Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/09/1987 - Solid Waste Abatement Commission AGENDA EAGAN SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION TUESDAY JUNE 9, 1987 11:30 A.M. EAGAN MUNICIPAL CENTER I. ROLL CALL AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES II. OLD BUSINESS A. Analysis of Recycling Strategy B. 3M Incineration Facility Tour III. NEW BUSINESS A. Centralized Processing Tour Recap B. Hazardous Waste Collection C. 1987 Budget Recommendations IV. OTHER BUSINESS V. DISTRIBUTION VI. ADJOURNMENT MEMO TO: CHAIRS MANN AND HOEL AND ALL MEMBERS OF THE SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION FROM: JON HOHENSTEIN, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT DATE: JUNE 5, 1987 SUBJECT: EAGAN SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION MEETING FOR TUESDAY, JUNE 9, 1987 A meeting of the Eagan Solid Waste Abatement Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, June 9, 1987 at 11:30 A.M. in the Eagan Municipal Center Conference Rooms A and B. Lunch will be served. Please contact Jon Hohenstein at 454 -8100 if you are unable to attend this meeting. The following discussion is intended to provide background on those items to be reviewed at the meeting on Tuesday. I. ROLL CALL AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES A copy of the minutes of the Solid Waste Abatement Commission meeting of May 12, 1987 is enclosed for your review on pages/—V. These minutes, subject to any change, require approval by the Commission. II. OLD BUSINESS A. Analysis Recycling Strategy -- Enclosed on pages,5 — / /you will find selected pages of Chapters 4 and 5 of the Dakota County Solid Waste Master Plan. I would direct your attention to sections beginning at the bottom of pages 6 and // pertinent to community responsibilities for Waste Reduction and Source Separation. In light of discussions at the last Commission meeting, you will want to review these elements to see how they could interact with a waste management system that focuses on the County's centralized processing facility. It would be appropriate in the context of these sections of the plan to consider which would be appropriate to the City of Eagan as part of its waste management strategy. Significant concern was raised at the last meeting that any strategy developed be careful to limit the amount of City involvement and recognize the fact that some households will not source separate. In addition, staff would direct the Commission's attention to the results of the solid waste survey found on pages /5 through /6 The survey indicated that while some people refused to separate wastes under any circumstances, 80% of the respondents indicated they would separate recyclables if the cost of their disposal was the same as or less than the cost of refuse removal. Almost 95% of all respondents would recycle if a curb side pickup were available while 74% would use collection sites if they were available. Almost the same number would drive up to 2 miles to a recycling drop -off location. Among those respondents, convenience and costs were the most significant factors limiting their willingness to separate. Since there exists a large number of people willing to separate and dispose if opportunities are available, it would be reasonable to consider how such opportunities could be integrated into a comprehensive strategy for the City. Possible alternatives are listed in the section of the Master Plan beginning at the bottom of page As you can see, this ranges from a high capital investment with mandatory separation to more limited involvement and drop -off opportunities or modification of the collection scheme through additional regulation. A significant part of the County Master Plan is that it intends to bypass the 1988 mandates for community source separation and phase in certain targets over the next 3 - 4 years. Therefore, it is not essential that the City focus on implementing its final program in the immediate future. However, it may be wise to develop a strategy which begins by allowing separation through the expansion of collection alternatives for those willing to use them and consider further alternatives when the results of the organized collection study are available. Ultimately, the results of the study and increasing disposal costs may recommend to the Commission the need to consider further alternatives to complement centralized processing. It is apparent that it is in the best interest of the City to keep its investments at a minimum until the County system is fully understood. Therefore, private enterprise and low cost alternatives may be the most reasonable in the immediate future. Please review the enclosed excerpts from the Master Plan. In reviewing the Waste Reduction section, please add the following to the list of items to be considered. 1. Encourage State and Federal packaging legislation. 2. Encourage source separation to raise awareness of componenents of waste stream. 3. Amend City Code to allow back yard composting. 4. Encourage or require volume based fees for waste collection. In the area of Source Separation, please consider the following alternatives in addition to those listed in the excerpt. 1. Amend City Code to allow recycling as a landfill alternative. 2. Encourage or require volume based fees for waste collection. In summary, the demand expressed in the Eagan recycling survey and the source separation and waste reduction elements of the Dakota County Solid Waste Master Plan and Metropolitan Council Waste Abatement Guidelines strongly encourage the integration of source separation alternatives to complement County processing facilities. Therefore, several alternatives present themselves. They are: 1. No Action - The Commission may wish to take no action on the matter of source separated recyclables until the County's waste processing facility technology and design is known. 2. Private Enterprise - The City may wish to encourage, through promotion and education, the use of private enterprise alternatives for recyclable collection. Certain private vendors have already expressed interest in locating recycling drop -off or redemption centers within the City. 3. Limited Participation - The Commission may wish to recommend the implementation of a drop -off center with limited City participation along the lines proposed by Goodwill Industries in which the City would capitalize and underwrite an attended donation center location. 4. Request for Proposals - The City may actively promote the establishment of a recyclable drop -off center through a request for proposals extended to vendors of such services. The level of City participation could vary dramatically depending upon the vendor and the level of service requested. The Commission may wish to recommend an action grant program to encourage the creation of such a center. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To recommend an alternative for the disposal of source separated recyclables. B. 3M Incineration Facility Tour -- I have spoken with Doug Wilcox who attends Commission meetings and is employed by 3M. He has indicated that the company is interested in providing the Commission with a tour of their hazardous waste incineration facility in Cottage Grove and he will contact company representatives to develop some alternative dates for such a tour. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To schedule a tour of the 3M hazardous waste incineration facility. III. NEW BUSINESS A. Centralized Processing Tour Recap- - Members are encouraged to take this opportunity to discuss the tour of the Reuter resource recovery facility in Eden Prairie. I believe those who attended the tour found it to be very interesting. As you know, the Reuter Corporation is one of the firms interested in providing service to Dakota County and, hopefully, will engage in the proposal process in the coming month. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: No action is required at this time. B. Hazardous Waste Collection - -The City has been in touch with George Kinney of Dakota County and Roger Martin of Sperry- Unisys regarding the possibility of a combined hazardous waste collection. The Sperry Corporation has sponsored a hazardous waste collections for its employees in the past and in some instances, has cooperated with communities to expand the service to the area. The principal concerns on the part of both Sperry- Unisys and the City of Eagan has been cost and liability. Mr. Kinny has indicated that the County would be willing to participate in certain costs and to assume liability as the hazardous waste generator for the collection. If we can reduce the cost further through cooperation by the City, Sperry- Unisys and, possibly, other corporate sponsors, the City may be in a position to offer a hazardous waste collection either this fall or next spring. It might . be appropriate to include this element as part of a possible budget recommendation in the business item below or, in the alternative, consider a request for special allocation for a collection this fall. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: No action is required on this item at this time as the Commission has previously encouraged staff to explore alternatives for hazardous waste collection. C. 1988 Budget Recommendations -- As was discussed at the last meeting, it would be appropriate for the Commission to consider possible budget recommendations as the City enters the 1988 budget cycle. Enclosed on page /7 you will find a potential budget summary for the coming year. Please note that the summary excludes implementation of any recommendations arising out of the organized collection study. Because of the timing of the study, it will be necessary to handle those recommendations either as an amendment to the budget or a special allocation if they are to be implemented in 1988 or as regular items in a subsequent budget. The Commission is encouraged to review these alternatives in light of the status of the County programs and previous discussions. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve the recommendations for solid waste abatement activities for the 1988 budget. IV. OTHER BUSINESS V. DISTRIBUTION A. Household Hazardous Waste Article- - Enclosed on page gig you will find a copy of the Eagan This Week article on household hazardous wastes quoting Mr. Kinney of Dakota County. Staff has been in touch with Mr. Kinney since the article frequently refers residents to him for waste disposal. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting will adjourn at or about 1:00 P.M. to make way for a subsequent meeting. Every effort should be made to facilitate the meeting to meet this schedule. Ad n istrative Assistant cc: Thomas L. Hedges, City Administrator Dale C. Runkle, City Planner Enclosures Subject of Approval MINUTES OF THE SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION MEETING EAGAN, MINNESOTA May 12, 1987 A meeting of the Eagan Solid Waste Abatement Commission was held on Tuesday, May 12th, 1987, at 11:35 A.M. The following members were present: Tom Yehle, Darlene Bahr, Duane Soutor, Larry Knutson, Earl Milbridge, Tim Hoel, Jon Hohenstein and Terry Schnell, alternate. Absent were Tom Mann and Delmar DeBilzan. Also present were City Administrator Tom Hedges, Administrative Intern Bruce Robertson and Warren Wilson of the Dakota County Planning Office. MINUTES Upon motion by Schnell, seconded by Milbridge, all members voting in favor, the minutes of the April 8th, 1987, Solid Waste Abatement Commission Meeting were approved. WASTE MANAGEMENT ACT AMENDMENTS To facilitate discussion, Hohenstein requested that two items of business be taken out of order so that the bulk of the meeting could be dedicated to the discussion of the waste management philosophy. Hohenstein briefly reviewed the Waste Management Act Amendments before the state legislature and stated that the schedule of Commission and Council meetings prevented the City from taking official position on the amendments. He stated that individual members of the Commission should feel free to review the amendments but not to act as a City representative if they chose to pursue any of them in a private capacity. Hohenstein also stated that the amendments included enabling legislation to allow cities to organize collection and that this amendment came as a result of a request by the city of Champlin. Knutson stated that this request was a result of a suit against the city of Champlin by Waste Management, Incorporated, which questioned the city's authority to engage haulers in group discussions of rates and routes. The Commission asked if this legislation adequately addressed antitrusts issues. Knutson responded that the current legislation addressed those issues for cities but not for haulers and that a city could call haulers together legally but that they may not be able to attend without antitrust liability. Knutson said that another section of the amendments would allow counties to require cities to organize collection. He stated that such decisions should be kept at a local level to best address local needs. EAGAN CITY NEWSLETTER Hohenstein distributed copies of the Eagan City Newsletter which included two pages of information about the City compost program recycling alternatives and the Solid Waste Commission. He stated that the newsletters were distributed to all households in the City and that many of the Waste Abatement programs were receiving much more attention than they had in the past. Wilson stated that Dakota County also has lists of waste oil and battery disposal sites to compliment those programs listed in the City. CENTRALIZED PROCESSING FACILITY TOUR Hohenstein indicated that the tour of the Reuter Resource Recovery processing facility in Eden Prairie had been scheduled for Tuesday, May 26th at 10:30 a.m. He said that the facility combined centralized processing with and RDF and compost component to manage all types of wastes as completely as possible. The commissioner requested that a mailed notice perceive the tour. ANALYSIS OF RECYCLING ALTERNATIVES Hohenstein stated that the Commission had discussed whether it considered waste management to be a public service at its previous meeting and that that discussion had not been completed. Schnell stated that he believed a strict interpretation of public versus private services depends upon whether it is an essential service or one that it is simply a positive service. Knutson stated that recycling and waste management may not be essential, but the Metropolitan Council mandates and the County Master Plan make it approxi- mate an essential service. Wilson told the Commission that how it viewed the definition of service impacts the philosophy chosen. He stated that many of the societal costs of the current free market collection system are hidden. The society has, or will, pay for them but they are not direct dollar costs at the time of collection. Soutor asked if centralized processing removed many of the hidden costs and made them direct costs. Wilson stated that even a centralized processing system has hidden costs because of lost opportunity costs for clean source separated recyclables. Soutor responded that source separation may have higher quality but that curbside collection is open to pilferage and that decentralized programs leave many small businesses and programs at the mercy of highly volatile recyclable markets. Knutson asked what materials the Ramsay County Newport facility separates. Wilson stated that the facility only separates ferrous metals at the plant. Hohenstein stated that nothing about a particular processing technology precludes either source separation or centralized separation. Bahr stated that small programs would be in jeopardy if they invested in the collection of source separated recyclables and their operating costs increased substanially. Hohenstein said this was true but that the same thing could occur at large facilities such as that being pursued by Dakota County. Wilson stated that ultimately all costs are born by the user whether in the form of taxes, user fees or future impacts on the environment. Yehle agreed but suggested that central processing allows efficiencies of scale and easier management of materials in volatile markets. Milbridge stated that the organized hauling and recycling program instituted in North St. Paul serves the customer very well by keeping costs at flat rates and guaranteeing service. Knutson stated that the North St. Paul situation may provide for customers but seriously constrains haulers because of the economies required by the city. He then stated that the rising cost of landfilling wastes will cause the free market to respond in a fashion to reduce refuse quantities and costs. He said that poorly planned organization could hamper the ability of free enterprise to meet these needs. Hoel stated that he also believes in the responsiveness of free enterprise, but he also believes that it may be necessary to influence or encourage free enterprise to prepare for the rising cost. Hohenstein stated that such influence could be exerted through additional regulations and license requirements. Schnell stated that based on the discussion, waste management is close enough to an essential service to be considered a public service. One option for providing this public service can be through free enterprise. Bahr stated that no system will encourage recycling or waste abatement without making the user pay for the amount of material they produce. Hohenstein stated that certain firms already use volume based fees and charge by the bag. Knutson stated that his firm uses volume based fees above a certain quantity of waste. Wilson stated that the Metropolitan Council may modify its mandate to allow centralized separation of waste to qualify as recycling. He stated that the principal difference between source separation and centralized separation is the quality of the recyclable material and the focus of certain costs. He stated that if the difference in real cost could be passed through to the consumer such that disposing of separated wastes would be less expensive than disposing of mixed wastes, this higher quality could be captured. Knutson stated that his firm is considering offering a curbside separation service alternative to his customers, but at the present time, it would have to be at a slightly higher cost. Schnell stated that waste management is more than collecting and disposing of waste and that the components of that management might require municipal oversight. Bahr stated that she could agree with regulatory oversight but would disagree strongly with a publicly run system. Knutson stated that the haulers would also like management to occur through regulation since it allows everyone to work under the same rules. City Administrator Hedges asked how much the industry will address this issue on its own in the next five years. Knutson stated that the industry would have to address the costs of waste disposal as landfill costs increase. In addition, Knutson believes there will be fewer firms able to compete effectively in the waste hauling industry because of increased regulation, intense competition, higher costs, and the like. Hohenstein asked to what extent centralized collection meets the public service needs of waste management as they have been defined by the Commission. The general concensus was that it meets the general needs and would make many of the hidden costs of disposal into direct costs to the consumer. The group concensus was that centralized processing tends to be attractive because it does not require homeowners to change habits or handle wastes differently than they do now. Wilson stated that centralized processing by itself does not address the homeowner who wishes to separate to keep costs of disposal down. He also stated that where alternatives exist which reduce the need for wear and tear on a waste management system, they should be encouraged. Hohenstein stated that recycling may still make sense for those families which wish to reduce costs and reduce their impact on the environment and public system. He stated that it would be appropriate for the Commission to consider what part recycling could play in a system that included a centralized processing facility and the budget implications that would have for the 1988 budget year at its next meeting. NEXT MEETING The next meeting will be held on Tuesday, June 9th at 11:30 A.M. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 1:38 P.M. JH Date Secretary 9 1 r 1 CHAPTER 4 WASTE REDUCTION if 1 3 3 1 . 1 0 Dakota County shall participate in legislative initiatives by the Metropolitan Inter - County Association, and support state legislation seeking to reduce solid waste generation. 1 0 Dakota County, within its solid waste administrative program will provide a monitoring program for waste reduction activities and reporting to the Metropolitan Council as part of the County's annual I solid waste report. The monitoring program to assess the impact of reduction activities shall include: 1 . * Comparison of disposed waste (processed) on an annual basis using the 1986 per capita disposal rate calculated in the Dakota County Solid Waste Quantity Study, January, 1987 as the benchmark. * Annual assessment of the impact of the educational program by recording the requests for information, and the amount of I literature distributed. * Compilation of annual survey, results from the reduction 1 section of the solid waste survey which will be a random sampling of households and businesses in Dakota County. 0 Financing of the Waste Reduction Program shall be through a budget category in the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund anticipated to be in place by July 1, 1988. Prior to establishment of the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund, waste reduction related activities shall be funded J from the Solid Waste Surcharge Account. Funding shall be for, but shall not be limited to the following: * County staff time and expenses related to waste reduction including, but not limited to, technical assistance, monitoring and reporting, development of education and information package, and development of the solid waste monitoring /administration program. * Materials and services needed to develop and distribute waste reduction information. * Costs associated with the development of the waste reduction monitoring part of the solid waste administration program. .e 0 Dakota County communities shall undertake the following roles and responsibilities ma (listedin order of most effective to least effective in meeting the waste reduction objective): * Establish a community solid waste management committee /commission. * Require as a condition of licensure for haulers, or through organized collection, the banning of collecting yard waste with the collection of mixed municipal solid waste. 1 * Implement an in -house procurement policy which will result in less waste being generated, and procedures• that encourage the purchase of materials that have a reuse value. * Implement an in -house procurement policy which will result in less waste being generated, and procedures that encourage the purchase of materials that have a reuse value. * Strongly support the voluntary efforts of citizens to reduce waste disposal through education and information programs, and creating incentive programs in an effort to meet the 1989 waste reduction objectives. * Serve as a distribution point for literature related to waste reduction activities. * Utilize the technical assistance offered to communities by the County as it relates to a waste reduction program. * Annually report to the County reduction activity for the previous year and volumes of waste reduced, using the standardized reporting forms developed by the County. *. Meet the community residential waste reduction schedule (see Table 7). ANTICIPATED WASTE REDUCTION PROGRAM COSTS COST Consulting Annual ITEM 1. .25 FTE staff t ($7,000 in 1987 dollars $7,000 including fringe benefits) 2. Waste reduction component of the waste management education and information program: $ 5,000 f 3. Waste reduction part of the waste management system: $10,000 SW -Chap4 7 COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL WASTE REDUCTION SCHEDULE Table #7 1991- 1996- • 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1995 * 2000 * Percent Reduction 1 2 2 2 4 5 5 5 31 Community Projected Tons Reduction Castle Rock T. 5.6 11.2 11.2 11.2 22.5 28.1 143.5 148.5 Douglas Twp. 2.5 5.0 4.9 4.9 9.8 12.2 62.5 65.0 Empire Twp. 5.2 10.6 10.8 10.9 22.2 28.1 146.5 156.5 Eureka Twp. 5.4 11.2 11.6 12.0 24.9 32.1 166.5 176.5 Greenvale T. 2.7 5.4 5.5 5.5 11.1 14.1 72.7 76.7 Hampton Twp. 3.6 7.5 7.8 8.1 16.7 21.5 110.5 115.5 Marshan Twp. 7.1 14.2 14.6 14.8 30.1 38.1 193.5 198.5 Nininger Twp. 3.3 6.6 6.6 6.7 13.5 17.1 86.9 88.7 Randolph Twp. 1.7 3.5 3.6 3.7 7.5 9.6 49.9 53.0 Ravenna Twp. 7.1 14.4 14.6 14.8 30.1 38.1 190.5 190.5 Sciota Twp. 1.0 2.1 2.2 2.2 4.4 5.6 28.6 29.6 Vermillion T. 4.7 9.4 9.4 9.5 19.1 24.1 123.5 128.5 11 Waterford T. 2.0 3.9 3.9 3.8 7.6 9.4 48.5 51.0 Township Subtotal 51.9 105.0 106.7 108.1 219.5 278.1 1423.6 1478.5 Coates 0.8 1.7 1.8 1.8 3.6 4.6 24.5 27.0 21 Farmington 21.4 43.5 44.2 45.0 91.5 116.3 601.4 634.9 Hampton 1.3 2.6 2.6 2.7 5.4 6.8 34.4 34.9 Lilydale 1.9 3.9 4.0 4.1 8.3 10.5 53.5 55.9 Mendota 1.0 2.1 2.1 2.2 4.4 5.6 27.6 27.1 1 Mendota Hts. 36.0 73.8 75.4 77.1 157.6 201.2 1046.3 1113.4 Miesville 0.7 1.4 1.4 1.4 2.9 3.6 17.8 17.2 New Trier 0.5 1.0 1.1 1.2 2.6 3.4 17.0 17.0 Randolph 1.4 2.8 2.8 2.9 5.7 7.2 36.0 36.0 ..j Rosemount 28.6 58.4 59.7 61.0 124.4 158.7 827.2 883.1 Sunfish Lk. 1.5 3.1 3.1 3.1 6.4 8.0 42.0 44.7 Vermillion 2.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 8.9 11.2 58.0 60.9 1 4th Class City Subtotal 98.6 198.5 202.5 206.9 421.7 537.1 2785.7 1952.1. Apple Valley 120.4 246.2 251.7 257.3 525.5 670.7 3554.6 3890.0 Burnsville 180.4 365.5 370.3 375.0 759.5 961.3 5007.8 5343.1 Eagan 134.6 286.9 304.6 322.3 680.0 894.3 4806.6 5365.5 Hastings 59.6 120.3 120.6 120.9 242.6 304.0 1533.5 1556.0 Inver Gr. Hgts 84.7 171.3 173.2 175.1 353.9 447.1 2302.6 2414.5 Lakeville 77.2 159.3 164.2 169.1 347.9 447.1 2336.2 2504.0 Northfield 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.4 2.0 2.0 So. St. Paul 92.2 183.4 182.2 181.1 360.0 447.1 2235.5 2235.5 W. St. Paul 81.3 161.0 159.4 157.9 312.6 386.8 1934.0 1934.0 -A 2nd & 3rd Class City Subtotal 830.5 1694.1 1726.4 1758.9 3582.4 4558.8 23712.8 25244.6 _s TOTAL 981.0 1997.7 2035.6 2073.9 4223.6 5374.0 27922.1 28675.2 `_. *Note: Aggregate amounts for time period V 6Z � c (c)— 3 co- 3 N. 3 0").... . 0 y } w A _ T �� L m Ch — ' Q .b LL • i r w 3 ..C\I 2 A 0.,_ n 0) mar Z • CO 0 _ . , ; F— ate^ s w 3 co • 1— " F , f w a co ! (1� . cc— i Q 0,,_, a a LL k co 1 U rn M 0 < 0 Y CO i ;..:.E < 0 O Q 0 r- 0 0 Z J =0 Z Q O w JCL a w0 M Z a w 0 E- O ~O¢ ¢ C7 J > Q Dh- Q 0 0 O ¢ W w¢ >- CD D w Zcco0 O ¢ g w i- � 2 2 OZa a Q>- � C.) ¢ } < H 0 � , 0 F= 0Q0 Z 0 c Z � 0 0 Z p0 0C ¢ 0 0u_ ¢ p CC 0 a� C.) el- a 2 wwQ 0 O O ...li F- 0 w 0 00 0 Q U 0 Q CC Q Z2 Q J Z1—Q ZQ 0 N 0 Q F— o] •~ 0 H a Z Z F_ ZV) Z Z0 .- - 0 p Ocn Z O 00 U 0< w Z 0Q Q Ua 2 0 Q .— N C7 to CO G 1 1 1 1 1 CHAPTER 5 SOURCE SEPARATION 1 1 1 3 3 3 1 1 * A reporting procedure, similar to that already in place for use in administering the County grant program, for all community sponsored or co- sponsored source separation programs. :1 * Comparison of the percent and volume of materials actually source separated with the objectives stated in this chapter. 0 Financing the Source Separation Program shall be through budget categories in the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund, anticipated to be in place by July 1, 1988. Prior to the establishment of the Solid Waste 1 Enterprise Fund, funding for source separation related activities shall be from the Solid Waste Surcharge Account. Funding shall be for, but not limited to the following: 1 * Staff time and expenses related to .source separation including, but not limited to, technical assistance, inventory of source separation programs, ongoing reporting, and market development. * The Community Landfill Abatement Grant Program. 3 * Capital equipment owned by the County and used for community programs. * Materials, equipment, and consultants required to develop the source separation part of the waste management education and information program. • * Consultants required to develop the source separation part of the solid waste monitoring/ administration program. * Feasibility analysis of an Intermediate Processing Facility for recyclables. 0 Dakota County will urge the Metropolitan Council, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the State to revise the definition of "Recycling" to include materials recovered through the process of mechanical separation at central processing facilities as well as materials recovered through source separation. WO The C1 /12.s. of Apple Valley, Burnsville, ,Eaa_n, Hastings, Inver Grove Heights, Lakeville, Northfield, South — 77 Paul, West St. Paul, Farmington, Lilydale, Mendota, Mendota Heights, Rosemount, and Sunfish Lake hsal l investi ate and determ' the feasibility of the following :21 programs, tec piques and actions, listed in order of most effective to least effective in meeting the source separation objectives, as the deliberate on how they will meet the community source separation schedule: * Establish a community solid waste management committee /commission. * Mandatory source separation ordinances combined with an extensive educational program and organized, routed collection. 1 IC * Mandatory source separation ordinances combined with routed collection. * Mandatory source separation with drop -off collection. r * Voluntary source separation combined with an extensive educational program and organized, routed collection. * Voluntary source separation combined with an extensive education program and drop -off collection. * Voluntary source separation with routed collection. * Voluntary source separation combined with an extensive education program and drop -off collection. * Limiting the collection of material which is recyclable through organized collection or the placing of restrictions on the licenses of waste haulers which bans the collection of yard waste and recyclables together with the remaining mixed municipal solid waste stream. * Contracting with existing source separation programs allowing the programs to become the "official" recycling or yard waste compost programs of the city. * 0 Dakota Count communities shall undertake the following roles and 1 responsibilities listed in order of most effective to least effective in meeting the Source Separation Community Development Schedule: * Establish a community solid waste management I committee/commission. * Establish a community source separation education program. (C* **%+3) r * Implement a routed collection or a drop -off collection program. * Sponsor or co- sponsor source programs which process source separated materials. * Utilize the facilities of the Intermediate Processing Facility for recyclables and the County composting facility for yard waste. i * Utilize the technical assistance on source separation which is offered to communities by the County. * Annually report activities and results of community source separation activities to the County using the reporting format developed by the County. * Meet the community residential waste reduction schedule (See Table 9). I � COMMUNITY SOURCE SEPARATION SCHEDULE Table #9 1 1991- 1996 - Year 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1995 * 2000 * 1 Annual % Reduction 2 4 6 9 11 15 15 15 1 COMMUNITY Castle Rock T. 11 23 34 51 62 . 84 431 446 Douglas T. 5 10 15 22 27 37 188 196 1 Empire T. 10 21 32 49 61 84 440 470 Eureka T. 11 22 35 54 68 96 500 525 Greenvale T. 5 11 16 25 31 42 219 230 Hampton T. 7 15 24 37 47 66 340 355 Marshan T. 14 29 44 67 83 114 • 581 596 Nininger T. 7 13 20 30 37 51 260 266 Randolph T. 3 7 11 16 21 29 150 159 Ravenna T. 14 29 44 67 83 114 570 570 Sciota T. 2 4 7 10 12 17 85 90 Vermillion T. 9 19 28 43 53 72 370 385 Waterford T. 4 8 12 17 21 28 147 153 Twp. Subtotal 102 211 322 488 605 834 4281 4441 Coates 2 3 5 8 10 14 73 82 Farmington 43 87 133 202 252 349 1805 1905 Hampton 3 5 8 12 15 20 105 105 Lilydale 4 8 12 18 23 32 161 168 Mendota 2 4 6 10 12 17 83 80 Mendota Hts. 72 148 226 347 433 604 3140 3340 Miesville 1 3 4 7 8 11 55 50 New Trier 1 2 3 5 7 10 . 50 50 Randolph 3 6 9 13 16 22 110 110 Rosemount 57 117 179 274 342 476 2482 2649 Sunfish Lake 3 6 9 14 18 24 125 133 Vermillion 4 9 13 20 24 34 174 183 4th Class City Subtotal 195 398 607 930 1160 1613 8363 8855 Apple Valley 241 493 755 1158 1445 2012 10664 11670 Burnsville 361 731 1111 1688 2089 2884 15023 16029 Eagan 269 574 914 1450 1870 2683 14420 16095 Hastings 120 241 362 544 667 912 4602 4668 Inver Gr. Hts. 169 343 520 788 973 1341 6908 7244 Lakeville 154 319 493 761 957 1341 7009 7511 Northfield 0 0 1 1 1 1 5 5 So. St. Paul 185 367 547 815 990 1341 6705 6705 West St. Paul 163 322 478 710 860 1160 5800 5800 2 & 3 Class City Subtotal 1662 3390 5181 7915 9852 13675 71136 75727 TOTALS 1959 3999 6110 9333 11616 16122 83780 89023 :I *Note: Aggregate volumes for five year period. 34, l3 N 0 1 K 1 t Q) • i . 1 W co S 1 ! 1 -1— F WW i — P F L G c _ 1— 0) r p t Z cn `- _ 1 # 0 i c r ! 1 r CC CL 1 - A.. CV _ - LU 1 1 1 U CD) N F G CO t ( {Ms, # >" z 7. 1 1 0 0 1 "'' 1 ¢ F 1 : 1 0 a (C+�. O O ¢ CD C J CI >. O M Z 0 ? w w U.1 0 W a = CO 0 0 Z J O a 0 O J LL. a n w I-- 1- C a Z O Lu Z w > co p ¢ a Z O Z w Q Z 0 Q 0 Z 0 w O I J = J¢ LL Z < w F- E- w 0 O 2 w i= 2 < U 0 >- E } - O O w 0 w �. ❑ w¢ m Z E- >- Q (3 >- H E- w J < = Q 3- w ♦- CC o Q Z J Q __I 0 ¢w F-' >- 20 z O a t-- 0 c< w 0 Z cc O� Q ¢ a Oua Z 0 c[ Q- 0 U m 0 a Q 0 w w - w a w o 0 A; p E- o 0 2 2 (7 w > 2 E— Z 0 r 0 0 cn } wz w Z 0 0 Z 1 0 0 Z mz w I- z z� 1 0 nz �� O cc I- 0 z Z Z 0 Q J z E ¢ - CI] co F' Z w 0 E- U z cc w F.. E- 1- r 0 ¢ R. c/) c 0 c./) ¢ -- z >- 2 0 zQ 20 z R z7 <0 z 0O z w zO F- O m 0 w ❑ Ocn w¢ O ¢¢ 0 z O m 0 0< 0= w Z 0< u_ a_ U u_ wa 2 .....Z cc (3 - ¢ - c i ci c ui cc; co 6 o -- r4 SOLID WASTE SURVEY Last fall, City staff conducted a recycling survey through the City newsletter. The results of that survey are outlined below. With 576 responses, the survey represents approximately 5% of all households in the City. The survey was voluntary and, therefore, is not intended to be statistically determinative. It does reflect a general desire for improvement of the recycling opportunities available to Eagan's citizens. The majority of the survey's respondants live in single family homes (78 %). Since this housing type makes up about half of Eagan's housing stock, the response rate indicates a great interest in recycling among traditional single family homeowners. A large number of respondants (74 %) were aware of the need to reduce the volume of unseparated household wastes. Many of the respondants currently recycle newspaper and clothing (62 -64 %). This is probably due to the cleanliness and ease of storage of such items and the availability of markets, such as paper drives, Goodwill services and the Salvation Army. Aluminum is recycled by about half of all respondants. Glass is one of the least recycled commodities listed (22 %). This probably is due to the need to rinse and separate glass products and the obscurity of glass drop sites. This, despite the fact that the market for glass is one of the strongest among recyclables. Only a few (16 %) recycle newspaper, glass and aluminum together. The compost program generated significant interest for waste abatement (65 %). An equal number are interested in compost products for soil buildup. The present compost site was well used throughout the fall and has significant area to expand in the coming year. A large majority of the respondants (80 %) would separate wastes if the cost of recycling was the same as or less than the current cost of refuse removal. Almost 95% of all respondants would recycle if a curbside pick -up were available, while 74% would use collection sites in the City, if available. In terms of the placement of dropsites, more than half (55 %) would drive more than three miles to a drop site. 68% would drive more than two miles. This means that strategic placement of collection sites could result in significant recycling benefits, but an even greater benefit could be derived from an efficient curbside system. A combination of one or more drop sites and curb side recycling would provide the greatest exposure of recycling alternatives to Eagan residents. Convenience of recycling will be an important consideration if the City is to reduce its waste stream significantly. While 93% of respondants were willing to separate wastes and 88% would bundle newspapers, many fewer (68 %) indicated a willingness to rinse metals and glass for recycling. Many recyclers recommend that these items be clean to improve its quality and reduce difficulties in handling and storage. Even though convenience is important, 89% of the respondants said 1< that they would set out recyclables on a day other than their ordinary refuse pick -up. Most would save recyclables for two weeks or more (83 %) and almost half would be willing to store them for a month before pick -up (48 %). This would give some flexibility within the recycling system in terms of pick -ups or availability. A tabulation of the results is attached for yourreview as Appendix A. IA, 1(o 1988 BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION Expenditures Planning and Management $ 3,000 Compost Program 6,000 City Clean Up (Organization, Publicity, Etc.) 1,000 Hazardous Waste Collection (City, County, Unisys) 15,000 Recycling Drop -off Center (Establishment & Operation) 0- 35,000 $26,000 - 61,000 Revenues Dakota County Household Rebate $15,000 Metropolitan Council Grant Program 7,500 Tonnage Rebate Program (Requires Recycling Center) 0- 35,000 $22,500 - 32,500 19 e 111 S Week SJIg►g7 I Household hazardous waste ■ targeted by Dakota County by Steve Downer water, Kinney said. Lakeville, and that he's had If you thought controlling Perhaps not surprisingly, In- "very little contact with Burns- pollution was out of your hands, ver Grove Heights is the only city vine' think again. in the county to have a day where But he hopes the county action George Kinney will help you. residents can bring their will spur the program into mo- Kinney, of Dakota County's household hazardous wastes to a tion. hazardous waste management collection point. "Hazardous waste is anything department, is in charge of coor- That is the type of program flammable or combustible, acid dinating a county household Kinney would like to see in other or alkali, anything toxic, paints, hazardous waste program. The cities, as a start toward the pesticides andcleaners," Kinney program was expected to be op- elimination of this personal form said. to throwing things proved by the County Board of of pollution. Commissioners Tuesday. - "There are a lot of problems" out are: Gas stations, by state "Right now Dakota County in setting up such a program, law, accept used oil and car bat- receives two - thirds to three - Kinney said. "Once the waste is teries. Pesticides should be used quarters of the metro-area's gar- collected the insurance liability for their intended purpose, or bage," Kinney said. "As a result, goes through the roof. We're try- given to somebody who needs all the stuff people throw away ing to assume the liability and do them when you're done_ Paint, that is at all harmful is ending up something about the expense." when in good condition, will be in the groundwater. Kinney said an annual day accepted by the Salvation Army "It's as sure as rain comes would just be a start. or any non - profit organization down from the sky. It's a given, "What percentage of the thatcanuseit. and it's ugly stuff." population is going to get involv- Kinney said that should the There are four sanitary land - ed ?" he said. "It's easier to put it county build a refuse - derived fills in Dakota County, Kinney in the trash bag and out on the fuel plant, people may have to said, and all are on the federal street. But consciousness raising separate their garbage into government's superfund list. is the first step." categories. That should aid the Harmful chemicals from the In- Kinney said Eagan and quest to intercept hazardous ver Grove Heights landfill, just Hastings are considering having wastes before they are thrown north of Rosemount, have been collection days, that there is out. found in Inver Grove Heights . some support for one in Kinney can be reached at 45G -2793 for more information. • • - 1.