Loading...
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