HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/10/1989 - Solid Waste Abatement Commission 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, January 10, 1989
in Eagan Municipal Center Conference Rooms A & B
3830 Pilot Knob Road, Eagan, Minnesota
Packet materials will follow for Commission Members.
For more information about this meeting, please call
Jon Hohenstein at 454 -8100.
AGENDA
SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION
EAGAN, MINNESOTA
EAGAN MUNICIPAL CENTER CONFERENCE ROOMS A & B
TUESDAY
JANUARY 10, 1989
11:30 A.M.
I. ROLL CALL AND ADOPTION OF AGENDA
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
III. CURBSIDE RECYCLING IMPLEMENTATION
A. Eagan /Dakota County Joint Powers Agreement
B. Container Distribution Plan
IV. OTHER BUSINESS
A. Commission Update
1. Recyclable Containers n',,
V. DISTRIBUTION ��� � p,Y�
VI. NEXT MEETING �>
VII. ADJOURNMENT
MEMO TO: CHAIRS MANN AND HOEL AND ALL MEMBERS OF THE SOLID WASTE
ABATEMENT COMMISSION
FROM: ASSISTANT TO THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR HOHENSTEIN
DATE: JANUARY 6, 1989
SUBJECT: EAGAN SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION MEETING OF
JANUARY 10, 1989
A regular meeting of the Eagan Solid Waste Abatement Commission
will be held on Tuesday, January 10, 1989 at 11:30 a.m. , in the
Eagan Municipal Center Conference Rooms A and B. The City will
provide a box lunch to Commission members requesting one by noon,
Monday, January 9. Please contact Jon Hohenstein or Jane
Helebrant at 454 -8100 to indicate whether you will attend and
your luncheon preference.
I. ROLL CALL AND ADOPTION OF AGENDA
The agenda, as presented or modified, requires adoption by the
Commission.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A copy of the minutes of the Solid Waste Abatement Comm ssion
meeting of December 13, 1988 is enclosed on pages ilt`e45 for
your review. These minutes, subject to any change, require
approval by the Commission.
III. CURBSIDE RECYCLING IMPLEMENTATION
A. Eagan /Dakota County Joint Powers Agreement- -
Enclosed on pages (9" I will find a copy of the joint powers
agreement prepared for the City of Eagan by Dakota County
relative to funding of the City's waste abatement programs.
Staff would direct your attention specifically to page two of the
agreement which is found on page 7 of your packet which
describes the point system by which the City will be evaluated
for funding purposes.
The agreement has been forwarded to the City Attorney's office
for review and, pending Commission action, will be before the
City Council at its next regular meeting on January 17.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny the
joint powers agreement between Dakota County and the City of
Eagan regarding the City's recycling program and to recommend the
same to the City Council for consideration.
B. Container Distribution Plan- -
As you will note in the previously received notice, staff has
scheduled a hauler workshop to discuss, among other things, the
distribution of recyclable containers. That meeting will be held
on Monday evening, January 9 at 4:30 p.m.
There appear to be two basic approaches by which the City may
distribute the containers. One would be to contract with a
temporary labor entity such as Dakota County Court Services to
provide manpower and to utilize City equipment to follow
predetermined distribution routes. The benefits of this approach
would be complete coverage of the community through relatively
efficient routes. The down side to this alternative would be the
potential cost and the need to utilize already short City labor
forces for the routing tasks. The final concern lies with the
fact that most experts in the recycling field suggest that your
containers not be distributed any earlier than a week preceding
your first collection to prevent homeowners from saving
extraordinary amounts of materials for the first collection
cycle. It is unlikely that a combination of City crews and hired
temporary labor could accomplish the distribution during one
calendar week.
Another alternative would be to work with the haulers in
distributing the containers to their accounts. The benefit of
this approach would be to allow the haulers to do a dry run of
their routes the week preceding and the fact that the containers
would be at the homes no more than a week preceding the first
collection. The difficulties with this approach would likewise
require some level of financial support for this distribution and
the concern of the haulers about sharing their accounts with the
City. Staff believes that it is essential that the City have an
accurate accounting of which homes have received containers and
that can only be accomplished by direct control of the
distribution or a comparison of route sheets with the City's
water billing records.
Other alternatives may present themselves but these are the most
obvious. Please consider them in anticipation both of the hauler
workshop on Monday evening if you can attend and the Commission
meeting Wednesday morning.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To provide staff direction
for the development of a container distribution plan.
IV. OTHER BUSINESS
A. Commission Update- -
Recyclable Containers - At its regular meeting of Tuesday,
December 20, 1988, the Eagan City Council approved Rehrig- Pacific
as the City's vendor for recyclable containers at a cost of
$10.08 per container set. Staff is currently working on the
cr:72
details of the printing and logo which will appear on the
containers and anticipates delivery in mid - February.
V. DISTRIBUTION
Enclosed on pages /3 /6 please find an article from Resource
Recycling entitled "Higher Recovery Rates: The Answer's in the
Bag" which reviews cost per bag approaches to volume based fees.
Please read over this article as it provides some very
interesting concepts which we may consider for future phases of
our program if appropriate.
VI. NEXT MEETING
The next regular meeting of the Solid Waste Abatement Commission
is Tuesday, February 14, 1989.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting will adjourn at or about 1:00 p.m.
As istan to the City Administrator
Subject to Approval
MINUTES OF THE SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION
Eagan, Minnesota
December 13, 1988
A regular meeting of the Eagan Solid Waste Abatement
Commission was held on Tuesday, December 13, 1988 at 11:30 am,
at the Eagan Municipal Center. The following members were
present: Milbridge, Marshall, Schnell, Tritz, Ista, Knutson,
Bahr, DeBilzan, and Hoel. Absent were: Nordby and Mann. Also
present was Administrative Assistant Hohenstein, Administrative
Intern Mundahl, Catz from Coke Cola and representatives of the
hauling industry and public.
AGENDA
Section 3 part B from the agenda was moved to the next
meeting. Upon motion by Marshall, seconded by Ista, all members
voting in favor, the agenda for the meeting was approved as
presented.
MINUTES
Upon motion by Ista, seconded by Marshall, all members
voting in favor, the minutes of the November 9, 1988 meeting were
approved as presented.
CURBSIDE RECYCLING IMPLEMENTATION
Hohenstein reviewed the hauler material support levels and
explained the different percentages and alternatives of
recyclables and yard waste. There was also discussion on the
tipping fees and incentives for haulers. Hoel mention incentives
should be for the citizens and not just the haulers. Questions
were raise on what other communities were doing and Hohenstein
stated, as a point of reference, it appears that the City of
Burnsville will be offering approximately $20.00 /ton of
recycables and free use of their compost site for Burnsville yard
waste. Marshall felt we should be at or match Burnville's rate.
Knutson and Turner both felt support should be given for
recyclables only and that yard waste should be left to market
forces.
Motion by Schnell, second Milbridge, all members voting in
favor, to recommend to the City Council that a support level be
established for haulers and recycable programs for residential
recycables to be set at approximently $20 per ton, depending on
the market rate established by other cities, and that such
payments not exceed a cap of $50,000 in 1989 without further
action by commission or council.
LI
STACKABLE CONTAINERS
Hohenstein informed the Commission that the City Council
chose not to award the bid and direct staff to rebid the
containers with the additional requirements of a solid sided
container for glass. The City Council wanted to miminize adverse
consequences of potential breakage and to include a longer
warranty period for the containers.
As a result, the new bids will be received on December 19
for consideration at the December 20 City Council meeting.
RECYCLING INTERN
•
Hohenstein also mention to the Comission, that the City
Council has approved a new recycling intern to assist with the
implementation of the City's programs for next year. He hopes to
have the new recycling intern on board early in January.
NEXT MEETING
The next regular meeting of the Solid Waste Abatement
Commission will be on Tuesday, January 10, 1989 at 11:30 am in
the Eagan Municipal Center.
ADJOURNMENT
Upon motion by Schell, seconded by Milbridge, all members
voting in favor, the meeting was adjourned at 12 :35 pm.
DLM
Date Chair
5
JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
This Agreement is between Dakota County (hereinafter "County ") and
the City of Eagan (hereinafter "Municipality "), through their Board and
Council, respectively.
WHEREAS, on July 26, 1988, after a public hearing thereon, the Dakota
County Board of Commissioners adopted its County Recycling Policies and
Community Abatement Funding Program Guidelines (Resolution No. 88 -650 and
Resolution No. 88 -651); and
WHEREAS, the County Recycling Policies include a requirement that all
cities and townships within the County participate in recycling activities;
and
WHEREAS, the County desires to provide a portion of the costs incurred by
cities and townships to implement and operate local comprehensive landfill
abatement programs; and
WHEREAS, the Municipality intends to implement and operate a local
comprehensive landfill abatement program within its jurisdiction and desires
to receive such County funding support as may be available; and
WHEREAS, any local governmental unit may act together with any county
under a joint powers agreement to accomplish landfill abatement pursuant to
Minn. Stat. 473.811, subd. 7; and
WHEREAS, the Dakota County Board of Commissioners has allocated funds
expected to be received from surcharge collections pursuant to Minn. Stat.
115A.919.
NOW, THEREFORE, the County and the Municipality agree to this Joint
Powers Agreement pursuant to Minn. Stat. 471.59 and 473.811, subd. 7, as
follows:
1. Purpose.
The purpose of this Agreement is to provide for cooperation between the
County and the Municipality to implement a local comprehensive landfill
abatement program.
2. Term.
The term of this Agreement is from January 1, 1989 through December 31,
1991, unless terminated earlier pursuant to Paragraph 18.
3. Program.
The Municipality shall implement a local comprehensive landfill abatement
program designed to meet or exceed the following recycling rates:
Page 1 of 7
1989 1990 1991
Residential Recycling 9% 12% 14%
The Municipality shall implement the activities substantially as set forth in
and as approved by the County in Exhibit A. The Dakota County Physical
Development Director or his designee shall have the authority to approve
modifications to Exhibit A as requested by the Municipality, as long as the
amount payable under this Agreement does not exceed $226,312.00 in 1989, and
so long as the proposed modifications are consistent with the County's funding
guidelines.
4. Payment Schedule and Annual Report: 1989.
The County will pay the Municipality the grant amount specified in
paragraph 3 in four (4) equal installments, upon County receipt and approval
of progress reports, as follows:
February 1, 1989
May 1, 1989
August 1, 1989
November 1, 1989.
Progress reports shall be submitted in the form prescribed by the County.
By January 30, 1990 the Municipality shall submit its 1989 Annual Report
in the form prescribed by the County. The County shall evaluate the
Municipality's 1989 performance pursuant to this Agreement. The following
evaluation formula shall be utilized:
full operation of targeted community program 50 points
designed by the County or other County -
approved plan by January 1, 1990
achievement of 9% residential 40 points
recycling rate (4.4 points per 1 %)
completion of commercial /industrial 10 points
recycling objectives in Exhibit A.
The Municipality will reimburse the County the following percentages of
funds paid pursuant to Paragraph 4 based on the following evaluation scores:
0 -50 points 50%
51 -75 points 25%
76 -90 points 10%
91 -100 points 0%
Page 2 of 7
r7
If the Municipality receives funding pursuant to this Agreement in 1990, such
reimbursement shall be deducted from the 1990 payments by the County to the
Municipality. If the Municipality does not receive such funding in 1990, such
reimbursement shall be made by February 28, 1990.
Monies received under this Agreement or assets acquired with funds
provided under this Agreement which are not used for or do not continue in use
for a County- approved landfill abatement project shall be repaid or returned
to the County.
5. Payment Schedule and Annual Reports: 1990 and 1991.
The County will pay the Municipality in 1990 and in 1991 according to
such policies as may be adopted by the County for such years. The County
agrees to adopt its policies by July 1 of the preceding year and to execute
such amendments to this Agreement as are necessary to implement such policies.
Progress reports and Annual Reports for 1990 and 1991 shall be submitted
at the times and in the form prescribed by the County.
6. Eligibility.
Only those activities which are included within an approved Application
for Funding, attached hereto as Exhibit A, shall be eligible for funding under
this Agreement. Activities included within Exhibit A, to the extent
reimbursed by a source other than as provided for in this Agreement, are not
eligible for reimbursement under this Agreement. Any revenues received by the
Municipality from activities reimbursed pursuant to this Agreement shall be
applied to the costs of such activities.
The Municipality understands that the County's allocation to the
Municipality under this Agreement for the years 1990 and 1991 will be
dependent upon availability to the County of surcharge collections pursuant to
Minn. Stat. 115A.919 and other sources available for landfill abatement
activities.
7. Documentation.
To receive funding from the County pursuant to this Agreement, the
Municipality shall:
A. Reserve funding allocation for each calendar year by submitting to
the County by November 1, for 1989 and by October 1 for 1990 and
1991 an application, budget and support documentation as required by
the County. The application shall be available from the Dakota
County Planning and Program Management Department. The application
Page 3 of 7
2
shall be accompanied by a certified resolution or minutes from the
governing body of the Municipality requesting the funding allocation
and by documentation which describes the municipal office paper
recycling program operated by the Municipality.
B. Submit as part of the Annual Report documentation of costs actually
incurred for activities included within Exhibit A and revenues
received from sources other than the County in support of such
activities by January 30 of the year following the date the costs
were incurred. Documentation shall be submitted in the format
prescribed by the County. Documentation shall include an accounting
of the number of tons of each recyclable material collected through
all source separation recycling programs (commercial /industrial and
residential) within the Municipality, and an accounting of the
number of tons of recyclable material which has been marketed,
together with a description of the methodology used for
calculation. For composting programs, the documentation shall
include either a report of the actual number of tons of yardwaste
delivered to compost facilities or, if actual tons are not
available, an estimate of the number of cubic yards of yardwaste
delivered to composting facilities together with a methodology used
for calculation. The Municipality agrees to furnish the County with
additional reports in the form and at the frequencies requested by
the County for financial evaluation and program management purposes.
8. Access to Records /Audits.
A. The County shall have full access to all records relating to the
performance of this Agreement.
B. The Municipality agrees to maintain records relating to the terms of
this Agreement, and shall retain all such documentation for three
years following the last date in which payment was received from the
County under the terms of this Agreement or following the
termination of this Agreement, whichever is later. Such records
shall be made available for audit or inspection at any time upon
request of the County or its authorized representative. The
Municipality agrees to provide access to the project site(s), if
any, at reasonable hours. The Municipality shall maintain records
sufficient to show that all funds received under this Agreement were
Page 4 of 7
9
expended for Landfill Abatement Purposes in accordance with Minn.
Stat. 115A.919 and this Agreement. The Municipality agrees to
provide any information that is not readily available within a
reasonable period of time. All expenses incurred by the examining
authority shall remain a cost of such authority.
9. Property Distribution.
Assets acquired in whole or in part with funds provided under this
Agreement shall be the property of the Municipality. If this Agreement is
terminated pursuant to Paragraph 18 herein, assets acquired in whole or in
part with funds provided under this Agreement shall be the property of the
Municipality so long as said assets are used by the Municipality for the
purposes of landfill abatement.
10. Acknowledgment of County Financial Assistance.
The Municipality shall provide the following acknowledgment on all
promotional materials, reports and publications relating to the activities
described in Exhibit A:
This activity, program, publication funded in part by the Dakota
County Board of Commissioners' Solid Waste Enterprise Fund.
11. Hold Harmless.
The Municipality and the County agree to indemnify and hold each other
harmless from any claims, demands, actions or causes of action arising out of
any act or omission on the part of their respective commissioners, officers,
agents, servants or employees associated with activities pursued under the
terms of this Agreement.
12. Assignment /Subcontracting.
The Municipality shall be responsible for the performance of all
subcontracts and shall ensure that all subcontractors perform fully the terms
of the subcontract. Any agreement between the Municipality and any
subcontractor shall obligate the subcontractor to comply with the terms of
this Agreement.
13. Compliance With Requirements of the Law.
The Municipality agrees to comply with all federal, state, and local laws
or ordinances, and all applicable rules, regulations, and standards
established by any agency of such governmental units, which are now or
hereafter promulgated insofar as they relate to the Municipality's activities
under the provisions of this Agreement.
Page 5 of 7
tD
14. Equal Employment Opportunity.
In all activities related to the terms of this Agreement, the
Municipality agrees to comply with all federal, state and local laws,
ordinances, rules, regulations and executive orders pertaining to unlawful
discrimination on account of race, color, creed, religion, national origin,
sex, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, disability or
age.
15. Severability.
The provisions of this Agreement are severable. If any paragraph,
section, subdivision, sentence, clause or phrase of this Agreement is for any
reason held to be contrary to law, such decision shall not affect the
remaining portions of this Agreement.
16. Entire Agreement.
It is understood and agreed that the entire Agreement is contained herein
and that this Agreement supersedes all oral and written agreements and
negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof,
including the Joint Powers Agreement between the parties dated February 9,
1988, which is hereby terminated by agreement of the parties.
17. Amendments.
Any amendments, alterations, variations, modifications, or waivers of
this Agreement shall be valid only when they have been reduced to writing,
duly signed by the parties.
18. Termination.
The County or the Municipality may terminate this Agreement, with or
without cause, by giving written notice to the County Administrator for the
County and to the Chairperson of the official governing body of the
Municipality, at least 30 days before the effective date of termination. The
County and the Municipality also may terminate this Agreement by mutual
written agreement.
19. Effect of Termination.
Termination shall not discharge any liability, responsibility, or right
created or incurred by the County or the Municipality during the term of this
Agreement. Each party to this Agreement shall be liable for its own acts to
the extent provided for by law.
Page 6 of 7
1 �
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
duly executed.
Approved as to form: COUNTY OF DAKOTA
By
Atsis ant County Attorney /Date Steven G. Loeding, Chair
Board of Commissioners
Approved as to execution: Date of Signature
Assistant County Attorney /Date Attest
Norma Marsh, Auditor
Approved by Dakota County Date of Signature
Board Resolution No.
This instrument drafted by: KAS
Dakota County Attorney's Office
Dakota County Government Center MUNICIPALITY
1560 West Highway 55
Hastings, MN 55033 By
Telephone: (612) 437 -0438 Date of Signature
Attest
, City Clerk
Date of Signature
Contracts /K -88 -272
A -JPA
Page 7 of 7
Higher recovery rates:
the answer in the bag
Recycling has arrived. This fact raises the directly related to the total cost of collec-
question of whether the fever is spreading tion, transportation and disposal of trash,
by Kimberly A. Sproule fast and fervently enough for municipali- or it may vary based solely on the cost of
ties to reach the waste reduction goals disposal. The cost of operating a recycling
and Jeanne M. Cosulich that have been adopted recently by states program may also be included in this rate.
across the country. Unquestionably, if po- This provides a direct incentive to waste
Kimberly A. Sproule and Jeanne M. tential participation in residential waste re- generators to reduce waste and to utilize
Cosulich are recycling specialists with cycling programs could be measured from existing recycling systems.
William F. Cosulich Associates, a consult- the optimistic view of public officials, re- Bag /tag programs are considered the
ing firm of environmental scientists, plan- cycling professionals and community ac- most equitable of all refuse systems be-
ners and engineers in South Plainfield, tivists, these goals would be easy to cause residents only pay for the amount
New Jersey. reach. of refuse they generate. This can be an
However, this country is comprised of effective way to encourage recycling
a wide range of individuals, some of whom since the system rewards recycling par -
are more concerned with making ends ticipants through lower waste handling
meet than with groundwater quality, the costs.
needless waste of natural resources, or Various approaches have been utilized.
the expected life of the local landfill. In Twelve per -unit fee system structures
order for recycling to gain the grassroots operating in Florida, Georgia, Illinois,
support necessary to achieve high levels Michigan, New Jersey, New York and
of waste reduction, it may be necessary Pennsylvania were analyzed recently to
to translate it into savings for John and obtain information on whether such billing
Jane Q. Public. systems increased participation in recy-
cling programs. In addition, the research
Equitable system examined the basic operating strategies
It is commonly expected that reducing the for the bag /tag and user fee system.
waste stream through recycling will lead Preliminary research showed five pro -
to reductions in the collection, transporta- grams where the system has exerted a
tion and disposal costs of the remaining positive effect on recycling rates. These
municipal garbage. Hypothetically, these programs are discussed below. An over -
cost reductions should be passed on to view of operational considerations follows
the individual generator to provide an in- the case studies. A summary table pre -
centive for recycling. The logic of this ex- sents the management options available
pectation is sound, but its realization in for per -unit based systems.
practice is often inhibited by a number of
factors. One factor is that when savings Holland, Michigan
are realized, the fee schedules and user Waste Management, Inc. has been
fees are not designed to pass savings on operating a subscription bag program in
to the consumer. Holland since 1982. The bags are sold at
The per- container system of billing for local grocery stores for $1.30 each. In
waste collection and disposal (bag/tag) is 1987, the company offered a recycling op-
an avoided cost capture mechanism that tion to its customers allowing them to pur-
is feasible in connection with any type of chase clear plastic recycling bags for 50
waste collection arrangement. In this sys- cents each. These bags are used in a
tem, residences and businesses are curbside collection program of commin-
charged an amount directly related to the gled materials.
number of containers set out for waste According to Randall Dozeman of
collection. The cost per container may be Continued on page 43.
20
Resource Recycling November December 1988
4/3
• Table 1 — Summary of bag /tag programs
Multi -
Recycling Cost of family and
Subscribe Types of Private or voluntary or recycling commercial
Municipal Municipal or required containers Min- public land- mandatory; included in or industry
or private or private bag /tag used and imum fill and curbside or per -unit incorp. bag/
collection management program cost fee tipping fee drop -off charge tag program
High Bridge, Municipal Municipal Required 52 orange Yes; Private; Voluntary; Yes No
NJ stickers used $35 approx. drop -off
fora 25- Ib. per $100 per ton
bag or can; qtr.
each
additional
sticker $1.25
Village of Private Private Subscribe 32 -gal bag @ No Private; Voluntary; N/A No
Newport, NY $1.40; 28-gal $35 per ton drop -off
@ $1.00 ea.
Woodstock, IL Private Private Subscribe 32 -gal size No Private Voluntary; Yes No
bag @ $1.12 landfill; curbside
ea. $5.85 per
compacted
yard
Borough of Municipal Municipal Required Blue bags Yes; One private; Voluntary; N/A No
Latrobe, PA @ 250 $60 one public; drop -off
yr. $5 a cubic
yard
Borough of Municipal Municipal Required 40-lb bags@ No Private; Mandatory; Yes No
Perkasie, PA $1.50; 20-lb $58.95 per curbside
bag @ 800 ton
Carlisle, PA Municipal Municipal Subscribe 30 -gal @ 850 No Private; Currently N/A Yes, multi-
15-gal @ 500 $24 per ton formulating family; no,
a program commercial
sector
Holland, MI Private Private Subscribe 30" x 39" No Private; Voluntary; No No
orange bags $16 per ton curbside
at $1.30 ea.
Grand Rapids, Municipal Municipal Subscribe 30 -gal @ 300 Yes; Public; Voluntary; N/A Yes, multi -
MI or tags (a 250 1.1 mill $17 per ton drop -off family; no,
on prop commercial ,
tax sector
i
Lansing, MI Municipal Municipal Subscribe 30 "x37" No Private; Voluntary; N/A No
orange bags $2.59 per drop -off
@ 700 cubic yard
Village of Municipal Municipal Required 30-gal bags No N/A Implement. N/A N/A
Ilion, NY @ $1.15; mandatory
16-gal bags program
@ 850
Plantation, FL Private Both Required 32 -gal bag No Public; Currently N/A Some multi-
@ 800 $30 a ton formulating family; no,
a program commercial
sector
Diluthe,GA Private Both Required 33 "x37"bags No Private; Currently N/A Somemulti-
@ 300 $6.50 a formulating family; no,
cubic yard a program commercial
sector
21
IL( Resource Recycling November December 1988
"There are some very good, sound covered in Holland. According to Waste City of Woodstock, Illinois
technologies available today to use vari- Management and city officials, this reduc- The City of Woodstock, Illinois has re-
ous sources of secondary fiber," Johnson tion has been achieved through increased cently begun a volume -based waste col -
says. use of curbside recycling programs and lection system. McHenry- Woodstock Dis-
Industry leaders hope these new tech- drop -off sites fostered by the per -unit pro- posal, which is owned by Waste Manage -
iologies will be successful sooner, not gram. ment, Inc., has a city contract to provide
later, in solving the problems of using collection to all one- and two- family
waste paper other than old newspaper to Borough of Perkasie, Pennsylvania homes within its jurisdiction. The city has
make newsprint. For those newsprint pro- The Borough of Perkasie, Pennsylvania a population of 12,000 and has approxi-
ducers currently thinking about making has begun a mandatory per -bag rate col- mately 3,500 residences.
the leap, Quebec and Ontario's Benvenuti lection and recycling program that, ac- The city sponsors a recycling program
offers this advice: "I hope if they go into cording to Paul Leonard, borough man- using set -out containers to collect news -
it, they go into it with their eyes open." RR ager, helped reduce its residential waste papers, tin cans, aluminum cans and
stream by 61 percent during the first half glass containers. McHenry- Woodstock
of 1988. The borough has a population of Disposal provides recycling collection on
approximately 6,200 people in 2,000 the same day as regular waste pickup
housing units in an area of 2.4 square using a separate vehicle. This curbside
miles. A flat annual fee of $120 per unit collection program began January 1,
Higher recovery rates for collection was eliminated when the 1988. Through this program, Woodstock
(continued from page 20) per -bag rate program began. has already reached a 14 percent residen-
The borough's mandatory recycling tial waste reduction rate. Attaining this
Waste Management, Inc., the differential program began January 1, 1988. Alu- rate so quickly can be attributed at least
bag rates have encouraged customers to minum, cardboard, glass and newsprint in part to the per -unit fee structure.
use the recycling program. In addition, the are collected curbside and through a drop -
recycling program has reduced disposal off center. There is no charge for recycling Village of Newport, New York
costs and saved customers from $2.50 to services. Leonard estimates a 90 percent Humpf Disposal in Newport, New York
$3.00 per month. The program continues participation rate which he attributes to has developed and managed a successful
to grow, as does recycling participation. the institution of the per -bag fee and the per -bag rate system for residents who
In 1987, 500 tons of recyclables were re- borough's mandatory recycling program. wish to subscribe. Most of the 2,000
----- _ ____ _ ..._ _ _ _ _ ___
RECYCLINC? R E A T
We've been part of the industry since 1919.
magnets... mineable strippers..
The most complete range sold ! . 3 models -
in America today — for every -.r Handles heavily insulated
scrap yard /mill application. r �� a b ; •r cables to 6" in diameter
.. balers.. Complete manufacturing and "r. Plus ACSR.
rebuilding facilities. ~ ...
A series of low cost models
p 9
for non - ferrous metals, cans i I :. i
and loose tin. .- .N 4 _ f
- . ` X, /
`. ' { ` . 9 x .11 till,
► r
iimit,, mmgrapples.. " ...
�i ►1,
r wi lrj hydraulic alligator shears...
For every scrap yard/ ,
ship loading operation. For every metal cleaning application.
Cranes and grapples. 6" to 36" blade lengths.
SALES / SERVICE / RENTALS GENSCO F EQUIPMENT CO. LTD.
53 Cana.. Ave. Toronto, Cantle MeM 2R6 . Tel. 141 61 165-7521 . Telex 065.24770
—' Ius THE Source of used equipment throughout North America. �Spaeiallrta Scrap Handling and goe .aaing Equipment for Over 60 Yews IMS
43
Resource Recycling November December 1988
/3
people in the village, especially recycling recycling programs in place. The majority defraying the cost of hiring personnel,
participants, the elderly and small of these are voluntary drop -off programs. which constitutes the largest expenditure
families, benefit from the program. The It is estimated that the use of these drop- of the program. Collection crew members
cost per bag is $1.25 for a 32- gallon bag off centers is enhanced by the presence are work -study students, volunteers or
and 80 cents for a 20- gallon bag. of the per -unit programs in all surveyed community service workers. The C e
In addition, Humpf Disposal offers its programs. However, Perkasie, which is Work -Study Program is an godser,. .or
clients curbside collection of commingled achieving the highest reduction rates, has the program. CWSP is a form of financial
materials using clear plastic bags. These a mandatory curbside program. aid to students where the federal govern -
materials are collected on the same day Finally, most of the programs utilizing ment pays 70 cents for every 30 cents
as trash using the same vehicles. The pro- curbside collection have incorporated the that CU Recycling pays its employees.
gram has been very effective and has sub- cost of recycling in user rates. Interest- Students also have incentive to volunteer
stantially reduced individual waste han- ingly, these programs are still able to offer without pay — a letter of recommendation
dling costs. Before the program was intro- both waste and recycling collection at a can be a useful addition to a degree.
duced, Humpf's customers paid $12 -$15 cost that is less than a flat rate waste -only Roughly 10 percent of CU's recycling
per month. Under the current system, program. The only drop -off program work force is composed of community
many customers are paying as little as $5 where the cost of recycling is included in service volunteers, who pay for their legal
per month. the per -unit rate is in High Bridge where infractions by rendering service to the
per- household cost is based on the an- program.
Borough of High Bridge, New Jersey nual overall solid waste budget of the Another benefit the university provides
The Borough of High Bridge, New Jersey borough. is to interns, and to classes that perform
began a per- container rate system in Jan- studies for the program. For example, a
uary 1988. Residents are charged $35 Conclusions sociology study led by Dr. Joyce Nielsen
quarterly for collection. Each household Volume -based rate structures have been in the mid -1970s developed what is
is issued 52 stickers that must be attached operating succesfully in several munici- known as the "block leader" approach to
to 30- gallon trash cans or bags. When the palities throughout the United States. increasing recycling participation. It works
household has used up its initial allotment Several examples of these programs by having one person take the responsibil-
of 52 stickers, additional sets of 10 can have been described in this article in rela- ity to influence dorm mates to recycle. The
be purchased for $12.50 each. tion to their effect on participation and re personal influence of this individual stimu-
This system has substantially reduced cycling rates. This initial research has lates more participation at the dorm level
the amount of waste the borough is land- shown that these programs are effective. than any set of posters or flyers could. A
filling. During the first two weeks of Janu- Per -unit fee structures reorient collection natural science class also assisted by
ary 1988, the borough collected 5.1 tons and disposal pricing systems in such a helping complete the 1988 waste genera -
of municipal solid waste, compared to 8.7 way that individuals are rewarded for re- tion and disposal study. This provid+Pd
tons in the same two weeks of 1987. This cycling. waste generation rates and disposal
constitutes a 41 percent reduction which, The study has also shown that there is for the university.
according to the borough, is partially a wide range of management options
attributable to per- container rates and a available for such a program: Program development
voluntary drop -off program. • Per -unit programs can be municipally There are inherent difficulties in promoting
or privately managed. university recycling. Student populations
Management issues ir Collection can be provided through are largely transient. This leads to a high
There are several options for managing municipalities or the private sector. turnover rate in the student work force,
a per -unit pricing program. The case • Participants can be required to partici- and students may lack the concern for
studies have shown that the majority of pate or may subscribe to the program. improving their immediate environment,
the bag /tag systems are municipally oper- ■ The cost of recycling can be included knowing they will not be living there per -
ated. On the other hand, some very suc- in the service fee. manently. And younger students may not
cessful programs are managed by the ■ The programs can operate in conjunc- have learned how to be responsible for
private sector (Newport, Woodstock and tion with voluntary or mandatory curb- themselves, much less for their environ-
Holland). Finally, some municipalities are side or drop -off recycling programs. ment.
considering managing the sale of the bags RR To deal with these problems, the recy-
or tags while contracting for collection cling program allows flexibility in work
services (see Table 1). , schedules, and employs an extensive
Half of the programs surveyed are media campaign to alert students to the
on a subscription basis. This offers University recycling economic, social and environmental
households the choice of paying for benefits of recycling. It accomplishes this
service through a flat fee or on a volume (continued from page 27 ) in a very strategic way. Rather than using
basis. All of the private companies offering it operates within the larger framework of a blanket approach to inform all of the
per -unit services do so through a sub- the university, with many resources al- students about the program, specific seg-
scription program. However, of the 12 pro- ready available. "We harness the inherent ments of the university's population are
grams surveyed, the most successful in resources of the university, which is a very identified and targeted, using appropriate
terms of waste reduction rates are important reason for our success," says strategies for that group.
the mandatory municipal programs in DeBell. "And that is what other university An example is the multi - lingual pro -
Woodstock and Perkasie where all resi- recycling programs are going to have to gram, where posters and door hangers
dents are required to use bags. do to become successful," he adds. translated into Chinese, Vietnamese '
Eight of the 12 programs surveyed have An obvious way this has helped is in Spanish are distributed on campus, •
44
Resource Recycling November December 1988
1 4