Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/09/1988 - 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 rd3Q, 9 August 1988 in Eagan Municipal Center Conference Rooms A & B 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 AUGUST 9, 1988 11:30 A.M. I. ROLL CALL AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES II. ADOPTION OF AGENDA III. STAFF REPORT A. County Recycling Subcommittee B. County Routed and Organized Collection Subcommittee C. County Funding Proposa1/1989 Solid Waste Budget IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Curbside Recycling Implementation - Review of Commission /Hauler Meeting V. NEW BUSINESS VI. OTHER BUSINESS VII. NEXT MEETING VIII. ADJOURNMENT MEMO TO: CHAIRS MANN AND HOEL AND ALL MEMBERS OF THE SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION FROM: ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT HOHENSTEIN DATE: AUGUST 5, 1988 SUBJECT: EAGAN SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 9, 1988 A regular meeting of the Eagan Solid Waste Abatement Commission will be held on Tuesday, August 9, 1988 at 11;30 a.m. in the Eagan Municipal Center Conference Rooms A and B. The City will provide a box lunch to those requesting one by noon, Monday, August 8. Please contact Jon Hohenstein at 454 -8100 to indicate your lunch preference. I. ROLL CALL AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES A copy of the minutes of the Solid Waste Abatement Commission meeting of June 14, 1988 is enclosed for your review on pages through 2 . A copy of the minutes of the Solid Waste Abatement Commission workshop meeting of July 18, 1988 is enclosed on pages Q through Jl for your review. These minutes, subject to any change, require approval by the commission. It is most appropriate to handle such items in separate motions. II. ADOPTION OF AGENDA The agenda, as presented or modified, requires adoption by the commission. III. STAFF REPORT A. County Recycling Subcommittee- - Brenda Marshall, the City's representative to the County recycling subcommittee, has been asked to present a brief report on the subcommittee's activities at recent meetings. B. County Routed and Organized Collection Subcommittee- - Thom Yehle, the City's representative to the Routed and Organized Collection Subcommittee, has likewise been asked to be present and report on the committee's work. C. County Funding Proposal /1989 Solid Waste Budget- - Enclosed on pages / "o) you will find information pertinent to the Dakota County Funding Program for support of local recycling efforts. Under the program, the City of Eagan would be entitled r to $14,400 for eligible costs of administration of a recycling program, $51,912 for operations and maintenance of a program and capital costs at the rate of $20 per household or 100% of capital costs, whichever is less for programs in place by April 1, 1989 or 50% of capital costs not to exceed $10 per household for programs undertaken after April 1, 1989. Based upon these figures, the City could easily fund the draft solid waste budget proposal enclosed on page .2/ . However, the nature of the funding and the time frames mandated by the County require that the City and its haulers move with all deliberate haste to define a recycling program which will meet the City's needs and the funding deadlines. It should be further noted that the Dakota County funding support for future budgets will depend upon whether or not the City achieves 9% residential recycling in 1989. This requirement implies that a well- defined program be in place early in 1989 in order to approach the necessary residential tonnages. It is anticipated that further information will be available at Tuesday's meeting. Further, this information relates directly to the item of business below. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Curbside Recycling Implementation - Review of Commission/ Hauler Meeting- - Enclosed on pages :1j.. are the handouts distributed at the meeting by the City of White Bear Lake and the City of Plymouth regarding their respective collection /recycling programs. Also enclosed on page -3 7 is a copy of a Star Tribune article concerning organized collection provided by the City of White Bear Lake. In addition to this information, staff would refer the commission to the minutes of the workshop for additional information concerning discussion of that meeting. In general, responses ranged widely from those haulers that believed that the industry can meet the mandates with adequate regulation and incentives and those who felt that they couldn't adapt in the short term and preferred that recycling be provided separate from hauling services and that haulers be permitted to continue to provide waste hauling services in a relatively open environment. In light of the County funding proposal for 1989, it has become apparent to staff that a comprehensive program be in place by early 1989 to qualify for maximum funding under the County system. In order to accomplish this, staff anticipates that it will be necessary to accelerate the number of workshops and meetings with haulers to insure an acceptable program development. In the absence of consensus on the a program, it may become necessary to bid recycling as a separate City -wide service for 1989. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To provide staff direction and develop future meeting schedules to reduce the number of alternatives and to begin implementation planning for curbside recycling. V. NEW BUSINESS VI. OTHER BUSINESS There is no Other Business at this time, however, on pages you will find a variety of information relative to the waste abatement issue including a local article concerning the County solid waste brochure and the brochure itself, an ad from Dana's Eco System regarding the hauler's curbside recycling service (you may recall that we have distributed similar information in the past regarding Knutson Refuse's program) and an article concerning landfill mining and recycling in Florida and New York. VII. NEXT MEETING The next regular meeting of the commission will be on Tuesday, September 13, 1988. It was anticipated that given the work currently before the group that committee meetings or workshop meetings will be scheduled in the interim. VIII. ADJOURNMENT The meeting will adjourn at or around 1:00 p.m. mini a ive Assistant JDH /jeh 3 Subject to Approval MINUTES OF THE EAGAN SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION EAGAN, MINNESOTA June 14, 1988 A regular meeting of the Eagan Solid Waste Abatement Commission was held on Tuesday, June 14, 1988, at 11:30 a.m. The following members were present: Chairs Hoel and Mann, Ista, Marshall and Knutson. Absent were: Nordby, Bahr, Milbridge, DeBilzan and Schnell. Also present were Administrative Assistant Hohenstein and Administrative Intern DeMarco. MINUTES Upon motion by Knutson, with all members voting in favor, the minutes of the May 10, 1988 Solid Waste Abatement Commission were approved as presented. AGENDA Upon motion by Knutson, with all members voting in favor, the agenda was approved. STAFF REPORT A. County Recycling Subcommittee. Administrative Assistant Hohenstein explained that Commission member Marshal was a representative to the County subcommittee. In addition, he stated that the County decision structure had been included in the packet to show the commission how the subcommittee fits in. Commission member Marshall reported that the County resolution was going to be discussed at the next subcommittee meeting and a vote would be taken. Marshall continued to say that various opinions on recycling and organized collection had been discussed at the first meeting and perform- ance based funding options were debated at the second meeting. No deci- sions were made concerning performance based funding options. Concerns were expressed about who should be making decisions, setting goals, etc. It is more than likely the County will be responsible. Marshall further reported that a flat amount per community to get them started is being considered. Once communities were started, fees would be based on tonnage. Marshall also stated that she does not care for the bonus point system because she feels it is doing double duty. Commission member Knutson asked if a flat amount rate was discussed. Marshall replied that it had not. 4 14 II Commission member Mann stated that he thinks communities have very different needs based on their population density, industry, etc. Administrative Assistant Hohenstein stated that a trade -off can be made here. A fixed and variable cost (flat amount and a per household amount) with a possibility for a bare minimum for all rural communities. Marshall stated that this issue had been discussed at the last County Subcommittee meeting and that it is part of the Dakota County strategy yet to be decided. Commission member Hoel stated that he agreed with the idea of a bare minimum per community with the remainder of the fees based on the number of households. This was then determined to be the consensus of the commission. Administrative Assistant Hohenstein reported that Thom Yehle, the representative to the County Routed and Organized• Collection Subcommittee, was unable to attend the Solid Waste Commission meeting. He continued that a report will be sent out with the next packet. HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE COLLECTION Administrative Assistant Hohenstein reported that Dakota County plans to conduct collections in Apple Valley and Rosemount in 1988. The County plans to come back to Eagan in 1989. This fits with the County's plan to shift to different communities every other year. The Commission discussed whether or not Eagan should continue a local program or wait until 1989. Commission member Hoel stated that Eagan should participate with Apple Valley and Rosemount by advertising extensively so that people participate. Mann asked if Unisys would be interested in participating again this year. Administrative Assistant Hohenstein responded that they (Unisys) would so that the Commission must decide whether it wants to conduct a collection in 1988 or wait until 1989. Commission member Hoel asked if the County helped fund the last collection. Administrative Assistant Hohenstein responded that they had assisted especially in the cost and disposing which is much higher than collection. Hoel stated that Eagan could participate in Apple Valley or Rosemount's collection. He continued that driving to a neighborhood City is not a big deal - the collection just needs to be well advertised. Marshall stated that she feels Eagan should participate with Apple Valley and save enough money to have collection in Eagan in 1989. Knutson agreed with the comment that Eagan could do the same for Apple Valley next year. Mann questioned whether changing communities would confuse people. Knutson responded that as long as the collection is advertised as a "County Program" people shouldn't be confused. Administrative Assistant Hohenstein commented that there will be some confusion because the County intends to eventually have a permanent collection place. ORGANIZED COLLECTION STUDY - COMMITTEE REPORT Administrative Assistant Hohenstein reported that the Committee met concerning how to address the haulers. The Committee proposed to set an evening meeting time for approximately two hours. The elements of the meeting include: A. Description of why the meeting is being held. B. Report by resource people from Champlin, White Bear Lake, St. Louis Park and Plymouth. These persons offer different views of different programs. C. Open discussion. The commission, City Council and residential haulers will all be invited to participate. Hoel asked if an introduction with a summary of the various collection alternatives should be first on the meeting agenda. Administrative Assistant Hohenstein responded that all of the haulers received summaries of the Organized Collection Study with those alternatives. He continued that it will be sent out again as a kick -off to the joint meeting. Commission member Marshall stated that the Commission needs to keep direction of the discussion. It's too easy for haulers to feel the need to be defensive. Mann commented that he thinks the handout is a good idea because it shows the options available. Administrative Assistant Hohenstein stated concern over how to moderate the meeting. He continued that a possible approach is to get direction from the Council to do something specific. Nothing has been determined but the Council has considered having 5 districts designated for each day of the week with bidding for each district. This would allow competition with organization. He continued that the committee had discussed this option but without the bidding. Instead the City would set a limit on the number of licenses available with same day collection and volume based fees so haulers would still be competitive. Marshall asked about the haulers who don't recycle. Administrative Assistant Hohenstein stated that it would be a requirement of licensure. The commission recommended having a joint meeting with the haulers and public. 1 1989 SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT BUDGET Administrative Assistant Hohenstein explained each line item of the proposed budget. He explained the need for a coordinator position but that it would also be very difficult to get approved. Commission member Mann asked what the qualifications for the position are. Administrative Assistant Hohenstein stated that the focus would be on coordination skills not education though a BA would be desirable. He further explained that the compost site could be expanded with time with this budget if the commission so wished. In addition, RMR (formerly MSD) negotiated that if they exceed their targeted amount of recycled tonnage, the City of Eagan receives a certain percent rebated. An error in the figures for capital outlay (recycling containers) was found. The amount is approximately $120,000. Commission member Knutson commented on the city wide clean -up item. He stated that this activity is ongoing, the problem is that people want this service for free. He thinks that the money provided for this service should be put towards education as well as publicity. Hoel agreed with this opinion including not having a spring clean- up. He feels residents should get used to calling haulers to pick up special items. In addition, he agrees education is most important. Administrative Assistant Hohenstein then reported that he has no idea what revenues are going to be or what cost will be covered by the County because the County has not made any decisions yet. He continued that capital money will probably be turned into curbside implementation. Commission member mann asked if some of the budget items needed to be justified. Administrative Assistant Hohenstein replied that the coordinator position will need to be justified. Mann further questioned whether there are any changes to be make to the compost program to save any money allocated to that program. Hohenstein responded that is why he wants to discuss it with the hauling community. Mann and Hoel both agreed that if the County gets their compost site up and running and the haulers will take it there, Eagan should reallocate those monies toward incentives to change behavior. Knutson commented that volume based fees will take care of grass and yard wastes. Commission member Mann moved to adopt the budget with certain latitude given to Administrative Assistant Hohenstein to make changes where necessary. Knutson seconded, with all members voting in favor to pass the motion. 't7 COUNTY RESOLUTION A copy of the Dakota County Resolution and Recycling Program Concept was included for the commission's review. Administrative Assistant Hohenstein explained that it is important for groups to review this information and make comments to the County. He further explained that funding is very unsure and that the County is struggling with performance criteria for communities. The County must have performance based funding in place by next year. Education, performance monitoring, etc., will be the responsibility of the City. ADJOURNMENT Upon motion by Hoel, seconded by Ista, all members voting in favor, the meeting adjourned at 1:00 p.m. SD Date Chairperson Chairperson Secretary O 0- MINUTES OF TIIE SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION Eagan, Minnesota July 18, 1988 A special workshop was held by the City of Eagan's Solid Waste Abatement Commission, Monday July 18, 1988, at the Eagan Municipal Center. Present were members Ista, Hoel, Schnell, Knutson, DeBilzan and Bahr. Absent were members Mann, Nordby and Marshall. Also present were Jim Norman of White Bear Lake, Dick Pouliot of Plymouth, Craig Dawson of Eden Prairie, Chuck Kutter of Minneapolis Refuse, Inc., Administrative Assistant Hohenstein and Administrative Intern DeMarco. In addition, several representatives from Eagan residential waste haulers were present to discuss waste and recyclable collection alternatives. A City resource panel began the workshop with four separate presentations concerning what type of program each city has implemented. Eden Prairie Craig Dawson of Eden Prairie was the first presenter. Mr. Dawson explained St. Louis Park's program due to the fact that he had been employed with St. Louis Park when its program began. St. Louis Park has a single hauler contract which makes implementing a program somewhat easier. St. Louis Park wanted reduction through recycling. Supercycle is utilized by the City to pick up glass, cans, newspaper and plastic two times a month. Yard waste is collected by another service. Mr. Dawson stated that a recycling program needs to be easy and convenient and that peer pressure with the use of recycling containers increases compliance. He continued that the St. Louis Park program is both successful and expensive though it has been partly funded through grant money. In addition, a charge is added to the water and sewer bills. Finally, the City is responsible for publicity and the handling of complaints. Mr. Dawson continued with an explanation of Eden Prairie's program. Eden Prairie has an open hauling system and does not wish to organize. This City uses the Reuter facility. Forty percent of the refuse that goes through the plan is recyclable material. The City of Eden Prairie is negotiating a tipping fee with the Reuter facility that the haulers all have one base price to pay. They hope to have this program started by January of 1989 with collection once per week. Plymouth Dick Pouliot of the City of Plymouth explained that Plymouth began to recycle in the fall of 1985. The City had a contract with Supercycle for $2,250 per month. The first few months 70 to 80 tons were collected but then the amount decreased. The City worked on ways to increase compliance. Publicity is extremely important as is scheduling. In addition to having the pick up be easy for residents. q The City decided to introduce an ordinance for organized collection and mandatory recycling. The ordinance was extremely unpopular but created good publicity. Residents did not want to give up their choice of haulers so the City Council rejected the organized collection ordinance except as a last resort. This decision caused recycling compliance to increase. The City made collection one time per week with the entire City being collected on the same day so as to reduce any schedule confusion. Finally, Plymouth purchased 15,000 recycling containers for their program. This program was implemented in February of 1988. An incentive of a weekly cash drawing of $100.00 is also used by the City of Plymouth. The Mayor and City Council assist in selecting the location to be checked for compliance on recycling day. If the resident's recycling bin is out and their recyclables packaged properly, the resident wins $100. The program has been great for recycling publicity and has increased the number of those recycling. Concerning yard wastes, all haulers in Plymouth must pick up yard wastes separately for eight weeks in the spring and eight weeks in the fall. This service must be provided to receive licensing from the City. Finally, the City wishes to have volume based fees. White Bear Lake Jim Norman of the City of White Bear Lake explained that they have an organized one hauler contract. Collection is once per week with the City being divided into five parts. Refuse is collected on volume based fees with yard waste and curb side recycling collection included in the contract. The recycling program is quite new so Mr. Norman was unsure of the amount of compliance. Finally, the City is responsible for billing residents and collecting fees. MINNEAPOLIS REFUSE, INC. Chuck Kutter, a representative of the private haulers of Minneapolis, explained the formation of MRI. In 1971, the haulers of Minneapolis formed a corporation with each hauler paying $1.00 for each share. The formation of MRI was brought about by the no burning law which was passed in 1971. MRI then negotiated a contract with the City of Minneapolis, which they still have today. MRI recently assisted Champlin's haulers form Champlin Refuse, Inc., for the collection of refuse, recyclables and yard wastes. Mr. Kutter stated that he believes volume based fees will eventually be the norm without organization and contracts. He continued that this will push the smaller haulers out of business because an open system creates future price wars. Finally, he stated that the City should have organized collection negotiated to keep the present haulers working. l 0 DISCUSSION NOTE: The following are comments made by haulers, the discussion panel and commission members. The subjects covered are numerous, therefore the following will jump from topic to topic quite often. A few haulers mentioned that there is some concern over whether or not there is anti -trust involved with organized collection. The Attorney General issued a letter stating that cities have protection with organized collection, the question is whether or not the hauler does. Cities should consider how often they collect recyclables. Some people do not generate enough recyclables for a weekly recycling collection. In addition, compliance numbers must also take this into consideration. The same people may not be participating every week so the number of those recycling may be higher. Some cities and haulers feel that volume based fees do promote some illegal dumping. Administrative Assistant Hohenstein asked those haulers in attendance what they think the best solution would be, taking into consideration the yard waste mandate and the 16% county abatement mandate. 1. Open hauling /competition would be best with the use of licensing to work out the recycling issue. Have recycling as incentive to avoid tipping fees though there would still have to be a charge for the service. 2. Organization is the most sensible for recycling otherwise the City would have more trucks on the streets than it does now. 3. Competition and open hauling should remain, with haulers recycling and charging a fee. In addition, volume based fees should be used. Service levels need to remain high and competitiveness is needed for that. 4. Bid recycling to one hauler and have them recycle for the entire City. 5. Smaller haulers believe organized collection is more efficient. 6. Haulers should have a second truck for the collection of yard wastes and the service should also be provided for an extra fee. The problem is that citizens don't feel they should have to pay for extra services when they are caused by mandates. ADJOURNMENT The special workshop was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Date Chairperson TABLE 1 DAKOTA COUNTY ANNUAL ABATEMENT GOALS 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 TOTAL GENERATED TONS 215,014 220,681 226,402 231,796 237,100 242,400 Residential 101,793 103,691 105,592 107,492 109,300 111,100 Commercial /Industrial 113,221 116,990 120,810 124,304 127,800 131,300 COMPARATIVE ABATEMENT GOALS County Master Plan 2% 4% 6% 9% 12% 15% Regtonal Policy Plan 6% 9% 11% 15% 15% 15% SUGGESTED COUNTY ABATEMENT GOALS % Residential 3.1% 6% 9% 12% 14% 15% Tons 3199 6221 9503 12,899 15,302 16,665 % Commercial /Industrial 7.0% 11.6% 12.7% 17.5% 18% 18% Tons 7938 13,640 15,401 21,870 23,004 23,634 Combined Resid /Coma /Ind 5.3% 9% 11% 15% 16% 16.6% Tons 10,147 19,681 24,904 34,769 38,306 40,299 C- F- Abate2 II 000127 `� TABLE 2 ESTIMATED ANNUAL ABATEMENT FUNDING TO COMMUNITIES 1 1989 1990 1991 1992 Residential Tons Abated 9,503 12,899 15,302 16,665 Administrative $102,629 $79,407 $56,715 -0- Capital 1,300,000 -0- -0- -0- 0 & M residential programs 300,000 390,000 460,000 500,000 comm /ind programs 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 $1,902,629 $669,407 $716,715 $700,000 Assumptions: * Maximum Administrative Cost Reimbursement Per Household o Administrative Costs - 1989: Communities over 5000 population, and /or Consultant Costs $5000 or $.90 /household, whichever is greater Communities under 5000 population, $500 base plus $.90 household - 1990: Communities over 5000 population $3888 or $.70 /household, whichever is greater Communities under 5000 population $388 base plus $.70 household - 1991: Communities over 5000 population $2777 or $.50 /household, whichever is greater Communities under 5000 population $277 base plus $.50 household Thereafter not eligible * Capital costs - o 45,000 Households in Incentive Programs @ $20 /hshld (maximum) o 45,000 Households @ $10 Hshld (maximum) o Money not requested in 1989 may be requested in 1990 and /or 1991 * $30.00 /ton for recycled industrial materials (100% funding for residential program 0 & M) * $200,000 for commercial /industrial promotional activities. 1 1988 dollars C- F- Abate3 000128 TABLE 3 MAXIMUM REIMBURSEMENT SCHEDULE - 1989 ADMIN CAPITAL 0 & M COMMUNITY COSTS COSTS Resid Comm /Ind TOTAL Apple Valley $9,450 $105,000 $37,785 $152,235 Burnsville 14,850 165,000 53,118 232,968 Castle Rock Twp 905 - - 4,500 1,518 6,923 Coates 572 800 249 1,621 Douglas Twp 662 1,800 672 3,134 Eagan 14,400 160,00 51,912 226,312 Empire Twp 923 4,700 1,626 7,249 Eureka Twp 932 4,800 1,626 7,358 Farmington 5,000 20,300 6,639 31,939 Greenvale Twp 698 2,200 759 3,657 Hampton 608 1,200 369 2,177 Hampton Twp 770 3,000 1,191 4,961 Hastings 5,000 49,000 17,142 71,142 Inver Grove Heights 6,840 76,000 25,353 108,193 Lakeville 6,120 68,000 24,747 98,867 Lilydale 748 2,750 567 4,065 Marshan Twp 995 5,500 2,061 8,556 Mendota 590 1,000 303 1,893 Mendota Heights 5,000 30,000 10,866 45,866 Miesville 545 5,000 195 5,740 New Trier 536 4,000 162 4,698 Nininger Twp 725 2,500 921 4,146 Randolph 608 1,200 390 2,198 Randolph Twp 635 1,500 519 2,654 Ravenna Twp 950 5,000 2,061 8,011 Rosemount 5,000. 23,000 8,814 36,814 Sciota Twp 581 900 303 1,784 South St. Paul 7,290 81,000 24,144 112,434 Sunfish Lake 613 1,250 435 2,298 Vermillion 658 1,750 606 3,014 Vermillion Twp 797 3,300 1,302 5,399 Waterford Twp 658 1,750 519 2,927 West St. Paul 7,470 83,000 21,369 111,839 $102,629 $920,700 $300,243 $1,323,572 1 $200,000 $1,523,572 Assumes following administrative costs: o Communities over 5000 population: $5,000 or $.90 /household, whichever is greater o Communities under 5000 population: $500 base plus $.90 /household 2 - Assumes $10/1990 household based on Metropolitan Council's Forecasts of PstP csd Population, Households, and Employment - October 1986 Some or all of this amount may be deferred to 1990 and /or 1991. Some communities may have programs in full operation by April 1, 1989 and will be eligible for up to $20 /household. 3 Assumes communities achieving 9% abatement at $30 /ton for residential programs. 4 Assumes,$10,000 per ommunity for those with approved applications for commercial/industrial programs. C- F- Abate6 R r) r 1 ,, ,. 1 cf , Draft DAKOTA COUNTY COMMUNITY LANDFILL" ABATEMENT PROGRAM GUIDELINES Dakota County landfill abatement funding is available to communities in Dakota County. All applications and revisions to those applications which would result in increased costs will require final County Board approval. A community requesting funding must demonstrate that an office recycling program is currently in operation, or will be operational in city or township offices by December 1, 1988. Dakota County Board Resolution No. 88 -439 states that the County's portion of funding of recycling implementation and operating costs incurred by cities and townships will be through performance -based funding. It further states that the County's source of long term funding for recycling programs is to be from a combination of sources with priority being: 1) Landfill Surcharge Fee; and 2) Resource Recovery Facility tipping fee. Consideration is also to be given to a recycling assessment as part of a future source of funding. The County will accept the responsibility for community recycling programs and will assess the residents of the community for costs incurred (including the County's administrative, monitoring, and public education costs) in the event that: 1. A community does not begin development of a program by July 1, 1989; 2. A community does not complete implementation of a program by January 1, 1990. ELIGIBLE PROJECTS Projects that are eligible for funding must be consistent with the approved Dakota County Solid Waste Master Plan, as amended. To obtain a copy of the Plan please contact the Dakota County Department of Planning and Program Management (431 - 1158). o Multi community projects are eligible for funding. Applications for funding of such projects must identify the role of each community, including the lead agency for the project. o Eligible projects include, but are not limited to,: - Education and promotion activities - Drop -off collection of yard waste and recyclables - Source collection of source separated materials, including yard waste - Yard waste compost sites - Collection of household hazardous wastes - Promotion of commercial /industrial source separation - Office paper recycling in public sector facilities - Special wastes handling and /or processing S 000130 Page 2 ELIGIBLE PROGRAM COSTS To be eligible for: reimbursement, a preliminary budget must be submitted as part of the application procedure described herein. Revisions of the application may be made before July 1 of the funding year. The funding year will be January 1 - December 31. Funding Category /Activity Funding Allocation o Administrative Costs - 1989 : Communities over 5000 population, and /or Consultant Costs $5000 or $.90 /household, whichever is greater Communities under 5000 population, $500 base plus $.90 household 1990 Communities over 5000 population $3888 or $.70 /household, whichever is greater Communities under 5000 population $388 base plus $.70 household - 1991 : Communities over 5000 population $2777 or $.50 /household, whichever is greater Communities under 5000 population $277 base plus $.50 household - Thereafter not eligible o Capital Costs ** - Maximum allocation of 50% of total capital cost not to exceed $10 /household based upon 1990 household estimates - Above amount may be requested by a community over 3 year period - Purchase of land is not an eligible reimbursables cost. - Equipment, supplies or other materials must be used primarily for abatement activities. - Not eligible for payment after 1991 o Vendor Service/ Operations - 100% eligible up to $30 /ton for and Maintenance residential programs - 100% eligible up to $10,000 for communities with approved applications for commercial /industrial programs �4 Of1013j. Page 3 o Other (eg. license fees) - Subject to application approval ** Communities that operate targeted community programs on or before Apr. 1, 1989 will be eligible for funding of 100% of total capital costs or $20 /household, whichever is less. Purchase of land is not an eligible reimbursable cost. Equipment, supplies or other materials must be used primarily for abatement activities. APPLICATION PROCEDURE Applications for funding of local landfill abatement activities must be submitted no later than October 1 of each year. (In 1988 the application deadline shall be November 1.) Applications submitted after the specified deadline will not be considered. Application will consist of the following: o Completion of Attachment 1: Application Form (additional copies of this form are available from the Department of Planning and Program Management at 431 - 1158); o Support documentation as specified on Attachment 1; o An official resolution from the governing body requesting the funding allocation or a certified copy of the official proceedings at which the request was approved. o A description /documentation of the city /township office recycling program in operation by the community. Any changes or revisions in the request for funding must be submitted no later than July 1 of the funding year. This change must be requested on Attachment 2: Revision Request, and must be accompanied by the official resolution or certified copy of the proceedings approving such change. � 1 000132 • Page 4 REIMBURSEMENT PROCEDURES - (1989 only) Reimbursement procedures for 1990 and thereafter will be developed at a later date. Communities with an approved application for 1989 funding will receive: 100% of the approved costs will be distributed in four installments according to the following schedule: Payment Date to Community Progress Report Due o February 1 None Required o May 1 if March 15 develop- By April 1, 1989 ment objectives are met or at such time as March 15 objectives are met o August 1 if June 15 develop- , By July 1, 1989 ment objectives are met or at such time as June 15 objectives are met o November 1 if September 15 By October 1, 1989 development objectives are met or at such time as September 15 objectives are met. Based upon the Community Annual Report, the Monitoring Reports and the formulas identified in Attachment 5, a final evaluation of each community's performance will be made. The performance results for the year will be used to adjust the first quarter payment of the following year. Progress reports must compare the actual schedule with the schedule in the application and should be submitted to: Community Landfill Abatement Program Department of Planning and Program Management 7300 West 147th Street, Suite 503 Apple Valley, MN 55124 A 1989 annual report and a request for final evaluation must be made no later than January 30, 1990 and must include a completed Attachment 3: Monitoring Report. In no event will the total amount given to a community exceed the amount shown on Attachment 4: Maximum Reimbursement Schedule. 000133 I g Page 5 Attachments to Abatement Funding Guidelines Attachment 1: Application Form Attachment 2: Revision Request Attachment 3: Monitoring Report Attachment 4 Maximum Reimbursement Schedule Attachment 5: Performance Based Funding Formula - 1989 Only a -t -abate 000.134 • Page 6 ATTACHMENT 5: PERFORMANCE BASED FUNDING FORMULAS - 1989 ONLY Formula 1 Applies to the following communities: Apple'Valley Inver Grove Heights Burnsville Lakeville Eagan Mendota Heights Farmington Rosemount Hastings So. St. Paul West St. Paul o Full operation of targeted community program or County approved alternate by 1 -1 -90 50 pts. (yard waste component in place by 8/1/89). o Met a 9% residential abatement goal (4.4 points per 1% of waste abated). 40 pts. o Completed commercial /industrial activity as outlined in application and approved 10 pts. by the County Formula 2 Applies to the following communities: Coates Hampton Lilydale Mendota Miesville New Trier Randolph Sunfish Lake Vermillion Castle Rock Township Douglas Township Empire Township Eureka Township Greenvale Township Hampton Township Marshan Township Nininger Township Randolph Township Ravenna Township Sciota Township Vermillion Township Waterford Township o Full operation of targeted community program or approved alternate by 1 -1 -90 60 pts. (where applicable, yard waste component in place by 8/1/89) o Met 9% residential abatement goals 40 pts. (4.4 pts per 1% of waste abated). Payments to communities will be based upon the following Performance -Based Funding Schedule: 50 pts. = 50% of net eligible costs reimbursed 51 -75 pts = 75% of net eligible costs reimbursed 76 -90 pts = 90% of net eligible costs reimbursed 91 -100 pts = 100% of net eligible costs reimbursed a -t -abate I go 000135 • MEMORANDUM TO: City Administrator Hedges FROM: Administrative Assistant Hohenstein DATE: July 1, 1988 SUBJECT: 1989 SWAC Budget Proposal The following are proposed budget items for the 1989 City Solid Waste Abatement Budget. They are incorporated in the Department Budget Proposal, but are broken out by program here for ease of review. EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 4110 Communications /Solid Waste Coordinator (1/2 of salary) $12,000 Benefits & Overhead 4,200 $16,200 PARTS & SUPPLIES 4215 Reference Materials $140 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 4340 General Advertising $3,000 4350 Printed Promotions 2,000 4412 Local Meeting Expenses 725 4414 Subscription - Resource Recycling 25 4450 Other Contractual Services Recycle Minnesota Resources Redemption Facility Contract 4,000 Household Hazardous Waste Collection Dakota County 5,000 $14,750 CAPITAL OUTLAY 4570 Household Recyclable Containers 12,250 Households @ $12 $147,000 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $178,090 REVENUES Dakota County Landfill Abatement Funds UNKNOWN (Dakota County is currently modifying its funding assistance programs and will be refining details of their programs in the near future. Staff anticipates assistance in the range of 50% to 100% of eligible expenses.) • . 1 «.,8 0 8h > . 0 1 >,^ r , . , 0 !+ pp � c 8 ``g � O 0. y . • a ... 8.7i .. g co 3 3$. 0uo0- .Ees' A hh I . 15>S� uu c . . t;,), , ° E aua 4 0 a co q^: 0. y a . o o > 0` 0 0 .. 0 3 ;4 V) y c' v '0 'c 0 0 ° ` ` a , Z 8 >,'� « u E ' .le u •• " • w 1 .8 604 u ^ � ° . ° • uo3 " V S.0 c ° w °.; ... =' • •S 3 H N • ° - : ` em u H tic • ., Q ., � ' a �+ . ° p V C y 'n 0 w 1)63 ° y C C 1p 0 •C • q h' C 2 b u . C u 1 15 - ' C� U ed to y •.g cd ' O 60 co U U .5 g0 C '.7 N oo'u —° E` . :.I2 uu ic.ou acu ° ^ 'o%' s 00 0 y co . Oa � 0 ' g ' V v C % 0 • C L u .. ' a ca y = • A W -,,, O , 0 N y O v O b h :8 ..% 0.3 2 u w ° . .,g gc? &� Ct 0 0 0 � . 5 � �.� 4 "''d 4 v) 1 . — . o • 0 g 0 8 u y ' 'A Z'; c, � . y.. u C C C b ° . . ( . N _ � _ .5 •g -a U u C v- .. O ._S :L W V Y '. > � ' p 3 >• ° C '.'O . 0 1:5 o O .1 u C u 00 u u O V) y Jj 4.. L i f i c. 8 u � `.s 0 H u u u G* > 0 C R • 4 v O,5 •� E u ;•= g g � ,° .t '$ o -e •oo. E'cu *a nom" N in I I I I y °/1 bp a0u w � 3a Q O o °' 9 : R . o t E o...0 '° 5 c = 4. �, ' ...1?. : ;. ' E a y. 0 E ° . 5 3 a = , 'o c • : 1 • Ti ,. u 0 c`� 3 c o° p °' 0 a c a. + a • U C y v . Of". y N P. ^ O CJ b0 p, 00 �; : ' .y cp O G .- 8...= E u C y u V ii ; y E V) --„ . c , ; ' •;s 00 , i...; ; O oo c `' ° •5 c. _ ' C CZ ` '. I I Q 3� a a . .0 .6 4-42 8 Z•E . J • � 0 3 .0 a E 7 A ] S 1` ^ A Oi Q > CC 1 a ..«. p y l� y �+ yy « ar ' y � = a i . ..„..,. , . 8 ..._- p ....... = u t v g ' 13 2 - '' I 4 '' Cor) ,;.:....,. 00 ir i — to ›, . = ., W 1 O� M il fj O ..., � .0 O Iv y .8 . ..4 u .8u^K U6 ., o Ss* y .- ° • v u 3 u •v y C . �4 t. a con op © o cz gri. -0 .. 0 b0 e 8 . ..7 8 e g '' cu d ca>,Q .4111.1i \p 'a v -a d E Id u o '0 u a w> 0 f. 4 c 00 • 4 V Z � z , �. : " u • `°•o =aC c c o , CCU �� .� O oo u os • E g .0 ° u •o v u ° u - ..� y . ° ' .a 4/ � c " • E y u c . ( � " " y 6. e . g a p ..� 8 c7 g 7 R � ' p 8 3 C ' y ° " & "Z a 7 p. C V a _ ecil. u .y ^ E H HflH H ij t c0 y ,.. p 8 .. a . p 4.o•t• . b E .� u u • C« . .n– 0 44 8 8 . v u ro Cog1 v V 0 .�f u ° CL) .� v 3 •v � .. �j o E ° ' a,A o E c� oi "o o � �� 2 o g, o g .- _ 0 3 ,.c • E o•0 co Y� .. o .... n• • PI* gg u 3 c C _. 3 ' 7 8 1`..:0 4 • u . c 0 1 X 00 c 8 "' T ° c uu v 8 C C..) -5 . iY H >,• ° e o t , . y _ 43 u .h E ,. c u c u 4 E o . 3 0 cj • . . c „_ e o > .., ° o •� p H ` �� u o _ „ o'u'S 4..) -s .,...j .1 g -o • e a = u u u c 0 3 = o Q ... z . mu .. .. �2 °�..�vp F uc� CD 4 * � g «00 '`w) o .. o �::� o . 3 v .g � u °�°.P��.°cuPi.B� y h � • -,. .. • - ... .. - , t - ..-....1 -. ... , „ `" . ... i. : .,,, • 0 ; • . - , ... • . :' ••.,:' > , ---..........._ ---------:-___-- " • 0,;!,.1"%p,1 yte :44,,, ,,,,,„ • • .. , .,.. 'tt •••.; • • .ik •- .i" 4 . , 44'"...4:474 -'. " f ■ . . ' ' ' ' ', ...r.' ■ 7q •■;,, ..., 4:,‘.. .. •j , . ' ,, ,,, • .., . . 2, ' ..07., ''•'..:41)14 1 4/ ... : i' ItZ ".. . ; ,4 ! , . ..' tl.i VS r'' - ..., - . - ' ';'' 4 7`. ''.'-' .,...' ... • • -....1 '":04.,•• 71.. •,.- -,;?.•,-- . . .. . .; ' ... ' '4°,4 • • • ' Ar. i 4. • -,•14 ,... ,.•..4%. ,ter -, . • ' ••■•••• ' 1. • it '''' ''... • . 1, "'" ' 1 .' "A'A ''' , 'ft • ' I '".• • i ; 4 ' . 1" •i' P • • 1.;, '... . • - '• . A ,. f ., , . - . , lirtt;',.,,,..; ,, ,:,:i • `,';'. ' 4 :?;'; .,....;.; t't . 'r . T-- - . - ' ' .'s .... ,,. ,. „ . ,,, ,. . I 1 ' • • • • 1-.• -, ••t. •• , et: - • • - ' ••1?1;‘•...'.4■• .: .:( ,,,,,','''... t.r . - - --4 _•••,s,7,.........,•••• s • •••I . ,•• . V I I ' •• , • • ••• } - . . . • • • " • ' • - - 1' • ••••••ti , - r■ ' • ' .e..1.4''' . , • i''-'4. '-. 1. . ' • ' ' . ...7:. ,f siu ....,...,,,,,. k. ; ''. . . • . • . ,. . .. r * ' ' . . .. •L'a •••••••••.ji ",`'....., N." i;;;,..,,t, .' 4.0 ) P' : ; ••,• ‘• • , - 0 -. ` te.-, rt,,,ehi 2x, ...IL'. . 0 - .. - ..: . ' ... . ' ' . .;.,"•-' , .,,,k . T..,,,•• 41,0' • • • • ••••4 • .r. ...00,:b ..:.0....A.,`"10iit.''. - 11 - ,, , ,."':'''-'• - !....... s . ' ' ':, ' ' ' . • • A. . L . ; -re ...... •Pe ' 4. ,. ,:, •• ,, - • •vt - " , • • -4 'Y '•''' . ''. ••• • •! ' . ' . • • .... , • •• ,,•. • • •••,,,, ;.4,44,e,"Vi••■$., t, if ''',„„,„'I.,.,, ' 7. ,:' , X, : . • '..". • .'• .4.'1 s V %tr •;1•• . . • IS -3 . • , •:. -1.-r..., )II %I 6 :. I'' ' ,'-'''. ' • , „vs '.• -, ,.- ••••;- : ■ • r ^, , ,t, ;, • ::. ...., • -, , . .;'. • T A itt..,..t -,/ ,-. ■ . .r.," . c .T.4 . 1. ... t: ,,. • e. . % . e I ... ‘1 i• : .1..;,) ..,:, ..4:. ;, .. , ''.. . • '' :•- ''''.Ctur..." •• • • • . t■ *-3± . ..,o, -; *rf:. '•• ,.i' \ 'tf ..s.v•- - 4P, ''' it e • . • ''‘ 1r . ''. '' "■ ■ ' / '''• ''' .....47. ' ' -4h: 1 4: 4 . '``: ' .....i.',...: ' .' ...' '-.';'.';'''''''.'." ' .' . ".1 ' .' . -7 's ' I l e ' , ''' .it..' *; ' ',,- - • ..t.;.."-, "`"..',‘ ' ''..f. ,,,,, ,,,,;--,.., !, , , _ .. - • . ; .7„ ,,,,,,-,.:-. .- .4.Ar , ' ' ..° Sisla.4 .%, . •,,..,. • , ''''' - E '•••,'4 •• :I ;,'' ' * . --; ....,,...••••• . • • • , r.:1••• '',‘..;- • '''" 1 1-%., , - A'.. ••• 3- . -•••• r! ' . i ' • , ' • ',..•, \ :' • ',5'.0 ..1•.r..ii.- r j 1 .;-,•;,•,•:. -„, '" , .-,:li ......•i, --' k•% - rt.:-F. ,:...t• • ''. ' • , .. 0. - ' •„•', . '• , -,.... , ,..,.... u• ,,v1• •„, .,,'14 ..1 CitYir)f 1P/Y/7700th Minne sota ' '.: .q,n ., . p. • ..„,..; , . . ,.. : .,. , • •-, -4,..t. ., ...• , • ..„ ,.. . „: , .: . - •,., -.,..„, ,....,01 Al:- 4 ....,-, '".4 ...,...:;.4 43- 4 •••;:::, 11 • ;., • . p ., - - - - :',;t:1•.i •;. W.N..'..jj _ .•; 01., - :...' ' ; .. - ;: :,'''''',. tiltnt"- .it ' itflit•ItZ'rt - * Y, ': " 4.4... '. ' . '', - ''. "•.:', • . 7 ,1'.. : '..-''- : "•‘••• i'-'' s ' e 'S'.'' . ;t 4 . - it4C .4 .t t ;• -• illr.!:t'•'.'' - '' ' .. .,.. - ''' .",..:'''.', - ....:.`,i;;;44.4.:::1 1 .-5 , *41-`g':".',1.?-t:•--', -;'- -) A '' • • '', - ' ' - •- • ,!;•:‘ . '.. • ''" ' :k".: ;., ,W( : : '.., ';• •it'l .° ';, - • .., ' -' . ;•'•„,. .. ,„•;.• ..., •. • ', ;. . . . . , . • • :1..4, Ts. -:,,i • , .... 4 ..-1 • :-'4:-• s se • 1, ,, 4 0 - jt , ::: .....!...1 •'; l'',1 'r'1,-,!. : ......' . '... , , , '.. : .• ... "... . 41, ..7..44:' 4..,,,, .•'; _,.`,; ,..v„....IV,,,,lo r•I'ri 4.'0 , .0.,ti . t; ; 1 - ' ' -..... ::.. ,. ,■ .i.„: ,. .".. • . ; „, .....";,.... , ; 7.,,,.. , ; •••,..;1•,..:;;.•,••;-•,.,,t,::•4 . • • • • !......ge.,: v .fic:A1,. i 4 . 4 , _4.•• 4 ". '4"• • „,•••-•• - - • •;,;.- A . .i ., •w 74 •,.. ,• ;••4...1.,, y......,...,...; ,,. .;,,,, ; . . . „ , .. . ,:•• ,,. ••••; . '; 0••••,,,••• , ..,i - ,..-...1.•.... - -..vzf c . 10 '41.0.ti f.a. 4 I ' • -••••'.•,?• . '''':'' ' : .'' ; `'''"IIIT- tr ,''..= '- : •-` 1,' ,, ,; . ;: , • ', .i,. - ". . - ./,-, s' . . ',,, : ;•7,16%,"/"/, - ..q• ',' :, .0, :....11., y,i,t .4%.4ii 747:;:•• t. '''.;.',"'.,[..*:. ..1 . ".. ' : '''.7-'. ; ..:i . "`'''' - . - '. -' ":" -. l ' : ' ' . ' ' . ' '- 7%.1 ' . ' - ''''' , “: :4 1r, ‘ ",'4'..'2/C' '': ''rk":' ' •••':::'- ':;* % . .: ''''. r ' 1;4 ' 0 . .;;,'"' '7',. ' .' ''''' '' '.r.'4 4 ,..4e:-•t'l.;,''' 4 1 4 .Zt.:% 4 •:, ,:',1 .'', ,. :'‘,-', - 1 ' •' , , ::,.''','''; :,:ij-` l''..4 .... 'EA.; ''.,:,;I - 7.,'''`i''' --• '• ' •."i ..:' I . '` :"''''. " . ' .:.`!';'•' '',:'':.?"$?;4'`•:.i. •••',... >‘ '-',41;:''',.ttrle..i.1T,SV tr ti" 1 7,,E,'••11::. ' m •. ..•- ':•''. .:: 2, ' Ve,#;•4;1, ••1_ - .•'. ' -,•, ; '. ',.., . -', - - . .N . - .:', 4: ,. „ .41\ ; '1, ":14'-k•I 01 .,,..; ,•■ • i • .• ,•„ • ".gt:.., •,„, „ 4 Anl ,... "r• .. • , .e• ••• ..: • ' . 1 - * • '' • ' r •••• ';•••••• • •• 1.4r• 't,4•1:ri". , `1 ."•'''''''''• : '-''''' m's,Pg .1,1 / . ' ' e";/" f:',..4. • ...t ' li.a g .‘ ''''' :its ,..'illt., :444. ',.1.• '* ';',F' : . •••'- ';'` ' ,..., •`• :;;... ' . ' ...,,-- ' .:(" J.! 6 :„ 4 W( - , ' '''?',, eit.',...•4". .. .• ..„ ,, , irs„'' 7.64,1,:;71.• i ''': 2 r,tj,,,,,. k, •",' - 4 •,,,•• „7- . itti f i. : •••!i; ..--- .'..4' •••''. -4-i; ,v..:::::4 '4,r.t.-;-,:;;I;i4, V"..'I';;!,•;.'...447,,y;e,t..v), .., -, ..,,,..,;„ • :"-?. 4)szift 440 ' •:• ''''A.sui "fi, , 4e -c ‘ • "-t , r f e '' ‘, .,2. i 44 ', .„,t ,.:,,,, .,, I... t-A.4;;it k'',..,f-r.,:',..,47..;,.., , tveite.fr-t i "A..4,5,....,' 4 -,...,-,.., „,..,....,,,,,,,,,,,,.„, „..,4--.,,.,,,.,,,,,,,.„ 4,,..,,,.;:„...„ ,-''.4qA ';:••st'Ve•I' *i • •*• •;• i." 1 aghlr'irS • :10? -- I ii,/,- •:.tt':, .; , . ,_„.t . „1 : _It; 'e„ ,11,.., ,_ : . ,,• - -.1,`,:c:1,7Y1,' ' 4.'1 . , ,• • . ; ipl.t..et,' - c i ! • ''d' i' .-' :,...1t*. s•tri... 01:4. ' . ■ 't '' • 23 CITY OF PLYMOUTH RECYCLING PROGRAM The City of Plymouth's Recycling Program was basically started in the fall of 1985 with the appointment of a part -time Recycling Coordinator who was charged with researching the issues from the State Metropolitan Council, and Hennepin County levels and with ultimately implementing a program in the City of Plymouth so as to comply with the intent of Hennepin County and Metropolitan Council guidance. A Recycling Committee was formed consisting of two Councilmembers, the Assistant City Manager, Director of Public Works, and the Recycling Coordinator to provide guidance and direction toward implementation of a Recycling program. The actual collection program began in April of 1986 with City -wide curbside collection once per month from an estimated 10,000 to 12,000 single - family through four -plex homes and a dropoff center for the more rural areas of the City, the multifamily homes and convenience. All pickups were made by contract with Super Cycle, Inc. for $2,250 per month. Large paper bags printed with the City logo and the Plymouth's Recycling emblem were distributed to each single - family through four -plexs homes. Seventy to eighty tons per month were picked up for the first four months as shown on the attached graph and then volume dropped off to fifty and even as low as thirty - five tons per month during the month of November. In April of 1987 the once a month pick up was upgraded to twice per month pickups and the large paper bag continued to be used. Cost for twice per month pickups was $4,200 a month for the first 120 tons and $30 per each additional ton over 120 tons. Volumes again reached seventy -five to eighty tons per month and continued to hold through July of 1987. 51 On July 20, 1987, the City Council held a public hearing on a proposal to implement organized collection of the garbage haulers in the City of Plymouth and to enact a mandatory Recycling ordinance. After much testimony, the City Council decided that this would be used as a tool of last resort only in the event that we were unable to meet the quotas established by Hennepin County on a voluntary basis. Instead, the Council directed the staff to draft an increased promotion and marketing plan for the Recycling program and to continue with the open hauling system wherein nine haulers are licensed to pick up the residential areas of the City. This increased publicity surrounding the public hearing caused volumes to continue at about the ninety to one hundred tons per month level with an all -time high of 114.4 tons being reached in November of 1987. The City implemented the new promotion and marketing plan which called for a new brochure, new advertisements, several articles in the local newspapers and the City's magazine "Plymouth on Parade" all advertising the City's new program which would be implemented in February of 1988. The new program increased the frequency of collection from twice per month to once per week and the entire City was picked up on the same day of the week. This was a fall back from an attempt to try and pick up the Recyclable items on the same day as garbage pickup day. The City purchased the blue box Recycling container and distributed one to each single - family through four -plex home in the City, along with a brochure of instructions on how to package the Recyclable materials. Each homeowner was instructed to put cans in one grocery bag, bottles in another and newspapers in the third. The grocery bags were placed in Tlialtl blue box and then taken to the curb by 8:00 on every Thursday morning, which was Recycling day. In addition at this time, a cash drawing was implemented in order to provide an incentive, to publicize the as Recycling program and to place Recycling in general in a lighter vein, such as a contest or a game in order to take some of the perceived drudgery out of Recycling and entice more residents to at least try it to find out how easy it really was. The cash drawing provided for $100 to be given away each week throughout the year. A computer listing of all the residential properties in the City was placed into a book with pages and lines numbered. A page and line number are selected at the last Council meeting of each month for each week in the following month. As Recycling day approaches, that page and line number identify a residential property who's street address is then checked at 8:00 in the morning of that Recycling day. If the Recyclables are at the curb by 8:00 in the morning and properly packaged, that resident wins $100. This $100 is usually presented at the following Council meeting which is cablecast and covered by the local newspapers. In the event no Recyclables are at the curb or they are improperly packaged, the 100 is added to the following week's drawing. The new program proved to be much more popular to the residents than the prior programs and 67 tons were collected in the first week of February, or 264 tons for the month of February. In June a total of 309 tons were collected. Participation rates increased from approximately 2,000 to 2,200 under the old twice -a -month and once -a -month programs to over 7,500 participating under the new program. The actual number of households participating are counted on pickup day and as many as 7,719 homes participated in one week which equates to approximately 62 percent of the 12,500 single - family through four -plex residences in the City. This 62 percent participation on a weekly basis is estimated to equate to approximately an 85 percent participation rate on any given month in that several residents do not participate every week in the month. The new program for weekly collections is at a contract price of $5,500 per month for the first 150 tons and $30 per ton for each ton over 150 tons per month. The City of Plymouth, in 1986, picked up approximately 2 percent of the waste stream and received 50 percent matching funds from Hennepin County. In 1987, the City achieved 10.7 percent of the waste stream diverted which equated to 70 percent of the net cost paid by Hennepin County. In 1988 the City estimates approximately 20 percent of the waste stream will be diverted, which would equate to 80 percent of the cost being assumed by Hennepin County. Problem areas encountered by the City of Plymouth's new program are as follows: 1. 8:00 in the morning setouts often were not collected until at least 8:00 at night and sometimes as late as midnight which resulted in missed pickups and irate residents due to the noise and the length of time the items had to remain at the curb. This item is currently being addressed by the collection hauler, Super Cycle, Inc., with a recent guarantee that all items will be picked up no later than 5:00 p.m. 2. The enthusiastic response on the part of the residents resulted in a greater volume of Recyclables being set at the curb than anticipated resulting in several requests for additional blue boxes. In addition, several residents reported blue boxes being stolen, and sometimes damaged. The current practice is anyone requesting a second blue box, whether it has been stolen or because more than one is needed, an additional box is given free of charge. 3. Residents of multifamily apartment buildings have requested blue boxes, or wish to participate in the program and as of this date a good multifamily Recycling program has not yet been established. f2 4. Commercial /Industrial Recycling has not as yet been addressed, other than identifying the Recycling which has been accomplished by the company directly with the purchaser of Recycled items. More effort needs to be made in this area, as well as a solution to the small business who finds it uneconomical to recycle themselves and should possibly have a collection route sponsored by the City in order to solve this problem. The Recycling boxes which the City purchased were placed for bids and the low bidder was accepted for 15,000 Recycling boxes at a cost to the City of $4.91 each. This cost was offset by Hennepin County, who paid $2 of each Recycling container. It is the City's intent at this time to continue the current program in the residential area with the exception of trying to get the items collected during a shorter period of the day, but to continue the City -wide collections on one day. This is much more convenient to remember and to advertise, since in this manner no one resident has to remember which week of the month or which day of the week his Recycling pickup day is on. The weekly cash drawing has proven to be very popular and is a very cost effective way of getting the advertising and keeping the Recycling program foremost in the minds of the local residents. a g° O y co o a 0 E = c n O 'c I— 3 0 ° v , G c �. I v c _ ~ rn rn 7- a D c D 0-- L- p J r n O a °1 n n c ∎- c. r v .• n o ' rn o c c a — u G f - r f' Q rn V, _ �D O (D • L _ ? a n O O O C v O S [d • r c d n� 3 ,2 n n< u S = x n -, O L 0 a n O a, o o n m a r v c y x v, c n v , O r L_ C C n (C C O G cc C ` c C- O O u+ C r r C a (D ' r O 0 u. v C) n -. u; a ro 0 • c^ C CAS 0 co i '. < O c q S Alt, -T J in v. • E. O. r U CI) • n p N n n � � ` �°o v m an --, n = � �rG°0oa_ O T I �7 v 0 C _, B O G 2 r 2 O 7 0 S v, v) o.) n • T r ro Cil co n , ( -o R u, v O ^ x , n �..‹ Cr CL c c c r , ' fD i? G N O O J co G ro , (fl O � D U (T �' J C =. a , 7 ty O O 2 n G _ r? f a =Sm U L l re S L ,-, t0 —, -e — n( r N 1 O fl O O ti SE, • 3 0 2 ' � c y — � • Z p n T G p it (� ' .9 vi ' E •-- a s 5: ad � r � � o crl Cc r 7 O O c ` '< rn O= _ O -" G. W v CD C a fD O rn Fr A p _ •p a • N < (n a a a ' S= G V, rip r • � a N ` i ® o D Ecrilli CD Y rte CD • 1 - mot '<r19:11111 rD n - a: a 1 ,.< (D ; c---- n c -- = �1_ /� p v n a I,J1' u.' 3 I� r� on 4 • • • • C ' N • C ■ �� (� -7 w r\-) - o c 7 L- T i �" a i C _ - — C 2 rn r 1 r r G C 70 1 1' .. � G — C C r X. �' u r, G aw I _ c o o a CA rte:. - '; G y p O uh �` � ri X v. ■ • • • • • • - p ,• rD ,- r _ . G " C _ X L C •7 � s? , f :: Vi C rn n r r v rti v, > r ` E n 7T C c,. , : — ,�e•� .{ __ `� o % 1 n c 0 7 0 v, � � ■ - • If r: D (n I I j -, 6 I. ! +` - 7 F i a co G 3 a ma c, R" ,; } r— t f � n Y v O O ,.n a e-) O ,,,, Y - n n J � o2. E 7 (Dr- '~ „ n l � �` C r O p rD w • ; i C r G (o C O v' yr «T`,'7..'� '. } ' A L rn IT a. G 0 0 a � � r y t l� Y �'1r3Y t . 4 ., Aiii y 4s s ..+ Grvy " 1? 1,� -:,, - s' a , ,11,>z� �. -, rD d —, H n CO c � 7::) � ' o sa rn n ° 3 O rn 3 °� o v a � S � . - ( -) = rrn n f D n 1.-,- n o Oa < 7 _ — rn _ • n p ' — a te ¢ a � (7 co to 'T7 ^ — w ' Q" (7) . c o S 7 71 > a ro ° n fD O O N • _ _� ro a cr F - - OS rn ° 1 a � C-.. .'":' 7 :A n a ( 7 M. aga,o La.n _._y - TS so a (I) d X< o v X 7 u' 7C 7 C S O m -- - -- , d Q• n lilt e., 2 z ; - ; N (L a S - S o a o ',,' -0 2 a v, a, — 0 - ! N v : 0 • '< 7 a, r r-, R ' 1 rD rD 7 ° n ■ • . . . — — f --1 f ,_, 1.3 .1 -'- - 0_1 _ . _ _ __ _ — Li t - I J J I . . . n = 4: - l _ 1 L _ _ l _ _J I . I ili L1 I. _J C . - I _ Li 1 L - i ■ ' ! _i. ■ f - .I fj1 . .__ J , -F r ' 1 ---- —•"--: 7' -- 1 r_.c - 1 — 1 f • . — c r. --.•• , _ _ , • ,_ --,- • .r -.••-- - 7 t _.:i 1 r n 1 g -7) . . ! __._. . _ (Li . _... 1 1. ! ---` II() 1.: C 0 (f 1 -- . . • f_t 1 - I - 1 - -.■ , c IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIM_,,_ c-L, IL I I 1 , . F-1 , _ ,-,, ._, ., 1.... _ J L. . ....L___f•____::: .:-:._ .-.._—::__ - --], I 01 r :, c_n f f 1 r _ l' ( 1 C LI I ' I, _I I 1 C 71 ._ ... _ 1;:r . . . .. .. -1 ..._.. ..Z___ .:"..._.: ___z:___ ._.L__.., i . _ _ 1:) I t,:n . , --:: •:... -V- I -1 _ . • - . / ' ' .- - ' . - _ 31 r— Lrl 0 t.D Or..) 0C-% CD Cf) Cf. I r. ..) r r H r 1.I Ii 1. J - .. 1 EL1 LJ J Li 1.1 1 LJ li E LTI L , I .1) t ( J _I (LI e • _ r.ti I} r I - 1 T _ . Fri — 1 - IT) 1 C:t H --1 1 F.■ - I 198 7,ECYCLI:;S - 20::S CCLLEC2E7 10.53% (49 Recycled, Reported as of 1/28/88 ; .4 .............V.73 . 10< ( ---):, - To:' '07. Cost Sharing . :•!.,,,,.. .,. ,, -- . , .• ___.______ - r i if.f:e! . :!t,N,' .. -- , ..,.. . , ..i.,..,... 1987 6% Goal ( .. (2836 Ton ) .... - 60 Cos: Sar . i ,1?.' - 1 1 , ' .:', - , ' ^ , ' - - '. hir.g . ..1■ 1 yr.t . :A ,.., .7t,i' ' c t- 3o2.8D J. cr. , — – - '".: i.. 14 ',- ;',... •.....' ,,:-. .. ,1 r ItIlt liL : k :i !, i ; • t ; 2.1% (997.1 Ton) . l':;f: .•,,t .4.,c!.. Recycled via curbside P.U. i 6 Drop .. .).. v.A.,., . . off center . • A . 0 . . il . . . • 50% Cost Sharing ; : ; . '. '.:;■. ' •• `,,,, .'. 1 ; .1. • .; . , . . . . , • - . . • . ... . .. i j..." ••e, St:••ei..1 - • , ‘1.170 Ton 1 1 •:: County Goal - 9t (4470 Tons) • 5% • 2% (950 Ton) As of 5-1-88 ; • !&,.. • • •., • • . • . . , •••• , •.- . . - • • -•%.••• • • ,;••.•:-•_,:i „II . • . • ‘.4k. A • 1 RECYCLING PROGRAM (TONS COLL.F.CTEDI CJ CD c C C 3 rt 9 'V C (t G (I 'C W a" 'O 7A 9 n n -s 'z -s -s O H • r• n O r• n Cr7 1 i--• S G ■-• 70 (n OD - Q ` j y a O✓ i - s - 3 O co co 'i] V Q. IC 9 F' r C H .C) ---.i un 0 (n H a• N N H 9 1V V 0 rrl 9 3 'v H z r+ O - --1 n • N N r ..( v ' ^' O 9 O O O O H O O O 1.1 Cr] Z Li) C) ro cm r O .< E H 3 LT) to 0O 2 t c n .O H 2 r• a H • = T' n rt s- 1 2 ? O O Po ..< z n 3 R r< S n o , e r z z G w w H G 2 •C 'C 9 2 2 1-1 '17 Co el el Z 73 O rrl O i( G co 7p n w w CPI W DO pv :I- X O r H rn o r .0 Z v, - - O n (n rr O .D O H • O [T1 O (J, t7 O a-a n '17 rt 24 rn a or./) H rrl + rr, + •l W O <n W O to -cn n O '9 u, 0 -t • N b 0 - .'V Z rt F--• (.7 rt •-• N N r-( H O u O O N O u, n 73 a 0 0 a 0 0 O (r1 9 n O rt 9 0 rr g g H < O rr < O rt rt (D a ? (D a S S el .y N — n z m w cr a + •- .- O [n n ca. (n .-• 0 .-• n N .D sn H O h. rt - X .. H a • O r ti w O rt O rt v O O u, O 55 r , F 1ar.ua 1, 190 through C_cembc_ _ . , !��r CURBSIDE PICK!.. A': `_r DP,QPOFF CENT :R Budget projections are based on the following estimates: 1. Average pickup of 60 lbs. per household per month. 2. Estimated 13,000 families in the City of Plymouth (single family through four - plex). 3. Participation rate of 65T of households (based on Aggressive Promoti:: Plan. 4. Estimated tons of waste stream is 49,662 torts. The 97, Recycling go a: is 4,470 tons. 5. Estimated 1988 residential tons = 3.042 (13,000 x o5' = 8,450 x 60 lbs. = 507,000 x 12 mo. = 6,084,000 - 2 ,000 lbs = 3,042 ton). 6. Estimated 1988 yard waste tons = 3.000 (500 tons;month Mav through October). 7, Estimated 1988 commercial /industrial tons = 4 00L, 8. Estimated total 1988 Cons = 10.042 or 20.27. of waste stream. PYOJECT � 'yn S S: Residential Contract collection ($5,500 /mo. up to 150 tons) x 12 mo. _ $6f fly, Residential contract collection at $30 /ton (over 150 /mo.) 250 ton - 150 = 100 tons x $30 = $3,000 x 12 rno.= 36,00! Compost collection 3,000 tons. No cost = Parr time assistant (30 hrs. week at $8 /hr.) = 17,500 Staff Coordinator (one half time) = 22,000 $100 /wk. Recycling Sweep Stakes = 5,200 Advertising and publicity = _14.000 Total Expenses $155,700 8,000 plastic containers at $5 /ea. = $40,000 (41110, County Funded) CO} 1. $0. COUNTY 20 CITY Expenses $124,560 S31,140 New containers $ 16,000 $24.000 Total Program $140,560 $55,140 ' ' - -.. - . . i lt7 1 . Ft t u - - 1. - ' Minneapolis Star and, Tribe i Sunday no .�. +.., • County sees sa March 29 /1987 4 ;: • in organlzed rah a b . . :: g g . , r Even the c`�ity s streets coact out 1 ahead,. Sather said. "A loaded gar- . haulers vu�ar r a nu the heaviest yo u pickup; y, cle that uss es resideelide ntial straits. If fyou have just one garbage truck a week By Paul Gustafson using a street instead of three or four Staff Writes from different firms, it makes a big The collection' of residential garbage Still, Ramsey County is encouraging difference over time." • as a wide -open private enterprise the idea. It has m4de the review, of � North St. Paul followed White Bear . may be coming to an end in Ramsey organized garbage collection a hIe- Lake's lead last fall. But instead of County. And that could be good quiremrnt for cities receiving courtly designating one firm, officials news for people who live there, if not grants for curbside pickup of tecydla- worked out a system that assigned for their neighborhood garbage col- ble waste. And it's seeking authority firms to se from the Minnesota Legislature to Monthly residential eons of the city. • lectors. Y garbage fees av- • force cities to begin organized colle c- eraging S 10 were cut to $6.95. In most of the county, garbage haul- non. , . . ers are free to serve whomever they • 1.1 Me Council member want, wherever they want, and at County officials view it as a waxlo Charles Wiger, who chaired the city whatever monthly charge they set. minimize solid waste'disposal costs, committee that designed the collec -' which will rise as the county sttsps tion system, said North St. Paul gar - . hat may be a model of free enter - putting its garbage in landfills. It will huge haulers decided to join rather prise, but some experts say it's an begin processing it 'taco power Plant than fight "when they j we inefficient and costly way to collect fuel at a new facility in Newport. — - -- • the 205,300 tons of garbage that were serious." Ramsey County residences generate Officials estimate that residential gar- bage costs could be•cut by more than John Maroney, owner of Marone y 's each year. • - S4 million annually if all cities insti- Sanitation Inc., said he doubts the The better alternative, they.say, is for . tuted organized garbage collection. long-term-value of organized collec- cities to organize the business by as- non even thou he participates in • signing haulers to exclusive territo- White Bear Lake officials, who have the North Si. Paul system. He said ries or by contracting with a single contracted for city-wide residential he s afraid other cities will "take the y company for city-wide collection. for about 10 years, y pr)' "and simply contract with garbage pickup one a collection firm rather Uo say their system has advantages for than ow North St. Paul's exam le. Only three Ramsey County commu- both the city and its hauler. p cities (North St. Paul, White Bear if that ha Lake and White Bear Township) now It cuts the hauler's costs "because it's pans' ies like said, huge have organized collection. But sever- a lot better when you can go right national companies like Wa Man_ ment Inc, and al others, including Maplewood, New down a block and pick up at each Industries Inc. (BFI) ) will u wil u i Brighton and-RoSeville, are stndYing house, instead of going to one house, smalls o underbid the idea. • skipping the next two, and so on," of business. "It will like trying out said White Bear Lake City Man trying to � si The Metropolitan Council, which is Mark Sather. And the city t bills re- mate face and hauler is bid agai 3Mand . Md the small gone it's encouraging cities to consider the dents for the service, acting in effect only when a few big companies left to bid, idea, said in a 19E5 study that cities as the contractor's collection agency. then look out." with organized • collection cut their • costs by 25 to 33 percent. Moreover, the contractor also is al Though some ` city officials concede • '• lowed to have a transfer station that organized collection might drive Small garbage haulers say that ow- where garbage can be loaded into some garbage haulers out of business, nized collection might force rnanyInf semi - trailers. That way each garbage Sather said White Bear Lake's experi- them out of business. If that happens, truck doesn't have to make a sepa- ence doesn't bear out Maroney'a ice- they say, the industry could be Tao- rate trip to a landfill, Sather said. nano. - - oolized by a handful of firms, lead- . to higher costs. • 1 Residents enjoy low collection "I've heard charges and the assurance that all concern. nu But our e current contractor, Knutson Rubbish homes have service, he said. Single Service, is a small firm and it won family homeowners pay S6.75 a our contract three month for garbage serv and senior bidding three other ccompannies� -� n- citizens pay $2.90. eluding Waste Management." Solid waste brochure is part of campaign to educate the public By LEA GUENTHER -- "Give trash a second chance." __ Only a bag lady would agree Recovering the waste that can with that statement, you say? Consumers are also asked to not be reduced, reused or recy- Well, the Dakota County Board of reuse products by buying only cled will be handled in the pro - Commissioners isn't really re- cloth napkins, razors with re- posed waste -to- energy facility, .cruiting bag ladies, even though placeable blades and rechargea- which will convert waste to fuel those words appear on the cover ble batteries. Leaves, glass clip- for generating electricity. It is of a brochure that is being mailed pings and vegetable scraps can possible that the ash residue from to county residents. be reused through composting. the recovery process can be used The brochure is just part of a Recycling, the brochure says, in road asphalt or in concrete public information campaign that • involves separating items in gar- building materials. is intended to raise public aware- bage that can be reused, thus les- Landfilling of unprocessed ness about solid waste. Commis- sening the demand for raw mate- waste will end Jan. 1, 1990, ac- sioners hope county residents can rials and saving energy. The cording to a new state law. Cur - be persuaded to give their house- county's goal is to recycle 15 per- rently, the Dakota County land - hold trash that second chance. cent of waste by 1992. fills handle nearly all the county's Even though the county has not Materials that can be recycled solid waste, along with 50 percent completed its final recycling into new products include metals, of the waste generated in the rest plan, commissioners wanted cardboard, some plastics and of the metropolitan area. people to begin thinking about so- glass, paper, motor oil, flatteries, The brochure says, "The waste lid waste problems. So the bro- • auto parts and scrap iron. The we create today can become a chure tells them that the county board has followed its own advice useful product tomorrow...if we generates 800 tons of garbage by replacing the foam coffee cups give trash a second chance." For every day, and that this garbage formerly used in the boardroom information, call 431-1158. is polluting the environment and with recyclable paper cups. Oh, yes. The brochure was depleting natural resources. printed on recyclable paper. - The county has a five -step plan for managing solid waste, includ- ing reducing, reusing, recycling, recovering and landfilling. Commissioners and county staff • believe this plan offers a bal- anced and realistic approach to waste disposal. The brochure urges residents to help reduce the waste stream by buying fewer disposable items and more reusable ones; buying products in returnable con- tainers; buying in bulk; buying products that will last longer; and buying products that are packaged simply or in recyclable packaging. M } }} . , r 1 ,: C u .v8 Z -. a ' r, , • ; r s co co; a 2.0 ro d •x au,r'Ow',y u Ni� r O 4.0 .0 ' 0 w a « , c al o .ow 3w >, 4ai 0 • r i r t �. o� 400 tU ro k 0 a ,N ° • 1' co 3 U ' / ■ i y + _ O, al b„ a, q u .0 Cl. w u • o ` ` 0. a a TT a, « i. ,; 8' 0 to 1,', f ro 9 a uc «�k.e' ro 'o . .� �r..)' ' �. ,'t� C • tiO 121) 1 ' 6 w a u . a� 0 'egg W w g CZ 4�� �' R • , ''4 I a� ~ � w . � '� v u i a, >> ~ W ti., • I r t tit iy J • ' . 1 ' , � h d, A ..a 6«07 . w 4�0 12 w C4 Ei \ ''....., 4 ...%,.. . i , 3 1,,...,\ . 1 ...„ . .,. o 0 _ • . .,...i. = . . ,... y , ..7 , u V 'C) Q w. C � V � . � � . .7 te a. N O � I •. '� #- y q a, t L. .S a. p o • ' u ° O a. • a, C1101) 1W \'' �"; ..c .5 v70 �. « u a, a u io 7Y 0� i • ' 4 ,, , ' 3 C. mA "m« v o ri u .S '10 a ;, roan b ,y, r dy N N q , co . si. « E" 0 o ti E 0. u ", µ . c a .^ " . ow b a' S 0 c c v •J - rt ''R C N 6, w w.0 u ro 40 0 .- a • a p g = L w u .` � S �d'd w a ..„ 2 , y" a« i . 3 a00�a , . y 1.9 t, . r. 1 G " 0 is O 4 0'3 A. u . v E 0 g, •"+ ".p F ° . ! :fh `-°° X 2 0 go ,L, 0a ° ro W w u a, N a, i ' t. Q g S v N a� .2 ri.-1 . . k . ro' w I II/ 4. alA N a,...; a, : 2 . >Ad d . 0 as , « /� 0 0 ' N . a7 0 aC OS a, 'g « ' le . O. 0, . :+ . b 'O t o 0 c W c0 c w c w 0 « r1 N N • •• •� O a N N cy • M � p ro .G •O 0 'C! N p' o « N 3 o O 0' u i +w a, ro S p g aw. > « ... W 0 a, a s a c • 3« «Nro ro ro � S rood S ro "...N S `°`"~ •0 � o H u ro� ..> a ti a ;� 'S 0 6Q 0 : .... ar N^' W vy k u 0 4. 0 •• '% WM > 444 ro y ar : u ro w co �'O a+ o p N .S Q' . ro ' O , . 'C II) k. p 0 > p 0 �' ° 'a °p o «U on 3 � °w�� � T " wE+ S g" a, -. oo ° u S r , efS CD P ~ ^ _ G u ro as G� N u `'l wN �• ar u p ro .. N � O 0 +'" 0. � a ° y a'v. • � O •. u w ro a p o !w� > ''tl d u,C �" u y.' w« u a 0 uw a, u 0 ;, a 2 . " N w 'C W « . . Ti N F. N v 0 N g. w Al co A .o w g ••' q ° , I olio • O N.7 d >>O•.. O p y •. . . ro >o " > r, N W V N, .S •d 0 00 ca Q m ro p « v, CC'. « «•.. • CA) I PC ' ^ a 3 c o °J~ o $ a«'� , a+ . � � N a >w > °0 � � � n „ . 1 U 2 c - 2>I4a ro .. 00 >0u0aa O 'oa a0 , N ma , Ell ° y � o 4, 1.4 I c S . .�%' a� 07 W :'� • >« 3 a b 0 0W ro V �' 4 '� • Ai 0 = "� a., w ?+ a w 0. S A >a0 ro � ` a, o U o« S ' o q v:. . `� 00 u I-. a0 �a av� N u p a ro O 4 1 1 , ;10 > a,••" p roy , w p'g h a; >. -41' e 6 > p °E u e �� v 0 puni row H• 0 t V VI, a, p : q 0 q�, ,, 3 N 0 a = v 3 > y 4p,4 E i 4 u U 2 c o o > , o g • o u« •' ® 'S N •. a, a N V O 40 f/1 J7 a « 2 N a, 3 Eq.; u w O G. .p . p G. C7 > k. w rp w ,.• 'b 40 « y . a7 w w , 1si O .. ' N R - G. 'w . 0 0 d 0 « & iV = ..t " y( tO, 'x q C > . ' 1 q ' " 4" .%. 74 'cill �. .G ' N ,w ao w w « .•n c3 ro > � w o 4,1 4 4 v > . b V d Se' a, Q M C, ' .�•. a, « 40 � ' p , y r.. 00 n 0 r uZ w .9 ^« ai' oa 4 ° '«g+ a o1 .0 .0 � ". 1 ; ::.��v, ro p V Q o w 4C a, 0 i..' p u ,+ .c N a, -t ' a o a ro oh o N a f+'j 0. U a y O .• aJ 0 M N W N « W O « �, i j b " .a >. W u w p -. G. •. d �.. " 40 � as wcro �o w 0 p yCI" rot � a,G ICE N x � • ca u o ? oo . Z. a .o a,s w. ^ o o ro u >,2'a q+ 0 ,. a >> 00 7 E " a '+ ro' • S � a d 3 0. in °0 �: 10. Ill a � � u° al °o 0 a, 0 3� a 0 y pq U ' v o`.3 o U« a.2 r, N .`3a « . ma a, N A x � o o V Q S o ;,,,F. >..,N. a H ai o ro ca . u N4 0441 a ' R W R b0 I c:4' � � P > 0 � . ., © .N.. oo a, A M S >, « 4: O. �" O c'a - SC O N ,b • ro CD k k 'b ..• cu N • � En W M 0.. i,; N 0 6. 0 V ,, „ y " >, ro o w a , , . .. . °' °' H 0,.... E w . � . CO ro p . a , 4 0 C,- tr " y O 0 . .G ,, a, y w .-. 40 , W .S C � « va wq o E°°N O � �c « a ro " ~ °�► �� g [ a", m ,o" p Q .�y - a[. G ' g� ro i� v . Q« 0 p > N N 3 . w � a. g y W V •.. CjI OM -, r w 3 . W a ' C WI . u g W W CA R CA . 0.'a k •a g l A0 0 u U v v w 4o