Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/14/1988 - Solid Waste Abatement Commission ■ -- Et f SIAM CLA • 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 Wednesday, September 14, 1988 in Eagan Municipal Center Conference Rooms A & B 3830 Pilot Knob Road, Eagan, Minnesota NOTE SPECIAL DATE AND TIME DUE TO PRIMARY ELECTION ON TUESDAY Packet materials will follow for Commission Members. For more information about this meeting, please call Jon Hohenstein at 454 -8100. \ 4 0 11111 . 116, • AGENDA SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION EAGAN, MINNESOTA EAGAN MUNICIPAL CENTER CONFERENCE ROOMS A & B WEDNESDAY SEPTEMBER 14, 1988 11:30 A.M. NOTE SPECIAL DATE DUE TO PRIMARY ELECTION ON TUESDAY I. ROLL CALL AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES II. ADOPTION OF AGENDA III. CURBSIDE RECYCLING IMPLEMENTATION IV. OTHER BUSINESS V. NEXT MEETING VI. ADJOURNMENT MEMO TO: CHAIRS HOEL AND MANN AND ALL MEMBERS OF THE SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION FROM: ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT HOHENSTEIN DATE: SEPTEMBER 8, 1988 SUBJECT: EAGAN SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 14, 1988 A regular meeting of the Eagan Solid Waste Abatement Commission will be held on Wednesday, September 14, 1988 at 11:30 a.m. in the Eagan Municipal Center Conference Rooms. The City will provide a box lunch to those requesting one by noon, Monday, September 12. 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 meetings of August 9, 1988, August 23, 1988 and August 31, 1988, for your review on pages �j through l / . These minutes, subject to any modification, require approval by the Commission. It is appropriate to handle each set of minutes in a separate motion. II. ADOPTION OF AGENDA The agenda, as presented or modified, requires adoption by the Commission. III. CURBSIDE RECYCLING IMPLEMENTATION At its regular meeting on Tuesday, September 6, 1988, the Eagan City Council approved the Solid Waste Abatement Commission recommendation to implement a modified open hauling system for curbside recycling services. This approval is subject to the conditions as outlined in the staff report which is attached on pages 13- (7. The Council did not modify the recommendation in any way and, therefore, -has directed the Commission and staff to work with haulers in the development of budgets and mechanisms to implement this system. The Council action affirms the outline of modified open hauling including the formation of daily residential hauling districts, the requirement of same day weekly collection of rubbish, recyclables and yard waste, requirement of volume based fees, and reconsideration of organization at a set interval not to exceed two years. The Council mentioned but did not direct the Commission in the matter of capping residential hauling licenses, therefore, that option remains before the Commission. The purpose of Wednesday's meeting will be to begin defining a process and targets necessary to meet the County's November 1 application deadline, the public hearing requirements for ordinance modifications, the purchase and delivery of appropriate equipment and coordination of system modifications with haulers. Staff will provide additional information at the meeting on Wednesday. IV. OTHER BUSINESS There is no other business at this time. V. NEXT MEETING The next regular meeting of the Commission would be on Tuesday, October 11, 1988. It would be appropriate to set one or more special meetings between now and then to begin implementation work with the haulers. Again, evening meetings fit their schedules better than noon meetings. In addition, the regular November meeting happens to fall on the date of the general election, and, therefore, the Commission should consider an alternative meeting date for that month. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting will adjourn no later than 1:00 p.m. Adg1'nistrative Assistant cc: Tom Hedges Dale Runkle Subject to Approval MINUTES OF THE EAGAN SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION Eagan, Minnesota August 9, 1988 A regular meeting of the Eagan Solid Waste Abatement Commission was held on Tuesday, August 9, 1988 at 11:30 a.m. The following members were present: Chair Hoel, Bahr, Schnell, Milbridge, Knutson and Ista. Absent were: Marshall, Nordby, Mann and DeBilzan. Also present were Floyd Hiar, a representative from the Dakota County Recycling Subcommittee, Administrative Assistant Hohenstein and Administrative Intern DeMarco. MINUTES Upon motion by Knutson, seconded by Milbridge, with all members voting in favor, the minutes of the June 14, 1988 Solid Waste Abatement Commission were approved. Upon motion by Schnell, seconded by Ista, with all members voting in favor, the minutes of the July 18, 1988 Solid Waste Abatement Commission workshop were approved. STAFF REPORT A. County Recycling Subcommittee Administrative Assistant Hohenstein explained that Commission member Marshall was unable to attend the meeting so she would not be providing an update of the subcommittee. Mr. Hiar provided the commission with a brief update. He stated that the County Commissioners had adopted an aggressive position on recycling. He reported that the subcommittee has been involved in reviewing the County's wishes to make the funding as fair and equitable as possible. The Subcommittee is not sure how the County intends to judge performance and make it fair. B. County Routed and Organized Collection Subcommittee Thom Yehle was not in attendance so a report was not made. C. County Funding Proposal /1989 Solid Waste Budget Administrative Assistant Hohenstein explained to the commission the types and amount of funding available from the County. In addition, he stated what performance the City is expected to attain in order to receive those funds. The most crucial performance standard discussed was the 11% abatement goal for 1989. This 11% consists of 9% residential and the remaining from commercial /industrial abatement. He continued that different areas of funding decrease over a few years. One of these funding categories is that which covers administrative costs. Administrative Assistant Hohenstein continued to explain capital funding available. Communities are eligible to receive $10 per household for capital costs. However, if a City has a program in operation by April 1, 1989, they can receive $20 per household. Commission Chair Hoel asked what the definition of having a program in operation is. Administrative Assistant Hohenstein responded that it is something the City would have to work out with the County. Commission member Bahr questioned what kinds of things are eligible as capital costs. Hohenstein responded that anything but real estate is allowable. Commission member Knutson asked if the City wanted to attempt to meet the April 1, 1989 goal. Administrative Assistant Hohenstein responded that the City will try to have a program running by April 1. 1989. He continued that an application for a proposed program must be submitted to the County by November 1, 1988. Because of this, the Commission is going to have to work very hard along with the haulers and the City Council. The City, with an April 1 program, could see 100% of its capital costs covered. He also stated that the City must focus on the 9% residential abatement and then put the $10,000 available for commercial /industrial abatement to proper use. Finally, Administrative Assistant Hohenstein commented that there are also funds available for operations and maintenance. This includes money for contracts, compost monitors, Recycle Minnesota Resources, hazardous waste collections, etc. Commission members asked how the total tons would be measured. Administrative Assistant Hohenstein responded that the landfill keeps track but that the City will have to set up an involved hauling measure. In addition, a hauling measure for yard wastes will be needed. Commission Chair Hoel stated that Dakota County's compost site is no longer going to be in operation by fall. The County is now planning to open the site next spring. Administrative Assistant Hohenstein responded that the City is going to keep its compost site available for at least another year due to the County delay. Administrative Assistant Hohenstein explained that the Metropolitan Council wishes to see progress made so as to have something to show the legislature. This in turn is in the hope of keeping the legislature from making more mandate changes. This is what has caused so many critical dates to have been moved up. BUDGET Administrative Assistant Hohenstein explained that since the available County funding was not known at the time the draft budget was prepared, the budget needs to be revised with the funding amounts included and some changes made to what is being requested. OLD BUSINESS A. Curbside Recycling Implementation Administrative Assistant Hohenstein explained to the Commission that he had included in the packet informational items from the July workshop. He then asked Commission members to share their respective opinions concerning a recycling/hauling program. Commission member Ista stated that she thinks the City of Plymouth's program is great and that it would be easy or Eagan to follow suit. She also stated her approval of the containers and bags used, the open hauling system, same day weekly pick -up and the use of the $100 bonus. Hoel also stated that he thinks Plymouth has a good program. He believes Eagan could move ahead quickly with it. Bahr stated that she also likes Plymouth though she questioned who picks up the recyclables - each hauler or a contracted service. Hoel responded that Plymouth has regular open hauling and that recycling is contracted out so that there are two entirely different systems within the City. Commission member Knutson stated that he believes contracted recyclers depend on three areas for survival. 1. grants and low interest loans 2. cities - every home pays a fee whether they recycle or not 3. money received from the sale of collected recyclables He continued that he does not believe that these sources can be depended upon in the long term. Knutson explained that he thinks the hauler is the best person for the job of recycling. The hauler has the incentive of avoiding tipping fees by recycling. Knutson finished by saying that through the use of hauler licensing the City could make recycling mandatory for haulers and have a program that works. Commission Chair Hoel asked if the City did require recycling as a part of licensure and if the marketability of recyclables diminished would the haulers then rely on resident fees. Knutson replied that they would have to do the same as the contracted recycler would. He added that the City could also require same day and /or weekly pick -up. Hoel asked whether the City could use some of the County money to rebate to haulers for an additional incentive. Knutson responded that he believed the use of volume based fees would be better and that the City could also require this through hauler licensure. Commission Chair Hoel then asked how the City could keep track of the tonnage. Administrative Assistant Hohenstein responded that this is another area that needs to be worked on by the group and City. Commission member Bahr asked where the small haulers have to recycle and commented that the City must provide a place for compost and recyclables for the City's haulers. Administrative Assistant Hohenstein responded that the hauler can utilize the Recycle Minnesota Resource facility and that the County is going to provide a composting site. Administrative Assistant Hohenstein continued with an explanation of the City Council's wishes. The Council wants the number of waste trucks on the streets of Eagan reduced. They won't increase the number of trucks on the streets even though a number of haulers believe they need an additional truck to recycle. Knutson stated that he has been able to recycle and pick up residential wastes with one truck so he believes other haulers are capable of doing the same thing. He continued that he is willing to share how he has done it with other area haulers. Commission member Schnell questioned whether the City can rely on the haulers to cooperate and attempt to utilize one truck so that everything is picked up at one stop. Administrative Assistant Hohenstein responded that the City Council wants same day pick -up without additional trucks so if licensing is used these could become licensure requirements. Bahr stated that she believes that MRI is a cartel and so doesn't want this for Eagan. Conversely, Schnell stated that having more trucks on the streets of Eagan is encouraging more fuel consumption and more emissions of pollutants, consequently, more trucks isn't better. Knutson stated that the City must decide what free competition (choice) is worth to Eagan. Hoel asked whether the City could be segregated by days with a limit on the number of haulers per area. Administrative Assistant Hohenstein responded that it has been considered. He continued that the City could start with the number of haulers it has now and cap it. Each time one is sold or leaves, the group would have the choice of whether to sell it to someone else or not. Finally, he stated that waste hauling is becoming more like a utility with a free enterprise component. There is no question that duplication costs more money. Commission member Knutson stated that considering the City's time frame, the quickest thing to do would be to put licensing requirements in place to keep competitive service and choice and to keep haulers in business that have been servicing Eagan for a number of years. Administrative Assistant Hohenstein made a proposal that the City could implement Knutson's licensing idea with the time frame of a year to then evaluate the program. There would be a fallback program with organization, a good faith effort on the part of the City and area haulers and a very big incentive for the industry to reach goals and use fewer trucks. NEXT MEETING The next Solid Waste Abatement Commission meeting was scheduled for August 23, 1988, at 11 :30 a.m. The above proposal will be discussed. Crip ADJOURNMENT The Solid Waste Abatement Commission was adjourned at 1:15 p.m. SD Date Chairperson Secretary r7 Subject to Approval MINUTES OF THE SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION MEETING Eagan, Minnesota August 23, 1988 A regular meeting of the Eagan Solid Waste Abatement Commission was held on Tuesday, August 23, 1988, at 11:30 A.M. The following members were present: Chair Mann, Chair Hoel, Bahr, Knutson, Milbridge, Marshall and Schnell. Absent were Nordby, Debilzan and Ista. Also present were Lynn Anderson, Dakota County Solid Waste Planner and Administrative Assistant Hohenstein. AGENDA Being a special meeting, the approval of minutes was held over to a regular meeting. With that change, upon motion by Hoel, seconded by Marshall, all members voting in favor, the agenda was approved as modified. CURBSIDE RECYCLING Administrative Assistant Hohenstein indicated that certain County deadlines require the Commission to expedite its consideration of curbside alternatives. Given the time frames, three alternatives were before the Commission for consideration. He referred to the staff memo which outlined the key features of partial organization as suggested by the City Council, a bid of recycling services to an individual contractor or modification of the open hauling system to require additional services of existing haulers. Chair Mann asked which approach would be the easiest to implement. Hohenstein indicated that bidding would be the easiest, closely followed by modifications to open hauling with organization being the most difficult. Knutson indicated that it was his interpretation that haulers had greater incentives to recycle and reduce quantities of waste than do recycling firms. He stated that both recyclers and haulers can take advantage of grants, fee structures and markets for recyclables. He stated that haulers have an even greater incentive to encourage recycling because they avoid tipping fees for every ton of waste recycled rather than landfilled. He stated further that tipping fees both at the landfill and burn •plants will double or even triple over the current level, thus making cost avoidance the strongest incentive for both haulers and customers to recycle. Schnell asked if the avoided costs provided a great incentive. Hohenstein stated that as long as recycling costs less than disposal, there is a benefit to its use. Hoel asked if the cost avoidance system would work if hauling and recycling were handled separately. Knutson indicated that it would work but much less well because they would vary independently of one another. Schnell stated that allowing one industry to innovate rather than separating responsibilities would tend to have spill over benefits into other recyclables and commodities. Dana Turner of Dana's Eco Systems stated that not only will haulers recycle all materials they feel they can, recycling will spill over into their commercial accounts as well. Marshall stated that she believed haulers would be good educators and promoters of recycling if it's a system that they participate in. Turner indicated that higher service requirements like recycling will reduce the amount of duplication of effort as the industry begins to consolidate and be more efficient on its own. Roy Bert of Expert Disposal stated that the higher service requirements may force some small haulers out of the City but it may encourage them to combine with other small firms to provide the extra services on a cooperative basis. Bahr asked if one of the requirements would be to sector the City and require same day collection. Hohenstein stated that it is currently a requirement or option in all three alternatives. Hoel stated that the costs of recycling implementation could be held down if the City were to use landfill abatement funds to purchase recycling containers. Knutson stated that weekly collection would allow the use of one container rather than several because volumes would be lower but more frequent. Mann asked if increasing the requirements would affect the number of firms which could compete in the City. Hohenstein stated that it probably would, but the important question is what service level the City needs in the best interest of its citizens and to meet the mandates. He stated that anytime the City sets a service level it defines who may or may not be able to provide the service. Bahr indicated that she would like to see as much of the market forces remain as possible. Chair Mann then asked for a consensus as to which alternatives the Commission preferred. Hoel stated that despite the inefficiencies of open hauling, it may be the best alternative in the short run to get recycling started by early 1989. Bahr stated that she supports modified open hauling and believes that some of the inefficiencies and duplication will shake out of the system. Knutson agreed that a certain amount of consolidation would occur under modified open hauling and supported the option. Schnell indicated that he was inclined toward modified open hauling at the present time. Marshall also stated that she support modified open hauling. Knutson also stated that the use of daily service sectors will reduce duplication in routes. He further stated that he believes open competition will continue to be better than organization because organization causes firms to behave like utilities. Bahr agreed, stating that the more a service becomes like a utility, the greater the bureaucracy necessary to replace the loss of competitive controls. A resident, Floyd Hiar, suggested that the Commission recommend a duration for review of whatever system is chosen so that the Council can review the success of the alternative in regular intervals. Hohenstein stated that such a provision may ally concerns about performance or inefficiencies if the system may be reconsidered in the future. Hohenstein suggested that the Commission also consider another meeting with the haulers to explain the recommendation being forwarded to the City Council. By acclamation, the Commission set a meeting for Wednesday, August 31, at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall and directed staff to distribute announcements. Hohenstein indicated that the issue could go to the City Council on either September 6 or September 19, depending upon the amount of business in either meeting. Upon motion by Knutson, seconded by Bahr, all members voting in favor, the Commission recommended that the City Council consider modifications to the hauler licenses to require weekly curbside recycling service on the same day as refuse service, volume based fees, daily hauling districts with an option to cap hauling licenses at the current number, such system to be reconsidered no more than 24 months after implementation and, further, that the Council direct staff and the Solid Waste Abatement Commission to work with haulers to define the details of such modification. ADJOURNMENT Upon motion by Bahr, seconded by Knutson, all members voting in favor, the meeting was adjourned at 1:02 p.m. JDH Date Secretary Subject to Approval MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION MEETING Eagan, Minnesota August 31, 1988 A special meeting of the Eagan Solid Waste Abatement Commission was held on Wednesday, August 31, 1988, at 7:00 p.m. The following members were present: Chair Mann, Chair Hoel, Knutson and Ista. Absent were Nordby, Marshall, DeBilzan. Milbridge and Schnell. Also present were Administrative Assistant Hohenstein and licensed Eagan refuse haulers. CURBSIDE RECYCLING IMPLEMENTATION Hohenstein introduced himself and the Solid Waste Abatement Commission and indicated that the purpose of the meeting was to inform the haulers of the recommendation of the Commission that the City Council consider modification of the open hauling system to require curbside recycling service in 1989. At the request of Chair Mann, Hohenstein reviewed the three alternatives which the Commission had considered and responded to questions regarding County and State deadlines, funding availability and types of recyclables to be targeted. A representative of Mendota Heights Rubbish expressed concern about the City passing recycling requirements onto the haulers. Knutson stated that the City will meet the mandates with or without hauler participation and it was up to the haulers as to whether or not they wanted to continue to be in charge of the entire waste stream. It was also suggested that it would make more sense to leave the hauling industry as it is and direct all waste to a mechanical separation facility like the Reuter Plant in Eden Prairie. Hohenstein stated that the Commission had expressed the same opinion to Dakota County but the County had chosen to support waste incineration and curbside recycling instead. Richard Volkert of Eagan Sanitation asked what percentage of households could be expected to recycle. Knutson reported very high participation on his curbside routes and in the city of White Bear Lake. Hohenstein stated that the city of Plymouth regularly experiences between 60 - 70% participation. Gary Fuchs, an Eagan resident, asked whether curbside containers make a significant difference in participation. Knutson quoted industry statistics which stated they could double participation rates. After further discussion of the aspects of the alternatives, Chair Mann asked the haulers present to indicate their preferences. All indicated that they would prefer that the City not organize collection. All present also indicated that they prefer modified open hauling to the other alternatives. In addition, several firms stated the creation of daily hauling districts would require a substantial change in the way they serve the City and that some small haulers would face substantial changes as their lower level of accounts are spread throughout the City. It was also stated that the combination of new restrictions including daily districts, volume based fees and separate recyclable collection may be too much of a burden for some haulers to manage at once. Certain haulers also endorsed the idea of requiring a financial incentive rather than a volume based fee. / Hohenstein indicated that the recommendation would be on the City Council agenda for Tuesday, September 6, 1988, and that all haulers, as well as the public, would be encouraged to be present to comment in support of or opposition to the recommended alternative. ADJOURNMENT By acclamation, the meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m. JDH Date Secretary MEMO TO: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES FROM: ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT HOHENSTEIN DATE: AUGUST 30, 1988 SUBJECT: CURBSIDE RECYCLING IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATION BY SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION INTRODUCTION At its meeting of August 23, 1988, the Solid Waste Abatement Commission recommended that the City Council adopt a modified open hauling approach to implementing curbside recycling in the immediate future. While this alternative does not precisely coincide with previous Council direction, the Commission is recommending this alternative for several reasons including the fact that it is one of the few that can be implemented by April 1, 1989 - the County deadline for 100% capital funding. ALTERNATIVES In an effort to implement the Council's direction concerning refuse collection and curbside recycling, the Solid Waste Abatement Commission met in regular sessions and in special sessions with licensed haulers to discuss the possibility of implementing a partially organized system. Partial organization presents several immediate barriers to implementation which are detailed below. As a result, the Commission also brought forward two additional alternatives for review. All three of the basic models have been outlined as follows: 1. Partial Organization - At a special meeting held on March 9, 1988, the City Council indicated a preference for a system which would retain certain aspects of open competition and require hauler management of waste, recycleables and yard waste, while reducing the number of trucks on City streets. The suggested model consisted of: a. Creation of four to six residential hauling districts to be bid among private haulers, the lowest two bidders being able to serve the district. b. Require- same day, weekly collection of rubbish, recyclables and yard waste. c. Retain a direct billing relationship between the hauler and the customer to maintain accountability and financial incentives to recycle. d. Require a volume -based fee structure to reward homeowners generating less waste. 2. Plymouth Model - The City of Plymouth uses a system which allows prompt implementation because it continues the use of open hauling for waste and yard waste, but bids recycling services as a separate contract for all residents. This system consists of: /3 a. Same day collection of recyclables for all Eagan residents or within optional districts of the City. b. Requirement of volume -based fees. c. Optional creation of daily residential hauling districts. d. Optional direct or hauler billing for recycling services. e. Reconsideration of organization at set intervals depending upon performance and citizen response. 3. Modified Open Hauling - A system suggested by certain members of the hauling community is to require recycling implementation of haulers as a condition of their license. The model would consist of: a. Formation of daily residential hauling districts. b. Requirement of same day, weekly collection of rubbish, recycleables and yard waste within such districts. c. Requirement of volume -based fees to encourage waste reduction. d. Optional cap of residential hauling licenses. e. Reconsideration of organization at set intervals depending upon performance and citizen response. ANALYSIS The positive and negative aspects of each alternative were considered by the Commission. A summary of their analysis follows. Funding An immediate issue involves funding assistance for recycling implementation. Dakota County has committed substantial resources to cities for this purpose with declining benefits depending upon the timeframe of implementation. If a curbside recycling program is in place by April 1, 1989, the City will be entitled to 100% of capital funding up to $320,000. Programs begun after that date entitle a city to 50% of capital up to $160,000. The 1989 -Budget Proposal assumes the 100% funding alternative. Later implementation would require a contingency of an additional $160,000 in the 1989 budget. In addition, subsequent years' fundings depend upon a city's recycling performance in the previous year. Since the 1989 goal of recycling 9% of the residential waste stream is very aggressive, programs started later in the year will find it virtually impossible to reach the targets. Finally, if a City fails to implement a program by 1990, the County will consider intervening and implementing a program of its own. The costs of such a program would be billed to the city for implementation and would not be eligible for County funding support. Legal Issues While these factors encourage prompt implementation, possible legal action by BFI, a national hauling firm, will likely prevent consideration of most organized alternatives. In an attempt to avoid monolpoly situations, many cities have attempted to negotiate with all of their licensed haulers or form consortiums of haulers to improve hauling efficiency and implement recycling mandates. BFI has sued to enjoin such negotiations until a court determines that firms participating in talks are protected from antitrust litigation by the state's antitrust immunity. With the inevitable appeals a decision is unlikely in time to allow 1989 implementation of more organized alternatives. Comparison In this light, the considered alternatives are outlined below. As indicated above, Partial Organization is intended to combine the benefits of organization with certain market forces while requiring recycling services of haulers. Among the benefits of organization are improved efficiencies and lower costs, reduced street and safety impacts, required standard levels of service for all residents and ease of recycling implementation. While it has many benefits for the City in concept, Partial Organization presents certain implementation problems at this time. 1. Definition of Districts - It will be very difficult and time consuming to define districts which will be uniform in the number of accounts and route distances in a large evolving City like Eagan. Therefore, bids for different districts may vary widely and districts would require constant modification. In addition, the restrictions which the City may place on districts could severly impact the number of accounts certain large haulers currently serve. 2. Bid Issues - In order for the competitive bid process to be effective, the City would have to require that haulers not exceed their bid for a particular district. This will likely lead to the low bidder receiving a majority of -the district's accounts, thus undermining the competition the system was intended to preserve. In short, cost competition is eliminated. 3. Negotiations with Haulers - At the present time, it is unclear whether haulers may meet with cities to negotiate routes and rates under federal antitrust standards. While such negotiations could answer the district and bid problems above, the likelihood of injunction by BFI is substantial. The Plymouth Model came about as a result of the City of Plymouth's attempt to meet Hennepin County's recycling mandates. The City developed a proposal to organize all hauling. At a public hearing on the issue, residents vocally opposed the l/ proposal because of a desire to retain free choice among haulers. As a result, the City bid recycling on a separate basis. Until the issue is similarly heard in Eagan, resident response will not be known. The prinicipal benefit of this alternative is its relative ease of implementation. The state and county mandates relate only to recycling. This alternative responds directly to that mandate and goes no further. Its principal deficiency is that it requires a direct contractual payment on a per ton or per household basis. This would most likely be passed on by the City to the homeowner with little direct relationship to the volume of waste produced or reduced because it removes the waste hauler from the recycling loop. It also limits the materials likely to be recycled to those required by the contract. Modified Open Hauling allows prompt implementation because all haulers who wish to serve the City will become motivated promoters of the system. The system requires little immediate dislocation of the industry. It also provides the most direct link between the entrepreneur's desire to avoid costs of tipping and innovation in the area of recycling. The system is adaptable to the use of daily districts will tend to reduce the number of firms hauling in particular neighborhoods. Firms will likely consolidate in areas where their accounts concentrate and drop out of daily districts where they have few accounts or are less competitive. The principal deficiency of the system is that it does not guarantee a reduction in the number of trucks duplicating routes on City streets. Additional requirements for separate yard waste and recyclable collection will add vehicles to the streets. If consolidation does not reduce traffic by a similar number, the net effect will be an increased and concentrated impact. Further, the costs of duplication will continue to be born by the homeowner. CONCLUSION Despite the foreseeable deficiencies, the Solid Waste Abatement Commission recommends that the City Council accept the Modified Open Hauling alternative for implementation of curbside recycling prior to April 1, 1989. It not only allows the capture of the maximum possible funding assistance, but also allows the industry an opportunity to innovate and respond to the recycling mandate. Because the City would not be implementing direct control over recycling, however, it would also be appropriate to set a specific period of review at which public comment would be received and alternatives might be considered. If this review were to occur twelve to twenty -four months after implementation, it is possible that the BFI litigation would be complete allowing consideration of alternatives which currently are not available. 60, CONSIDERATION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL It is requested that the City Council approve, modify or deny the SWAC recommendation of curbside recycling implementation through a modification of the open hauling system and direct staff to work with the Commission and haulers to prepare ordinance amendments and license restrictions to meet the April 1, 1989 target date; such system to be reviewed no later than twenty -four months after implementation to consider its effectiveness and impacts. If you have any questions concerning this item, please let me know. Administrative Assistant ti