has previously sponsored a
leaf composting program; and
WHEREAS, the Eagan City Council on August 20, 1985,
approved the operation of a composting program for the City of
Eagan; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Eagan
hereby authorizes City staff to submit the necessary grant appli-
cations and agreements to Dakota County for financial assistance
under the landfill abatement program.
CITY OF EAGAN
CITY COUNCIL
BY = ■1.4r rr ��71—
Its Mayar
Attest: F� � e� XS \, /u__ Itlerk
Motion Made By: WACHTER
Seconded By: EGAN
Those In Favor: ALL
Those Opposed: NONE
Date: SEPTEMBER 17, 1985
CERTIFICATION
I, E. J. VanOverbeke, Clerk of the City of Eagan, Dakota
County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution
was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of
Eagan, Dakota County, Minnesota, in a regular meeting thereof
assembled this 17th day of September, 1985.
E. . VanOverbeke, City Clerk
Ci of Eagan
BUDGET DETAIL
CITY OF EAGAN
SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION
LANDFILL ABATEMENT PROGRAM
1988
Personnel Cost
Planning and Administration $5,200
Compost and Wood Chip Maintenance 1,300
Site Monitor 2,500
$9,000
Publicity
Printing and Distribution 1,600
Signs 100
1,700
Compost Site Costs
Site Maintenance 300
300
Equipment & Materials
Operating Supplies 100
100
Contractual Services
Household Hazardous Waste Collections 10,000*
Recycling Drop -Off Center Development 4,000
14,000
Other
Employment Advertisement 200
Miscellaneous 150
350
TOTAL $25,450
* Consists of City portion of two Household Hazardous Waste
Collections, one each in 1987 and 1988.
)43
CITY OF EAGAN
SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT AND COMPOSTING PROGRAM
PROGRESS REPORT
CURRENT STATUS
The City of Eagan compost program is completing its second full
year of operations. It is meeting the expectations laid out for
it at its inception and the City Council is committed to
expanding its services in a controlled manner to better serve the
resource recovery and waste abatement needs of the community.
The program is staffed by a part -time monitor or a regular
schedule from April through November with the help of volunteers.
The compost site itself has been improved substantially through
the installation of landscape screening, plantings and a gravel
turn around pad which have enhanced the aesthetic compatibility
and overall useability of the site.
The City Council is exploring alternatives to expand its solid
waste abatement activities. In August, 1986, the City Council
appointed a Solid Waste Abatement Commission to examine
alternatives and recommend a comprehensive solid waste starategy
for the City.. The Commission has met over the past year to
consider numerous alternatives in the way of source separation,
collection and marketing. Moreover, the City undertook an
organized waste hauling study to consider alternatives to open
hauling together with the Solid Waste Abatement Commission
Report, this study will help define alternatives for the City's
future waste abatement strategy.
The City has encountered few problems in the conduct of its
program over the past year. Better publicity and the maturity of
the program have improved its effectiveness and response rate.
An expanded schedule throughout the growing season improved
availability of service and raised its profile.
The Wood Chip Program continues to raise issues as well. It was
intended to be an accessory service to the compost program but
due to the lack of disposal alternatives for wood products, it
has taken up over half of the summer time commitment for waste
abatement. To deal with this problem, the City has better
defined the materials it can accept as being "tree limbs and
trunks 1" - 6" in diameter." These materials reduce to chips
well while not unnecessarily taxing the equipment or the
operator. It will become necessary to develop an overall wood
product strategy to address residents' needs in the future.
Marketing of processed material has improved over the past year
due to the improved publicity and the availability of locally
generated compost. It will become necessary in the future to
gain access to a compost shredder and screen to make the material
more marketable to the public and to businesses. Dakota County
personnel have expressed interest in purchasing this piece of
equipment on a shared basis for a number of communities and the
City would strongly support that possibility. Shredders are
difficult to locate on a lease basis and their cost is
prohibitive for individual communities to purchase in the near
term.
The current site of the City compost program will eventually hold
the City's community center. Therefore, it will be necessary in
the long term to locate a new site for the program which offers
security, expandibility and ease of access. The City would be
interested in working with the County in pursuing alternatives in
this regard. This issue corresponds with the broader issue of
the County Master Plan. The City looks forward to the completion
of the County Master Plan as a means of directing strategy for
local municipalities doing solid waste abatement. The City
Council realizes that waste abatment will require cities to
change the waste disposal habits of residents. The City hopes to
be able to implement only that program which it will ultimately
follow, thereby requiring only one change of habits on the part
of residents. It is the City's firm belief that the success of
the cities and counties in meeting the regional guidelines
depends upon concerted, consistent reinforcement of a
comprehensive program and not a frequently changing succession of
abatement alternatives. To reach this end it is necessary to
complete the County Waste Abatement Master Plan on a timely basis
to allow cities to meet both county and regional landfill
abatement requirements by 1992.
The timing of the master plan completion requires that the county
pursue an exemption from the 1988 mandate for all communities
within Dakota County. This will provide further time for the
cities and the county to work jointly to develop voluntary
recycling programs which meet the landfill abatement targets in
the next four years. The City of Eagan is also interested in the
development of centralized marketing through the proposed county
waste processing facility. As with the need for an overall
comprehensive strategy, the cities would be best served by
collective marketing which would be better able to take advantage
of economies of scale and markets outside of the region. The
City believes that the big picture being designed by the county
and the part that the cities will be expected to play in it.
EXPENDITURES
The City will be submitting a request for payment for expenses
incurred under its 1986 application before year end. In the
past, the City has treated the Landfill Abatement Funding
assistance as a rebate similar to that available through the
Metropolitan Council. With this application, the City intends to
begin conforming with the County funding schedule by budgetting
for the upcoming as opposed to current year. The lone exception
being the first household hazardous waste collection to occur in
late 1987.
MATERIALS COLLECTED
The compost site was open for twenty -six weeks in 1986. Before
marketing of the material began this year, the reduced pile was
measured. The raw volume of the pile was reduced by 20% to
LAS
account for the shape of its crown. The raw volume was
multiplied by two to account for shrinkage. Based on these
calculations, it was determined that roughly 746 cubic yards of
raw material were diverted from county landfills in 1986.
Compost Yardage 28 x 5 x 3.33 x .80 = 373 cu. yds.
Original Material Abated 373 x 2 = 746 cu. yds.
The site has been open since April, 1987, for collection of grass
clippings and garden wastes. Use has been lower during the grass
season due to the smaller quantity of individual wastes
generated. Due to the length of time the material has been on
site, a certain amount of decomposition has already occurred,
however, the reduction is not of the scale of full season
decomposition. Therefore, a multiplier of 1.25 has been used to
actual quantity of material abated. Based on these
the City estimates that 360 cubic yards of compost
been diverted from landfills so far in 1987. With
rofile of the program moving into the fall leaf
ity anticipates that use will increase dramatically.
� \ X
Yardage 20 x 6 x 3 x .80 = 288 cu. yds.
O•E= Material Abated 288 x 1.25 = 360 cu. yds.
J • .: fi
7. o more difficult to gauge the landfill abatement
1•- �m the wood chipping program due to the difference in
mong the various sizes and kinds of wood products
:he site. Disposal of wood products has been brisk
and a substantial amount of wood chips have been
:he communities. Staff estimates that roughly three
times the current volume of wood wastes have been accepted this
year. A reduction factor of .50 has been applied to that volume
to appropriate compaction in a landfill.
Wood Waste Yardage 3 x 13 x 13 x 8 x .50 = 2,028 cu. yds.
PUBLICITY
The City has used a variety of media in publicizing its waste
abatement activities. These are listed below:
City Newsletter
Press Releases
Feature Articles
Handouts
Cable T.V.
Postings at Retail and Public Buildings
Church Bulletins
Mailings to Major Employers
Flyer in Local Paper
Maps
Signs
LA
The City is constantly improving its publicity with respect to
solid waste abatement. As the program has matured, the City has
developed a library of resources and graphics which can be
readily transferred to distribution materials. The timing of
publicity has improved substantially as additional lead time has
been provided for the program's activities. The City is pursuing
a variety of alternatives in this area and would like to begin
using the local school system to educate children and publicize
the availability of program services. This has presented special
difficulties to the community because the school districts
overlap into other communities with other programs. Not all
Eagan students attend Eagan schools and not all students in Eagan
schools are Eagan residents. Therefore, an approach to this
education segment will require a concerted effort among the
communities in the area.
OTHER REVENUES
The City has made use of two funding sources in addition to
Dakota County Landfill Abatement Assistance. In 1986 -87, the
City general fund applied roughly $7,500 to the solid waste
abatement program. For 1988, the City portion is estimated to be
$4,208.50. The City has also derived rebate funds from the
Metropolitan Council. In 1986, it received $5,264 from this
funding source. In 1987, the City received $6,272.50 from
Metropolitan Council Landfill Abatement Funds. As this program
has been discontinued and shifted to the counties, the City has
anticipated a comparable amount from Dakota County if such a
program is reinstituted. Absent such a program, the City's
contribution to the program may be greater. Currently, the
program receives no other revenues as the need to develop habit
formation among site users suggests the need for free services.
Once habit formation has developed and compliance rises, it will
become necessary for the City to phase in user fees for services
and materials.
OTHER PROGRAMS
The City of Eagan has no other permanent public programs of its
own. However, the City has begun in -house office paper
recycling. In addition, the City helps publicize other local
recycling alternatives in its compost program publicity.
Overall, the City is moving forward to meet the Metropolitan
Council guidelines in a measured, conservative fashion. As the
programs under consideration come to fruition, the City
anticipates that it will begin to make a substantial impact on
the waste stream. In concert with Dakota County, it is hoped
that the targets can be met by 1992 and that the use of landfills
for mixed municipal solid waste can be ended.
ORGANIZED COLLECTION STUDY
CITY OF EAGAN
NOVEMBER, 1987
Prepared by:
Pope -Reid Associates
245 East Sixth Street
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101
(612) 227 -6500
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary
Page
I. Introduction 1
II. Assessment of Current Collection System 2
Survey of Collection Companies 2
Collection Route Overlap 6
Refuse Vehicle Impacts 8
Other Impacts of Route Overlap 12
Potential for Recycling 13
Conclusion 15
III. Description of Alternative Collection Systems 16
Municipal Collection 16
Contract: Existing Number of Haulers in Districts 17
Contract: Fewer Haulers in Districts 17
Contract: Single Entity City -Wide 1
Existing with License Provisions 1 9
IV. Comparison of Existing and Alternative Systems 20
V. References 28
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
CI
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
List of Tables
Page
1. Licensed Solid Waste Companies 3
2. Average Residential Collection Steps 6
3. Collection Vehicle Characteristics 9
4. City Responsibilities and Hours 22
5. Comparison of Collection Systems 26
List of Figures
1. Areas of High Weekly Concentrations of Collection Vehicle
Traffic 7
2. Average Stops Per Day 8
INTRODUCTION
In July, 1987, the City of Eagan contracted with a consultant, Pope -Reid
Associates, to conduct a study of the City's existing collection system and
potential alternative systems. The study was designed to compare the systems
and provide information for any future decisions by the City. No recommen-
dations for action are made.
The impetus for studying the residential waste collection system in Eagan stems
from a need to provide a cost - effective, safe, environmentally sound service to
citizens. An additional impetus for the study is to examine the most effective
means of coordinating the waste collection system with a curbside recycling
program. The Dakota County Solid Waste Master Plan recommends that cities
within the County recycle a specific portion of the waste stream. If the City
of Eagan enacted a curbside recycling program, it would be advantageous to
reduce the potential for conflict with solid waste collection.
The Waste Management Act; Chapter 348 Section 27, allows cities or towns to
organize collection of solid waste (see Appendix C). If the City elects to
organize collection, it has the legal authority to do so.
ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT COLLECTION SYSTEM
As of mid -1987, sixteen solid waste collection companies were licensed to
operate in the City of Eagan. Table 1 identifies the hauling companies and
illustrates that eleven out of the sixteen companies collect residential waste.
The residential waste collection system is the focus of this study. Those
haulers collecting waste solely from commercial accounts were not included in
the survey. Some of the residential haulers collect from commercial accounts
and large apartment complexes but, for the most part, these accounts were not
considered in this study.
Survey of Collection Companies
Between July 13th and July 25th, 1987 a telephone survey was conducted of all
refuse haulers licensed in Eagan. A sample survey is included as Appendix A.
Since the survey is the main source of information used to describe the existing
residential waste collection system, it was very crucial to achieve the coopera-
tion of waste haulers. Nine out of the eleven residential waste haulers in the
City responded to every question. A complete description of each question,
expected level of detail and problems encountered follows.
• Employees
Haulers were asked the number of employees that typically serve their
residential accounts in Eagan. There were no problems in acquiring this
information.
• Vehicles
The type of collection vehicles used in Eagan, the number of each type,
and whether the vehicles are owned or leased is important information
used to determine load capacities and the potential for separate special
collections. Every hauler responded with the requested information.
• Other Equipment
In the survey, haulers were asked if they used other equipment such as
containers. Other equipment, in particular containers, could be useful
if the City starts contracting for collection of recyclables or yard
waste. No problems were encountered in receiving this data.
Table 1
Licensed Solid Waste Collection Companies
(City of Eagan: 7/87)
1. Action Disposal Commercial Only
4300 E. 65th St.
Inver Grove Heights, MN 55155
455 -8634
2. Browning- Ferris Industries Commercial Only
9813 Flying Cloud Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
941 -8394
3. City Clean -Up
William Kreitz
2841 Burnside Ave.
Eagan, MN 55121
454 -6768
4. Dana's Eco Service
3313 Valley View Drive
Burnsville, MN 55337
435 -7209
5. Dick's Sanitation Service Commercial Only
21338 Dodd Road
Lakeville, MN 55044
469 -2239
6. Expert Disposal, Inc. Not Collecting as of 7/87
3131 Sibley Memorial Hwy.
Eagan, MN 55122
688 -6666
7. Knutson Rubbish Service
14345 Biscayne Avenue
Rosemount, MN 55068
423 -2294
8. Laker's Disposal
3275 East 260th Street
Webster, MN 55088
461 -2276
7 53
Table 1 (Continued)
Licensed Solid Waste Collection Companies
(City of Eagan: 7/87)
9. Mendota Heights Rubbish
20700 Donnelly Avenue East
Farmington, MN 55024
437 -6786
10. Metro Refuse Commercial Only
8168 West 125th Street
Savage, MN 55378
890 -0861
11. Quality Waste Control
1901 West 144th Street
Burnsville, MN 55337
435 -3454
12. Roadway Rubbish
2400 Dodd Road
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
454 -7152
13. Triangle Services
1881 Lexington Avenue
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
454 -1848
14. Valley Sanitation
15296 Dresden Trail
Apple Valley, MN 55124
423 -2992
15. Waste Management, Inc.
12448 Pennsylvania
Savage, MN 55378
890 -1100
16. Woodlake Sanitary Service, Inc.
9813 Flying Cloud Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
941 -5174
S—lj,
• Collection Routes and Dates
One of the most important questions asked on the survey was the approxi-
mate daily routes of each hauler. Routes and collection dates can help
determine if extensive overlap is occurring. Most haulers were unable to
specify precise routes but service areas were provided. Although less
specific than actual routes, service areas can be used to locate areas
where more than one collection company travels the same residential
street each week. Two companies did not release route information citing
competitive reasons for their refusal.
• Number of Daily Stops
This question, coupled with the daily routing information, helps to iden-
tify the density of pick -ups or the stops per mile which is an indicator
of efficiency. Haulers were asked to identify those stops which were
non - apartment complex residential and within the City of Eagan. Nine out
of eleven haulers released this information.
• Average Tonnage
Haulers were asked to indicate the average tonnage of waste collected on
their routes on a daily or weekly basis. This question was included to
determine vehicle capacities and provide additional background infor-
mation. Some haulers did not provide this information.
• Rates
Monthly or quarterly rates for existing collection services can be used
to compare with alternative systems to determine if any differences are
apparent. It was pointed out to haulers that rate information would not be
used to compare one company with another. All but one hauler supplied
the requested data.
• Current Recycling
Haulers were asked if they provide separate collection of recyclable
materials or yard waste as a special service. The intent of this
question is to identify current curbside recycling activities in order to
assess the potential for city -wide curbside collection. All but one
hauler responded.
• Potential Recycling
A final question asked if haulers were currently capable of providing
curbside collection of recyclables or yard waste. The question was added
to gain insight on options available to the City for a potential curbside
recycling program. Two haulers did not respond.
Collection Route Overlap
The results of the survey indicate that a high potential exists for route
overlap; particularly in the western part of the City (see Figure 1). Figure 1
identifies only those areas served by five or more haulers. High concentration
areas shown on Figure 1 should not be interpreted as having the indicated number
of vehicles travel every street within these areas. However, it is likely that
some streets, especially major streets, will have the indicated vehicle use.
The most concentrated area is bounded by Silver Bell Road on the north,
Blackhawk Road on the east, Diffley Road on the south and Rahn Road on the west.
Nine or more refuse collection vehicles per week travel residential streets in
that area.
The concentration of collection vehicles becomes more evident when it is
recognized that 70 percent of all Eagan residential stops occur Monday through
Wednesday, as shown in Table 2 and Figure 2. In high weekly concentration
areas, approximately two - thirds of the vehicles collect during the first three
days of the week.
Table 2
Average Residential Collection Stops
By Day of the Week
(City of Eagan: 7/87)
Day __Average Stops
Monday 2,755
Tuesday 2,300
Wednesday 2,360
Thursday 1,500
Friday 1,666
TOTAL 10,581
FIGURE 1
AREAS OF HIGH WEEKLY CON CENTRAT IONS
OF COLLECTION VEHICLE TRAFFIC
(CITY OF EAGAN: 7/87)
- r r ' %Wilk V
gy m i . _ � �'� ,, / Lir,
yt r 6 r/
... '', 67 N ' $ /0 MI' :
• 1AVI ... r■welmitb. tail/AM ,.
.- .. / /,,, �
� s r I
.. 1 ' V' , �r — � e,„„,,
/ / . / 0 h ` / / / lip 4
' A 0 y,,. D. 1 fe/ Adt, !
, • / v , �./ /ice A 4 . " . ' 4)R% *• V ,,,,, 1
. 111 C ti V i"1" 2 1 i A e 4 % fit/ , �� / Aiel �1 //, r._ A 1 l i b il lr ill 1"*4°4° ‘ . tit .4‘ii''
/‘
!d Li ..�� ,IhVitt�/.�'AMI11 �� . x,11` fate Ali/ 1 "111P - ' / D . dRio. ,,,,,„mi Arlo g Ait„
10 ma, ...A li _ _ i d:,
v_,f ,' mss' � //
, � -� /ll/ /// /1/ . /
r-
NUMBERS WITHIN OUTLINED AREAS REPRESENT THE NUMBER OF
HAULERS SERVING THOSE AREAS EACH WEEK
(DOES NOT INCLUDE TWO HAULERS)
757
FIGURE 2
AVERAGE STOPS PER DAY
(CITY OF EAGAN: 7/87)
3500 —
3000
2500 -
2000- 0
.� f
1500 -
1000 . / 4. .0
.p,A .1
5n_ 0
11 ON TUES WED THURS FRI
The prevalence of overlapping routes has even been noticed by the waste haulers
themselves. During the survey, several respondents recognized that overlapping
was occurring. One hauler stated that his crews were "crossing paths with other
haulers 2 to 3 times a day." The potential effects of refuse vehicle traffic
are examined below.
Refuse Vehicle Impacts
Frequent refuse collection vehicle traffic has adverse impacts on neighborhoods
and the city as a whole. These impacts include:
• safety;
• noise;
• street wear; and
• air pollution.
58
To analyze potential impacts, the type of vehicles must be identified. Table 3
indicates the type, size, and number of collection vehicles used on Eagan's
residential routes. The average capacity is slightly over 17 cubic yards.
Nationally, the capacity of collection vehicles is increasing in order to mini-
mize long trips to disposal facilities. Many trucks are now in the 26 to 30
cubic yard capacity range. Compared to national trends, the capacity of collec-
tion vehicles used in Eagan is low.
Table 3
Collection Vehicle Characteristics
(City of Eagan: 7/87)
Type Capacity (cu. yds.) Quantity
Open Truck 10 1
13 1
Side Loader 17 4
Rear Loader 16 1
17 2
18 5
20 1
TOTAL 451 26
AVERAGE 17.3 --
• Safety
Refuse vehicles are prone to cause or be involved in a higher rate of accidents
per truck than automobiles. The reason is that refuse trucks typically move
slowly, obscure vision, and make frequent stops. Trucks can cause traffic
congestion which may cause related accidents. A particular problem with refuse
vehicles is the fact that most use occurs in residential areas where few other
trucks or large vehicles are encountered. When the concentration of refuse
vehicles increases, the possibility of accidents also increases. On the other
hand, if only one truck collects from an area and the driver is inattentive, the
chances of an accident would be as likely as if several trucks with attentive
drivers collected from an area.
Accidents are normally a function of vehicle -miles traveled. The current system
of refuse collection results in more vehicle -miles traveled than an organized
system. It can be concluded that congestion and accidents would tend to be more
frequent under the existing system.
• Noise
Trucks and other large diesel - powered vehicles are typically noisy. The noise
of these vehicles may be more evident because of the normally quiet residential
areas in which they operate. Stopping and starting, metal containers, com-
pactors and crews contribute to noisy operations. Although the potential for
noisy operations increases with a higher concentration of trucks, a single
unmaintained truck may result in more complaints. Poorly maintained vehicles
I/ are noisier, dirtier, and less safe than maintained vehicles. The City reports
:� no problems with current maintenance levels. As it stands, few, if any
. complaints about noisy refuse trucks have been received by City officials. The
•
" current system offers little control by the City over the maintenance levels of
� vehicles.
• Street Wear
The greatest impact to the City caused by refuse trucks is wear and tear on City
streets. Previous studies have determined that street wear from an average,
half - filled 18 cubic yard refuse truck is equivalent to 1,500 automobiles per
day. This figure was originally developed by the Center for Government Studies
n\e at Columbia University (Reference 8) and was used in subsequent studies by the
City of St. Paul and the Metro Council. The Minnesota Department of
Transportation also uses this figure as a guide in roadway planning.
The impact of empty trucks versus partially full or full trucks is not fully
defined but it is certain that a full truck has more impact than an empty truck.
A full 18 cubic yard truck can be carrying 6 to 9 tons of garbage. On streets
with weight restrictions, a fully loaded refuse truck could cause road surface
degradation with only a few passes over the weight restricted areas.
On residential streets designed for a life of 20 to 30 years of relatively light
traffic use, the impact of more than one refuse truck per week can be substan-
/ O
tial. In the section of the City where 9 refuse trucks each week collect on
residential streets, the road surface impact is equivalent to 13,500 automobi-
les. Some of the streets in that area may have Monday through Friday automobile
volumes of 2,500 or less so it is evident that major wear and tear will be due
to refuse collection trucks. More detailed study could determine expected rates
of deterioration. It can be assumed that the useful life of a street designed
to last 20 years may be cut by 2 to 8 years due to the impact of several refuse
trucks per week based solely on increased truck traffic.
The long -term effect of such wear and tear results in more frequent repairs and
replacement. This translates into increased costs to the City and thus, to the
taxpayers. It can be expected that if the number of refuse trucks collecting on
any residential street was reduced to one or two per week, the life expectancy
of streets would be greatly extended. The City's 1987 budget for street main-
tenance was about $800,000. Of this total, about $60,000 is spent on repairing
damaged roads. It is likely that less refuse truck traffic in the future could
translate into either lower maintenance costs or the ability to channel budgeted
dollars into other maintenance needs. Pope -Reid Associates calcualtes that if
half of all street damage is due to refuse vehicles and the number of vehicles
is reduced by 80 percent, the City could save nearly $32,000 or about four per-
cent of all street maintenance expenses.
• Air Pollution
As with all motor vehicles, refuse trucks emit air pollution. Diesel truck
engines emit hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and small amounts
of particulates, sulfur oxides, aldehydes, and organic acids. The potential for
air pollution increases as vehicle -miles traveled increases. It can be
expected, therefore, that the current collection system contributes to more air
emissions than an organized system.
The impact of refuse trucks on air pollution caused by motor vehicles is very
small. The overall effect of organized collection versus the current system
would probably not be detectable. The greater number of vehicles in use under
the current system is offset by higher rates of emissions per vehicle under an
organized system. A higher emission rate is due to slower speeds; i.e. more
stopping and starting, under an organized system.
l¢1
Other Impacts of Route Overlap
Aside from impacts attributable to refuse collection vehicles, other effects of
route overlap have been identified. These include neighborhood /community
aesthetics and costs.
• Neighborhood /Community Aesthetics
The current collection system consists of several collection companies traveling
the same streets each week. One adverse result of this collection method is
that refuse containers are typically evident on nearly every City street several
times a week. Conceivably, five houses in a row could contract with five dif-
ferent collection companies which collect on five different days. Refuse con-
tainers would be visible on each of those days. Once containers are placed on
the curb, they are subject to scattering of garbage or cans by animals or wind.
Litter or garbage cans are unsightly and detract from the aesthetics of the com-
munity.
• Costs
The inefficiency of the current system is characterized by a high number of
miles traveled to collect waste. The system is very competitive but labor and
vehicle operation and maintenance costs are high. The average monthly cost of a
residential waste collection service in Eagan is $11.40. The range of the ele-
ven available services is $10.00 a month to $14.50 a month.
A survey conducted by the Metropolitan Council in 1985 found that the household
agreement collection system such as Eagan's was 26 percent more costly than
organized collection. A 26 percent savings on the current Eagan average of
$11.40 a month amounts to $2.95 a month. The annual savings per household would
be $35.40. Although these figures are estimates and should not be regarded as
absolute, it has been verified through several surveys that collection systems
similar to Eagan's are more costly. In 1985, the average monthly cost of
contract collection for 23 metro area cities was $6.03. The average monthly
charge in 1985 for open collection service was $8.21, or 36 percent higher than
contract collection.
Monthly costs for contract collection in 1985 ranged from $3.88 in Wayzata to
$8.50 in St. Bonifacius. The current (9/87) monthly cost to City of Blaine
households is $6.18. Blaine is similar in size to Eagan (about 11,000 house-
holds and 36,000 population) and has had organized collection for several years.
The Center for Government Studies of the Graduate School of Business at Columbia
University conducted a survey of 2,060 cities with a combined population of 52
million people. The survey results coincide with the results in the Twin Cities
metro area in that contract collection is lower in cost than open collection.
The study concluded that cost savings were due to economies of scale, lower
billing costs, and reduced travel time between stops.
It should be noted that all households in a city with organized collection pay
for refuse pickup. Under an open system, homeowners can provide their own
transportation to disposal sites or transfer stations or double up with neigh-
bors to share one account.
Potential For Recycling
Recycling can be accomplished in three major ways. A drop -off system relies on
each resident to separate wastes and deliver recyclables to a central location.
Residents may or may not be reimbursed for the recyclable materials. The City
could establish a drop -off center and contract with a refuse hauler or spe-
cialized recycling operator for managing the center. The method of collecting
refuse normally has no bearing on the effectiveness of a drop -off recycling
program. However, participation may increase in recycling if collection of
refuse is based on weight or volume. For example, if residents have an incen-
tive to keep recyclables out of the waste stream by increased disposal costs for
large waste generators, more recycling should occur.
Recyclables can also be collected along with refuse and taken to a central pro-
cessing facility or intermediate processing center for separation on a larger
scale. It is unlikely that the City of Eagan would have such facilities but
Dakota County is planning for a central processing facility as well as,
possibly, an intermediate processing center. Implementation of these facilities
would have no effect on the collection of refuse.
Curbside collection of recyclables separated at the source of waste generation
is the most effective recycling method in terms of participation and volumes
collected. It is also the type of recycling that has the most potential to be
coordinated with refuse collection. The open collection system currently used
in Eagan makes it difficult to provide comprehensive curbside collection of
recyclables. The City could contract with a separate entity to collect
recyclables but it would be difficult to offer incentives to residents in order
to enhance source separation.
Of the eleven residential waste haulers, none currently provide a regular
recycling service. Six companies indicated that their vehicles could be con-
verted to collect separated recyclables. Three companies stated that they did
not have the capability of collecting separated recyclables. Two companies did
not respond.
The impetus for a curbside source separation recycling program will come from
the City or County. No haulers had plans to collect recyclables without outside
incentives or subsidies because the recycling collection business does not pay
for itself. Therefore the City would have to collect recyclables on its own or
contract with a company independent of the collection of solid waste. This
means that the current method of waste collection would neither add nor detract
from a curbside collection program.
There is no solid evidence that as tipping fees increase, private companies tend
to collect recyclables without subsidies or incentives from public sources. In
the metro area, the major impetus for private recyclable collection is a com-
bination of potential revenue frorii the sale of recyclables and subsidy through
service fees.
The primary factor that negatively affects the current system is that the
savings of enacting a source separation program would be difficult to pass onto
residents. This is because refuse haulers would probably continue to collect
waste without reducing their rates. It would be more effective to offer mone-
tary savings to households that source separate recyclables. A good example of
the type of service which would provide savings is a metered bag collection.
This service is directly tied to the volume reductions offered by source separa-
tion. A metered bag service or other volume - related service is currently not
available through any of the haulers serving Eagan. As disposal fees increase,
haulers may begin providing volume - related services. There is no definitive
cost level in which haulers tend to provide metered bags or other volume -based
fees.
Conclusion
The current collection system is inefficient in many respects. The previous
paragraphs focused on some of the negative factors and limitations of the
existing system. The household agreement collection system does have some
advantages; notably, the freedom for a household to select the hauler of their
choice and the level of service which best meets their needs. Maintaining the
existing system also allows for free enterprise for the small and large busi-
nesses engaged in collecting waste. While haulers sell, consolidate, or go out
of business under all hauling systems, the existing system allows some haulers
to prosper and others to fail based on their own capabilities.
A more detailed comparison of the existing household agreement system with
alternative collection systems follows the next section which describes the
alternative systems.
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVE COLLECTION SYSTEMS
There are three major methods of waste collection. The first is through a
household agreement. This is the open collection system currently available in
Eagan. The existing system with possible license restrictions will be studied
as an alternative. Another collection method is municipal collection. It
involves providing waste collection as a municipal service by city employees.
Additional methods are included and defined as contract collection, often called
organized collection. This can involve contracting with one or more haulers or
organizations to collect waste city -wide or in various districts. The contract
collection system can be implemented in so many ways that the major methods will
be studied separately in this document. To summarize, the alternative systems
which will be examined are:
• Municipal Collection
• Contract: Existing Number of Haulers in Districts
• Contract: Fewer Haulers in Districts
• Contract: Single Entity, City -wide
• Existing with License Restrictions
• Municipal Collection
Providing solid waste collection as a city service by city employees is not com-
monly found in communities throughout the country. Municipal collection,
however, is somewhat common if only large (over 250,000) cities are considered.
For instance, New York City provides municipal collection. In the Twin Cities
area, Minneapolis provides municipal collection to about half of Minneapolis
(62,000 households) and Farmington provides collection to all of Farmington
households.
In general, municipal collection is the most costly collection method because
municipal waste collection employees typically have better salary and benefits
than their private collection counterparts and because the capital and
operation /maintenance costs of vehicles is high. Advantages of municipal
collection include: no overlapping routes; ease of billing; and ease of incor-
porating separate collections for recyclables, yard waste, or special items.
Purchasing or leasing equipment, hiring employees, and establishing the munici-
pal collection program would be costly for the City and may be unacceptable to
citizens. The national trend in the waste management industry is to move away
from municipal systems and move toward privatization.
s Contract: Existing Number of Haulers in Districts
This type of contract collection entails dividing the City into eleven residen-
tial collection districts (the current number of residential haulers) and
allowing each of the existing haulers to collect only within the appropriate
districts. The districts would be sized by the number of residential accounts
each hauler currently maintains. Billing could be done by either the City or
the haulers.
The City of North St. Paul organized collection in 1986 by dividing the City
into the same number of districts as residential haulers. City officials have
indicated no unexpected problems with the new system. North St. Paul household
costs prior to organizing collection was $9.00 per month. After organizing,
costs dropped to $6.95 per month.
District collection eliminates most of the route overlapping which occurs under
the existing system. Yet, eleven districts may be burdensome and costly for
City staff to establish and manage. Since each hauler has different capabili-
ties due to personnel and equipment, each district may have different contract
terms to suit the hauler's capabilities. Varying contractual arrangements may
result in non - uniform costs and services to residents. Haulers may also
encounter limited business growth opportunities because all districts will not
experience the same growth in the number of households.
• Contract: Fewer Haulers in Districts
A variation of the contract collection system described above is to divide the
City into fewer districts than the current number of haulers. This system is
more manageable if the number of districts is kept small. The City would
contract with a number of haulers to collect within assigned districts. As with
other contract collection systems, customer billing could be either the haulers'
or the City's responsibility.
For haulers, the system is less desirable because not every hauler is assured
of a contract. The result is that some haulers will no longer conduct a resi-
dential waste collection business in Eagan.
The formation of districts causes potential inequities in household growth
potential. One district and its assigned hauler may experience low growth
opportunities while another district and hauler may be the center of residential
growth. Districts would have to be re- defined periodically or haulers would
have to be re- assigned to different districts to alleviate inequities.
• Contract: Single Entity, City -wide
Another variation of the contract collection system is contracting with a single
hauler or consortium of haulers to collect residential waste from the entire
City. This is the most common form of organized private collection. In
Minneapolis, half of the City (62,000 households) has waste collected by a con-
sortium of waste haulers that organized to respond to the City's Request for
Bids. The haulers formed an organization and established districts. They
respond to City contracts as a single unit. The City handles billing. Other
cities have organized collection with similar responses from haulers.
The City of Hastings, in turn, contracts with a single hauler for collection of
the entire City. Billing is conducted by the hauler. Monthly costs for
Hastings' approach is relatively high at $10.00 per household (as of 9/87).
Contracts for a single entity are fairly simple for the City to manage since
only one contract is normally required. On -going administrative respon-
sibilities are generally limited to billing (if the City accepts billing
responsibility), periodic re- bidding or re- negotiating contracts, and addressing
citizen concerns.
A disadvantage is that some or most haulers may lose business in Eagan unless
haulers organize a consortium to respond to a request for bids of a contract for
negotiation. The City may foster or encourage a response from a consortium if
7 �U
it chooses. The City of Minneapolis assisted haulers in their efforts to form a
consortium to serve the City.
• Existing System with License Restrictions
A method of providing some efficiency in the collection system without orga-
nizing or contracting is to strengthen licensing provisions. Provisions which
could be subject to strengthening include: establishing collection districts,
vehicle specifications and maintenance requirements, performance bonding,
collection of recyclables and /or yardwaste, and other service - oriented items.
A problem with attempting to organize collection though license provisions is
that more enforcement would be required to assure compliance. License provi-
sions also tend to be less legally binding than contracts.
Other items which diminish the usefulness of this arrangement include no
distinct cost savings over the existing system and impacts to the environment
and streets differ little from the existing system.
c,
COMPARISON OF EXISTING AND ALTERNATIVE SYSTEMS
Table 5 capsulizes a comparison of the existing residential waste collection
system with alternative collection systems. A more detailed comparison is pre-
sented below.
e Infrastructure Impact
With up to 9 refuse vehicles per week traveling on some residential streets, the
existing collection system could be taxing the integrity of older streets and
hastening the aging of newer streets. All other alternatives offer less street
impact. Depending on how each was set up, as low as one truck per week could
collect on most streets. With refuse collection to apartment buildings and
businesses added, the truck impact would be greater than one truck per week,
however.
A comparison of the lowest street wear options (municipal and contracting with a
single entity) with the highest street wear option (the existing system) shows
that up to 9 trucks per week currently travel in some parts of the City compared
with 1 truck under the lowest options. By converting truck traffic to auto
traffic (one truck equals 1,500 autos), the weekly impact to streets could range
from 1,500 autos to 13,500. Many residential streets carry Monday through
Friday volumes at under 2,500 cars. It is evident then, that the existing
system can deteriorate road surfaces significantly faster than alternate
systems. The precise degree of deterioration is difficult to determine due to
other factors involved in road wear such as construction methods, underlying
soils, weather, and unusual traffic.
e Equipment Requirements
Implementation of a municipal waste collection system would entail a significant
equipment purchase by the City. Vehicles and maintenance items would be an
upfront capital cost. No other option involves the purchase of new equipment by
either the City or haulers except if a curbside recycling /yard waste collection
program was implemented. Three of the 11 haulers have the capacity to collect
recyclables. However, the survey question did not identify the requirements of
curbside collection.
• Customer Service and Cost
Many customers of private haulers are very insistent upon the level of service
they require. Nearly all haulers will accommodate the requests of customers
although special services will cost more. Other customers prefer minimum ser-
vice at a low cost. Under the existing system, customers are often able to
select the level of service desired. Some common services are pick -up of large
items, back -in driveway pick -up, and provision of containers. These services
are not provided by all haulers and those that do provide them, charge extra.
Only the existing system offers the customer as much choice in selecting ser-
vices. Other systems, such as contract collection, can include special services
if they are included in contracts. Again, inclusion of special services in a
contract will increase the cost of disposal.
The existing system provides excellent service at fairly high cost. Costs are
held down due to competition. Other, organized collection systems frequently
have service with fewer frills but at a lower overall cost due to greater effi-
ciency.
• Environmental /Aesthetic Impacts
Noise, diminished safety, air pollution, and placement of garbage on curbs are
all impacts related to the frequency of collection vehicles on residential
streets. The existing system, with up to 9 trucks per week on some streets,
carries the potential for the most negative environmental and aesthetic impacts
to neighborhoods and the city. The alternative systems are substantially less
likely to impact the environment or neighborhood and city aesthetics. The
contract system with several districts and the existing system with license
restrictions may have more truck traffic and related environmental /aesthetic
impacts than municipal or contract with a single entity. Yet the impacts would
be less than the existing system.
N. 7(
• Administrative /Capital Costs to City
Maintaining the existing system would result in the lowest costs to the City
although the costs to individual households would be high. The City has vir-
tually no responsibility other than licensing under the existing system. Every
other system would entail more staff time and, possibly, more direct costs from
the city. Some of the tasks and a range of staff commitments are present in
Table 4. Ranges in hours are due to uncertainties of implementation. For
instance, billing could be done in conjunction with quarterly water /sewer bills
or it could be done separately on a periodic basis. Contract and licenses nego-
tiations or revisions could be done annually or to match the contract term which
could be every 3 to 5 years. The number of contracts and licenses are the major
factor. Responding to citizen concerns or complaints is difficult to estimate.
Eight to 35 hours per month can be expected to handle citizen concerns. Other
time commitments will be needed to meet with elected officials, draft documents
and administer the program. The total staff requirements range from less than
one -half of a full -time person to two full -time employees. The City may have to
hire additional staff to handle these duties.
Table 4
Potential City Responsibilities and Range of Potential
Hours Under Organized Collection Methods
Task Staff Hours Per Year
Billing 400 -1,200
Contract /License Revisions 400 -2,000
Response to Citizen Comments 100 -400
Other 250 -500
TOTAL 750 -4,100
Source: PRA estimate
A municipal collection system is much more costly to the City because drivers,
maintenance, and collection people will be required. This may entail hiring 5
to 10 or more employees. In addition, vehicles will need to be purchased. At a ✓
cost of up to $50,000 per vehicle, the initial cost could be very high.
• Hauling Company Impact
Any change potentially limiting the number of haulers collecting in the City may
severely impact the business opportunities of some haulers. Small hauling com-
panies are particularly susceptible to losing business because they are often
limited by a lack of personnel or equipment. They may also be protected if a
consortium is formed to bid on City -wide collection. It is also difficult for
small haulers to post a performance bond if required by the City for contract
collection because small haulers often do not have much available capital. A
municipal system would affect the most haulers because none would be hauling
residential waste in the City. Contract collection systems could affect haulers
very little if districts were established for each hauler or if haulers orga-
nized themselves and responded as a single entity. The existing system would
not artificially affect haulers and the existing system with license restric-
tions would probably impact haulers only slightly.
It should be noted that small waste collection companies, as with nearly any
small business, consolidate, go out of business, or buy and sell without the
impetus of organized collection. When a City organizes residential collection,
haulers will often become more competitive at securing commercial contracts or
residential business in non - organized cities.
• Service Provider Availability
To To evaluate alternative systems, it is crucial to consider the capabilities of
the service providers or waste collection companies. For the existing system,
each hauler, large or small, responds to the needs of customers according to the
availability of vehicles, labor, and special services. Under contract systems,
it is anticipated that Requests for Bids or negotiated contracts consider the
availability of small haulers. A particular consideration is the ability to pay
a performance bond to assure effective service. If the contracts or Requests
for Bids are drafted to allow an adequate response by all haulers, the service
provider availability should be high. Service provider availability under a
� �l3
municipal system may be more difficult because the City would have to hire
qualified individuals to operate and maintain vehicles and routes. Those indi-
viduals could be hired from existing hauling companies.
Another concern is size of a collection area. Under the existing system a
hauler can make about 750 to 850 stops per day. Under other methods, as many as
1,000 stops per day can be made. Smaller haulers may not have vehicle capacity
to handle larger loads.
Other services such as large -item pick -up, cart service, curbside collection of
recyclables and /or yard waste, special rates, and metered bags, can normally be
provided by a hauler if required contractually. However, for some smaller
haulers it may be costly to provide those services thus, they may be at a disad-
vantage when bidding or negotiating against larger companies.
• Legalities
With the 1987 amendments to the Minnesota Waste Management Act (See Appendix C),
. it would be difficult to contest the legalities of a properly implemented orga-
nized collection system. This is not to say that haulers could not sue the city
regarding implementing an organized system. In addition, haulers forming a con-
sortium may be challenged by allegations of price- fixing or other irregulari-
ties. Although these allegations have also bee made in areas with open
collection. The record shows, however, that the law allows cities and waste
haulers to organize collection.
The only alternative with a potential legal weakness is adding licensing provi-
sions to make the existing system more efficient. Licensing provisions are not
generally as binding as contractual agreements.
• Recycling and Other Considerations
Some alternative systems and the existing system have additional items which
affect desirability. Incorporation of a curbside recycling program would be
v/ / difficult to manage under the existing system. The City would probably have to
contract separately for recycling collection because haulers presently have no
incentive to provide such a service on their own.
ri4
If the City does not have curbside collection of recyclables but selects a dona-
tion or drop -off system for handling recyclables instead, there should be no
impact on the type of solid waste collection system used in the City. The only
aspect of collection which affects donation or drop -off recycling is providing
for volume -based disposal fees to encourage source separation. The existing
system could provide volume -based fees on its own with no guarantee that such
fees would ever occur. Alternate systems could have volume -based fees incor-
porated into contracts or billing methods.
Some advantages of contract collection and a modified existing program with
licensing provisions include the capability of incorporating curbside collection
of recyclables into a contract or licenses. Along with such a program, volume -
based services such as metered bags or containers could be implemented. The
volume -based services provide an economic incentive to use a curbside recycling
program if one is available. Finally, contract collection, municipal collec-
tion, and a modified existing program would allow for greater accuracy in docu-
menting waste deliveries and abatement progress. The anticipated Dakota County
solid waste system puts a burden on cities to source separate a specific portion
of the waste stream. Accurate accounting of the waste supply and volumes which
are source separated help the City (and county) in reaching those goals. The
planned County system also includes a central processing facility which will
likely involve a requirement that all waste generated in the County be
designated for disposal at the facility. Contracts, licenses or municipal
control would be to the City's advantage by potentially allowing for the
tracking of waste from its source to the final disposal locations.
Municipal collection has serious drawbacks in the amount of upfront expense
involved in setting up the system. Purchase of vehicles, hiring staff and pro-
viding space are major requirements. A large expense of this sort may not be
received favorably by citizens.
Conclusion
Three metro area cities (Champlin, North St. Paul, and Columbia Heights), con-
tacted about reasons why organized collection was implemented, identified three
major motives for change. The first reason was to incorporate curbside collec-
marl S
r r ft ___.
'rid ;. 't a a w � ;'
n
n (-I- to c c n t c c- -r W I' rt. r* o o' n
N - N rt (') (./) � •
o f"r ‘.< L0 rt c N
f (D - . - s ^S -.
j
a, N ( a • N CO
n
ct
rt
=- N rt `< N 2 N i N N ^ O N _ =
N d -'S o Cu , 2. rt (D W Cu Sgt a r ( O c - $
� x �CD - a � � (B a -s 2 -s 2 �' a
c N ' r
c-, c (ID ct ry' r rt r1 rr rt c
to rt —
,--1- (D
< XJ
m
as
0— 0 0 0 0 (< 0
c E 0 c
n rt
Z '< N
N
� 0 0 0- n J n a n a n s a n = -, . rD c
Cu
- 5
CG vi LO ? O N O N V Q N (a -5 S < N -r
c-1- rrt c . 9
o n
0 rt rD
rr
(y Cu Q
(D N rr r -1- •--I- cy . 2 ( N 0
as (D (D rt O r
o
. a Op
� ' n 0 r N -i'1 A
0 r+ c
rn ( Q r rn
N°' r� P m
o 0 Cu c-4- - (p' C-) A C.71 (n o a o 1 a a ( n g
(D co
0 S (4
C7 4:),
ro w 0 no Cf. N oa
N 4.. 4
a ,--,- Z N N 0 o N
( ( ( `Y D N . 0' 0 r c.f. <
I (-4- 0
( � g i. 0 (---, a
o r � °
r- cu ( rt rD n a
(0
el- < < ( 0
a M-
< PJ - 0 gs
(D - 4 r or 0 . 0.
rt ( Q - (a (0
0 (D —,. - S
rt
t
-0 0 0 0
0 - 0
0 CT — - 0 8 -0 8 r
Z 0 (B
(D r •r (D
��
N Cu
N (D
N
n - O O n •• -K c
( r ( 4 .D (.< O N -. N 0 0 O c-,-
1 1 •-,- c -'• r 0- is N _ =
O" n (0
or CI, ' a r< - -' n --•• � -s
i
9(C7 •
tion of recyclables. Although each of the three cities stated this as a motive,
none of the three cities currently collect recyclables curbside. All three have
plans to do so however. Two of the cities indicated that an additional motive
was to reduce costs. One city also stated that minimizing wear and tear on
streets was an important reason to organize collection.
The City of Eagan does not have unusual problems with its existing collection
system. Nine or even more refuse vehicles per week collecting on residential
streets is not uncommon for a city with a housing density such as Eagan's.
Eagan's current costs are also not unusually high for open collection. Even
recycling can be accomplished by separately contracting for curbside collection
of recyclables. This rationale does not imply that the existing system is the
best for Eagan. A version of organized contract collection may lower costs,
decrease wear and tear on streets, and facilitate curbside recycling, but also ✓
increase administrative costs to the City and possibly impair the business
opportunities of some haulers.
Each system has distinct advantages and disadvantages. The importance of par-
ticular factors must be determined by the City prior to any decisions on collec-
tion systems.
r'7
REFERENCES
1. Study of Organized Refuse Collection in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area;
Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities Area; June, 1985.
2. Proposed Collection Plan; St. Paul, MN; April, 1979.
3. Comparitive Study of Municipal Service Delivery :Refuse Collection; Ecodata,
Inc., New York; February, 1984.
4. "Scale, Market Structure, and the Cost of Refuse Collection "; Barbara
Stevens; The Review of Economics and Statistics, Volume LX, No. 3, August,
1978.
5. Volume -Based Fees; Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities Area; October,
1986.
6. "How Shall We Collect the Garbage ", Dennis Young; The Urban Institute; 1972.
7. Dakota County Solid Waste Master Plan (draft); Dakota County Planning and
Policy Development; 1987.
8. Evaluating the Organization of Service Delivery: Solid Waste Collection and
Disposal; Center for Government Studies, Columbia University, New York;
August, 1976.
r--7
APPENDIX A
�l�l
Telephone Survey: City of Eagan Solid Waste Collection Services
Date of Survey:
1. Name of Service:
2. Address:
3. Phone:
4. Number of Employees:
5. Vehicles used and total number of each type typically used for residential
collection in Eagan:
a) Type b) Number c) Lease /own
6. a) Other residential collection equipment used (such as containers):
b) Do you plan to purchase or lease any additional equipment in the future?
7. On what days do you collect residential refuse in Eagan? And what routes do
your haulers take? (send map, if possible)
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
•
Saturday
�
8. Number of stops (per day /per route or other):
9. Average tonnage (per day /per route or other):
10. What are your rates for residential service, including special services?
Rate Service
11. Do you currently collect separated recyclables in Eagan, either at the same
time as regular waste pick -up or by special collection?
Yes, same time
Yes, special
No, not at all
If yes, is this collection done as requested or regularly?
12. If the City decided to contract for the collection of certain separated
recyclables, would your company be readily equipped to handle the additional
load?
Yes
No
13. Other comments:
APPENDIX 13
CITY OF EAGAN
COLLECTION AREAS - MONDAY
- v
-pv
:,'Y A ie ly/ .
.,-1--6-........-, /.......,
' -: IN ' ii,r''•
im ,//: /,
••• G � /, F / 1 r Zv4
� / j 1 i B
7 Is . ...a. �, .. �i�. / i i A A t
P4L¼1f! r � . .. 4111 4 c' :, A Ai , z ,,
.** ,'-' .. .ftti fri!"1111‘07 oni •
.. . A , , - 4. lc/ '4 't / / V •
7 , / Ors ' 1 `Z ° M i'd ."-CI: . / /*1,,, 1 1 1
. . ' ' A" -' 4 * . i 4,..'1 ‘'e/Y /1 /
4,, a .4, , '.• *1. , '' , - - i, 41% /' . k 'v.' /.
e k , ..4* , iiltiffififi" OW itkt .., - /frieffe,i,
AVK /.3 ; IA //i a ;: -4 qt
4 14 e , / % ,,,I .' SttA -8 ...ear ,., % /
a / /.� ,,� a i ris r; t t t :: , , r4 . „dirt, Iry
,r
1 1 cl. 1 . al 1 11111 Flili/ Ar
' Pi
III ��. % /!.. d#
i ..
o' p• o ,i 1
/ii; 4 / / .
NUMBERS WITHIN OUTLINED AREAS REPRESENT THE NUMBER OF HAULERS
SERVING EACH AREA
(DOES NOT INCLUDE TWO HAULERS)
0
CITY OF EAGAN
COLLECTION SERVICE - TUESDAY
-% y - yd..
r 4 fr 91-te IV
1 .ejle •
/ ..,-,,a-mr" ,,--- 4,
/4 ,i r. . A
vdi 1 A 4,
„,„ , r Pr'
.. . .0 Wed P N._.., / 4 . ■1 i
.* Al e 1.`'‘c..- . / / /
... A
..: :, A,' 5 eV' i Mall. v' / ° 1 /
. • I' Oe t g eg te . / / 4
.1 . / ': __.,4 a tame. po , , /'
, • '' : , 4 ,Ime Or , i
, , ,
'/ " 7 .. m y f,
,, .4
. r e
� . � �_ % % / / / /// �, / ii i .,. % /� 1 %
�. ,i� .. y; . j '. ; �` �,� ,'✓�' , , `rte � .e./ �'1� �
it'? ' aire;Ofs %yawl h ji I i
; ?ti v iMiitii:', 4 a ' v-44
ci A. 4. Allik.Willtk :M
IL 7 1. � j9 � /.� �r t' s�
i / / .. /
4it
11 i ll ll/ / 7 r.
NUMBERS WITHIN OUTLINED AREAS REPRESENT THE NUMBER OF HAULER C
SERVING THOSE AREAS.
1Q
O
CITY OF EAGAN
COLLECTION SERVICE - WEDNESDAY
;% /V -,, viz v
A -'4'' ° .
/ 0,1 z' 4. a
Ann" I P g91 41 , .. V V ” 7
A A
.. ). _ ilk_ i 4 10 :
..* a - A ,r, :0 itile,i.. -
CrAll.
• rove .._ ._•
...• ,,,, ,,,A, - 4,/ A A . . ...... a i is , / , / 'Y
. . 17 . ' / . 9 ] '4 1 RP --Ii Nr" lir ,
filo stir .;',...,, - / .';e1. 1 4 11/ ‘ v/. 4 Id / '
4 /
. 1Pr...,Allicigi ll / 4
t 10,4, I lr ra ` rte / / + , ArA , xF.,,,d. /
ADD" / / / / /irk � ,. / A'
r . al al � � � � � .4 I
1/ ,/0 / i ii . , 0 1 " `
id �1,11 %�� /
0 i ti/fr4' lir
P41* 11111111Miffe Ar /
Ai I
NUMBERS WITHIN THE OUTLINED AREAS REPRESENT THE NUMBER OF
HAULERS SERVING THE AREA
(DOES NOT INCLUDE TWO HAULERS)
5
CITY OF EAGAN
COLLECTION SERVICE - THURSDAY
../ .., i ,
/ : !1
•
• .awl sA FI! f4 . itir.
NA ... firokall / ,,
. • A .ZPo' 4
. . . ' .. 'd ef, 1 1 Pee u i /
... .1 . , ;44:v• /fa INA r
Y i i 1.II l 't iV . ' 4 0 1111 ul lYrr ,4. 116 ij
/ f4Al 2 1 . II. Ar4-3
- . a )„ ., . 4
e;y - -/ An %l N .
.*AV.0•10 / Imi , e:07,.. wik.
0 , „ „,,,„,,,,, .
...
, ft 4 ret iver6 ' N. J V
, Cil 1 a vr.-.. i fir. / �� Au ‘ 1 i
.4.4 ,.illir
"" "7 lift t pro . 4 4 4..•0. 7 ., Ao
iiik 'II\ Al .40,w, 0 ,) 11109,10 b ., " I/A • ••• V.A.,
tl / _ ,ice , ,/ AO _ , �y,. _ a � �� „,„„ 1 / „,„
,,,/, zsl 4 , 4
03,1/ ill'ilr 4/ .fsN
,./0 • / Zi i
NUMBERS WITHIN OUTLINED AREAS REPRESENT THE NUMBER OF HAULERS
SERVING THOSE AREAS
O(t)
CITY OF EAGAN
COLLECTION SERVICE - FRIDAY
j ., /; 'y'/ j
•
. l O i Alt 1:Ck- ff Ar 4 .0 Nist, 1
. Et' Alli
.-*. AO Z iii _
r / P , r>� /.agar% , ,�. /
••• ,- -.• • .. i •y A
• , / j Vo - 0 i.ftrical a kbprizit Iv/
, ,„ y 1 ,,, N 1 ; e id 1
e 'e - .° ' * % — waif my ---In - ., L i
'• / /* IN gi- A 'i '. 44' D " , .
.,, ,.__ ,... ..._....,_ . _.
, O. 4r4:16, a --.•,1 ,- r , . 00" , „
1
.„ ir .4.
..‘,..1.u,...
.. 4..i, ,
.i/eillgt Ilti
5 4, 1 iiii...4. 4 ., . .: 4 Amin A a i A 4
: ' AliTIN N r i 7 V Fi I & mg a 4
W 01 dej , ; 1 40 OVA; . .1/41AVIaGeo 1, s
1
,F r! . . - 4: .......,,,,... t.., _ li e r q
ak ,l ' a i .1•1 i ./.,,, , - ,,,„ :
`; �'''� � i r miga i;r ,. � /jai IA" Fp
IP m . dif �^ / l / .
NUMBERS WITHIN THE OUTLINED AREAS REPRESENT THE NUMBER OF HAULER:
SERVING THOSE AREAS
(DOES NOT INCLUDE ONE HAULER)
4 87
APPENDIX C
•
Summary of Waste Management Act Amendments, 1987
Chapter 348 -- HF 794 (Long); SF 708 (Merriam)
(Prepared by the Legislative Commission on Waste Management)
ORGANIZED COLLECTION (Section 27)
Section 27 grants a city or town the authority to organize collection of some or
all of the solid waste released by generators for collection as a municipal
service or by ordinance, franchise, license, negotiated or bidded contract or
other means.
The local government unit may not impair, through organized collection, the
preservation and development of recycling'and markets for recyclables, and must
exempt recyclables if shown that the materials will be source separated,
collected and delivered for recycling.
The local government unit, in proposing, planning and establishing an organized
collection system, must follow an orderly process. At least 90 days before
proposing the means of organizing collection, the city or town must pass a
resolution of intent to organize collection and invite interested persons to
participate in the establishment of the system. A two week Jdvance public
notice and a public hearing must preceed passage of the resolution. During the
90 day period, the city or town must develop, or supervise the development of,
plans for the organized collection system. The local government unit may employ
the assistance of solid waste haulers and others in developing the plans and
establishing the organized collection system.
If organized collection is done by contract or as a municipal service, a waste
facility may be designated as long as in conformance to any designation
ordinance adopted under section 115A.86.
Counties are granted the authority to require cities and towns to organize
collection. The county ordinance may require (a) separation and collection of
recyclables; (b) specific material to be separated; and (c) cities and towns to
meet source separation standards in the county plan. If the city or town does
not comply, the county may organize collection for it.
1(361
• Precision Machinin
16 le/4ZZ /0"CO
g
8|ov/kAo|dingof Plastics
— • Computer Disc-Pack Spindles • Structural Foam Moldin
410 ' 11TH AVENUE SOUTH
• Design and Engineering HO7K/NS MINNESOTA 55343-7878 • Rotational Plastic Molding
Service
Telephone 612-935-6921 Telex 291106 • Mechanized Refuse
• Waste Processing Collection Services
and Recycling Plants
Sentcmber 23, 1987
Mr, John Hcwenstein
City or Eapan
3O�0 ni lo Pd.
Eannn' Mn. 53122
Dear John:
P7 our phone ccrv the other day. I an ",iinfl you to
b,in� you up to da/;c regarding the solid waste facin'`
cit.ies like Eagan, D�kcta County and the renicn in gen.
Earlier this summer l told you that, in my opinion. DaNcta County
would eventually decide to go with a mass burn solution to the
solid waste problem. Well, last week the eounty name the final
three ccmoanics they will look to for the solution and all three
of them are ma�7) born solutions.
This means Dakota County will fall into the same cH+tern a'.:
Hennepin County with respect to mass burn/source separ bcinu
the methods of dealing with solid waste.
Reuter. Inc. is still very interested in working with the City of
Eagan, along with the. oossibility of including Apple Vallcv and
Burnsville, to have your waste delivered to Reuter. Inc. and have
us precsss the waste, recyclinp what we can recycle, compost what
we can compost and Pelletize the rest of the material.
•
Wc are currently working with the legislature to get legislation
which would allow cities te control where their wus cnc',
collected without ha,ino tc "uruanizin9 collection". I have
sncicsed a co Ps/ of a letter I sent to the cities of Plymouth.
Minnctonku, Hopkins, Eden Prairie and Blcomington, was in
rcsoonse to their request to try to explain wh"t we saw as th.
issues and possible solutions to those issues. In resoonse to
that letter, each of the cities have written to Mr. Vern Peterson
of the AMM asking him to include these icsues in his lrpislative
lobby efforts next session.
There are two ways Eagan can enter into this type of arrangement.
One way is for Reuter to apply to the Metropolitan Cou for an
e from Dakota Ccun designation plan '`nd ordinance.
This, in our cninior, will be somewhat difficult to
y^�
. .
The second way is for Reuter to start processing your waste at
our Lden Prairie facility BEFORE the county submits thoir`_~
"designation plan" to the Met Council. It that haerens, your
waste will be "exempted" from county designation in accordance
with the Waste Management Act of 1980 as revised through 1987'
These are your only two methods of getting Out from under the
decision the county is making for you regarding solid waste. If
you do not qualify under the second option above, it is lik
ycv will be at the total control of the county.
If l can be of any further help or provide you with ony further
information, please give me a call at 935-6921.
Th you.
( :& ° 1 62
Uouqlas E. Reuter
Director
Intcr-Governmental Relations
•
�� \ \