10/13/1987 - City Council SpecialSPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY
OCTOBER 13, 1987
7:00 P.M.
I. ROLL CALL
II. PRESENTATION/N.W.A.
III. SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION
IV. OTHER BUSINESS
V. ADJOURNMENT
MEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES
DATE: OCTOBER 13, 1987
SUBJECT: SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING/WORKSHOP FOR 10-13-87
I. ROLL CALL
II. PRESENTATION/N.W.A.
A special City Council meeting/workshop is scheduled for Tuesday,
October 14, 1987 at 7:00 p.m. at the Municipal Center Building.
The meeting was originally requested by Northwest Airlines to
allow Mr. Tim Thornton, legal counsel for N.W.A., to discuss
future expansion plans. It is anticipated that N.W.A. will
discuss their transportation needs and possibly the results of a
transportation study performed by their own consultants. The
results of the N.W.A. will be compared and analyzed once the
City's master transportation study is completed. Mr. Thornton
has asked for approximately one-half hour for a presentation and
may be accompanied by corporate representatives of N.W.A.
III. PRESENTATION/N.W.A.
The Solid Waste Abatement Commission consisting of co-chair
persons Tom Mann and Tim Hoel, along with the following members
Earl Milbridge, Duane Soutor, Darlene Bahr, Delmar De Bilzan,
Terry Schnell, Doug Wilcox, Larry Knutson and Thom Yeh le will be
present at the City Council meeting to summarize the work that
commission has completed during the past several months and
discuss a draft strategy for waste abatement with the City
Council. Administrative Assistant Hohenstein has coordinated the
activities of this commission and prepared a report that provides
a brief overview, some general concepts and the draft strategy
for waste abatement. Please refer to the enclosed report on
pages ;2—,?,Q that includes certain attachments. Administrative
Assistant Hohenstein and the Solid Waste Commission Chairs Mann
and Hoel will provide some presentation on Tuesday with the
understanding that City Council direction is being requested on
the various points of the draft strategy.
IV. OTHER BUSINESS
The City Administrator will discuss other business if time is
permitting at the meeting on Tuesday. Other business includes a
review with the City Council of meetings that have been held with
the management team to discuss development issues and procedures,
a list of administrative MBO objectives and a status report on
the 1988 budget/capital improvements budget.
V. ADJOURNMENT
NOTE: Please remember the 2:00 p.m. news conference at Cedarvale
Shopping Center on Tuesday afternoon October 13.
DRAFT
EAGAN SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION
STRATEGY STATEMENT
N
I. LEGISLATIVE MANDATE AND AUTHORIZATION
A. OVERVIEW
Federal and state legislation, the Metropolitan Council, and the
Dakota County Master Plan require a modification of the current
system of collecting and disposing of wastes. This section
outlines specific legal mandates and regulations pertinent to
such a change in waste management strategies. Essentially the
strategies require that waste management entities, including
municipalities, work jointly to reduce landfilled wastes through
waste reduction, reuse, recycling, waste processing, and
residuals management.
B. FEDERAL RESOURCE AND CONSERVATION ACT OF 1976
The 1976 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) imposes
federal requirements and provides authority for dealing with the
problems of managing solid waste.
The act provides for technical and financial assistance to states
for developing environmentally acceptable methods of managing
solid waste. It prohibits future open dumping and requires that
existing open dumps be closed or upgraded to sanitary landfills.
It also regulates the treatment, storage, transportation and
disposal of solid wastes. Subtitle D of the act is particularly
important because it provides guidelines for developing and
implementing state and regional solid waste management plans.
As a result of the act, the Minnesota Waste Management Board has
been given the authority to finance and regulate certain aspects
of solid waste facilities and activities outside the Metropolitan
area. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPGA) is the state
agency responsible for adopting a state solid waste plan and
waste facility regulations.
C. MINNESOTA WASTE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1980
In response to the waste management dilemma, the 1980 Minnesota
legislature passed the state Waste Management Act, significantly
increasing the Metropolitan Council's responsibility for solid
waste management in the Metro area.
This act charged the Council with providing a long range plan for
managing solid waste in the region that provides for the
reduction of waste, recovery of materials and energy, and
minimizes the practice of land disposal. The act requires the
plan to set regional waste management policies and provide
schedules for developing waste facilities and activities to
manage solid waste through the year 2000.
It is also the responsibility of the Metropolitan Council to
provide technical and financial assistance to counties,
municipalities, and private service providers. In addition, the
Council is to research and develop markets for recycled products
and new processing techniques.
rol
D. METROPOLITAN COUNCIL~ SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT
UUIDE AND POLICY PLAN
1. Major Policies
The Metropolitan Council will be working closely with
governmental agencies and the private sector in implementing its
guide and policy plan. Responsibility for implementing many of
the policies rests with local jurisdictions, counties, and the
private solid waste management industry. The Council and
appropriate state agencies will offer adequate levels of
technical and program assistance.
The guide calls for establishing a regional system of coordinated
processing and recycling services. The system could be comprised
of centralized processing facilities, transfer stations, and
composting and recycling services. The county has the principal
responsibility to carry out this portion of the system.
A major policy, set under this plan, requires the termination of
landfilling mixed municipal solid waste after 1990. Only the
nonrecoverable residuals remaining from waste processing could be
landfilled after that date.
Another major policy requires metropolitan area generators of
municipal solid waste after July 1, 1988 to separate recyclables
and compostable yard waste materials from the remaining waste if
voluntary efforts on the part of cities, towns or counties have
not achieved the Council's objectives. Counties, cities and
towns will be required to provide recycling services for these
materials within the next two to three years.
2. Funding
A number of financial incentives and funding alternatives are
contemplated under the plan. Financial incentives that can be
used to promote source separation/recycling include 1) rebates to
participants, 2) penalties for non-compliance, 3) charges per bag
or per can of mixed solid waste, 4) extra charges for prohibited
yard waste materials or recyclables, and 5) deposits on beer and
soft drink containers. The Council and the counties are working
to research and develop programs to more fully explore these
types of financial incentives.
Improvements in solid waste management will entail increased
cost, leaving public willingness to pay somewhat difficult to
predict. For this reason, the Council will place heavy emphasis
on public education and awareness.
Counties can further their efforts by implementing county -wide
publicity, tools and provide technical and financial assistance
to municipalities and private service providers.
3. County Responsibility,
The Metropolitan Council and counties have shared
responsibilities in implementing a development process for waste
reduction, resource recovery, and solid waste landfill siting in
the metropolitan area. The counties must amend their master
plans to implement the waste reduction and resource recovery
facilities. The Council and counties ultimately have authority
to implement the process including control over the flow of
waste.
In the metropolitan area the counties are designated as the
responsible party for regulating collection and transportation of
solid waste and certain aspects of facility location and
operation. Counties are required to prepare master plans that
describe and govern existing and proposed solid waste activities.
They must also share responsibility with the Metropolitan Council
in implementing a development process for waste reduction,
resource recovery, and solid waste landfill siting in the
metropolitan area.
4. City Responsibility
The waste management policy extends responsibilities to cities
and townships as well. Included in these are: collecting source
separated yard wastes and recyclables either directly or through
private companies, adopting mandatory source separation
ordinances if voluntary efforts fail to achieve adequate
participation, assist counties with siting and/or development of
processing facilities for source separated materials, and assist
with local publicity tools (i.e. flyers, neighborhood meetings,
newsletters). These responsibilities are further defined in the
County's Solid Waste Masterplan.
E. DAKOTA COUNTY MASTER PLAN
Dakota County's master plan, and its subsequent revisions will
act as a guide for solid waste management as the county meets
legislative mandates and strives to manage solid waste generated
and/or disposed within its borders in a manner that is
environmentally sound and fiscally responsible.
The county must develop its waste master plan and reports in
order to site, acquire, construct, operate and improve solid
waste management facilities. One of the most important roles of
the county is to assure orderly and coordinated development of
multi -material, intermediate processing or transfer facilities
for identified recyclables. Furthermore, inter -county
coordination may enhance the economic feasibility of recycling
plants and promote cooperative marketing of the materials.
The Dakota County master plan urges each city and township in the
county to form a solid waste management committee or commission
for the purpose of assessing waste management in the
jurisdiction, recommending waste management practices to the
governing body, and to work with county solid waste management
staff as the community initiates and continues to operate
community programs.
IN
The county's ultimate goal is to provide a comprehensive solid
waste management system that protects public health and safety,
preserves and protects the environment, and provides cost
effective alternatives to land disposal of mixed municipal solid
waste.
II. GENERAL CONCEPTS
WASTE REDUCTION
Waste reduction is the process of reducing the amount of solid
waste generated. It includes product reuse, increased product
life, reduced material use and product design and decreased
consumption of products. It also includes activities such as
mulching - back yard composting of yard wastes. These areas
require continued industry support and attention by lawmakers and
the media.
From this definition, it can be seen that cost cutting measures
regularly practiced by business and industry and conscientious
purchasing patterns practiced by consumers qualify as waste
reduction. Business and industry respond to the profit motive,
which is perhaps the greatest incentive to reduce unneccessary
consumption in their processes. Most consumers, however, are
willing to pay for the convenience resulting in the purchase of
products that are managed for that purpose or products that are
not needed.
Waste reduction activities are the most cost effective ways to
manage solid waste because materials do not enter the waste
stream. These activities are also the most difficult to
accomplish since they require changes in life style, consumption
patterns, work habits and require voluntary effort by homeowners,
businesses, agencies and individuals. Waste reduction is also
difficult to legislate. For these reasons, waste reduction is
best accomplished through education. Emphasis must be placed on
making consumers aware of the consequences of their actions, and
on informing citizens, public officials and businesses of methods
to reduce waste volumes.
Waste reduction because it is dependent on the behavior and
cooperation of both industry and the general public, is difficult
to accomplish. Although, with education and economic incentives,
waste reduction can become a reality in our society.
SOURCE SEPARATION
Source separation implies the separation of materials, by the
generator, from the municipal solid waste stream prior to the
collection of the remaining mixed municipal solid waste. The
materials subject to source separation are yard waste and
recyclable glass, tin, aluminum, ferrous metals, paper,
corregated cardboard, plastic beverage containers, drain oil,
batteries, tires, furniture, clothing and some plastics. Also
implied are systems of collection, processing, and marketing of
separated materials.
The effort expended by the generator of solid waste consists of
separating the materials from the waste stream collected as trash
and making them available for either pick up or taking them to a
drop off site. This is considered by some as an inconvenience,
but as the cost of disposing or processing solid waste increases
and as the public becomes more aware of solid waste management,
source separation becomes more attractive. Depending on how the
program is designed, recyclable materials may be mixed together
7
or may have to be secured by type. For example, yard waste is
typically bagged if it is`collected via routed pick-up or it can
be loose if it is delivered to a drop-off site.
Collection can consist of routed pick-up, either separately or in
conjunction with the pick-up of trash or delivery of materials to
the drop-off site by the generator. Routed pick-up is
appropriate to areas that have a fairly dense population such as
larger cities. Drop-off sites can be as simple as attended sites
with containers for disposal or they can be redemption centers at
which materials can be redeemed for cash.
Curbside collection of recyclab'es enjoys the highest compliance
rates of any recycling strategy due to its convenience. Under
curbside programs, any individual merely puts separated
recyclables at the curb as he or she does with ordinary refuse.
It is kept separate when collected for transfer to a processing
facility. Such a system requires either specialized equipment or
separate pick-up to maintain integrity of the products.
In conclusion, source separation requires the cooperation of the
waste generator. Public education and economic incentives will
tend to increase compliance in meeting source separation goals.
CENTRALIZED SEPARATION
Also called centralized material recovery, centralized separation
involves the separation of recyclable or compostable materials at
the actual central processing facility. Centralized separation
has historically been considered only a process to be carried out
before waste combustion. Using it only to extract recyclables or
reduce the volume of waste has never received much attention,
largely because the savings were never comparable to its cost.
Currently, the technology of recovering materials at the
centralized processing facilities is well established.
Shredding, magnetic separation of metals, air classification, and
similar techniques have been successfully used for a number of
years. This technology can extract recyclable materials, process
recyclables previously separated at the source, and reduce the
total volume of waste. It can also be adapted to produce refuse -
derived fuel (RDF) for combustion or supplemental material for
co -composting. Source separated materials can be processed at
such facilities or waste can be sent to other locations.
CENTRALIZED PROCESSING
Centralized processing, also called central processing, is
defined as the processing of mixed municipal waste collected from
within a designated area at a single facility. Centralized
processing facilities have a capacity to process large volumes of
waste for the purpose of volume reduction and/or resource
recovery; some facilities accomplish both. Centralized
processing has the potential of achieving the greatest percentage
of volume reduction in solid waste management.
101
The types of centralized separation procedures include mass burn
waste incineration, re -fuse -derived fuel production, and
composting/co-composting. The incineration processes are able to
produce steam for use as heat and, through co -generation,
electricity. Aerobic composting produces heat and composted
humus, while anaerobic composting produces methane gas which can
be captured.
The following is a more detailed description of the various types
of centralized processing facilites.
Mass Burn
A mass burn system incinerates waste in virtually the same
condition it is delivered to the facility. Prior to
incineration, waste is usually mixed by front-end loaders or
grapple cranes and undesirable material is removed. Some
facilities also mechanically or hand separate recyclables before
the remaining waste is incinerated. Most mass burn technologies
have a primary chamber which incinerates the waste and moves the
burning waste horizontally from the point of charging to the
point of discharge.
Refuse -Derived Fuel
Refuse -derived fuel processing significantly alters the condition
of solid waste before it is burned. As with mass burn, many RDF
facilities mechanically or hand separate recyclables before the
remaining waste is processed. When waste is processed for
refuse -derived fuel, goals are to:
1) reduce the size of waste to give better, more consistent
burning characteristics;
2) classify the materia's received to increase the heat value.
A series of shredders, hammer mills, and air knives classify
the waste to produce a product that is lightweight, uniform
in size, and has a greater energy value per unit than a
comparable unit of unprocessed solid waste.
Following production, the refuse -derived fuel can be used in its
original form (fluff), it can be densified to enhance its
handling characteristics, or it can be dehydrated and densified
to yield a product which can be stored.
Com ostinq Co-com ostinq
A third type of centralized processing is composting/co-
composting. A biological process which occurs naturally,
composting can yield both energy and material that can be
utilized. There are two different processes that can be
emp'oyed; aerobic and anaerobic. Aerobic composting takes place
in the presence of sufficient or excess oxygen; the microbes
active in aerobic composting produce heat but do not produce
methane gas. Anaerobic composting takes place in conditions
which are oxygen starved; microbes active in anaerobic
composting produce both heat and methane gas.
Both aerobic and anaerobic composting produce humus and heat.
Heat is generated during the processes due to activity by
microbes. This heat can be utilized for such purposes as heating
buildings and preheating water.
Because of the many different types of centralized processing and
the significant impact centralized processing has on decreasing
the sheer magnitude of solid waste generated by our society,
centralized processing facilities will continue to be expanded in
the future.
LAND DISPOSAL
As a method of waste management, land disposal is thought of as a
last resort; although, until recent years, land disposal of solid
waste has been the primary method of managing the metropolitan
area's mixed municipal solid waste.
Land disposal has occurred in a range of environments, from
uncontrolled, polluting, unaesthetic open burning dumps, to
landfills that, when properly designed and operated, have less
chance of causing serious pollution problems. A critical
concern regarding any land disposal facility is to what extent
the waste material can escape into the soil and groundwater and
adversely affect the surrounding environment and water supplies.
New land disposal facilities should be located, and modern
technology incorporated into their design, to reduce public
health and environmental risk. Another important consideration
is controlling the type of wastes going into the land disposal
facility. In recent years, compliance with increasingly rigorous
and detailed standards for environmental protection have
increased the cost of land disposal.
It is estimated that, in the future, waste reduction and resource
recovery will reduce significantly the need for land disposal but
will not eliminate it entirely. Landfills for municipal solid
waste will be necessary on a short-term basis while reduction and
recovery systems are developing. They will also be necessary for
the waste that cannot be processed and for the residue from
recovery operations. However, increasingly in the future, land
disposal of solid waste will be kept at an absolute minimum.
to
III. REVIEW OF CONCEPTS AND VENDORS - Since August of 1986,
the SWAG has
studied and discussed the folowing issues and
concepts with
the listed resource persons.
A.
Metropolitan Council Mandate - Jim Uttley
B.
Dakota County Waste Abatement Planning - Warren
Wilson
within certain paramaters, the most specific
C.
Dakota County Hazardous Waste Planning - George
Kinney
opportunities be made available within
D.
Goodwill Industries - Attended Donation Center -
Del Edwards
E.
MSD/Supercycle - Recycling Redemption Center,
Curbside
Collection, Reverse Vending - Linda Bartels
F.
Rohn Industries - Business Paper Recycling -
Dennis Fields
G.
Reuter Resource Recovery - Centralized Separation
and Refuse
Derived Fuel - Doug Reuter and Jerry Misukanis
H.
Waste Management Inc. - Co -Composting - Lanny Ross
I.
Tours - Reuter RDF Facility and 3M Hazardous Waste
Incinerator
J.
Monitoring Legislation - Organized Collection and
Container
Deposit
K.
Monitoring Citizens League Recycling Study
IV. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS
A. General Findings
1.
The mandate for solid waste management
clearly states the responsibility of cities
to implement a landfill abatement strategy.
The nature of such a strategy may be flexible
within certain paramaters, the most specific
parameter being that source separation
opportunities be made available within
communities.
2.
The Solid Waste Abatement Commission's first
responsibility is to define a strategy to
meet Eagan's waste abatement needs. In
addition, the Commission may advise the
Council concerning recommendations for County
action to facilitate waste abatement in
Eagan.
3.
While the City will benefit from cooperation
with the County, the City should not
unnecessarily limit its options for waste
management and waste abatement if effective
alternatives are present.
4.
Landfill abatement through recycling, etc.
has a positive effect on the Metropolitan
systems and environment by reducing landfill
use and resource contamination while reducing
demand for non-renewable resources.
5.
A system which includes waste reduction,
reuse and recycling is preferable to one
which does not because it optimizes the use
l�
of non-renewable resources.
6.
Waste management is a public service due to
its health, safety and welfare implications.
In the past, Eagan has provided for this
public service through privatization by free
enterprise.
7.
Recycling, due to its larger public purpose
of reducing environmental and other impacts,
can be viewed as part of that public service.
8.
The private sector and market may continue to
provide a mechanism for waste abatement,
given appropriate conditions. However,
government mechanisms may be necessary to
guide market forces and to quantify hidden
costs.
9.
Education and the modification of waste
disposal habits will be the keys to any
successful waste abatement strategy.
10.
The City Code currently prohibits any method
of waste disposal other than in area
landfills. Recycling, composting and other
means of landfill abatement will require an
amendment of the Code. Because organized
collection, curb -side recycling and other
potential changes in the waste management
system will also require City Code
modifications, such amendments should be
approached in a comprehensive manner (See
Appendix A).
B. Recycling and Resource Recovery
1.
Given an adequate delivery system and
incentive structure, recyclable resources can
be effectively removed from the waste stream.
2.
The Metropolitan Council targets for waste
abatement cannot be met by the 1988 deadline,
due to the stage of Dakota County's waste
management development. The City would be
premature in implementing any comprehensive
waste abatement strategy until the County
program is better developed.
3.
Convenience and a sense of personal benefit
will be keys to the implementation of a
recycling program. Where a clear public
purpose or economic benefit are perceived by
the public (WW II metal and rubber drives,
deposit bottles, etc.) waste reduction, reuse
and recycling have been accepted by the
public.
4.
Source separation of recyclables maintains
the integrity of most recyclables better than
centralized or mechanized separation. Both
the Metropolitan Council and Dakota County
have mandated that cities provide source
separation alternatives as a part of their
l�
V. DRAFT STRATEGY FOR WASTE ABATEMENT
The City of Eagan Solid Waste Abatement Commission
recommends a strategy which considers the role of
1,3
waste abatement/management strategies.
5.
No recycling program will receive 100%
compliance and, therefore, there is a need
for centralized separation technologies to
effectively remove recoverable resources.
The costs of such centralized processing
should be focused on those who do not source
separate, thereby contributing to the
economic incentive structure of the waste
mangement system.
6.
Residential and business recycling needs are
of a different character and must be
addressed separately.
C. Economic Considerations
1.
The current open hauling system, with
relatively inexpensive land disposal, does
not address landfill abatement objectives and
will have to be modified by new market
realities, rate structures, local regulation
and/or public demand for waste abatement.
2.
The type of centralized processing technology
adopted by the County may dramatically impact
the nature of the waste abatement obligations
of the City and the costs it may have to
bear. Likewise, the types processing
technologies not chosen may represent lost
opportunity costs for communities faced with
implementing the system.
3.
While source separated recyclables are
generally of higher quality, the extra effort
of each source separating household or
business is a hidden cost. Source separation
strategies will require economic realities
which reward separation.
4.
Volume based fees will be an essential
element of an effective waste abatement
strategy.
5.
The County is in a unique position to affect
the rate structure and the economic realities
of recycling due to its 'intention to
designate County wastes to a centralized
processing facility. By charging more for
mixed wastes and less for that with
recyclables removed, the County facility can
encourage recycling through the market
mechanism and reduce the need for unnecessary
public expenditures.
6.
Certain abatement alternatives will benefit
from centralization among cities or for the
County as a whole due to economies of scale.
V. DRAFT STRATEGY FOR WASTE ABATEMENT
The City of Eagan Solid Waste Abatement Commission
recommends a strategy which considers the role of
1,3
Dakota County in defining the waste abatement realities
of its cities. It also recognizes the functional
opportunity afforded the City to influence the shape of
the County's waste management system.
In the immediate future, the City would be best served
by a conservative approach to waste abatement which
functions to provide recycling and waste reduction
alternatives to residents and businesses at a minimal
public cost. As Dakota County's waste abatement system
evolves, the City's can mature with it to address
community needs in the future. A general description
of such a system is outlined below. The Solid Waste
Abatement Commission recommends that the City of Eagan:
A. Provide voluntary recycling and source separation
opportunities to Eagan residents at the least
possible public cost and through the private
sector where possible (recycling centers, compost,
business recycling).
B. Provide voluntary waste reduction alternatives
like back yard composting through ordinance
amendment.
C. Address hazardous waste collection issues
including physical collection, costs and
liability.
D. Ammend portions of the City Code pertinent to
refuse management to provide for waste abatement
and recycling alternatives. Define acceptable
waste reduction strategies and facilitate their
implementation.
E. Analyze 'collection and recycling alternatives
through the Organized Collection Study. Prepare
to implement as rising disposal costs increase
incentives to source separate and centrally
separate.
F. Recommend that Dakota County:
1. Choose a central processing alternative which
includes a centralized separation component.
2. Identify the preferred central processing
technology and the City obligations and costs
it implies prior to enactment of the
designation ordinance.
3. Implement a rate structure for the processing
facility which encourages source separation
by passing through the real costs of mixed
waste processing.
4. Centralize and coordinate programs which will
benefit from economies of scale: centralized
separation, compost, recycling markets, etc.
5. Act or require the central facility to act as
a market of last resort for recycling
contractors and programs, haulers and
residents.
6. Standardize education materials for schools
and cities to help develop habits and
attitudes for separation and recycling.
7. Specifically request a blanket exclusion from
the Metropolitan Council's 1988 mandatory
source separation requirement for all Dakota
County cities to allow them to come into
compliance as the County implements its waste
processing facility.
G. Develop a comprehensive waste management system
combining appropriate public and private elements
by modifying and expanding upon these initial
recommendations. Such modification to be
consistent with the development of Dakota County's
waste management program (See Appendix B).
H. Possible Alternatives - A set of four possible
alternatives has been prepared for consideration.
These are intended to illustrate the combination
of tactics in the development of a strategy, but
are not all-inclusive (See Appendix C).
VI. CONCLUSION
The City of Eagan has a mandated public policy
obligation to address landfill and solid waste
abatement in the immediate future. The mandate will
require some expenditure of public funds and public
effort, but such costs can be substantially mitigated
by the proper application of incentives to and
regulation of free enterprise. Dakota County is in a
unique position to encourage recycling by establishing
a two-tiered price structure for mixed and separated
wastes at its centralized processing facility. The
City of Eagan has an obligation to insure the provision
of this service through the appropriate application of
public and private effort.
APPENDIX A
9 6.37
SEC. 6.37. GARBAGE AND REFUSE HAULERS.
Subd. 1. Definitions. The following terms, as
.lied in this Section, shall have the meanings stated:
A. "Garbage" means all putrescible wastes,
including animal offal and carcasses of dead animals but
#�xc.luding human excreta, sewage and other water -carried
wastes.
B. "Other refuse" means ashes, glass,
crockery, cans, paper, boxes, rags and similar non-
putrescible wastes but excluding sand, earth, brick, stone,
concrete, trees, tree branches and wood.
Subd. 2. License Required. It is unlawful for
any person to haul garbage or other refuse for hire without
a license therefor from the City, or to haul garbage or
other refuse from his own residence or business property
other than as herein excepted.
Subd. 3. Exception. Nothing in this Section
shall prevent persons from hauling garbage or other refuse
from their own residences or business properties provided
the following rules are observed: (1) that all garbage is
hauled in containers that are water -tight on all sides and
the bottom and with tight -fitting covers on top, (2) that
all other refuse .is hauled in vehicles with leak -proof
bodies and completely covered or enclosed by canvas or other
1" (8-31-85)
16
means or material so,as to completely eliminate the possi-
bility of loss of cargo, and, (3) that all garbage and other
refuse shall be dumped or unloaded only at the designated
sanitary land -fill.
Subd. 4. Hauler Licensee Requirements.
A. Hauler licenses shall be granted only
upon the condition that the licensee have water -tight
packer -type vehicles in good condition to prevent loss in
transit of liquid or solid cargo, that the vehicle be kept
clean and as free from offensive odors as possible and not
allowed to stand in any street longer than reasonably neces-
sary to collect garbage or refuse, and that the same be
dumped or unloaded only at the designated sanitary land-
fill, and strictly in accordance with regulations relating
thereto.
B. Before a garbage and refuse hauler's
license shall be issued, the applicant shall file with the
City Clerk -Treasurer evidence that he has provided public
liability insurance on all vehicles in at least the sum of
$100,000.00 for injury of one person, $300,000.00 for the
injury of two or more persons in the same accident, and
$50,000.00 for property damages.
C. The Council, in the interest of maintain-
ing healthful and sanitary conditions in the City, hereby
reserves the right to specify and assign certain areas to
all licensees, and to limit the number of licenses issued.
D. Each applicant shall file with the City
Clerk-Treasuter, before a garbage and refuse hauler's
license is issued or renewed, a schedule of proposed rates
to be charged by him during the licensed period for which
the application is made. The schedule of proposed rates, or
a compromise schedule thereof, shall be approved by the
Council before granting the license. Nothing herein shall
prevent a licensee from petitioning the Council for review
of such rates during the licensed period, and the Council
may likewise consider such petition and make new rates
effective at any time. No licensee shall .charge rates in
excess of the rates approved by the Council.
E. No hauler operating on a route in a resi-
dential district shall operate a truck on any City street
when the weight of said vehicle exceeds eight ton per axle.
F. No hauler shall operate in a residential
district after 8:30 o'clock P.M. or before 5:30 o'clock A.M.
of any day, and no hauler shall operate in a residential
district on Sunday.
G. Each vehicle for which a hauler's license
is issued shall exhibit such license in a prominent position
on said vehicle.
(1-1-83)
tB<
67
CHAPTER 10
PUBLIC PROTECTION, CRIMES AND OFFENSES
SECTION 10.01. STORAGE, DEPOSIT AND DISPOSAL OF
REFUSE.
Subd. 1. Definitions. The following terms, as
used in this Section, shall have the meanings stated:
A. "Refuse" - Includes all organic
rC:;i_:�L�u �rorn r_h�9
manufacture, preparation or cr-
coud products, and spoiled, aecayecl or
a(iy source, bottles, :.nS, G'r.assware,
pr_.cluets, crockery, ashes, rags, and discarded ci::c. ; _
tree or lawn clippings, leaves, weeds and other waste prod-
ucts, except human waste or waste resulting from building
construction or demolition.
B. "Residential Dwelling" - Any single
building consisting of one through four dwelling units with
individual kitchen facilities for each.
C. "Multiple Dwelling" - Any building used
fcresidential purposes consisting of more than four
d4..- ,.Ling units with individual kitchen facilities for each.
D. "Commercial Establishment" - Any premises
wkit:= • a comatercial or industrial enterprise of any kind is
ca.'zir_d on, and shall include restaurants, clubs, churches,
unci where food is prepared or served.
Subd. 2. -Storage.
A. It is unlawful for any person to store
refuse on residential dwelling premises for more than one
week. All such storage shall be in five to thirty gallon
metal or plastic containers with tight -fitting covers, which
shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition;
provided, that tree leaves, weeds and grass clippings may be
stored in plastic bags and tree limbs must be stored in
bundles weighing no more than seventy-five pounds and no
longer than four feet.
B. It is unlawful for any person to store
refuse on multiple dwelling premises for more than one week.
Such storage shall be in containers as for residential
dwelling premises, except that so-called "dumpsters" with
close -fitting covers may be substituted.
C. It is unlawful for any person to store
refuse on commercial establishment premises for more than
forty-eight hours. Such storage shall be in containers as
for residential dwelling premises, except that so-called
"dumpsters" with close -fitting covers may be substituted.
D. It is unlawful to store organic refuse
unless it is drained and wrapped.
(1-1-83)
Subd. 3. Deposit. It is unlawful for any person
to deposit refuse from any source, rubbish, offal, or the
body of a dead animal, in any place other than a sanitary
landfill.
Subd. 4. Fire Danger. It is unlawful for any
person to store, deposit or dispose of any refuse which is
in flames or heated to the point where it could cause danger
of fire in other refuse.
Subd. 5. Disposal. The Council may, by resolu-
tion, adopt, and from time to time amend, adjust and revise
such rules, regulations, rates and charges as it deems
necessary or proper for the operation and management of the
sanitary landfill. It may give notice of any such action as
it deems necessary.
SEC. 10.02. TOILET INSTALLATION REQUIRED. It is the
duty of every owner or occupant of any property within the
City, having a dwelling house or business building situated
thereon, which property is abutting a street in which there
are City water and sewer mains, to install a toilet in such
dwelling or business building and make connection thereof
with such water and sewer mains. The City shall serve
written notice upon said owner or occupant requiring the
installation of toilet facilities upon premises described in
said notice, and connection thereof with the sewer and water
mains, all of which shall be done within thirty days after
service of such written notice. Whenever any owner or
occupant shall default in compliance with such written
notice the Council may by resolution direct that a toilet be
installed and connection made with the water and sewer mains
and that the actual cost of such installation be paid in the
first instance out of the General Revenue Fund, and assessed
against the property so benefited. After such installation
and connection is completed by order of the Council, the
City shall serve a written notice of intention to make an
assessment therefor. If such assessment is not paid within
ten days the City shall certify the amount thereof to the
County Auditor in the same manner as with other special
assessments, provided that the Council may by resolution
provide that the assessment be spread over a term of five
(5) years upon written request by the owner of the property.
SEC. 10.03. MAINTENANCE OF INDIVIDUAL SEWERAGE
SYSTEMS. It is unlawful for the owner or tenant of any
premises to permit an individual sewage disposal system to
overflow, or expose the contents thereof above ground.
Source: City Code
Effective Date: 1-1-83
(Sections 10.04 through 10.09, inclusive, reserved for
future expansion.)
(1-1-83)
I q
APPENDIX B
POTENTIAL WASTE MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT MODEL
1988-89 Drop-off Centers (Compost & Recycling)
(Collection Modifications & Education)
1989-90 Routed Collection Alternatives
(Rising Costs)
1990-91 Ic reased Incentive to Separate
I
1991-92 C mprehensive Waste Abatement System
APPENDIX C
SCENARIO EXAMPLES
I. Low Tech - Low Cost (Example: Attended donation center
with compost program)
A. Education - Emphasis on waste abatement, ease of
separation, and location of donation centers
B. Source Separation/Donation Centers - Location of one or
more full-service donation centers (Costs dependent on
number and responsibility)
C. Yard Waste Composting - Maintenance of community
program utilizing County system as market
D. Collection - Require either volume -based fees or
separate collection of recyclables
E. Pros and Cons
1. Pros
-Low cost
-Limited City responsibility
2. Cons
-Metropolitan Council requires mandatory separation
if voluntary separation fails to meet targets.
II. Low Tech - High Cost (Example: Curbside recyclable
collection with donation center backup)
A. Education - Emphasis on separation, convenience and
relative costs
B. Source Separation /Collection - Routed residential
collection of separated recyclables, yard wastes, and
mixed wastes.
C. Yard Waste Composting - Full scale independent program
to assure high quality compost and marketing.
D. Donation Centers - Location of relatively few donation
opportunities as safety valve for routed collection.
E. Pros and Cons
1. Pros
-Higher participation
-Economies of scale
2. Cons
-High cost
-Possible duplication with County programs
III. High Tech - Low Cost (Example: Reliance on County
intermediate processing with voluntary programs)
A. Education - Minimal
B. Source Separation - Limited to hazardous and special
wastes and voluntary programs
C. Collection/Intermediate Processing - Designate all
wastes to County facility and rely on it for separation
D. Pros and Cons
1. Pros
-Low cost
-No need to change disposal habits
2. Cons
-Metropolitan Council and County plans require
source separation
-Reduces quality of recovered recyclables
IV. High Tech - High Cost (Example: City participation in RDF
or co -compost system)
A. Education - High intensity - locally managed
B. Source Separation - Variable depending upon technology,
allowing for voluntary programs
C. Collection/Processing - Locally managed waste
processing system
D. Intermediate Processing - Locally managed and operated
E. Pros and Cons
1. Pros
-Local direction
2. Cons
-Costs and duplication
-County designation of wastes limits viability