Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/01/1986 - Solid Waste Abatement CommissionTable of Contents Page I. Executive Summary .................................. 1 II. Introduction ....................................... 2 III. Policy Issues ...................................... 4 IV. Concepts and Alternatives .......................... 6 A. Waste Reduction ................................ 6 B. Source Separation .............................. 7 1. Publicity and Support for Local Alternatives ......................... 8 2. Drop Site .................................. 8 3. Curb Side Collection Without Organized Hauling .................. 9 4. Curb Side Collection WithOrganzied Hauling ..................... 10 5. Curb Side - Drop Site Combination ............................. 11 6. Compliance Aids ............................ 11 C. Waste Processing ............................... 12 1. Waste Energy Conversion .................... 12 2. Co -composting .............................. 12 3. Centralized Material Recovery .............. 13 D. Residuals Management ........................... 13 E. Regulation Amendment ........................... 13 V. Solid Waste Survey ................................. 14 VI. Budget Considerations .............................. 16 A. Financial Options .......................... 16 1. County Landfill Abatement Funding Assistance ......................... 16 2. Household Rebate Program ................... 17 3. Tonnage Payment Program .................... 17 4. Metropolitan Council Grant and Loan Programs .................... 17 B. Budget Impact .................................. 18 VII. Solid Waste Abatement Commission ................... 19 VIII. Summary and Conclusions ............................ 20 IX. Appendices ......................................... 21 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this report is to address the Metropolitan Council mandate for source separation of mixed municipal solid wastes by 1988. The Met Council has placed the responsibility for meeting this mandate on City governments within the metropolitan area. Because a source separation program will require the change of both waste disposal habits and methods, it is important that the City determine its waste abatement strategy soon and encourage the necessary changes in the next two years. The direction the City chooses to take will depend upon the extent to which the City Council desires City involvement in waste abatement. There exist numerous alternatives and waste abatement strategies which can be applied to Eagan's situation. Such alternatives can supplement the current hauling system or be integral to an organized hauling system. To implement a waste abatement strategy, the City will have to make an ongoing budget commitment. This commitment will depend largely upon the extent to which the City becomes directly involved in a waste abatement program. Presently there are a number of external funding sources which can reduce the costs to the City. Since these sources are intended to stimulate the development of waste abatement programs, they cannot be depended upon in the long run. In order to address this issue, the City Council may wish to consider the appointment of a Solid Waste Abatement Commission. Such a body would be responsible for defining a waste abatement strategy from among the alternatives available. INTRODUCTION State law will prohibit the disposal of mixed municipal solid wastes in Metropolitan Area landfills after 1990. This law means that recycling, or resource recovery, will have to be a working reality by that time. The Metropolitan Council has been charged to bring about viable local recycling programs through its planning responsibilities. To accomplish this end, the Council has adopted the Solid Waste Management Development Guide/Policy Plan containing policies and strategies for waste reduction and reuse. The policy which bears most on municipal governments is Policy 3 which states, in part: Separation of identified recyclable materials and compostable yard waste is a responsibility of the waste generator. If by January 1, 1988, voluntary efforts on the part of cities, towns or counties have not achieved the objectives for waste reduction and source separation set forth in the Council's waste reduction/resource recovery development schedule, generators of mixed municipal solid waste shall be required by July 1, 1988, to separate identified recyclables and compostable yard waste materials from other mixed wastes. The implication of this policy is twofold. First, it targets a date which is two years before the statutory prohibition on landfill disposal of mixed wastes. In so doing, it takes into account the radical changes in use and disposal patterns which must accompany recycling programs. Saving recyclables and treating them separately requires more work than mixed waste disposal and it requires different habits to be effective. These changes in personal use are necessary because the Policy Plan focuses on low -technology, waste generator separation as opposed to high-technology, mechanized separation of mixed wastes. In concrete terms, this means that households and businesses will need to separate and recycle. The 1988 deadline gives time for these habits to form. The policy also implies that the mechanism by which this deadline is to be met will be local ordinances requiring source separation. In fact, earlier drafts of the Policy Plan spelled out such a requirement. Although the Council has softened the language slightly, it remains clear that the only way the policy can be enforced is at the level at which refuse collection is regulated - the city. To forestall implementation of this policy, cities in Dakota County will need to achieve relatively modest waste abatement through reduction and source separation strategies. However, the levels prescribed can be achieved only if individual habits are changed, recycling alternatives are readily available and recycled quantities easily measureable. Currently, there are a number of recycling activities which accept a variety of recyclables within the City of Eagan. There is substantial support for the concept of recycling as was demonstrated by the recycling survey conducted through the city newsletter last fall. A report of the results of that survey is included below. What remains is a determination of the City's role in developing a comprehensive recycling program. The purpose of this report is to define the issues within this area and to discuss alternative strategies to meet the intent of the Metropolitan Council policies. POLICY ISSUES The difficulty in choosing a direction for the City's solid waste abatement strategy is that refuse management is currently an activity in the free market. Because recycling alternatives vary widely from the coordination of voluntary projects to the investment of City resources in capital and personnel, one cannot ignore the market in choosing a strategy. With about 18 haulers collecting refuse in the City and depositing it in the most cost effective manner, it will be difficult to encourage waste abatement and resource recovery without the involvement of the City. Public education about the value of recycling can go only so far. Beyond that, convenient means of resource recovery must be available and the economic realities must provide incentives for their use. The Metropolitan Council has chosen not to wait for the market to recognize the need for waste abatement and resource recovery. Frankly, in a period of declining energy prices, such a realization may be far off. However, the current system places the economic value of waste management on the single element of removal. As long as the cost of waste generation is that of hauling it to a landfill and disposing it, the only mechanism available to realign the market is government involvement. The argument against government participation in waste management is straightforward. Governments should not enter fields adequately covered by the market. The City may wish to assume this posture,if it wants to oppose the Met Council-s-trategy. The argument for government participation is similar to that for other public services. It assumes the market does not serve all needs adequately. The actual cost of land disposal includes many costs which are hidden, delayed, or so broadly disbursed as to be unrecognizable by the market. These include, but are not limited to, potential groundwater contamination, opportunity costs for lost resources, commitment of large amounts of valuable land and, in the case of open hauling, excessive street wear due to duplicate routes. Political theory suggests that when common benefits of sufficient importance cannot be provided effectively by other means, it is within the domain of the government to recognize the actual costs and provide them to the community. An initial policy question, therefore, concerns the extent to which the City wishes to recognize recycling as such a benefit to the community. This determination is essential to the prepara- tion of alternative strategies acceptabale to the Council. Depending upon the Council's decision, a second, related question involves the choice between direct participation in recycling activities' versus regulation to require them in the market. Either can be applied in varying degrees or in combination, but a sense of the Council's philosophical preference is necessary to a successful program. A final issue relates to the timing of the City's approach to recycling. Financial assistance for implementation is available now, but source separation is not mandated until 1988 and the landfill prohibition is effective after 1990. The City's use of its resources and its encouragement of habit formation for recycling depend upon the Council's desires in this regard. A discussion of the basic concepts and alternatives for solid waste abatement appears below. General policy preferences will enhance certain of the alternatives and eliminate others. CONCEPTS AND ALTERNATIVES The value of resource recovery itself is only part of the reason for the Policy Plan objectives. There is a very real need to reduce the amount of municipal solid waste entering the area's landfills. If current practices continue, the region will need to landfill about 34 million tons of waste in the next fifteen years of which about 7.5 million tons will be potentially recyclable. The region's current landfills have only about 10 million tons of capacity remaining. The rest of the waste would require the development of as many as ten new landfills at an average cost of $20 - 30 million. This would not take into account the volume of waste produced after the year 2000. This many new landfills would have the adverse affect of consuming large amounts of productive agricultural or developable property. Landfills also tend to adversely affect the values of neighboring properties and the related tax base. The long term land use of the full landfill is also limited due to potential compaction and excavation problems. This is in addition to the public health and environmental hazards from surface and ground- water contamination, airborne emissions, food chain contamination and noxious odors. Even well designed, lined landfills allow some leaching and emissions which affect air, land and water resources in the region. These realities lead to the conclusion that land disposal of wastes must be replaced in large part by alternatives. A combination of these alternatives is expected to be the strategy which will reduce, if not eliminate the region's dependence on landfills. A brief description of these alternatives appears below. Waste Reduction The concept of waste reduction is relatively simple and is expected to account for a reduction of 2% - 5% of the demand for land disposal of waste. Waste reduction has two basic components. The first is the use of more durable goods, more economical methods, and less packaging. General consumer preferences have tended in this direction, but convenience products such as paper napkins, plastic pop bottles and styrofoam cups partially offset the benefits of these preferences. The second component is the reuse of products such as deposit bottles, recycled paper and compost. Waste reduction must be practiced on the individual level. Unless the state chooses to influence personal behavior through a container law or similar legislation, governments are limited in the means available to curb wasteful practices. The City can have a direct impact in three ways. It can increase the cost of mixed waste disposal, address the issue and encourage alternative use -patterns through comprehensive and continuing public education and curb its own waste stream. The economic disincentive of increased cost depends upon the disposal alternatives chosen. Public education and publicity is an essential element of any recycling program so a waste reduction component requires little extra effort. In-house waste reduction is a matter of altering purchase and use patterns to focus on recycled products, minimal packaging, reduced duplication and the use of durable goods. The City currently uses bulk purchasing, two sided copying and other means of waste reduction, but improvement is possible. Source Separation The Metropolitan Council places an emphasis on source separation as a means of waste abatement and anticipates that it could reduce landfill demand by as much as 15%. As a general policy, the Council places primary responsibility for separation of recyclable solid wastes with the individual households or businesses generating it. This broad-based low -technology approach assumes two things. First, it assumes that it costs less and is easier to implement a system of individual separation as opposed to high-technology separation facilities. Second, it assumes that source separated recyclables are free of contaminants, thereby raising their value in the recycling market, while process -separated recyclables are less clean and marketable. Both of these assumptions are subject to debate. Admittedly a shift in personal habits can accomplish a substantial amount without incurring public costs. For years, people recycled milk and soda bottles without a substantial impact on their use patterns. Other items have been directly or adaptively reused over the years at minimal cost, but the implication that the cumulative costs of extra effort to individuals is enough less than centralized processing to substantiate it as a primary strategy may shift the cost from public dollars to private effort without recognizing its value. Moreover, certain waste processors have minimized the importance of source separation to insure clean, market -ready recyclables. Newport and other waste fuel facilities will include separation equipment in their plants. Recently, Reuter, Inc. requested that recycling be eliminated in areas to be served by its proposed refuse derived fuel plant in Eden Prairie. Presumeably, Reuter wishes to insure the highest quantity of combustibles in its product and to manage the remainder through its own market resources. Therefore it is not a universally held truth that source separation is the best means of meeting market needs within the industry. However, the Met Council denied Reuter's exclusion as a matter of policy. It is widely believed that some level of source separation is desireable for most waste abatement strategies and it is the means by which the Met Council expects cities to become most involved. If the City were to choose not to encourage source separation, it may be necessary to confront the Met Council on the issue. In the absence of such a decision, the City will be expected to develop an effective mandatory or voluntary source separation program by 1988. The Met Council market study suggests that cities ought to focus source separation and resource recovery on aluminum, newsprint, glass separated by color and yard wastes (compost). Most recycling markets require that the product be "clean". That is to say cans and bottles are rinsed out with metal rings and foil wraps removed and newsprint is free of glossy inserts. Bernie Beerman of Beerman Refuse Services indicates that separation is more important than cleaning, however, since most contaminants burn long before metal and glass reach their processing temperatures. In light of the policy considerations above, the City has several alternatives available to encourage source separation. These may be used separately or in combination. They are outlined briefly below. -Publicity and Support For Local Alternatives Presently, Eagan has a wide variety of recycling services available either locally or in the immediate vicinity. Contract Recyclers on Highway 55 accepts glass, metal and plastic beverage containers. St. John Neumann Catholic Church has a full-time paper drive. Country 66 and Eagan Standard accept drain oil, batteries and tires. Boy Scouts at Mt. Calvary Lutheran collect beverage cans. Goodwill Industries accepts furniture and clothing. Many other Eagan organizations run recycling programs on a periodic or ongoing basis. Nearby, the Burnsville Sanitary Landfill, Beerman Services and Mary, Mother of the Church are among those accepting recyclables. Clearly, this variety of recycling services can serve many of the City's current needs. It is less clear, however, if these enterprises would be able to absorb a substantial increase in volume should the City implement a mandatory or voluntary recycling program. Also it is not known if they would view City activity as preemption of their fields. If they have the capacity and accept City coordination, publicity and support of current alternatives is a viable means of developing source separation habits. The significant shortcoming of this alternative is that different services are spread throughout the City. Therefore, it requires City coordination to insure continuity of service and a means of measurement for Met Council purposes. The City will need to get weight tickets from each recycler collecting goods to prove waste abatement levels and to qualify for County and Met Council financing programs. This is not fatal to the option, however, since such management could be part of any program the City may choose. -Drop Site The potential also exists for the development of one or more recyclable drop sites within the City. Such sites are important first steps in the development of recycling programs as they provide a convenient outlet for separated materials. In the long run, they provide an important back-up for other programs which may not cover all users or all circumstances at all times. The recyclable receptacles in multifamily and commercial buildings. Typically, multifamily residences require a different approach to recycling due to the bulk treatment of solid waste as opposed to curb side pick-up. Were the City to require design features which enhance separation in these types of buildings, it would address more of the municipal waste stream and more easily approach the waste abatement targets. Waste Processing Centralized waste processing is yet another means of solid waste abatement available to cities and counties. The Metropolitan Council projects that up to 80% of the waste stream will be reduced through centralized processing. The technologies vary, but the basic concept is the reduction of waste products to useable end products or energy through heat, pressure or chemical action. Much debate surrounds such facilities because they tend to generate images of burning wastes in municipal dumps. Proponents of each technology insist upon their cleanliness and effectiveness to reduce such concerns. Many of the facilities include mechanical separation technologies to reduce impurities in their waste streams, but such elements are supportive of centralized processing, not its focal point. Waste processing alternatives are outlined below. -Waste Energy Conversion The counties are responsible for centralized processing under the Metropolitan Council Plan. In order to insure waste products to such facilities, the County may designate all or part of the waste stream to the processing plant. Dakota County has investigated the potential for developing a refuse derived fuel plant with Northern States Power. Of late, the County has shifted its focus from local RDF to cooperation with Washington and Ramsey counties in NSP's Newport RDF facility. Negotiations are under way which potentially could divert virtually all of the County's residual waste from landfills to this energy conversion plant. -Co-composting The City has been contacted by an independent firm which has offered an alternative to the County's designation of wastes for Newport. Waste Processing Corporation of Bloomington has proposed to develop a turn -key co -composting facility for the City using the Waste Digester closed container system. Co - composting is a viable technology which reduces ordinary decomposition of waste from a year or more to several days through constant agitation and natural chemical reactions. Reportedly, the system can reduce wastes to about 30% of their original weight at a minimal energy cost. The remainder can be used like ordinary compost as a soil builder and fertilizer. To utilize the system, the City would have to apply for an exemption from the County designation to the Newport facility. In addition, the City or another entity would need to take over the operation as WPC will develop and operate the facility for the first six months. Its success also depends upon the availability of an active market for its residue. -Centralized Material Recovery As noted above, any centralized processing facility can be combined with centralized materials recovery as an alternative to source separation. Several cities in Dakota County have expressed an interest in this alternative under the assumption that drop sites are ineffective and curb side recycling is too expensive to be implemented in larger suburban communities. Even if such programs are in force, centralized separation remains necessary for the non-compliant. The technologies for separation are relatively simple. They rely on magnetics and specific gravities of different recyclables to differentiate between them. Once separated, they can be marketed like source separated resources. The only drawback is the potential for resource contamination, especially for glass where mechanical separation is not color specific. Contamination reduces the market value of the resources and, therefore, the financial viability of a recycling program. Residuals Management The remaining wastes from the processes above will continue to be placed in sanitary landfills, but their reduced volumes will place less strain on the system. Obviously the cost and complexity of residuals management depends upon the effectiveness of the process above. ulation Amendment There are two areas of regulation or policy which should be addressed if waste abatement and resource recovery are to become a significant part of life in Eagan. The first is the need to amend the City Code and Comprehensive Guide Plan to take into account the City's chosen solid waste strategy. For instance, Code Section 10.01 specifically requires the deposit of wastes in sanitary landfills within the period of one week. This and other waste -related ordinances require amendment to allow for other disposal methods and schedules. Likewise, the Comprehensive Land Use Guide Plan should be revised to include a solid waste planning element which relates to the County's Solid Waste Master Plan. The solid waste element should address the solid waste strategy of the community as well as the ordinances and policies which will be used to support it. The second area which may be addressed is the City's position on state regulations of potential solid wastes. Several options are available to encourage recycling on a statewide basis. Container laws like those in Iowa, Michigan and Oregon could substantially reduce the waste stream by mandating deposits and returnable containers through the industry. Such laws shift costs to the manufactureer and are opposed by them. The City Council may wish to consider lobbying the Legislature on this and related issues in anticipation of its next session. SOLID WASTE SURVEY most difficult element is the maintenance of close ties with the shifting recyclable market. Drop sites are relatively simple to set up and operate. They require a site, a sufficient number of bins or trailers for separation and a means of publicizing and administering the program. While some programs leave their sites unattended, it is difficult to insure compliance with site requirements unless a monitor is present. Goodwill drop boxes do not have monitors and are frequently used to discard unusable materials. On the other hand, Eagan's monitored compost site had excellent compliance with procedures. Some form of monitoring will likely improve compliance with a recyclable drop site. There are several ways in which Eagan may operate a drop site. An unmonitored, secure site could be established within the fenced perimeter of the new public works facility. Compliance would be enhanced by the work activity in the area, without additional cost to the City. Another obvious possibility is the addition of recycing bins at the compost site, to be monitored by temporary personnel or volunteer organizations. This area is also secured and would provide a variety waste abatement options in a single location. Several businesses have offered to contract for management of an Eagan drop site. Goodwill Industries will provide recycling services to the cities of Burnsville, Apple Valley, Rosemount and Lakeville in the coming year for approximately $25,000 per site. The Goodwill programs will be staffed eight hours a day, 365 days a year and accept a wide variety of recyclables. Last fall, Beerman Services proposed to run our compost site with a recycling drop for $200 per week. Beerman offered to staff the site four days a week for a total of twenty-four hours. this equates to $10,400 per year for roughly 43% of the time Goodwill operates. As an alternative, Beerman and Goodwill could be persuaded to make the Eagan Clean -Up Day a monthly event utilizing the Municipal Center parking lot as the site. In addition, Dakota, Inc., the developmental learning center, has offered to staff a recycling drop site and separation/packing facility to be established by the Citv. Thei r t -i i anf-_= wn„i A hgo taught skills related to the facility if the City were willing to cover operating expenses and a capital investment in excess of $188,000. These businesses, as well as many others, could be contacted for specified proposals if the City were to pursue contract services for a drop site. -Curb Side Collection Without Organized Hauling Curb side collection of recyclables enjoys the highest compliance rate of any recycling strategy due to its convenience. Under curb side programs, an individual merely puts separated recyclables at the curb as he does with ordinary refuse. It is kept separate when collected for transfer to a processing facility. Such a system requires either specialized equipment or separatepick-ups to maintain the integrity of the products. As you are aware, Eagan presently operates under an open hauling system by which any hauler licensed by the City may serve any residence or business. This system limits the means by which the City may implement curb -side collection. This is because most haulers do not have the equipment to pick-up separated materials. Those who might invest in it must compete with those who keep costs down by not making additional investments. Therefore, some level of City involvement is probably necessary to compel curb- side recycling under the current system. One possible alternative is to provide curb -side pick-up using a contractor, City staff or volunteers. This removes the problems of implementing through the haulers, but it duplicates all hauling routes, requires the formation of new habits for recycling pick-ups and refuse pick-ups on different days and it lacks any financial incentives because haulers will charge most households the same whether they reduce waste or not. In addition, contract or staff operation of such a system will increase direct costs to the City. Volunteer pick up reduces personnel cost and has been used successfully in cities like Shakopee, but it requires exceptional coordination to maintain. Another alternative would be to address the economic realities of hauling directly through regulation. The City has significant latitude in its management of refuse collection. It may be possible to require that haulers pick up separated recyclables as a condition of their licenses. This would place all haulers on an equal footing in terms of licensing. It would create a differential however between haulers such as Beerman who currently do curb side recycling in other communities and those who have only compactor trucks and no equipment or markets for recyclables. Many current haulers would see this as a hardship. Such a regulation makes no provision for implementation, nor does it provide a monetary incentive to the waste generator to separate. An argument could be made that such equipment is the new minimum standard for rational refuse management. Moreover, Eagan is but one market in which these firms compete, meaning local regulations may not be fatal to any of them. Once equipment and disposal methods are in place, market forces will tend to reduce costs to recycling households as it becomes more expensive and difficult to dispose of mixed wastes. Any conclusion about the accuracy of the arguments is speculative. -Curb Side Collection With Organized Hauling The Solid Waste Guide Plan strongly encourages development of organized hauling systems both to reduce the duplication of hauling routes and to facilitate the kind of government -industry cooperation necessary for efficient recycling systems to develop. Simply put, recycling is like any business which requires a relatively stable stream of its resources to remain effective. Haulers must be able to guarantee a certain volume of product to contract with most recycling markets. As long as customers are free to change haulers at will, such guarantees will be nearly impossible to make. Organized hauling is a radical departure from current practice. It is usually opposed out of concern that major haulers will eliminate small operators and that service will suffer for lack of competition. This has some validity as an organized system would be more attractive to larger firms. The experience in Minneapolis does not support the elimination of small firms, however. In that situaion, small haulers have formed consortia to bid against the larger firms with some success. Moreover, as with any bidding process, immediate competition is replaced with periodic competion. The stakes being higher and more secure, competition can become even more intense. Those arguments aside, organized hauling extends the regulatory capacity of the City to the level of specific contract obligations for the haulers. The City may impose recyclable pick-up procedures, cost differentials as economic incentives and other controls to insure that recycling is an attractive, convenient alternative for the waste generator. -Curb Side - Drop Site Combination A system which combines curb side collection and a drop site is probably the most effective means of reaching the Metropolitan Council goals for source separation waste abatement. It provides a back-up to collection if either the resident or the hauler misses a pick-up. It also provides for those in multifamily situations which are usually not the focus of curb side programs. -Compliance Aids The best aid to compliance for any recycling system is public education, but there are physical means to reinforce habits as well. Several cities have established programs which use special containers or bags to encourage separation. St. Louis Park used grant funds to purchase containers with three compartments for aluminum, glass and newspaper. The container can be carried to the curb like ordinary trash containers. The city is very pleased with their level of compliance and feel the containers are partially responsible. On the other hand, Shakopee which has been recycling for twenty years, used a state grant to study the effects of containers on compliance there and found that people used grocery bags and boxes as commonly as the containers. It would appear from these experiences that special containers are effective in reinforcing separation habit formation but provide little operating increment to use. Other cities take a user fee approach and require that refuse only be collected by haulers if it is in a specially marked bag. The bags are marketed by the city at a relatively high cost. The refuse generator benefits by using fewer bags, thereby encouraging the separation of excess materials. Unfortunately, this may encourage illegal dumping as well as recycling if the cost is too restrictive. The benefit of the system to the city is it puts a price on waste generation and helps generate solid waste revenues to fund other abatement programs. If such a system can be tied to recycling through rebates of bag fees, or a similar incentive, it could be relatively effective. A third physical means of encouraging source separation would be the implementation of design specifications requiring separate Last fall, City staff conducted a recycling survey through the City newsletter. The results of that survey are outlined below. With 576 responses, the survey represents approximately 5% of all households in the City. The survey was voluntary and, therefore, is not intended to be statistically determinative. It does reflect a general desire for improvement of the recycling opportunities available to Eagan's citizens. The majority of the survey's respondants live in single family homes (78%). Since this housing type makes up about half of Eagan's housing stock, the response rate indicates a great interest in recycling among traditional single family homeowners. A large number of respondants (74%) were aware of the need to reduce the volume of unseparated household wastes. Many of the respondants currently recycle newspaper and clothing (62-64%). This is probably due to the cleanliness and ease of storage of such items and the availability of markets, such as paper drives, Goodwill services and the Salvation Army. Aluminum is recycled by about half of all respondants. Glass is one of the least recycled commodities listed (22%). This probably is due to the need to rinse and separate glass products and the obscurity of glass drop sites. This, despite the fact that the market for glass is one of the strongest among recyclables. Only a few (16%) recycle newspaper, glass and aluminum together. The compost program generated significant interest for waste abatement (65%). An equal number are interested in compost products for soil buildup. The present compost site was well used throughout the fall and has significant area to expand in the coming year. A large majority of the respondants (80%) would separate wastes if the cost of recycling was the same as or less than the current cost of refuse removal. Almost 95% of all respondants would recycle if a curbside pick-up were available, while 74% would use collection sites in the City, if available. In terms of the placement of dropsites, more than half (55%) would drive more than three miles to a drop site. 68% would drive more than two miles. This means that strategic placement of collection sites could result in significant recycling benefits, but an even greater benefit could be derived from an efficient curbside system. A combination of one or more drop sites and curb side recycling would provide the greatest exposure of recycling alternatives to Eagan residents. Convenience of recycling will be an important consideration if the City is to reduce its waste stream significantly. While 93% of respondants were willing to separate wastes and 88% would bundle newspapers, many fewer (68%) indicated a willingness to rinse metals and glass for recycling. Many recyclers recommend that these items be clean to improve its quality and reduce difficulties in handling and storage. Even though convenience is important, 89% of the respondants said that they would set out recyclables on a day other than their ordinary refuse pick-up. Most would save recyclables for two weeks or more (83%) and almost half would be willing to store them for a month before pick-up (48%). This would give some flexibility within the recycling system in terms of pick-ups or availability. A tabulation of the results is attached for yourreview as Appendix A. BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS Obviously, the development of a new type of service provision which has the potential to reach every household and business in the City will have significant budget implications. Low technology, drop site facilities can be established for a few thousand dollars and be operated by volunteers at low cost, but a substantial penetration of the recycling potential requires more convenience. This implies a greater capital investment. Fortunately, the Metropolitan Council and the County have placed a high priority on solid waste abatement. To encourage such activity, the Council and the County have established landfill abatement funds through dumping surcharges to help finance local programs. A matrix describing all available financing options and their applicable costs is attached as Appendix B. As can be seen, certain options such as service fees and local taxes are entirely within the discretion of the City. The Met Council and County rebates provide automatic rebates of qualified expenses up to a per household cap. Other options are more competitive or more specific in their application. Several of the options are discussed in detail below. Most of these programs are for cities only, but proceeds can be passed through to the private sector. Financial Options —County Landfill Abatement Funding Assistance The Waste Management Act authorizes counties to impose a fee on landfill operators. Beginning in 1985, Dakota County required operators to collect a fee of $.25 per cubic yard of mixed solid waste disposed. This scheme allows the County to increase the cost of waste disposal as a means to generate funds for its abatement. The County has used this fund to make grants available to the cities at an amount of $1.00 per household. For Eagan, this means that roughly $11,000 per year in qualified costs can be covered by outside funds. To be eligible, costs must relate to the development, operation or publicity of a waste reducing program. Funds may be used to fund a feasibility study, although simple planning of a program may not be eligible for this funding option. In 1985, Eagan's funds were used to purchase a wood chipper to reduce tree wastes to a useable material. Capital investments are a good use for County funding, provided that such equipment is used throughout its depreciable life for landfill abatement. If the City goes out of the waste abatement business, the landfill abatement joint powers agreement entitles the County to the equipment itself or its remaining value. The program functions as a rebate upon certification of the expenditures, meaning that operating capital must be used to finance projects until the payment date. -Household Rebate Program The Metropolitan Council also funds a financing option through the $.25 per yard landfill surcharge. This program entitles cities to $.50 per household per year for eligible expenses. Eagan can recover up to $5,500 toward the cost of its program. Eligible expenses include almost all reasonable abatement activities. In 1985, Eagan used this funding option to pay for the grading of its compost site and to offset staff salaries in the administration of the program. The Met Council Rebate is an entitlement program without any remainder interest in capital investments. The only qualification is the certification of actual costs incurred. Therefore operating funds must temporarily finance eligible expenses. -Tonnage Payment Program The Metropolitan Council has funded a second program from the $.25 per yard landfill surcharge. The tonnage rebate program provides cities with $4.00 per ton of mixed municipal waste removed from the waste stream to landfills. Eligible materials include most recyclables with the exception of yard wastes, grass clippings, leaves, wood products and construction debris. Moreover, wastes centrally processed, burned or co -composted are ineligible. The landfill abatement must be documented by weight tickets received from the recyclable markets upon the sale or disposal of the products. Eagan has yet to participate in this program. There exists a potential within the community, however, for a variety of public service orgainizations and private enterprises which collect recyclables to augment their income by up to $4.00 per ton, if they cooperate with the City to apply for the rebate. Depending upon the market and the type of recyclable, this program could add 2% - 10% to the income of the enterprise. On a City-wide basis, the impact of this program could be substantial. The average Minnesotan produces about 3/4 of a ton of mixed solid wastes per year. In Dakota County, that average is slightly higher. Based on County estimates, Eagan generates about 34,675 tons per year. This equates to about a ton per person per year or 95 tons per day. If the Met Council target of 15% source separation and recovery is achieved, the City's recycling programs could earn up to $20,805 per year additional. Eagan's growing population raises this potential stili further. These programs have a sunset, however. Since it will be illegal to dump mixed municipal solid wastes in landfills after 1991, these programs cannot be depended upon after that time. -Metropolitan Council Grant and Loan Programs The Metropolitan Council has made available a number of competitive grant and loan programs which are summarized in Appendix C. These programs cover a variety of activities including planning, development, public education, demonstration projects and incentives. Most require municipal participation, though several are directly available to private enterprises. Most grants require a local match and they vary widely in their amount, but a careful combination of funding sources could secure several hundred thousand dollars for the development of a program. Bud4et Impact These programs are especially important because recycling and resource recovery can be very expensive to operate. A modest co - composting facility will cost about $2 million to construct. Centralized processing and RDF plants start at about $10 million and go up from there. Operating costs rival most other public utilities or labor intensive services. With costs so high, the only reason that this is a priority for the region is that the hidden costs of uncurbed landfilling are greater. Because the hidden costs are hard to shift to the user, as is the case with things like street wear and sewer decay, only a government effort to overlay actual costs to the whole community can assure their payment. This implies a substantial commitment from the City to assure this shift in costs. Part of this effort can be achieved through regulation of the market. If the City were to organize its refuse hauling and require of the accepted contractors a recyclable pick-up with the ordinary refuse route, costs could be spread to the waste generators directly. Additional or alternative service delivery methods such as a drop site, central processing facility or the compost program will require some budget appropriation or capital investments by the community. As with most public services, this commitment will need to be ongoing and involve staff time, materials and equipment. To date, the City has been able to provide a minimum level of recycling and resource recovery through volunteer programs, outside assistance and limited local funds. If recycling and refuse management in Eagan is to expand to address the landfill problem, this limited participation will need to expand as well. To study the alternatives available and determine the best application of Eagan's resources to this problem, staff recommends the formation of a Solid Waste Abatement Commission outlined below. SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION The complexity of the waste abatement issue and its impacts suggests the need for a Solid Waste Abatement Commission for the City of Eagan. In the initial phase, the group could meet on an ad hoc basis as a fact finding body. Its end would be the generation of a recommended solid waste abatement strategy and policy for the City. Depending upon the nature of the recommendation, it may be necessary to make the Commission a standing body for the oversight of program implementation. The membership of the Commission would be at the discretion of the City Council. Staff would recommend that the body be multi- disciplinary to address the issue from a broad perspective. Like the Economic Development Commission, appointments could be made in categories, as follows: Category Number 1. Private Citizens 3 2. Refuse Haulers 2 3. Small Business 1 4. Large Business 1 5. Local Government 1 6. Public Service Organization 1 A membership comprising these categories, or like categories at the discretion of the Council, will allow a consideration of alternatives with the expertise and insight from both service users and providers. This nine member body is not heavily weighted in any way except toward the private citizen. Because any program developed must be acceptable and convenient for our residents, adequate citizen input is essential. The resources made available to such a Commission could come through staff or consultant services. They may be charged to review actual proposals and presentations as appropriate. In any case, it would be worthwhile to place a deadline on Commission deliberations to expedite their study and bring about its completion. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The Metropolitan Council mandate and Minnesota statutes have placed the responsibility for landfill abatement at the local level. This provides broad latitude in the formation of a local strategy but it also obligates the City to review a number of alternatives to determine those most appropriate to the community situation. Eagan has numerous recycling alternatives in place and has taken the first steps toward resource recovery with the compost program. The mandate requires that cities move beyond the initial phases of resource recovery and outside funding sources are available to encourage cities to begin programs early. This will be important to do since waste disposal habits will take time to change and the mandate takes effect in 1988. To turn the potential for waste abatement into a working program, the City of Eagan must establish a waste abatement strategy which rationally draws from the available alternatives. A reasonable approach to this need would be the formation of a Solid Waste Abatement Commission charged to review the alternatives and make recommendations to the Council on waste abatement policy. APPENDIX A SOLID WASTE RECYCLING SURvEY The Twin Cities metropolitan area is facing a crisis at its solid waste landfills. The volume of mixed household and business refuse is constantly increasing — and such wastes are largely composed of recyclable and reusable products. Newspapers, glass containers, metal and aluminum products, and yard wastes can be recycled to greatly reduce the impact on our resources and our disposal facilities. The State Legislature has recognized the severity of this problem and has taken steps to combat it Through the Metropolitan Council, it has decided to encourage "source separation," the removal of recyclables like newspaper, glass, aluminum and yard wastes by the individual from the garbage he or she produces. This policy requires cities to develop mandatory source separation ordinances by 1988 and prohibits landfills from accepting unseparated wastes after that date. The Eagan City Council recognizes this crisis as well and it is not content to wait for the mandatory deadline to begin addressing it. The Council would like to take steps now to encourage recycling and source separation in Eagan. The City has already begun a composting program to reuse yard wastes and Eagan residents are encouraged to use it, particularly as fall yardwork begins. In addition, the council wishes to develop a system of voluntary source separation and recycling to reduce the flow of mixed wastes to our disposal facilities. To better design a program which will meet your needs, the City Council would appreciate your response to the survey questions below. Please take a moment to complete the survey and return it to the City offices. Thank you for your help. 1. Do you live in: si c� Single Family House Duplex Fourplex Townhousec�! Apartment or Condominium 2. Metropolitan Area landfills are fast reaching their capacity. Prior to this survey, were you aware of the need to reduce the vol ume of Vnseparated household wastes? 33$0 a,w� ❑ Y ❑ N 3. The Metropolitan Council has required that cities pass ordinances to enforce recycling or source separation of wastes by 1988. Prior to this survey, were you aware of the immediate need to begin altering your waste disposal habits: ❑ Y ❑ N 4. Do you currently separate, recycle and/or reuse any of your household wastes: OM IT ❑ Y ❑ N If yes, do you recycle or reuse: Newspaper 3A1 ❑ Y ❑ N Motor Oil Q0 f ❑ Y ❑ N Glass III ❑ Y ❑ N Furnishings ' eZo3❑Y ON Aluminum 42GO ❑ Y ❑ N Clothing 330 ❑ Y ❑ N Tin '70 ❑ Y ❑ N Other Yard Waste .20„ ❑ Y ❑ N If so, where do you dispose of your recyclables? 5. Eagan's current composting program is one way to take part in recycling -source separation now. Have you or would you be willing to compost the following yard wastes? Grass Clippings Z4& ❑ Y ❑ N - Leaves 35L ❑ Y ❑ N Garden Wastes 309 ❑ Y ❑ N Other 6. Would you be interested in using compost products as a soil builder or mulch? 335 ❑ Y ❑ N 7. Compost products have a number of beneficial uses. Prior to this survey, were you aware of the following compost benefits? Fertilization/Soil Building �❑ Y ❑ N Mulch ❑ Y ❑ N Erosion Reduction ❑ Y ❑ N �� IT Water Holding Enhancement ❑ Y ❑ N 8. Rec;:cling or source separation will require extra effort from you and those collecting separated materials. Would you be willing - to separate wastes if It cost the same as your current refuse removal 7 oZ S ❑ Y ❑ N It cost more than your current refuse removal / X1(0 ❑ Y ❑ N It cost less than your current refuse removal y31 ❑ Y ❑ N Do not intend to separate wastes. S3 ❑ Y ❑ N 9. Would you recycle or separate wastes it: Curb side pick-up were available qSS ❑ Y O N City collection stations were available 391 ❑ Y ❑ N Current collection points were well publicized 3q(o ❑ Y ❑ N Do not intend to recycle 31 ❑ Y ❑ N 10. If recycling collection sites were available, how far would you drive to use one? Less than 1 miles ❑ Y ❑ N 4.1 - 5 miles 1:1 Y 11 N 1.1 - 2 miles fold ❑ Y ❑ N 2.1 - 3 miles More than 5 miles 1 Z ❑ Y ❑ N 60 ❑ Y ❑ N - 4 miles Anywhere in Eagan 15,30Y ❑ N .3.1 S3 ❑ Y ❑ N Will not use recycling collection sites SZ ❑ Y ❑ N 11: Would you participate in a recycling program which required residents to: Place separate recyclables in separate containers q73 ❑ Y ❑ N Wash and rinse all cans, glass bottles and jars 3S3 ❑ Y O N Bundle newspapers J/SS ❑ Y O N 12. Recyclable collection may occur at a time other than your ordinary garbage pickup. Would you participate in a recycling program which required you to put out recyclables on a separate collection day? q Sa ❑ Y O N Would you participate in a recycling program which required residents to store separated recyclables in containers for. A week W O Y ON Two weeks 180 ❑ Y ❑ N A month Q X C❑ Y ❑ N Do not intend to store recyclables IS O Y ❑ N 13. Since recycling and waste separation area priority for Eagan and the Metropolitan area, how can the City help you to recycle household wastes? Thank you for your help in determining the City's recycling needs. Survey results will be printed in a future newsletter and the local newspaper. Please fold, staple or tape closed and return to: NO POSTAGE NECESSARY IF MAILED IN THE UNITED STATES BUSINESS REPLY MAIL .01 FIRST CLASS PERMIT NO. 6969 EAGAN, MN. Postage will be paid by addressee CITY OF EAGAN P.O. 21-199 Eagan, MN 55121 23 APPENDIX B Solid Waste Abatcrrcnt Rssistance Team metr=lit�n Council Soo metro Square Blda. St. Paul. Kunnas:ta 5�1C1 612/291-6421 _ ran IRMTICIPAL ABATrmrwr PROGRAM FINANCING_ At the present time, we have identified eleven potential financing options that are (or soon will be) available to help finance municipal solid waste' abatement.programs. The purpose of this paper is to identify the financing options and their applicability for basic municipal solid waste abatement program elements. FINANCING POTEN."IAL MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT PROGRAM ELEMENTS OPTIONS roF o00 c, 0� r°o v'Yoo 4y 04� c, ti o r 'c 4 c m h hro y�Cr°r ; �� gJ a�V° �~ {o a~� ti Aa Service Fees YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES Local Taxes YES YES YES YES YES YES YES � YES County Surcharge YES YES :NO YES I YES I YES YES I YES Council's Household Rebate Council's Tonnage Payments Council's YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES Resource Recovery .** YES I YES Grants/Loans Council's Market Development Grants/Loans NO NO Council's Public Education NO I Grants/Loans NO DEED' s Camauniry Ener fir' YES I NO YES I YES YES YES YES YES NO I NO � NO NO NO YES NO NO YES I YES YES YES YES NO i ? FY -S NO I NO Council Grants 1 1 , ! YES YES? YES NO NO NO YES DEED'S Scall Business Loans ?_'nnesota Waste Management =� Board Grants NO NO NO NO YES ? YES NO NO NO NO NO YES NO YES NO VEHICL * ;lust include major energy element ** Match requirement ***No land APPENDIX C 4 n ./ p C p w is O m O Oi A .mi L L O m 7 m n O m n u C m o m m 1 C. m V m > O L .� L C .. J M •"1 • � 9 e w m u ++ O o - cC .mi .Ci v J C n m 1 u O 9 w I 03 n of e x > � o ( n L nL. W a e -a u V m 1 ° Oas G 14 N u m 0 E O m C O X L In O C' e U w 7 a u Y w m a m c 1.. F v ° e s 0 m ° °L. / o aei x x x o'0 e e ~ fU•r m �•+ m r-1 W c c- ° m 1-1 00 r4 m m O O O -- 2 2 4 ra ir1 m m x x n C m C S L t0 L r n m - • 0', ._.. N On 2 Cml L. O L _ p= c 4 .•1 Ci ca0. m O u m r: OL^F N n y n L m.r C F 2 .+ -4 m C +•� +/ m to m .1 La O L n yn p ... ca .) 090 n I .•r -44 92 N m L� C N 4 16.. .mj 11 L -4.+ pO, h. C O �+ E m m ° C cc 9° .4 C x x x y ti ^Z C L 4 L n CLI 14 m L L O m 4 E 2.3 0 L 0. 9 17 O 41 L L O n 4. a r„m•1 1.. O m ..r L 6 a+ V 7 L °g O O O •rVI mm A 10 M y ti Og0 9 r•I ° O IC G N x X .-+ m m V'a.1 O O d C 71 0. n L m .1 68 C9 N m 0 �C ..°a ..° •r n ++ O C 7 a+ b V 7 m 0 C L m 0 Wm v L n 0 m .0.+ N 'O O u t 2 C0. L O L 0 L N L u m > x X 7 C N C L c.�+ i 4 ° 600G C .+ o o n n O to W .1 N M m m •-1 .0 m C A K 0 °' Lo m a .0 r: c r•1 C n O \ J 9 .•1 • n t, C .+ AJ m O ++ G O ; 0. � u n 0 0 e0 m +. n ..1 �•1 > 6 O m n A 10 41 .•+ a O .1 r•1 ?r u L n ;� 10 O J m L ti 0 mal pp :.I A C V A C .J O L L gg C7 L .r n O. •� 7 a. r. C> n > > :p.:• 0. > ' C m a ..r to m %. 0.4•• C .. n - n .+ OI Dl W C V m _. 2 71 U C u m " /0 C V a 7 •a V H c ++ O .r %0 I m m e n C O C 0 0 -. 7 +� n C 0. 7 •-4 .+ +� 7 .••/ J ••r .+ M to m .. �+ ee C O 111 N N �•r 0 m a O L m . ..a C :a. O 0 3 O O s W 3 ►+ m N rr 7 1 n 0 e 0. O aw N a C] x .-I C ►+ I 1 1 1 N Al )C C m m G 7 ••1 M O :.1 J N ¢ I 1 1 1 • `� W w 1c p M o. 0. — O N M jr 0. ! m U p L1 i% MEMO TO: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES FROM: ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT HOHENSTEIN DATE: JUNE 9, 1986 SUBJECT: SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION Due to the limited response we have received concerning membership on the Solid Waste Commission, it may be in our best interest to take advantage of those individuals who have already expressed a desire to participate and condense the size of the commission to be able to include them. Might I suggest that the group be reduced to a five member body made up of the following categories and possible representatives. The group would consist of five members rather than the originally approved nine members. 1. Chamber of Commerce/Business Representative (Bill Escher, Paul Hauge, Larry Kraning) 2. City Staff (Tom Hedges, Tom Colbert, Dale Runkle) 3. Citizen Representative 4. Haulers (Larry Knutson) 5. Landscape Contractor (Tom Mann) Please review this list and give some consideration to a citizen member who may be willing to serve on the commission. Also give direction on whether or not a change from nine to five members will require additional council action. Please advise me of your feelings in this regard. A inistrative Assistant JH/mc IEO) A" ity of eegen 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD, P. BEA BLOMQUIST EAGAN, MINNESOTA I Mayor PHONE: (612) 454-�31C30 ' \ THOMAS EGAN JAMES A. SMITH r ly 21, 1986 VIC ELLISON THEODORE WACHTER Council Members THOMAS HEDGES TOM MANN City Administrator EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE j 1231 CARLTON LAKE LANE City Clerk EAGAN MN 55122 Dear Mr. Mann: In official action that was aken by the Eagan City Council at their regular meeting held on Tusday, July 15, 1986, you were appointed o serve as a member of tWe Eagan Solid Waste Abatement Commission. C gratulations on yoo r appointment. The Sol--id__U,as_ta-Advisory Commission will meet on a schedule to be determined by the group. There may also be occasion for the commission to hold a joint meeting with the City Council or a special meeting as called by the chairperson. I have asked that the City Administrator include a copy of the Solid Waste Abatement staff report for your review. Several days preceeding the scheduled meetings, an informational packet, which is prepared by our city staff_+i,ll be mail-e�e-r---delivered to your- home. ourhome. The first Solid Waste Abatement Commission meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, August 12, 1986 at 4:30 p.m. at the Eagan Municipal Center. Your interest in pursuing the appointment we look forward to having you a member of Commission. If you have any questions Solid Waste Abatement Commission, please City Administrator at any time. Sincerely, Bea Blomquist Mayor cc: Jon Hohenstein Administrative Assistant Attachment JH/cks is greatly the Solid regarding feel free appreciated and Waste Abatement aspects of the to contact the THE LONE OAK TREE. .THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY t. �. lt�t� • 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD. P.O. BOX 21199 EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55121 PHONE: (612) 454-8100 January 27, 1986 RON VORACEK 1244 MOUR-NING DOVE CT EAGAN MN 55123 Dear Mr. Voracek: Ir - 'BEA BLOMQUIST Mayor. 1. _.. THOMAS EGAN JAMES A. SMITH VAC ELLISON THEODORE WACHTER Council Members THOMAS HEDGES City Administrator EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE City Clerk In official action that was taken by the Eagan City Council at a regular meeting held on Tuesday, x�"u-ax- -1, 1986, you were appointed to serve a three (3) year term as a member of the Advisory Planning Commission. Congratulations on your appointment. Q The Advisory Planning Commission meets on the fourth Tuesday evening of every month on a regular basis. There may also be occasion for the APC to meet in a joint meeting with the. City Council or at-.� special meetings as called by the Chairperson. I have asked that the City Administrator send you c-Qp-Les of ordinances that are pertinent to your role as a member of the Advisory Planning Commission. Several days preceding the regular .1 APC meeting, an informational packet, which is prepared by the City Planner, will be hand delivered by a Police Cadet to your home. The nex-t APC meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, #areary 25, .1986. You will be notified of any special committee or commission meetings if they are called prior to that date. Your interest in pursuing the appointment is greatly appreciated and we look forward to having you as a member of the advisory Planning Commission. If you have any questions regarding aspects of the Advisory Planning Commission, please feel free to contact the City Administrator or me at any time. Sincerely, I&, Bea Blomquist Mayor cc: Dale Runkle, City Planner BB:jh THE LONE OAK TREE ... THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY