HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/12/1988 - 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, 12 January 1988
in Conference Rooms A & B at Eagan City Hall
3830 Pilot Knob Road, Eagan, Minnesota
Packet information will be distributed to 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 12, 1988
11:30 A.M.
I. ROLL CALL AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES
II. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
III. STAFF REPORT
A. Dakota County Solid Waste Processing Facility
IV. OLD BUSINESS
A. Reuter Resource Recovery Options
B. Approval of Organized Collection Study
V. NEW BUSINESS
VI. OTHER BUSINESS
VII. NEXT MEETING
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MEMO TO: CHAIRS HOEL AND MANN AND ALL MEMBERS OF
THE SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION
FROM: JON HOHENSTEIN, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
DATE: JANUARY 6, 1988
SUBJECT: SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION FOR JANUARY 12, 1988
A meeting of the Eagan Solid Waste Abatement Commission is
scheduled for Tuesday, January 12, 1988, 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. Notification is essential as we purchase lunches
on the basis of the number we anticipate at the meeting.
I. ROLL CALL AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A copy of the minutes of the Eagan Solid Waste Abatement
Commission meeting of December 8, 1987, is enclosed on pages
•- for your review. These minutes, subject to any change,
require approval by the Commission.
II. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
The agenda, as presented or modified, requires approval by the
Commission.
III. STAFF REPORT
A. Dakota County Solid Waste Processing Facility- -
Enclosed on pages g. /e. you will find a memorandum and
information concerning the Dakota County Solid Waste management
program. The City's roll is anticipated to lie at source
separation component found in the graphic. Currently, members of
city staff from throughout Dakota County are carrying on a series
of meetings with Dakota County personnel regarding city
reponsibilities under the Dakota County Solid Waste Master Plan.
The key elements to these discussions have been the County's
commitment to the mass burn technology, vendor reluctance to
implement a centralized separation component as part of the waste
processing stream and the possible location of additional siting
alternatives to the Rosemount site.
At the present time, the County is moving forward with siting
decisions and negotiations with identified vendors which will be
punctuated in early to mid- spring by submission of the County's
designation plan to the Metropolitan Council.
Staff has previously forwarded to the County copies of the City
Council action requesting identification of City obligations
before designation and the implementation of centralized
separation as a component of the central processing facility.
The City's interests in this regard are several, including the
alternatives for exemption or exclusion from the designation plan
in the event that obligations implied by Dakota County's
decisions exceed the liabilities acceptable to the City and the
potential for alternative sites within the environmental review
being located in the City of Eagan. The former issue is
speculative in nature as the City Council's first desire would be
to stay within the scheme of the County and the latter is of
issue as pertains to air quality issues and a lack of an
appropriate zoning category for such a facility. Staff
anticipates that County staff will be available to discuss these
issues briefly. Because there is substantial work to be
completed at the meeting, staff would encourage this discussion
to be kept at a minimum and would ask that interested Commission
members attend a meeting between the city managers and County
staff at 2:00, Friday, January 15, at Eagan City Hall. Also
enclosed on page JV7 is an Eagan Chronicle article pertinent to
the air quality issue in Rosemount.
No action is required on this item at this time.
OLD BUSINESS
A. Reuter Resource Recovery Options- -
Enclosed on pages 'd •: eyou will find correspondence from Doug
Reuter of Reuter, Incorporated. The purpose of this
correspondence was to inform the City of Eagan of potential
alternatives to County designation in the event that the City and
the Commission were to seek such an alternative. This matter has
been on previous agendas and has been continued as a result of
competing issues.
As a matter of stated policy, the Solid Waste Abatement
Commission and City Council have indicated their intention to
participate in the Dakota County Solid Waste Management Program
unless decisions made by the County place an undue and
inappropriate burden on local policy or resources, that is to say
that as a matter of course the City would prefer to work with the
County unless the County program is deemed to be inappropriate
for the City based on appropriate evidence.
Therefore, this correspondence is not forwarded to the Commission
as any sort of recommendation by staff but rather as a discussion
item as it pertains to the County program and the recommendations
previously made to the County by the Commission and Council. Due
to the relatively short time frames between now and the
submission of the Dakota County Solid Waste designation
ordinance, Reuter is among the few viable alternatives which the
City may consider.
The City and /or County staff may discuss the time line for
exclusion or exemption as pertains to the correspondence.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To provide staff direction
in further discussions with Dakota County municipalities and
County officials as pertains to the Solid Waste designation plan
and its alternatives.
B. Approval of Organized Collection Study
Enclosed on pages 0 r1 s you will find a copy of Pope -Reid
Associates' final version of the Organized Collection Study,
together with correspondence from Terry Guggenbuehl incorporating
comments from the November meeting into the report.
As staff has indicated to you in the past, the consultant has
spent substantial time in completing this study and has reached
the limits of its budget in this regard, absent a glaring
deficiency, it would be appropriate to consider approval of the
Organized Collection Study, with or without qualification, for
consideration by the City Council.
In taking any action today, the Commission would be punctuating
its current relationship with Pope -Reid and requesting final
binding in preparation of the report.
Please review the report in its entirety for discussion with Mr.
Guggenbuehl.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve Pope -Reid
Associates' Organized Collection Study for the City of Eagan,
with or without qualification or presentation to the City
Council.
V. NEW BUSINESS
VI. OTHER BUSINESS
A. Distribution- -
Enclosed on page (1,40 you will find a copy of an article from the
Minnesota Journal regarding key elements of recycling
implementation for your consideration. Other than this
distribution item, there are no items of Other Business.
VII. NEXT MEETING
The next regular meeting of the Solid Waste Abatement Commission
will be Tuesday, February 9 at 11 :30 a.m. in the Municipal Center
Conference Rooms.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting will adjourn at or about 1 :00 p.m.
Adm istrative Assistant
cc: Tom Hedges, City Administrator
Dale Runkle, City Planner
3
Subject of Approval
MINUTES OF THE SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
Eagan, Minnesota
December 8, 1987
A regular meeting of the Eagan Solid Waste Abatement Commission was
held on Tuesday, December 8, 1987, at 11:30 a.m. The following members were
present: Chair Tom Mann, Thom Yehle, Tim Hoel, Darlene Bahr, Duane Soutor,
Larry Knutson, Earl Milbridge, Jon Hohenstein and Terry Schnell, alternate.
Absent was Delmar DeBilzan. Also present were Lynn Anderson and Warren
Wilson, Dakota County, Del Edwards and Erin Ford, Goodwill Industries, Inc.,
Peggy Taney Wander, MSD Recycle, and Susan DeMarco, Administrative Intern.
MINUTES
Upon motion by Knutson, seconded by Schnell, all members voting in
favor, the minutes of the November 10, 1987 Solid Waste Abatement Commission
meeting were approved as presented.
AGENDA
Upon motion by Knutson, seconded by Milbridge, all members voting in
favor, the agenda was approved.
CRITERIA FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF A RECYCLING DROP -OFF CENTER
Del Edwards introduced herself and Erin Ford, both of Goodwill
Industries, Inc. Edwards stated that Goodwill collects about 400 tons of
recyclables per year with one half being household items and the other half
waste recyclables. Edwards further stated it would take approximately two
months to site and develop a drop -off center. The drop -off center, once
established, would be open seven days a week from 10:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m.
Edwards then stated that the drop -off center costs are without any profit and
that the equipment costs are negotiable.
Ford stated that 50% of the employees are disabled or elderly and
they are hired from the community. Edwards commented that the attended
donation centers can accommodate some individual needs and that this is the
first time Goodwill has competed with another firm.
Mann questioned the Goodwill representatives about the types of
items that are excluded. Ford stated that they cannot accept broken items and
large appliances. She further stated that people should give to Goodwill what
they would give to a friend. Edwards added that flyers will delineate
acceptables. Mann also questioned whether there are any alternatives of
collectables. Ford stated that all of the collectables accept the same.
Knutson asked if there are many problems with unacceptables. Ford stated that
the problems are much less.
Yehle inquired about the total cost of the program. Edwards
reported that the cost would be $27,972 annual capital and labor. Mann
inquired into how the costs will change. Edwards stated that the labor costs
are the biggest items; they can no longer split up capital in the first year
and labor in the second year however, they are prepared to negotiate.
Hoel asked if the capital equipment was likely to outlast three year
amortization. Edwards responded that it would. Mann asked if any background
work on siting and locations had been done. Edwards stated that this is
typically done with the City. Ford further stated that sites typically offer
space free for promotional reasons. Goodwill works with various owners,
developers, etc., and contracts directly with the sponsor (property owner).
Schnell asked if Goodwill anticipates any increase in the kind of recyclables
they will accept. Edwards stated that they do not right now.
Yehle asked if market changes would cause Goodwill to accept
different things and Edwards responded that Goodwill would, however, she
further stated that the three largest recyclables are very stable and that
other markets are much more volatile.
Soutor questioned who it is that pays for promotions. Edwards
stated that Goodwill would use its free sources and spend $900 + on promotion.
Wilson questioned whether materials must be separated. Ford stated
that it is preferred that they are but will be taken even if not.
Hoel asked what the revenues are for these programs. Edwards stated
that Goodwill is bartering recyclables to Supercycle for space in Ramsey
facility. Marginal profit is put back into Goodwill mission.
Hohenstein introduced Peggy Taney Wander of MSD Recycle. Wander
stated that MSD is a full service recycler dedicated to increasing recovery.
She further stated that the Eagan proposal is for 1971 Seneca Road, which has
3,000 square feet of space available and will have a CP 3000 Densifier with
aluminum /steel separator. She also stated that there would be redemption for
aluminum, steel, glass, plastic, and foil with the drop -off center hours being
Tuesday through Saturday, 9:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m.
Wander stated that MSD focuses on education and promotion to help
people be more aware of the process and benefits. Wander explained that the
first year compared to future expectations would bring 60% of what MSD can
get. The first year loss would be approximately $9,000 with the third year
breaking even. These projections are based on information from other
facilities.
Knutson asked why the proposed tonnages were different in the second
proposal as compared to the first. Wander responded that first year start up
is lower. Wander reported that the Densifier is $12,000, which over three
years would be $4,000 if they can get the cost amortized over three years from
the City. They are currently in all the communities MSD has started in. Hoel
inquired about the current recycling rates. Wander responded that aluminum is
28 cents per pound, steel is 12 cents, glass one cent and plastic 3 cents and
that they will accept corrugated and newsprint free.
Mann questioned what wouldn't be taken. Wander responded that scrap
metals and household recyclables (furniture, textiles, etc.) would not be
taken. Schnell also inquired about the acceptance of tin. Wander replied
that MSD did not accept it but may work with Supercycle to take it.
Bahr asked who would be responsible for costs if the market drops.
Wander replied that MSD would be responsible. The City of Eagan would be
responsible only for capital costs. Mann asked what the actual cost would be
to Eagan. Wander replied that it would be $4,000 divided by 12 months
($333.33) plus some promotion costs. Mann also asked what the starting date
would be if MSD were approved. Wander replied that MSD could start January 1,
1988.
Hoel voiced concern about the Seneca building to be used for the
drop -off center. He questioned the building's size, road access, and other
area businesses. Wander responded that the building can accommodate their
needs, and is located in an industrial area so access and other area
businesses would not be a problem.
DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES - LEVEL OF SERVICE
Knutson stated that he did not like the fact that there is only one
location. Schnell agreed but also stated that one location is better than no
location. Knutson inquired that if there were a mobile recycling center,
would the Commission wish to entertain another proposal? Wilson responded
that Goodwill has a history of working with a third party. Mann stated that
the Commission must first establish one location, although the mobile idea is
good. It is possible that the ideas could be combined for a permanent
location and a mobile center. Hohenstein responded that land use is
prohibitive of scattered sites and that the capital may be quite high.
Yehle stated that he liked the mobile location idea and would like
to hear more proposals. Bahr inquired about the costs of a mobile location
proposal. Knutson responded that the cost would be minimal. A roll -off box
could be purchased and Knutson would incur part or all of the cost. The
question would lie with whether or not to have it attended and the amount of
time necessary if it is to be attended. Knutson also stated that he could
commit to removing other wastes if left.
Mann stated that one location would be more convenient because it's
less confusing. Bahr also stated that she would rather set up one for $500
per month. Mann replied that simplicity is a goal and costs as proposed are
cut and dried. Schnell commented that the mobile would be confusing because
of constant movement. Hohenstein stated that the three C's should be kept in
mind -- cost, convenience, and conscience.
Bahr and Milbridge left at 12:55 p.m.
Hoel stated that some level of attendance is needed at drop -off
sites. Soutor questioned the Commission on what level of service that it
wants.
Hohenstein suggested encouraging MSD to work with Goodwill to take
household goods. Schnell responded that Goodwill is already accessible to
Eagan through Burnsville and Apple Valley. Wilson stated that the real
interest is abating the land fill problem. Knutson stated that he thinks MSD
is a better choice but that we should try to negotiate down the capital costs.
Schnell also stated he is in favor of MSD, especially considering
cost factors and that MSD is ready to go. Knutson asked how much money is
available for this program. Hohenstein replied that there is $4,000. Mann
instructed the group to express its opinion. Hoel stated his favor of MSD
possibly using Goodwill as a tag -a -long. Schnell stated his favor of MSD.
Soutor stated his favor of MSD with conditions to work with Goodwill for other
recyclables. Knutson stated his favor of MSD, especially cost wise. Yehle
stated his concurrence.
Upon the motion by Yehle, seconded by Schnell, all members voting in
favor, the motion to recommend Council approval of a proposal prepared by
Minnesota Soft Drink (MSD) Recycle to establish a recycling redemption center
at a cost not to exceed $4,000 annually for the next three years, such funds
previously allocated from the Dakota County Landfill Abatement Fund was
passed.
NEXT MEETING
The next meeting was set for Tuesday, Janury 12, 1988 at 11:30 a.m.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 1:20 p.m. by acclamation.
SD
Date Secretary
MEMO TO: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES
FROM: ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT HOHENSTEIN
DATE: DECEMBER 22, 1987
SUBJECT: DAKOTA COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Attached you will find a copy of the materials distributed at our
meeting with Dakota County staff. At that meeting, it was
indicated that with the plan submittal of the Dakota County
designation plan in March, the City's alternatives with respect
to solid waste processing will be limited to those decisions made
by Dakota County.
If the City were inclined, it could pursue an exemption from the
Dakota County designation plan by having in place an existing
processing system prior to the March submittal. This would
imply contracting with an existing system and designating all
City wastes to that location for processing. Following plan
submittal, cities have a 30 day window in which to request an
exclusion from the designation plan. An exclusion may be
considered if contracts exist both with licensed haulers and with
the company intending to accept waste products. The possibility
of receiving an exclusion would be very, very slim due to the
substantial impact the City of Eagan has on the Dakota County
waste stream. Therefore, the City's options are significantly
limited the moment the county submits its waste designation plan
to the Metropolitan Council.
While I'm uncertain as to whether it is in the City's best
interest to operate outside of Dakota County's designation, it is
important that the Council realize that any options will be
significantly reduced when the plan is submitted. If you have
any questions in this regard, let me know.
4 14- 64,-
Admirastrative Assistant
Attachment
JH /af
N
CO f-
. O N I
Cl. ru
O E
lg
cc
... EO''
U
o Q w 4
a
0. �,
q iu ff
' o i cai W o "al
:. L , r . . . X
a)
j o r ....
3
°1 •
14•10 Q O p k : C
AI `3.l k
0.a
Cf ) Z CL4 CD ° i
o IF N N
CC
Cr
•
PROGRAM GOAL, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES
•
ikota County has been actively moving toward a municipal solid waste
management system since 1983 when it developed its first Solid Waste Master
Plan. Since that time, consideration of systems has progressed from
consideration of incineration only, to a system that includes waste
reduction, source separation of yard waste and recyclables, composting /co-
composting of separated yard waste and mixed municipal solid waste, marketing
of recovered material and energy, and disposal of residue. The breadth of
solid waste management has increased considerably in the minds of decision
makers and staff; this is reflected in the policy statements adopted as part
of this plan.
PROGRAM GOAL: A comprehensive solid waste management system which
protects public health and safety, preserves and
protects the environment and natural resources, and
provides cost - effective alternatives to land disposal of
mixed municipal solid waste.
PROGRAM OBJECTIVES: Maximize landfill abatement in Dakota County through the
use of sound management methods, including waste
reduction, source separation, municipal composting of
yard waste, municipal and other local recycling
programs, regional processing of recyclables and central
processing for material and energy recovery according to
the following schedule:
Table 12 •
DAKOTA COUNTY LANDFILL ABATEMENT SCHEDULE
Year
1993 1995
I'CTIYITY 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1995* 2000**
Waste Reduction
(% of waste stream) 2 2 4 5 5 5 5 5
(Projected tons) 4300 4414 9056 11589 11851 12111 37893 68371
Source Separation
(% of waste stream) 2 4 6 9 12 15 15 15
(Projected tons) 4300 8827 13584 20861 28440 36331 113679 205113
Central Processing
(% of waste stream) 0 1.6 1.6 1.6 21.2 80 80 80
(Projected tons) 3629 3684 3781 50236 193756 606265 1093936
County Totals
1: of waste stream 4 7.6 11.6 15.6 138.2 100 100 100
Projected tons 8600 16870 26324 36231 90527. 242198 757837 1367420
*Mote: Aggregate volumes for three year period
*Note: Aggregate volumes for five year period
tourcit Dakota County Planning and Program Management, September 1987
`O
_N a:
1
a, a ,
a
en
a
N F
a 1 , fi
at t
ll . , U.1
o r 1 J
a `D } 1:13
I Q
W
_ N II 2
1-
0., 1 o
o 0 t
4
C1 I �- F-
CC
I 1 CL
i __ w
W
co
�� - i 1
l � t : 3 ,^
1 ! i V/
cs, ! �. i r
1 _ 1-
al A Z
N. cb t 1 1 0
.- t 1 0
e'f i 1 H
s L 0
c0 4- O Q
�M 2 w z w
O w 2 1 w 0 O
-I , O 0. 0 0 V O .a z
pi a —J i p- 0 a. Z C5 2
Z_ W
z /.. w > < a o 0. Z 0 cz
<Z 0 O Z 0 W O N J
< Z < W F- - W U 0
¢ LL 2 f- 2 < 0 0 >- O
h-Q Q Q W O W} Q J 2 WCC �
Z ►- >- < (, 2 h- h- F" W J < CC Q 4
D0 /- cc O )- < ZJ 2 Q JF.. ›- Z c7 Q f- 0 U w U 0 < 0 i.-
W Z
O O c a ? 0 0 u- Z 0 Q OU- 0
C.) 0- 00. 7< 2 W W w a. J D 0
O /" O c Z 2 C7 W >- Z p"' D 0 >- C7 0 0
>" WZ WZ 0 0 Z J 0 /-F. U 0 Z CZ w
.. DW J f„ Q
0 < y Q} cc� Q z Q .<
F
z X U dc J Z f . m W ~ F- Z O
0 1-U F-C7
Z<
F Om O W 0 1.-.:
Ow wQ 0< <¢ 0 > w 0Q
O U< U CC W Z 0< Wa UW WA. 2 ZLL Ua
4 ai ai • 4 a aai P. (a a i o
vs*
OA
A
01
el
i
N
i
1
O
■
t
n •f
1 ' ,
N
i
a i s
A
4 ,
H k 1 1
i
N t w
..............
b t
s •
•
o '° i Cr)
< O
el t
+ W CC Z
a
0
...
}
m F—
a, Z
c., pi 0
0 ,... 1._ i-
••••
03 �• Z 7
Cs C w w Z 0
} O ¢ Z 2 2 O Y
ot O h- <
H < /• 1• ¢ 0
J w 1 - N N < w W W
0.
H ( 0 V ¢ W < <
0" w <
av z a a< °' ¢ Z Z
o o z Z o 0 .ic
cr 0.(7 0 Z < J ¢ O 4 0. 01 O o CC
f
Q? 0 z < W
o y 1- w z 3 �' z O z ZO 0 00
F- O
I (.1 0 P- Z w 0 Q 2 Z 0 < < < < d
�¢ z V ¢ O W a a O W C7 V j w 0� `<
0. W W > % 0 < ~ 0 in 0
>- > Z Z > 2 0 < o Z w NO -, W r- 0
F- ¢< ,_ ¢ w Z < a 0 Ci. CC = < 0 Lux a 0 0< 0 <
tL t- 0 0 W J Z I- J i- d w w a 0. w< CC
wX
_ 0 ti N W H 1 W F 0. F- W
f' o w w w Z < < N <• Z Z 0 0 Uf0 O ow Nj
Z W ¢ 0 U < <Z N <¢ <
w
0 -0 N > 0 0 0 u. 0 < X 3< N Xa 3¢
< .. ev ri t w a
kz
Dakota County Board of Commissioners
Dakota County Resource Recovery Project
DAKOTA COUNTY RESOURCE RECOVERY PROJECT
TYPICAL SITE PLAN
SCALE
HOUSE
Z��O \L_A....10 10
S TACK
,A,
N 8H
� e ' Su STAT • N
."-----) (
T k . r
p m * PUBLIC UNLOAD
w Q 141 11 AREA
J m 11 ^_
W
¶ w � 1 r _ RECYCLE
WTE
FACILIT CENTER
411,
rl Tv 7.,4H1
STORAGE PIT 1j, VW" •i. ,,•
TIPPING HALL
— TRANSFER STATION
1
I
i
\-2
Dakota County Board of Commissioners
Dakota County Resource Recovery Project
DAKOTA COUNTY RESOURCE RECOVERY PROJECT
TYPICAL MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY
1 1 1
1
I l l I
u+
alt•tw I
Tt•niet ma a+rnt I
I I� gja r
M I ie e uwei lxil■�rin
I ■ I
I 70MIe1 /% n -- • =3SIM1 1 ST 110)4 '
I I
I l
1 -
I
I _ P
1 — — t►+Knen
MIND CONTAINERS
1 RDe01VCOT to D J !
i pAtQU STOW( I STO[
• •41111 ILA,' J • I7R.
I • r>w amen C r., 'vim
*.m
I • 11M CAb `
I - f
I
I
mown --E11--m
I .. ......_
1 1 1
1 MLR V
1- 1 1 i 1 -1 1 -1 T 1
4 4 4 4
I I corn CtQJ Z3
IRNI
(4
1 LSI(,U.\ 1 ioN I'Itu(:LSS
I itll'AHL1I<lVIS1 6
ADOPT SOLID P, AS1E .- - -} PHLPARL DIsD.,NA1UUN PLAN - ULTERMINE I- XI:LMI'11UNS
MAST 114 PLAN
- J
v
DATA 1HU'.l 01 DLK 1 1.11 IHO1'OIIIAN ( DON( II ItEVILWS
RESOURCE RL.UVLJI) 1 AND Al'I'I+UVI5 ULTLkMINL EXCLUSIONS
1'ItOJEC 1 S -0, UESIGNA I II,N I'1 AN
/2c Ntu Day••I
V
I'Ui :11-II N() 1IC1 UI
PUBLIC. IILAItIN(. ()N INLSI(.NA 1 M
12 '.\.'.•ks)
1S I)ayr,
V
11011) 11:1(1 IC 111 AINIfIC:
1i' [1 SI(,tul I iUN
V'
I NI I, 11 t 1 RA( 1 1 Olt
'1 111 ..n`, i 1 . ..All ■
90 :h., I
I ,.'.P. 1 ION 01 L IS11)N
Ili L 1'AL1 DI `,11. •I :lit, i
UI(UIN,'t, 1 I
I t
I,
1.11 1 k111'01 1 1 A'. 1 1111)11 11 1(1 V ; 1 WS
AND AI'1'I((1 \'1 `,
(.(1) I I <AC 1 S AND 0111)11. 1NC L
('444 U.tys)
I,U Ilay'
`
1`.11'1 1 %11. %11. N T 141 SI(.t.A 1 ION
if_
'.II 1 it(1''(1111 AN COUNCIL I'LIt{U111 "1 I l ilUf.l
'Eklt,Ull
► I.\AIUnIt', Ar :U SDI'%1)\I51S ' 1411 ",ICI ID
. (_()UN (v N I 101(1 ', UI SI�.NA I II)N L 1 l.l',I n I ,,. I
t �
i t?\ sr.
t,. i
v �
_ .,,..-----11\ Q '\
\'\ ul W NI I o � ' i J bo -
s cams x` � 3 - y
___Ii ,______,-, 7 , Ki cl
/ r _, \ ) , —........, ‘.\3:1... v
ZI Q
ILI
r _ ---/
Iki
s � .ti tC
v _t S
q ) ac w E 0
•
k_
(<9
•"'" �' ..c.i � o x c y '01 ` c 4
r) c.,) y a) ro O p
t ,.., �c 0. , - . ul 2 : .n c v E o n.
• w c. w L >�
,. 3 ro, �'�v �� � 1c
4T j f-"•wdl N C :' O 'O v C �, C E
l a '> c L3 C C ro .0 a)
k 4 , R R'1 n C _ rob C O. ro '
rt n O CCC�U w C .� —
� h _ f w O . ..., .., p w c7 w .D i 02
o w C 3 V y +
. P O o c3 .2 E 2 2 ' .c c. ' C cn w cts c.)
( t r a �+
` i 'y ds F rtsu ^ (: °M' O C T O t-' " •
y y. 4-, 00."0 >,
yF .
,,,,,,,,4 "ti�e+�! w 17 v c 1 ° " -6 -6 U — C cn
• n C ro U n
F •-0 w C w w s p w o V
k C cn cV 6 .Z '' . [ w C �; c
ir e; , ! ' .. a c U� � . - ` c ° : 0
w LL i ow
;. ; A c�°Exo >v7 taut'
71 . .: • 71 " " WL a, ca,3. w U � c
. C c. L. '15 w w •-' C U H
� 1� ✓ i � 4;; "� sv vv c OM�t3 CL 3 L1 W
c „ w 0 w w w w C
:V.' y�Y C C C t., . ,C F. y y p C
C , a) cn
CL) v O W cn 0 w 2 E 1
.' ;.....-0 c-, � c n o a w c c
C s _ 70 L c.
bDro OU �- vo
c w ' ro ro w
-. s y o g c ,3 a. ; sw. 'a o ' ti
�j. s a sv r c .D. w c Uc a ,
a, # •— - vi ° c o a) 2.-; v t C w w c '�. c
�A Q7 N L _ C5 C"'
Z y wI } s:1-) I N O C W V 2 U?
P, dY ! . }} t a L bD -x a > o v) Q t Y
Q y; 1 'O y . U O C .� c , O w X _
} 'X 0 ia v > c.� aiW y w a) 0 .c�2, �
c
Q � Ui • v ° >i3 l a Ea �_
,( L1J N O w L w ^J c s w a• a) - v C cu c v) -n ., N
, L rT .y 1'��. U Jr 1 ��,�'J' - ®e c .3 C p . ro c 8 y — C a>
s c i a) a +
�pa , .... ° J 3.. •- '' ° c3 C ;73 a
x w ti V C ° -C �• > C '� • X..�' c v C.C
. w O a) C c v °' ca ° C ro " �_ bD . e3 cb —. C • a Q
r w� ` �9 -� is :7 3 C c p v 3 p V. -11 a) • C s C w+� n> .3 a) n O
Y s a) - L c �: G t • �3 �y W c.3 ro ` � -
"�" !"t!! O - ca c • n x. ro " , "° ,n ro w ro " , O 6 ` G 'L1 �; C tip ..'"7'. o ti n° °
, ~ W n` w' y L j w w d A , U'— c =
t „ 7 - a)) c L3 . cu o .0 . 3 0, b :vr a' y 3 5 W C1, n c3 0
, E y n�c 3 .F � ° n � go n M� _�- �1w�w
� p .a � ° A e r^ n� 5D s; _ v ro' o yr U c U o ro a) i 3 y •
.;.t - t O a) b0 .. O rn C w . CL - C a) w ro cn , w O ro ro C
.4avri� '
L . w C C 'c > ca 0.C• _ C > e3 v 'U 0 C G e ca -° ca a
4 e3 . Qr w v7 -3 En r;; . C `� Y `) E ro G ':. •.... o -, w w J o - c.,/ ,� > 'n
0 ""„ wn °-.- c9 t.,..' rocs > v a L.o - 4 •
e we" w e E o L c� >_ w o � w ° >" _ �' s y � ' ro y 25 c o
Ul t .. ° S U s- ° ro vi ) • a G ( CI n > O u cp C in E
a
4
(„.......„----
Q ,, c � 7,..: y ro '� ro CL) a •- y � -� �= 6 - , y` , a) � _ C A. '� C .D >. x C O 0 �, in c7 c. w C ,n i U O 1, u
• � Q• > a� L.. O (1 L c -. c
m • Fr c a o '� _° C'' m CI ›. y O Ti �) � U c .i Ci 3.5 o L. ^ E ° . Q
j f lrN a L b° c u n ° N v n v s C ° — w- v a
9 W! r r c� 9�
[D ;+A." ro t1.E_, .G .0 P' "' e C >" ' byro w a•++ p C tar)_ .- ''C ' C - - y
• ; n 2 C ro n Q' F. w o w c C C ` . C y C ,>-, O , ,
cn ' ( c � i^ ° tic ) c ° >U `� Cl.) o� �' ro c x , Cl . c c
11 $
p 3 ^ ,. n ! ' o ca ' � v ti a� x o c • c3 h ° p � Y w� C [ ` =. W �' � _ c
w �G` , T.. ° . ro c c) c c v ro ; � c. y w ° a .- w r c � - ! v' n >, Ca
rs r..` � I � n ,.-. '0 .:.-2. dJ 7 W L Q - .G -, > co " ^ i ° c C C . • • 'n C.) ...... C ' ...r ..+;. C) .c�-+� vi ,1 C `O T"� U , C� .� O t E - ' ` y y + - cb Qr w '.., C C C
__ . i C. - a. , ri . - :. T� O w C 7 ,..• 7 •>' (1 J Q "' , '�.. ---
f 1... C
A . ' �. :J U 1....7 . U1 , R
s
� Precision Machining • =" • 8|ovvKAo|dingof Plastics
• Computer Disc-Pack Spindles • Structural Foam Molding
41O' llTH AVENUE SOUTH
Design and Engineering HOPKINS, MINNESOTA 55343'7878 • Rotational Plastic Molding
Service
Telephone 612-935-6921 Telex 291106 * Mechanized Refuse
• VVasteProcosohno Collection Services
and Recycling Plants
� e:tcmoer 23- 19a7
r/r, Jc�n Eowenstein
City :f Eagan
38�0 P|lct |<no6 Rd.
anan
�pr our �oone con`/,2ratcn Dzy, I am writing you to
Yacin
�ities iike 'ciagan, Dota County und in �ener.
his summer y:u that, my ocinion, Dakota Coun�y
w�u�� evcncua�ly decidz to uc with a mass burn solution to the
sclid wast ■robleo. �el� last xeex the county named the fixa1
three companies *hev will look to for the solution and all three
of tem are mas s burn slutionr.:.
means Dakota fall into the same pa as
�enn�oin �oun�y with respect to mass burn/source separation beinq
the me-t;hods of deaIino with solid waste.
Reuter, Inc. is still very interested in working with the City of
Eagan, along with the oossibility of including Apple Vallpy and
8urnsville, to have your waste delivered to Reuter, Inc. and have
us ?recess the waste, recycling what we can recycle, compost what
we can compost and po1Ietizo the rest of the material.
e are currently wor pith the legislature to net legislation
which would allow cities to ccn;:,ol ,here their waste goes once
coliected without havinc ''uruniziny collection". I have
enclosed a copy lotter l :: to the cities of Plymouth,
Minnetonka, Hopkins, Edcn 7razrie and Dloomingtcn. It was in
response to their reuuost to try to explain what we saw as tns
issues and possible solutions to those issues. In response to
that letter, each of the cities have written to Mr. Vern Peterson '
of the AMM askinn him to include these issues in his legislative
lobby efforts next session.
There are two ways Eagan can '~liter into type of arrangement'
Cne way is for :;:euter to apply to the Metropolitan Council for an
ec. from Dakota Coun designation plan ordinance.
This, in c:r opinicr. will be some to achieve.
THe tor your waste at
our iazz1ity tho county submits
'`iesi12 plan" to the Loenczl. // tnat Hapnens ycur
*as�e =zl/ oe "`�xempceo" county oesi�nati�n �: a�cord��ce
Hana'euent revised throu�h !987.
`hese are your cnly two of getting out from under the
decision the county is making for you reparding solid waste. If
yo� do net nuaiz unoer =bove, it is likely
yon �ill he at the tota| control of the county.
infcrmation, please nzve me
•
!cank `nu.
uu�us
�nt�r-�.vernnrnta� .�*}atzons
�
0
/
.
'
.
September 11, 1987
MR. FRANK BOYLES
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD.
PLYMOUTH, MN. 55447
Dear Frank:
Having responded to questions and concerns regarding the solid
waste problem for the past few years, I continue to support
solutions which provide cities with the most flexibility. During
a recent conversation, you requested I provide you with an
outline of some of the solid waste issues facing cities today
along with actions cities could take to increase their options
regarding these issues. •
The solid waste issues cities have expressed concerns about are
two in number. These are: 1) Directing collected waste for
processing without organizing collection; and 2} How can cities
obtain more options for providing recycling opportunities for
their residents? Expanding on these issues, I will take them one
at a time.
First, directing collected waste. The law currently does not
allow cities to direct their collected waste unless their
collection is done by the city itself or one hauler or group of
haulers under contract by the city to be the exclusive hauler(s)
for the city. When a county designation ordinance becomes
effective, then all waste not ender contract with an excluded or
exempted facility, must be delivered to the designated county
facility. This requires cities who are currently not involved
with waste collection and who do not wish to become involved in
waste collection nor contract with haulers to do both, in order
to control their waste once collected.
One solution to this issue is a chanpe in legislation to give
cities authority to direct their collected waste by license or
ordinance without formally organizing waste collection.
~t t:'
.
The second issue is how to obtain more options for providing
recycling opportunities for city residents. Current Metropolitan
Council and metropolitan county master plans identify source
separation programs as the only option for providing recycling
oportunities. In addition, cities are required to reach a goal
of recycling 16% of the waste stream using the only option -
source separation.
One solution: Because each city has a unique combination of
demographics, geography, economic conditions, management
philosophy and political realities, it is important that maximum
flexibility be afforded cities in developing their approach to
recycling. In order to obtain this flexibility, several changes
must occur. First, the Metropolitan Council must change their
Solid Waste Master Guide/Policy Plan to allow for the most
flexible recycling plan possible by changing their source
separation goal to a "recycling" goal. Each of the county plans
should be changed to reflect this new goal.
Another part of the solution involves legislative changes. This
could be achieved by having consistent language among th
following three sections: 1) 115A.01 Subd.25a: "Recyclable
materials"; 2) 115A.01 Subd. 25b: "Recycling"; and 3) 473.803
Subd. 1e(b): "Recycling" which would then include mechanical or
hand separation of materials as recycling.
If I can be of any further help in these please feel
free to contact me at 935-6921.
Sincerely,
Douglas E. Reuter
Inter-Governmental Relations
•
=� �
Poe ® Reid Associates Inc.
Environmental Engineering
245 E. 6th St., Suite 813 . St. Paul, MN 55101 . 612/227/6500
December 18, 1987
Mr. Jon Hohenstein
Administrative Assistant
3830 Pilot Knob Road
P.O. Box 2119
Eagan, Minnesota 55121
Dear Jon:
Enclosed is the latest draft of the Organized Collection Study. I have
addressed the concerns raised by Larry Knutson at the last meeting.
Specifically, the following additions were made:
o Noise (page 11): I've added a statement indicating that MNDOT conducts
vehicle inspections, including noise emissions.
o Street wear (page 11): I did not alter this section because Mr.
Knutson's comment does not seem to add anything. Rather, if included, it
may add further confusion to a section which I believe is already
somewhat speculative.
o Aesthetics (page 12): I've added a statement that there have been no
complaints regarding unsightly garbage handling.
o Costs (page 23): Refuse vehicle cost was changed from $50,000 to
$90,000.
o Hauling company impact (page 23): A statement was added regarding a loss
of innovation in the marketplace if competition is limited.
o Antitrust (page 24): After a conversation with an attorney for the
National Solid Waste Management Association, I added a sentence indi-
cating that the legalities of hauler- initiated organized collection
efforts are more susceptible to court challenge.
o Recycling (page 25): I've added a statement that the current system may
be evolving toward volume -based fees and that one hauler currently has a
type of volume -based fee arrangement.
c
Mr. Jon Hohenstein
page 2
December 18, 1987
If you have any comments or concerns about these charges, please let me know
prior to the meeting and I can have additional changes prepared in time. In the
meantime, have a great Christmas and see you on January 12th.
Sincerely,
Terry J. Guggenbuehl
Project Manager
TJG /uj
Encl.
cc: PRA 146.01 file
ORGANIZED COLLECTION STUDY
CITY OF EAGAN
FEBRUARY, 196$
Prepared by:
Pope -Reid Associates
245 East Sixth Street
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101
(612) 227-6500
4
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 18
Existing with License Provisions 19
IV. Comparison of Existing and Alternative Systems 20
V. References 28
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
L_ C7) S
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 -Rei,
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.
1
'9
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.
= 2(7
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
3 C
d
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
4^
• 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
is
(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
6
FIGURE 1
AREAS OF HIGH WEEKLY CONCENTRAT IONS
OF COLLECTION VEHICLE TRAFFIC
(CITY OF EAGAN: 7/87)
.,,* P',' w*VgYak i r/
, .,.....m d i = ,1
A iliel / ..ailet / A l °./ ' A
.-. ; MP s t 7 r A Yr . A
I .." . ,Air C3/ •WP vArz e*
./ 1 -4 / Vii,. // Ad ii,
.,, jo AlM i t c ,.„- ,,,, / .. i --v.,--4 . 1 ottles , „..„
T // A ' v 5 .. V i"/"Ii/v
. ,
. )11.4.c.._:, 4, .e a, . 7 , y . " ' '4
W" , ' k a ''
t • � e r / r .i i
i /
• Z tit& .- 1 lan.4 J., ,,, '
" (4? 17 �► ,. i� ,
ArgqJ 1 ....._
0' ' v 47 , -4 A b ka ■-sr - ---4..r --- ---......
O . ' '' Are A d 4:011>C11.4 II 44 aat L V " Ir .
1 --0 $7: 0 r k% mar
I, iu.."...; A l i p 3 .4111 NY-,
..,..e / pv/7,
..,,,tvw Arrfifitly himmard.1 ////7.-7 '-
NUMBERS WITHIN OUTLINED AREAS REPRESENT THE NUMBER OF
HAULERS SERVING THOSE AREAS EACH WEEK
(DOES NOT INCLUDE TWO HAULERS)
',35
AVERAGE ST PS PER DAY
FIGURE
(CITY OF EAGAN: 7/87)
3500
3000
2500 - f�
2000 -
1500
1000
500 -�
0 -
IiON TUES WED THURS FRI
The prevalence of overlapping routes has even been noticed by the waste haulers
themsel -ves. 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.
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.
ti 9 3S
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
9 potential for
noisy operations increases with a higher concentration of trucks, a single
unmaintained truck may result in more complaints. Poorly maintained vehicles
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. The Minnesota Department of Transportation administers vehicle
inspection standards which include noise emissions.
• 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
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
9 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.
10
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-
tial. In the section of the City where 9 refuse trucks each week collect c
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
4
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 calculates that if
half of all street damage is due to refuse vehicles and the number of vehicle;
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
11
31
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.
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; but aesthetics are subjective. There have been no recorded complaints
to City officials regarding unsightly garbage handling.
• 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
12
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
L 13
34)
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 from 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
14
Njci:)
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 hauler
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.
:41 15
4i
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-
f
16
z
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.
• 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
17
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
- ,r 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
18
%.\-A
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.
19
kles
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.
• 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.
• 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
.
20
1/404
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.
21
1/40
• 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
22k%
to 10 or more employees. In addition, vehicles will need to be purchased. At a
cost of up to $90,000 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. When large companies dominate the
market or organized collection is in effect, innovation is often stifled. Small
haulers typically provide innovative services more readily than larger haulers.
Small haulers may 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 organized themselves and responded as
a single entity. The existing system would not artificially affect haulers and
the existing system with license restrictions 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 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
23
■4e4:\
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
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.
to 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 been made in areas with open
collection. The record shows, however, that the law allows cities and waste
haulers to organize collection. According to Bruce Parker, an attorney with the
National Solid Waste Management Association, the legality of hauler - initiated
organized collection in less certain.
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.
24
• 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
difficult to manage under the existing system. The City would probably have to
contract separately for recycling collection because haulers presently have
little incentive to provide such a service on their own. The current system is
still changing from rapid tipping fee increases so it is possible that recycling
services will be more prevalent in the near future.
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 may be evolving toward providing volume -based fees on its own but there
are no guarantees that waste reduction resulting from such fees would ever
occur. One hauler is presently providing a type of volume -based fee option.
Alternate systems could have volume -based fees incorporated into contracts or
billing methods.
Some advantages of contract collection and a modified existing program wi
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.
25
S1
C7') r >� • U U .0 I I
a) •r 4-
CS I I • 4-' .� r C 4-) I I
N 0 > a)
C) L r U 0 0 - U
U -
N
N ni v
_ t >, 01
r S (4 r0 p N � r Q C 1 •-- •- r Q1 r-- g QJ L' N . r L_` f0 r0 +'
rt3 a) . '— 0 r• 0 0 0 4-) CU •0 0
F L S- S O Q 0 Q 0 .D U
J 0 0- 0 O_ 0 Q 0 0 0
0 •
-'
i
W
a) 0 • b a
U 'D 4--, 5.- 4-
> 0 r-- CU -0 _C _C L
E a) 0 ,
N d rfl Q > - 0 Q
_0
■
CU
0) 0 I N b ro O
C 0 4-) I C L W S- +' 3 un
0)
IT) o E 3
c
I
1 \ O •N • r' j CIJ
> 4 N S- 0 4-) • (CS g O '0 i - O
o F— No +-, 0 4- MS U Q E
N -g U +> 00
> _
z c am `-' 3 r- `° a) L+.) 4-) •1-+ 4_) .4) (n
CD — > aJ -g NO N O
i U Q U . C N - (( cu
O a-- ) N �-, _
a U
p r0 N r1:5 rd �)
zp • a) v
0 N �, 3 L L v 0 ri
• > Q L 'D a) a)
C
W a-, CO
C U
i aJ
'> c N i ZT N i - c N S- '0 N i c N 0 Ol N E
O r O
,- r-- O U
U N _c O U 4- -0 OU 4- 8 t U U L U >> L
R CU
_ N E
+' .c • � .0
¢ °' 0 +;
5- a� c 0 0 c • >.,
0 0 i 00 > C 0 b
I1J c, +,
a) _c • N N
a) a)
•I X
Q � b •' Q) cu s_ +, 4-) �
CO CU i i .0 L a) N
0 V) a» 3 3 N 3 3 N 3
■-• N U
Q) N 0
N N "0 C a)
C U r 0
S- i r0 0 4-, N N 3 N 5= i- N
X C• r N U 4-) N
V-) w. p Li- o .3 CO 0�
0•r
_ C _U
ft/ al TS Q./ C
0 .47-) 0 U 4-) 0 _ N
0 0 0
r ) 0 U W CC •
0 L � U U
26 •2..
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-
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 collectic
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.
•
1
'.J
' 27
S3
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.
23
S °
APPENDIX A
S5
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
A -1
S(
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:
A -2
25 7
APPENDIX B
•
52
CITY OF EAGAN
COLLECTION AREAS - MONDAY
# / //:
/ MI j II A. 1/j/ A
is Frr, 4a, Pvio%zw/M
,
• / ,. j a 1 � iii / - -- �- �� Vi• � i 47_7 ts i. /_7
- , -,, -,- � � Aleg)-i~;"-,"-jIMPI"K � _ / iii' � � .% / .
frAi y e
f4L � w ary
rt i - ff r g Kordw 7,- a isle L • 47
"An As odfitimitiw. 4 s4%
iskiddellesh .
wiip ,E .4- 7.„
:10 ra Allijulgr IP "X
= "gar Ai A 4,
1 : 4
, ' :i
° NUMBERS WITHIN OUTLINED AREAS REPRESENT THE NUMBER OF HAULERS
SERVING EACH AREA.
(DOES NOT INCLUDE TWO HAULERS)
t B -1
so
CITY OF EAGAN
COLLECTION SERVICE - TUESDAY
:/er --orgr,v
../. All f .0": A
Y I P, ' i = 6 , 4,, v4r iii4 J
I/4
-• ft .."- / , •
A CT
Ae , A A A /
.., ' , ti . t v if
•
J Iii / Aflame - A /
I ' 4... otworgrowsi t y/ a f : / /r., / /ii •
�- ALA/ � A s A. 4% 47 4- ,,, r r / ; %% y a r %� up A, pi 1 f2e fy : 4.,_, W
ft A ti'm '.... AGE %�/ /A MR , �, �. i..ia,. pr ii r
, 1:20.0Prio; Oirefs/ A
lif L.714. /110.1* A .64 ta ly) f
to /s i
NUMBERS WITHIN OUTLINED AREAS REPRESENT THE NUMBER OF HAULERS
SERVING THOSE AREAS.
B -2
Coo
CITY OF EAGAN
COLLECTION SERVICE - WEDNESDAY
. ,// )7f
;A 071 = or • A 4 r 4 4.,../. Air-
4 " . t . , -A qi 40 z
/.. . / - - / r. A j / .4/ "
p ' , , -' 0 17 '' . : IN ---- )., i rv 4 9.. lov A
, I,
p :a 0 . im . //, r .six # / 1 0. 1
44 4, 341VMMIIME , st Ft2,nr
p dt An-v.4u -:=/ r :,
./44.440.J.1 *L. % //iii`` .t.� /// / Z. /sod Tom _ - 11 / '; ��'�; ' / i Ilina
w9,,i aly. ,i.1 --e,/,. . m g 1k -
it %le 7 e dhs " , ,Avo ,ff'.41,r, A ' 4 , :.iia lAk"'" . 1 . 01 -.•W( .. , - 4. 2 glA .....i I
m y____ A .:2-.„ _ m li m an 4. Air Ar ro
'1-Nrav -:`, Ire I� ../ ,r . //�jjg ,�� %.
. b. p liP
l 4 / I
NUMBERS WITHIN THE OUTLINED AREAS REPRESENT THE NUMBER OF
HAULERS SERVING THE AREA
(DOES NOT INCLUDE TWO HAULERS)
;i B -3
6I
CITY OF EAGAN
COLLECTION SERVICE - THURSDAY
v .0 /:
;., .
'mil / / _.
._,
-. -a a ---,--)/
A P;9J I r r (
.. i , : ..*** ; A / 1 / all /
p" 11 _1/A,i .,. 4 A
....',/,4* fro „:- ,,, A
4r1V 4 Atiligi fteejl
I /1 / INE I `Z . 61 Mil °1 W & Api* °
k . " A irr,y rn ra R tkeli s ,„, iii ii �� ���1■` {�, � �
?WW t 0 4 _... . 4. . A /A
,t yzeswirdi. sum Airga-pw
to eAra„„yr4, AprAwilisiv./ ,T ,,'
a 4"1.4 / ,itimx% - igraliWar 4 a - Ift
V
Ott . A. /AmOil r e~ % I mo ail
17 Apiclarly fr "5-tv .77"
10 E ...., 70.- at ll y
-v i --, Do AL,,,,,.. /7 a 6
i . ' ' lir - obare-,,m, I
/ / • f
NUMBERS WITHIN OUTLINED AREAS REPRESENT THE NUMBER OF HAULERS
SERVING THOSE AREAS
B -4
(.2
CITY OF EAGAN
COLLECTION SERVICE - FRIDAY
.; 97/ 7 IN, r
7..e 4 # 4:
;y ■ //
.... 0 71 ,:,. /off r , , r : 4 1 . p - .ylrzo , e/ ;
"." n
, i --",„4 :
/ -Ali ' ,E,Ailii //
/ , /DJ .—k,4 ,diffliM, ' ..04 / ,
..' / 2. ,,Atfrir ,,,moneawrwr -IF-,
.. .,... 4wo, I#A 4feastuarif / A
/,,, ,` ^4 M , %j' _. 4 A / fir
07,0-0- I - / . / / Ii i
.r
.of ,, tre /4" .- '4... /,
, r/ Fr 77 A '° infii9P 1: 41 w 1 :
.tir f it! /Pk P A , 11.u*,-y. I, 1 /.-' •
4
i,..4.„ . A ir, / 4.7 Ar o barA
F IL a 4. - 11 szawntiff 411 L 4 ill
� /
Its W ,J+�1= �� d .
Agi 4 t 4 it f.
■
NUMBERS WITHIN THE OUTLINED AREAS REPRESENT THE NUMBER OF HAULER
SERVING THOSE AREAS
(DOES NOT INCLUDE ONE HAULER)
B -5
(03
APPENDIX C
(4,
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 advance 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.
a
f,,
How to make recycling happen The Minnesota Journal
Publisher — Curtis W. Johnson
Editor — Stephen Alnes
The now notorious Islip garbage , . though, without imposing the real Associate Editor— Jody A. Hauer
/ Contributing t a Contributing Editor — Ted Kolderie
barge, for months threatening to i , m : • : costs of the changing system on
become a slime capsule, a float - those who don't change with it. The MINNESOTA JOURNAL (ISSN
museum of the era of casual by Curtis W. Johnson Incineration will be expensive, 04 ) is a pub
741 -949s pu it ton of t a Citizens
Tip'
sal, has finally docked— but so was landfilling now that Cities area public affairs organization,•
ti,,,I: in New York where it start- Raised consciousness means no- we're managing its consequences. S. Third St, Suite 500, Minneapolis,
ed. Residents of New Jersey reel ticing that the plastic milk carton It's time to pay. 55415, Terry Hoffman, president. Articles
at shocking increases in garbage actually costs more than a carton and commentary are drawn from a broad
range of perspectives and do not
collection prices even as they that can be recycled and ques- Waste- awareness will come necessarily reflect league positions on
worry over water already poi- tioning our preference for mater- when cities, which regulate the policy questions. The Journal is published
soned by indiscriminate landfill- ials that aren't easily reused. collection system, insure that ac- twice a month except in August and
ing. But here, in the heartland, Maybe the same people who now tual system costs are borne by published . Decemed when only s single p t
Second class postage paid at
where we have more land, and scan the ingredients on a box or everyone who generates waste, Minneapolis, MN.
more lead -time, and strong lead- can to avoid additives they don't with charges proportionate to vol- Annual subscription rate for nonmembers
also, if the informa- ership from legislators at all lev- want would alm ume. Waste reduction will result is $40 for 22 issues. Orders may be placed
els, we can be smarter. tion were there, avoid products in if we discount the cost to those at 612/338 -0791 or by mail at the above
containers with a no- recycle who cooperate with recycling address.
We can be smarter, that is, if our mark. programs, and permit people who POSTMASTER: Send address changes
strategy is complete. throw away less to pay less. The to The Minnesota Journal, 708 S. Third St,
< < difference should be enough to Suite 500, Minneapolis,MN 55415.
The plants we are building to '? 0 make us all pay attention.
burn more than we bury are im- in time and effort are themselves
portant. And as the Great Danes r And in Minneapolis, where these reduced. Today's recyclers are al
of the new disposal system, truists, maybe heroes, most cer-
they'll be fed every day (Minnea R. I costs are buried in property taxes, they should be charged separate- tainly not a crowd. And it's not
polls is even ordering new ly, as fees, with real incentives to going to catch on until the incen-
"bowls" — 90- gallon garbage I reduce volume and participate in tives are there.
cans for every residence). But the recycling. The gargantuan gar -
system isn't really any different bage cans now on order will only But with financial incentives,
unless we can build waste- 0 0 make the problem worse without along with a changed conscious -
awareness in every household. a new price approach. Consider ness, just imagine the conven-
Seattle, which uses volume -based ience products that the market
The materials for building waste- Indeed, there are folks out there pricing, and gets 20 percent recy- would produce: specialized stor-
awareness are consciousness, who think we should recycle cling with just an informal sys- age bins for glass, metals, paper,
c' 'ind convenience. everything. That's nonsense. But tem. Minneapolis, where a truck in a variety of systems for your
we do need a new awareness, a comes down every street every kitchen or garage; special con- �.•
It we are serious, the same cam- habit of questioning what we put month for recyclables (soon to be tainers for hazardous materials
paigns that cause people to fly lit- in those garbage cans. The Met- twice a month), gets 4 percent such as motor oils or strong sol-
tle yellow flags for safety from ropolitan Council, or counties participation. vents; in colors and styles and
their car antennae, or develop that want to lead rather than fol- movability that suits the
safe ground for politicians to pass low, should find the public rela- Finally there is the matter of customer.
tough drunk - driving laws can get tions professionals and get a convenience. Our region's goals
people to think differently when campaign moving. for recycling's contribution to I know it's a reach. But it's possi-
they buy and when they throw waste reduction cannot be ble. Just think about Christmas,
away things. This awareness won't come, realized until the personal costs and Dayton's offering Santa -Bins.
Sen. Douglas Johnson, DFL -Cook, Range -wide distribution of the
at meeting of Northern Minnesota Range fiscal disparities production tax, which is the tax
Citizens League, Hibbing, Aug. 17 paid in lieu of local property
levied on what was originally fruits of these investments be taxes (on) the taconite facilities.
In St. Paul they must continue to eight, now six, taconite plants and shared Range -wide through fiscal And most importantly, fiscal dis-
see that a healthy economy on their associated mines located in disparities. parities will help to moderate
the Iron Range contributes to a 21 cities and townships, 12 high commercial- industrial taxes
healthy economy for Minnesota. school districts and four counties, I have three major reasons for and facilitate tax -base equaliza-
On the Iron Range, we have to monies were and continue to be this belief. First of all, those cit- tion on the Range and further fa-
recognize that a healthy Babbitt . distributed to 50 cities and town- ies, townships and school districts cilitate the economic growth and
contributes to a healthy northeast ships and 19 school districts lo- whose taconite facilities provided well -being of the entire area ...
Minnesota and that a success in cated in the six counties of Ait- the production tax revenues that
Deerwood enhances the whole kin, Cook, Crow Wing, Itasca, helped generate economic devel-
region. Historically, we've known Lake and St. Louis ... opment throughout the Range We must begin to look forward
that. Today we see it as essential. should be allowed to share in to the fact that we cannot
Obviously this sharing of produc- some of their investment in their squeeze any more from the taco -
Sir ' 969 over three - quarters of tion tax revenues has resulted in neighbors' economic well -being nite production tax. Consequer'
a ■ i dollars have been dis- huge investments in the infra- and be assisted in their effort to we must look to other forms ot'
tribute(' Range -wide from the structure of the area and various recover economically. property tax equalization and tax
taconite production tax, an excel- economic development projects. relief, such as fiscal disparities to
lent example of fiscal disparities Consequently 1 believe it is only Secondly, fiscal disparities is con- insure the future of the Iron
at work. From the production tux appropriate that some of the sistent with the Ion - standing, Range.
2 MINNESOTA JOURNAL Lae ,Sentemher8 70R7