HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Packet 05-22-2007 SpecialAgenda
City of Plymouth
Special City Council Meeting
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
5:30 p.m.
Medicine Lake Room
1. Call to Order
2. Discuss organized garbage collection
Part 1
Part
3. Set future Study Sessions
4. Update with City Manager
5. Adjourn
Agenda Number: t
TO: Laurie Ahrens, City Manager through Jean McGann, Administrative Services
Director
FROM: Leila Paye, Administrative Services Intern
SUBJECT: Organized Garbage Collection Study
DATE: May 10, 2007, for City Council meeting of May 22, 2007
1. ACTION REQUESTED: Review Organized Collection Study and provide direction on whether to
pursue this concept further.
2. BACKGROUND: The City of Plymouth has maintained an open waste collection system for many
years. The City currently licenses haulers operating within the City to provide waste collection services
to residents, apartment owners, and businesses. Licensing enables the City to have some monitoring
and enforcement ability related to hauling equipment, noise/hours of operation, odor, leaks, location of
disposal, and separation of yard waste. Ten haulers are currently licensed, and residents/businesses
directly contract with one of these haulers for services. The open system is a common practice among
Minnesota cities.
The City of Plymouth considered changing to an organized collection system in 1987, along with
considering mandatory source separation of recyclables. The issue created a great deal of public debate.
The Council decided not to intertwine the issues of organized collection and mandatory source
separation. Staff was directed to develop an active promotion plan to enhance the City's existing
recycling program, and the open collection system was maintained. A copy of the minutes and staff
report from July 1987 is attached.
Organized waste collection is an alternative that provides waste collection services to residents and
businesses. Organized garbage collection can occur in several different ways:
The City operates the waste collection system using its own trucks and personnel (billing
done by City).
The City enters into a contract with one private hauler to provide garbage collection services
for the entire City (billing done by hauler or City).
The City enters into several contracts with haulers to provide garbage collection in various
districts or zones of the City (billing done by hauler or City).
Several studies have been conducted on (1) cities that have implemented organized waste collection
within their communities, and (2) cities that have chosen not to implement organized collection. This
report provides an overview of the studies. The table below details some of the advantages and
disadvantages for establishing an organized waste collection system:
ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
Lower prices for organized communities Increased staffing in managing this type of system
Requires fewer garbage trucks City residents are no longer able to independently
60-68 gallon)
select a garbage collection company
More environmentally -friendly Increases competition for smaller haulers versus
13.77
larger corporations
Provides efficient garbage collection Requires massive effort to educate public on
10.07
organized collection
Provides more control in enforcing the Waste Likely to experience negative feedback from
Management Act residents and smaller haulers
3. DISCUSSION:
ADVANTAGES OF ORGANIZED COLLECTION SYSTEM
ECONOMICAL FOR RESIDENTS
The City of Falcon Heights used a chart in its organized collection study to demonstrate the cost
difference between a community with organized collection and an open collection system. A similar
table is used below to demonstrate the difference that City of Plymouth residents pay compared to
organized communities.
The table above shows residents in an open collection system paying more than residents in organized
collection communities.
In 2000, the City of North St. Paul conducted a survey of Metro Area communities. The survey showed that
Metro Area communities with a consortium of haulers tend to have lower average rates than those with a
higher number of haulers. (See, http://archive.ci.falcon heights.inn.us./gov/sw/firialreport_34.pdf). To
support this argument, GBB Solid Waste Management Consultants conducted two studies of Metropolitan
area rates in 1993 and 1994 and found that the average rates under organized systems were as follows:
13% lower than an open systems for 30 gallon containers,
9% lower for 60 gallon containers, and
16% lower for 90 gallon containers.
Appendix 14, "Public Collection Study: Final Report," Ramsey/Washington Counties Resource Recovery
Project, 2002).
0)
Small Container Medium Container Large Container
30-38 gallon) 60-68 gallon) 90-98 gallon)
Average in Plymouth 12.47 13.77 15.02
Average in organized communities
g,13 10.07 12.19
i.e. Little Canada, North St. Paul
The table above shows residents in an open collection system paying more than residents in organized
collection communities.
In 2000, the City of North St. Paul conducted a survey of Metro Area communities. The survey showed that
Metro Area communities with a consortium of haulers tend to have lower average rates than those with a
higher number of haulers. (See, http://archive.ci.falcon heights.inn.us./gov/sw/firialreport_34.pdf). To
support this argument, GBB Solid Waste Management Consultants conducted two studies of Metropolitan
area rates in 1993 and 1994 and found that the average rates under organized systems were as follows:
13% lower than an open systems for 30 gallon containers,
9% lower for 60 gallon containers, and
16% lower for 90 gallon containers.
Appendix 14, "Public Collection Study: Final Report," Ramsey/Washington Counties Resource Recovery
Project, 2002).
0)
In some cities, lower rates can be attributed to a bargaining advantage through bulk -buying. For
example, the City of North St. Paul (organized community) negotiates with the hauler for a special rate,
guaranteeing the haulers with whole sections of the city or a section of the City to service. This
approach enabled them to contract with the vendors for all kinds of products and services, thereby
saving taxpayer dollars. (See, h.ttp://archive.ci..falconheiglits.mn.us./gov/sw/fina.Ireport_34.pdf).
MINIMIZE CORROSIVE EFFECT ON CITY'S INFRASTR UCTURE
Organized collection benefits the City by reducing the number of trucks in the City's infrastructure,
whereby the wear and tear of the City's roadways are reduced. Garbage trucks are among the heaviest
vehicles on roadways and contributes to the large amount of damage done to City streets. The figures
from a Michigan Study include calculations showing the impacts of different kinds of vehicles causing
damages on pavement and shows that garbage trucks cause the most damages to our roadway systems.
A typical passenger car has an Equivalent Single Axel Load (ESAL) factor of .0007 compared to a truck
with 18,000 pounds per axle, which has a factor 1.0 or the equivalent of 1,429 cars. A garbage truck
can be as high as 1.6 or 2,286 cars. Mn/DOT uses a formula that says one garbage truck trip is
equivalent to 1,000 car trips (See, http://archive.ci.falconheights.mn.us./gov/sw/finalreport 34.pdf).
Another factor contributing to wear and tear of City streets by garbage truck is the speed it takes when
making stop. A Michigan study notes that the faster a truck is moving when it stops, the greater the
wear on pavement.
As evidenced by the studies, garbage haulers are among the heaviest vehicles on the roadways and have
the greatest impact on City infrastructure. Limiting the number of haulers on the road enables the City
to maintain its infrastructure for a longer period of time and reduces costs associated with capital
improvements.
ENIVORNMENTALLY-FRIENDLY
Organized garbage collection systems are more environmentally friendly. It helps to reduce air and
noise pollution, greenhouse gases, and fuel consumption. Studies have found that there are an estimated
179,000 garbage trucks in the United States, which make up one of the oldest least fuel efficient and
most polluting fleets of vehicles in the world. Studies shows;
Of the garbage trucks in use, over 40% of them are more than 10 years old. The ten-year
vehicle life stage of a garbage truck means fuel efficiency is at its lowest and
environmental pollution is its highest.
Garbage trucks consume an average of 8,600 gallons of fuel per year — more than any
other kind of vehicles except tractor trailers and transit buses.
Diesel garbage trucks are major contributors of air pollution, including particulate
matter, greenhouse gases, and compounds that have a negative effect on respiratory
health and quality of life (See,
http ://archive. ci. falconheights.mn. us./go v/sw/fmalrep ort_34.p df).
The City of Shakopee is a good example of an organized community that is working toward an
environmentally -friendly community. In Shakopee's Request for Proposal (RFP), they require the
contracting company to purchase new garbage trucks for use exclusively in Shakopee. The five-year
3
contract guarantees business in the City as long as contractors purchase new trucks. (See,
http://archive. ci. falconheights.mn.us./gov/sw/finalseport_34.pdf).
EFFICIENT PROCESS
Organized collection can help make waste collection more efficient. According to a study by the Solid
Waste Association of North America, garbage collection is the most costly phase of solid waste and
represents 62% of the total system cost (See,
http://archive.ci.fal.conhei.ghts.m.n.us./gov/sw/fmalreport 34.pdf.).
This is largely due to the wide spread consumer base that garbage collectors serve. The garbage
collector is able to serve a denser area and is more efficient in reducing the cost of fuel, labor, and truck
maintenance.
COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LA W
Research shows that organized garbage collection is the only way to comply with State Law. The
Waste Management Act requires cities with over 5,000 residents to ensure that every household has a
garbage hauler. The statutory requirement is difficult to comply with because of the large numbers of
haulers needed to service a City. An organized collection system is the best method to account for
every household having a garbage hauler.
Overall, the benefits of organized collection can provide communities with a more economical,
efficient, and environmentally -friendly waste collection system. In addition, the organized collection
would reduce the number of garbage trucks on the road as well as the number of overlapping routes in
the communities; thereby, providing long-term health benefits for community residents.
DISADVANTAGES OF ORGANIZED COLLECTION SYSTEMS
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
Implementing organized collection increases administrative costs because it requires establishing a new
system that involves developing a comprehensive RFP, time commitment toward evaluating proposals,
drafting contracts, and requiring the City to monitor and enforce the terms of the contract. The handling
of service calls could also be significant.
CHANGES IN COMPETITON FOR HA ULERS
Organized collection could create disadvantages for small haulers who may be unable to compete with
larger haulers. Some smaller haulers may not have the capacity to provide service to the entire City or
to a district of the City. On the other hand, a smaller hauler may be able to successfully bid for service
of one district of the City which results in more business than they could otherwise obtain through
traditional marketing. Under any organized collection option, some haulers that currently work within
the City would be displaced.
L,
LOSS OF HAULER CHOICE
Another disadvantage to the organized collection is that it would limit resident's hauler choices within
the community. The City of Oakdale surveyed its residents and found that 45.02% of them believe it is
important to have the choice in selecting who hauls their garbage.
Organized garbage collection may be the best and most efficient option for cities wanting to comply
with statutory requirements (i.e., ensuring that all residents are utilizing haulers and that haulers are
complying with environmental standards). However, research indicates that this method may not be in
the best interest of the residents because it takes away the resident's ability to choose a garbage hauler
who meets their personal needs. Communities that do not allow residents to choose what services they
want from garbage haulers impeded on the residents'. right to choose a garbage collector.
NEGATIVE RESIDENT FEEDBACK
The City of Bloomington received negative feedback from residents during its Council meeting to
discuss implementing an organized garbage collection which resulted in the City deciding to not adopt
the organized collection system. This also occurred in 1987 in Plymouth.
EDUCATING/INVOLVING THE PUBLIC
In ordento implement organized collection, a significant effort is required to educate and involve the
public. The City would likely invest a large amount of time involving residents in the decision —
making process, preparing educational materials, and developing policies to ensure a smooth transition
in implementing organized collection.
OTHER CITIES
Cities experiences with organized collection were consulted. Below are some cities that have adopted
organized collection:
City of St. Cloud
In 1996, the City of St. Cloud adopted a municipal solid waste collection system. The City is able to
operate their collection service with one driver and one sanitation worker who pass through an average
of 1,282 customers per day. The City provides the following services to 10,240 customers: refuse,
recycling, yard waste, demolition, and rubbish. Collection and disposal services are provided weekly
except for demolition/rubbish collection which occurs by appointment. The City requires customers to
use the City official bag with a 30 -gallon capacity. The bags can be purchased at local grocery and
convenient stores for $2.00 including tax (See Appendix A for more information on cost of managing
this type of system).
City of Oakdale
The City of Oakdale recently adopted a contracted organized collection after a year-long study. The
City polled 251 residents to get their opinion on organized collection, in which they received a return
rate of 62.75%. The results from the survey indicated that residents ranked cost and services as the
most important factors. The primary objection expressed by residents against a contracted system was
taking away the individual's ability to choose. In respect to the survey, the City of Oakdale ended up
adopting a contracted organized system. The City was divided into five zones with a limited number of
haulers. One hauler serves each zone of the City.
City of Blaine
The City of Blaine adopted organized collection in 2004. The City contracts with a private hauler for
residential single family garbage and recycling. The City does all the billing for services.
City of North St. Paul
In 1999, the City of North St. Paul adopted organized collection. The City uses a single hauler to
collect from four different zones on different days.
City of Shakopee
The City of Shakopee adopted organized collection in 2000 and contracted a local company to service
their community.
City of Little Canada
The City of Little Canada has a strong history of organized collection. Since 1989, the City has been
using a consortium of four haulers. Each hauler services a designated zone of the City. The same rates
and services apply City-wide.
These cities that have adopted the organized collection system are satisfied with the method and have
not researched new ways of improving their current systems.
The following are cities that have decided to remain with an open system after conducting studies on
organized collection:
City of Falcon Heights
The City of Falcon Heights conducted an extensive study on organized collection. The City established
a Solid Waste Commission which polled residents, sent out educational materials on organized garbage
collection, researched other communities, and held meetings with haulers. The commission
recommended that residents would be better served in the long term by implementing organized
collection. The City Council did not take their recommendation and voted not to implement organized
garbage collection due to public feedback.
City of Roseville
The City of Roseville had a Residential Solid Waste and Recycling Citizen Advisory Committee Report
in 2002. Their findings stated that a consortium of private haulers would be the best method for the
City in meeting the State's environmental goals. Roseville did not proceed with the organized
collection due to public. feedback.
City of Bloomington
The City of Bloomington conducted research on organized collection and received strong opposition
from residents during Council meetings. A staff member stated that "it may seem awkward but residents
develop a personal relationship with their garbage haulers and that organized garbage collection is not a
road that [a City would] want to go down." The City did not adopt organized collection.
City of Chanhassen
The City of Chanhassen's Organized Collection Study recommended that the City proceed with
organized collection. Their findings were the same as other cities such as a reduction in street impact,
cost, vehicle emissions and noise, and that it was the only way to comply with Minnesota Law. Their
survey found that "27% of the respondents were not at all supportive of organized collection, 48% were
neutral, and 25% were very supportive of organized collection." Today the City is using an open
system with six haulers, similar to Plymouth.
4. ALTERNATIVES: The Council could remain with the current open hauling system, pursue
options for organized collection discussed above, or consider changes in licensing to be more restrictive.
S. CONCLUSION: Based on research and consultation, there are pros and cons to implementing
organized collection. The basic question is whether the advantages of organized collection are
sufficient to study changes to the current open waste collection system. If so, which alternatives should
be considered? Based on experience in Plymouth and other cities, the issue will be of significant
interest to haulers and residents; therefore, the timing of when to study the issue should also be
considered.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:
1. After review of the material, is the Council interested in considering changes to the current
open hauling system? The following criteria could be discussed:
a. Consumer Choice
b. Desire of Residents for Open or Organized Collection
c. City Administrative Costs
d. Truck Traffic in Neighborhoods
e. Wear and Tear on Streets
f. Environmental Issues of Emissions and Efficient Fuel Use
g. Cost of Service to Consumers
h. City Involvement in Pricing
i. Displacement of Existing Business
j. Significant effort to Implement New System
k. Other factors?
2. If organized collection is desirable, which of the following options is the Council interested
in studying further:
a. City owned and operated system.
b. Municipal contract system with one hauler.
c. Municipal contract system with several haulers, each serving various districts of the
City.
d. Partnership arrangement with one or more haulers.
e. Other
3. If organized collection is not desired, are there additional licensing restrictions which could
be considered in order to address some of the issues. A few suggestions:
a. Refuse hauling could be limited to certain days of the week city-wide.
7
b. Refuse hauling districts could be established, and hauling could be allowed only on a
certain day in each zone.
c. The number of refuse hauler licenses could be capped or lowered to a certain
number. With attrition of haulers, some of the same efficiencies would be achieved.
d. Other
4. Depending on the options to be pursued further, how should staff proceed:
a. Additional research
b. Publicize options in order to get feedback from residents
c. Survey of residents
d. Discussion with currently licensed haulers
e. Refinement of specific option(s), including implementation and transition plan
f. Other
Attachments: City of Plymouth analysis from 1987
City of Falcon Heights research from 2004
City of St. Cloud Refuse Study Task Force from 1996
City of Oakdale Garbage Collection System Options from 2007
City of Eden Prairie Study from 2005
City of Minneapolis Study and rate information
P. 9-89
p. 90-114
p. 115-126
p. 127-146
p. 147-159
p. 160-181
w"
N I N U T'E S''
It-:.WLAR COUNCIL'.WjET'ING
JULY 20' .1987'.
regular. ar. meet ng' of -t e Ply*,*Ith.cl.ty Co 'calle'd-to or- Councilrby-Mayor:.SdhndId6i af:% 'thin e"City- Cdgqqll Chambers' of the CI tY-CeAter-.at,34OD'pIymmt :''Boulevard on''July 40, 1987
PRESEN Mayor SchneiddSchneider;,"Co6ncllmeiibers :Crain; Vasiliouand: MA6jger. Willis, -A"Istani - Nar6a4efPlanning:. laiihing ---'DlrectorDirect Tre.mere, 'PU6116 - or, ore:,,: C1. WorksW.:Att6rhey Th otson,.:and City. ClerkBrandy . rk
15 ABSENT.i, one.
DUE
CONSENT AGENDA
WE
Motion was IN&
uncilgi6nibir. SIsk, seconded by - to Adopt.:the -"" 'Couhc1limbeDeleting: CONSENT AGENDA'` AgeAda Ite*-$-A. Item. 4:
445 t: M0 Iont car Ir ed. oh a: Roll. Call.-vo ay eii, -live
IDE MINUTES
NE NOTION was ..wade.' by C6'u'nc* I ' Imember Slik,.3econded'by: 'CoundAmid)itoZltur' appr!()v minotioF"' fha 'the., ARQ:,"OF' Boai"d":of .'--Revje. 6.-Jun "16andetheRedCgul.4r liof 3 j 9 7 atted.. 0,
Red
46 No n, tloL, cdrrIed:on.-a-R6II Call, i., - ta e,- -five-," ayes: 3ULY, C::, Nd.
URY- PUELIC.'.HMING
It
Manager - Wlljij.. 3tatiid t, he -purpose -:of: the:. ublic hearing: 4..toreceive, jnpu 4e3ldimts- i64Atding: Idea PURLp
hideas v Councl-l-l. --66nL' 31'dering":'t'o"'de'al.-'--iiith':"th"e:.,..'i'n'-4:'tte " fI
6RGANI 'OLZEli't L't&
47.
43, C eOunprpqognIket.,.,t At
solutions'.*,.*.*
h SOURCE SE .
URY
ure. te ie'4UIrlhothedMeolve. oly:.:a -th6*-* Of I ojr::I4hdfI1L:. ::.Ail6unt
0 er: son, Ireas,-;:the--:Potential-i_ citei: fz.; g, of roun -6 on
Ast'et, -The fprgp.erly:-..j Ispdsed.
I Opec 116y planW :F,04V res.jhj e*,genbrator3.----of,thj,zifor' f responsible
an'..:: -a "
Count" requ res:. tldi:`--td-d' eve. 6.
TY goal County, -wide. -U --'-A7.`4:
was, ,gL
row >,.redy .4as,te.. AA: .,.cans
C It oU , nell "
b dhX01u" JJW L' s ....4porlse Y'A0uhII
x.
WMR:o rrtnn
1987
P.. 2057-451
L
a - ADN. re_dt_esrd_d—.
robl6 ,
0 " 48th
1 ` %!
e,,,-*. `stated..,..:: separating .:'garbaigeen-:- thj;: Oe. t9hbothdo: Se. P13yst4imli - catjrs
nTIMt,',.-,j835!-BI
3 atdd': that --Chcili4666` re'si- 4npi. 7-452'. : t
TAT en s are concerned 'because. the have n,461'e, to'ki3- b" WP:.%: Y.
fhauleror. the --6ntlieAjlked ` dul
Pe. :-'.0th6r 4hal-,:'- t , the'.h' ler. n* :havinan.. hA;vin
mv e. City1-ty: of f jce.*. ;A;k. th4t-it. cUrthe-r'.s'tjf4-" A ed: nq,
nciimembeirt'Sl k.,.,- ted,:,th '.0 t.h. a145i -IN t h- -
4s
MV no h ::hauling :wil'l's
La bene,,:..,StA e he, favors -tht.. fTES —en _i; —rp T t.
ree
unciliii6mer at6d t, a
sAbUt.:*.:tbe:,-.Cblandfl running:,qu :,of,-
ofHTtmusttakeWC, O.,pg:t&:jjjjj'df jj S.
iiiember sk tat th ic noo4
trash ng.'TqcY dbltiectot--. T. 3 skeodea: b -told el _X
mr- e- t A BOte -,,,th t-:-:thdd
th yc
40. 4,0. E sy,.SbA4::6 6 e, dig -
al4 -a tot
Probo
7. en S;td,be:.'
d0st"' with; -.concentrated *,-* 4 .'. o Ire
y ;-";Thele.. --Op 7A0MAI, rePyV,-Vdlj!a.V ..... . a4i
A.I. Mara - It42,5 li
O.Jrt ho h.l*"'*,,-, lD
anood mi t*d`-:hd A
d' qeOc41;' It A` wired.: I f d': 16Vd
it ,b ID ..... . .
kii
Surtt
e-
io irok. 9
epen
d th - , " "' 4, - - reds.. e,:., odid', e • ro 11*
au ers `would.jcbhtlNje:: to-,
l Z
esen 3YO
Balsam: --,
l ten -
recycle 6%wowd. e,
d h
ir!
go
p b
0
or
4O.Ur epa_%--
01 -.
40. p
811
P"-
719
age.- 0
4 a n P Ck871' :h1s., ' ' . I454 . hauler :and It's the first place heYIN -th. UW 3eryldi..- H6: wonderednred If the County rwssouldwork 'If aiIOQUI ........ ............. 6:bue recycling' 'out all the . th a -any. ma itory - Program should include004
i,5 -46-24i h Ave,i -belleve3..recyclin- d. I . - Ii go6d.but.n'. ga :ng Itj ..He f atAvor3 -plastic 'C' Y,.0 -a t at Wilh!D'33'et -should becontainers to hold
s. program. Included In .the.
DoAe-Rinke''nbe 1-530 54th Ave::; Stated he likes the twoa
act on.; of -6 kPPAIPweeonceawontThebagscurrentlybeingd13tilb6ted.".1i the City. are t -b . Is, habit:1:1e' ir- oog. Recycling has' to becomd a4vor3.- mandatory recycling to tiiye Ahe He 13Pli"d -with h land.
e . n Orc! . e . . :'recycling -supports the organized' collection -toqcyciln4sourceseparation. He: also favors all31do6t3andWIne3s.es' being Involved' In the' program. He is
3
also 6oncernid:I ht the billing and th' at It could 'hIM morethanhis,. CostPrivatehauler.
86bert-Flejej.' son; 335 Inland- representing KingswoodLane,
has d FarmOwheF* .')W k
but . . .. 3 one hauler which'keips the Cost doinhne- `supports
4s.
Zp .3ip. . both the City's proposals:. 30t ofat
sals App'' I roklma
on- recycles- and he .is conce rned.Ith e -Citycar., got.'moremore conpLlanqe-' They have- 3"' In: th . e. winter. . and they hav'e
neverqft,:
residents mho. are gone -
complainedtho,'seivlce.::durIng- those. months abosit paying.- for. He also the.-re6yctheybagscou linld-be improvedve as,
yleari-
afid get wet.
r r - Vau'' Gane, stMO. FountAin'L f ,stated h - do63n-1t--idhd the0c .
64,ory..r 6 1 - man -
P -455 but wants: the Coun6lt to -look3YS.Ites ook '.Into. the Rout' doesn't' like Of organized coji'dte
a savings WftW the orfther'eWere, state I Ian . and
gafilzed,sy3tiffl, fie-p4sted- to.:the. residents ..aina-not 'used fo-rothek . Hip. ,bellevi3'-hatileft should have 4 range of Prices for: who 'recycle ar:have'smaHer amouhtA.Of garbago.
lrec't'or - h6dre.: ita* ' thatat residents A6 -:da not-r6csubOctto"' different *ate. structures. h
Y6 , le. -could be, 456
oA. or: t at'-'-hau ers'-would- n
9
Pick their a The not
would h i-3 oh6lbil- Ity. u P6rLha
9rdl
It'woul*'be' Attorney .Thi
tThomson .3 attd:.-Mat
nance.toqu.. .. pass 416 -to 'adopt in'
anUtlon.-IVOL ring homeoinoisi to d I— t:wou A -be-. a - %46-
eme., % Y. 000't -v, 4,.Wou d.b ee
putAwe' mb'ek'-S W. C'
IN 'haul -era: ted:: this wou d' Ot.-af.-:preissure -on',.,---.-.f
rentl
recyc 169, 3
bot; DRB
Keultereater'
n tWr. 0 n Ca 5 Ated: Ate'-- l"pl n- -
e,,growdwo k,,,.,:,
lie
mass-.":' W, t
y "-co%1eF-yf,,,61r
ee0'-A'n' rwse c de t
at"' oun Be
m::- :•.....:..:.. 0u1 -1907. :
r, _ PagL 20r
be.'part of the: recycling program.. The County.'plan arori!t alloi.. the'' City .ao be part of .neuter's system unless -they. adopt•. ''an: rganthed.collectlon system. He 'noted that -the County can:takeover .the City .:cdll,:ct'ian system if .they don-' =feel the.. Cfty' • i:sthe. required; _standards: All .of the': haulers' currentlyworking -In Rlymout4' 'could. deliver .to Reuter's..,if thecontractsbefore. ..the County.:designates' haulers or before 5'ttiepity., begins ..organized: collection.:. Reuters.'.. only handlesresidentialwaste.,they ...cannot handle .industrial 'waste. Current y. .they -take, apprOXIMately 10% of the waste to thelandtiil..
Ro er Oolinson', 2405 :Garland Lane, -favored ..the organized' colletnecause. a lives. on a.'cul-de-sac and there: ire' :4.
d -
terent haulers.Pic king up'each week.' He - would .like: to see this5reduced. to one trubk.
Mike: llalikowskl,`2421.Ford Road,_doesn't fa vor:arganized collec- t on..797 .
Hants the' system -left the -way it is'.using tire. Reutersystem.:which recycl: s.: M . of ;the'' trash:. Mr. ' Hal'ikoi ski statedheworksforReuter,.:I:nc.
Dan.$the"ser:;. hauler in PlymoutFi representing. seven :small. haul- er., state .lie: preferred organizes :collection bethe:enti're.; system -Ss .being: cfiariged:-by the`SEate tai. 'Al :'thi's:can:be is457' :lemented usingg small' haulers; :His. concern Is .that,: he. City: contimeta' 3epTeiment 'organized..do- lection because' he :' is:: afraidME
that the":County: Mi11 .put:-its,Plan into 'fortetlie..smali..fiauler.:out':of:.business..,.: e' acid that :iould:put., :
66. ..Haibkinson,.'Cleansay' Sanitation;: favored. oT enitedton::w t :cont••racts-.with. the -small,`.:heule ' 9 cohlec=
could .;ina'rttair...the- service..t rs' Treves.. they•.. th .. coil . he residents ace getting :now., andy + d. police..themseives:.:'::.'
Derr :Stan e1, :5735 Rose' wooc!`:;Lane;;..stated ,the:. roble73R :.
P m .with theauere, s: t _at ?,they;: charge.=. the or 'e
r many or few bags:.they ,put out: veryone ° no' mattemhow
Roskoiriak, :an ,a : an
SanitatiOn,-,.:. v ce_ r ,stated . they :curr'eritI ser=: ` o!nes,: ; .1'500.townhoines . acid man Y
them ;in ;the•:middle=si_" ` Y:aparta ien_s .rhich 'putset _
tate or ' g ... y':.aP ; haute%: ' 7hrey . oppose'prgan=. ized; ..:.. coilec.tion'be¢ause t„ is riot:=necessa . She:.:..: . •: ,....:.. ; ::..::.... Yy for. a. good recyeling.. suggested,,that, :anany, realized at the: land- i1l::be> turrie i `back:,.to ,zhe.Ctt :'for ret1.
ve:Svard:.1.20.75`4Bth68 ICye.';:'stated .lits :ho aeowners..aooa::`:at,;organzed_collectiori : qT . some, years: ago .to. get .thei'r° cates> down and iould lie disappointed i'f:'the: City'3.*, organiied''call` TH g:;`-.::_; tion;;:would;:raise':;Firs':rates : ant3 to: se_e: h13`-;servive:.train=-.: tamed`: Cri"; tire; :same;iaanner. it is. t `: da and:,recommepiid. a.`:cobniit-_ : v.:...
ne- 6tiattie:added rhe.,'Ciay sFiould conaidec` 9". ions `.i itti ;the haulers: r.
a rec clin ' Y 9 ,- eparation. program` t`.`sites;-;thr..oughout the .City: and::not: in::indiv' 1dua1homes:
t.
7 t:••
Ta_
Regular `Council: Meeting
0uly-.20.- 1987
Page 208
Har Thomson, 18)15 Highway 55, stated she .favored the siterecyCnO 'dnd siu,na xf w- nim_. ,
Y—Ln..aeparatlon. progiam . at 'sites.'.throughouC the City -- 4,, < •.. '' : not; In•:individual homes.`:. '
Re.. Iae. gu Couici2 ' Meeiin9Jul " 20 ;1987. :..'
Page 20.8.
Mar Thomson'; :18315 Highway 55,.. -stated she ,favored the sitereccn
y . a
g, and the" Cit look at recycling one formy::;'.. ofmaterial at a time,' such as cans. The. a8' = paper bags do not workbe'cause,they, get..' wet" - and tear. She doesn!t understand theorgA . ..ed:,collec-tion being used to enforce. recj cling.
Councimember "Crain pesidents take theirointedoutthatwhenrrecyclables .to..other.
dtcommunities, churches; etc., gesn''get'credit for it with -the County. Plymouth
Councilmembec'Sisk stated the City may bepenalizedsupportingchurch•or youth groups in recycling asthcreditwouldn-t.be Plymouth's.
87-460
j-'2 Mr. Reuter pointed out that these groups would be excluded fromICErecycling-under.the County's ordinance.
48
Mr. Huschke agreed:
Gail Prest;. Columbia Heights Recycling Coordinator, stated they1aveeuncipal'garbage collection which is bid every two yearsPLANTand. recycling is part of that bid. She stated that she 'is notspeakingasastaffpersonofColumbiaHeights:.
Mr. Huschke stated source separation is to reduce waste andraiseresidentsconsciousnessabouttheamountofwastetheyarecreating.
Bob Mueller, 4612 Rosewood Lane, stated source separation is an
rimlt- tee.which addressed how to get people to recycle and suggested
easy +ng to do. He was a member of -the Citizen League co
volume based pricing be used in .garbage pickup just -as iinotherservices. t's used
Jim Sentman', 135.10 Sunset' Trail,"stated he is a recycler and be' eves' Ymouth:.could get 16x. reduction without. organized coliectionbyincreasingpublicawareness. ' He. is concerned withtheCounty's approach and believes the long range goal should beonelikeReuters, to -recycle. everything people:'throw awajustpaperand 'cans. y and
Wall Marcus, 3135 Shadyview Lane, supports free enterprise sys- eA an ..recycllog. Me oppo3es unnecessary' source separation " i-461 .1 :. when there are other Options. He opposes: organized collectionr— because. people would lose their hauler:
Mary West, .17200,30th Ave., stated source- separation has not. c ange r.buying habits ju
she now recycles. st wade her feel less guilty because
Sue Holt, Coordinator for -Minnetonka Drive Recycling, a Private. program, ru6s'.a center for cans; glass, and newspaper. She.ask- ed that,. everyone 'do. long range thinkingg about .health and the" damage future .genera.tions will be left with because of. land- ' fills. She : stated Plymouth is being looked. at ..by. other citiesds' a leader. in this area.
ReV ar Council.MeetingjulY20. 1997
regularouncil Meet
Duly.:2Q :.1987
Page '209
87-462
PARK And Whitman,, '2700 Brockton. sane, stated there could ''be' nterme atea.'....
paper/cans.
process- centers who can take interor. papers._ There smingled
for aprocesscentertobeend
handle orsed by
Hennepinl-
County which couldthe.co-mingled
87 -46 r. `; : materials and Could boost participation: .
N, Mr.'Axiotis asked if'Reu.ter's cost cotild.be brought down if allthehaulersbrought•their- ucks..to them.
Mr..Reuter stated they are`.permit'ted by the County to"handle 400tunsperdaybut. their facllity'could handle 800 tons per day.
Mayor Schneider closed the.p6blic hearing at 10:45 p.m.'•
Director Noose stated theestimates are that tipping costs willdoubleortriplein' the future; near By 199E nn'material can goIntoalandfillunless''it.has been.pretiously processed.
Counclimewber Sisk stated talk. about .landfill costs isirrelevantbecause-' changes being adopted.by the County. Heaskedaboutsmokeandashpollutionattheburn. sites.
Karen Schaefer, Fktropolitan Council Solid Waste Division Nana - gar, stated at ash from the mass burn site will bete'3ted and, If hazardous, handled in the proper facility., The Pollution - Control Agency will test the smok.3 to determine if they areWithinacceptablelimits. The cost for disposing of the trashwillbepaidforbysomeone, it's a question ofollwaterorpollutingtheair. P uting the -
Discussion followed on the Netropelitan Council directives, tim- ing of compliance, State law, and the City's alternatives.
Councilmember Vaslliou stated she doesn't want to be a leader inthisarea'because of the unknowns Involved and recowiended pro- ceeding slowly and studying this issue thoroughly.
Councilmeeber ZLRur pointrsd out that he has checked with othersurroundingcommunitiesandnoneofthemareproceedingwithre- cycling.
z'.
7-464 Csuncllmember Crain stated his concern for some years is thattheJumpingaroundwillcontinuefortime. some He believesPlymouth. should continue to move forward but not put itself Inthepagitionofeliminatingfl, xlbility by starting anorganizedcollectionCE6raindatorysourceseparation„ He believes there isalotoflearningto,41q.
Council r.Sisk stated that P1ymouth probably doesn't want..tobethefiestcitytotakeactionittheMetropolitanCouncilWillamendAtmPoliciesnextyear.
Discussion jc%Vtnu:sd on whether the State, Netropolitan Council, or.fieQn&pin:County should.be
within
going the way It's goingarebett=.r 'Ways of. rec cli. 9 9 when therey , Promotion of the recyclingtheCity program . y, .and volume based pricing.
r:.
egular Council:Meetirig3uly201;.1987
Page 210
5
W4Y* OT. recycling, Promotion 0j the. recycling programwIthIj6:4ty, 'and volume based pricing..'
N
1r, CouncilMeeting 771lul..20
Page0. 87-465 2
DDN.
Scheefer stated Hennepin County Is willing. to, give, citiesmoneytbassistInPromotingtheirprograms.
MDTIGN-ia3 Made by Mayor Schneider,- seconded h
Regular Council MeetingJuly20, 1987
Page 211
S. lou, MUe rdirecting 'staff to come back- to the CouncunCLJLMCil ilth :anactivepromotionplanto. enhance the City's existing re*cyi:I'ln - program. 9'
COUncllmember Crain stated he would like to -see aparticipationbroaderder
to ' through public Involvement Inprogramhelpstrength putting tdgether.,theen -the process.
NOTION was made by Mayor Schneider, seconded by Cofincllm'em'beiVasillOu, toamendthe notion to send' a letter to those speakingtonight, those submitting letters, and those who calleddetermine
87-466
In, totheirInterestInservingonataskforce.
EFENT
Notion to amend carried, five ayes.
Notion ds'once amended carried, five ayes.
PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
Mayor Schpielderstated the. question asked by the Planning Com- mission 13 Why the City is taking 30 Much land for REZONINGi.PRELIMINAR-Ythe - trail. Ae said access from the north should also be provided. PLAT &'YARIANCE-PONDS
NORTH (87058) -
Director Tremere stated the Planning mls3'lon'3 concern was. Co
raised as a consideration' to
Item 7-A
come back at the f Inal plan stage.' The'noirthhouth leg 043 to create a main entrance to the publicparkandtoallowforthelayoftheland.
87-467
Director Moore pointed out how this will be the main entry waytotheeasternpartofthe9RM2NDpark.
Db!ector Tremere explained the plan had been reviewed by theParksstaffwhoendorsedit.
87-468
10MES
Mike Galr,t representing the petitioner, stated: he met "withUIrecorankwhofoundthisarrangementtobeacceptable. TheInitial0'ropp"I included -a trail 3' Orleans ectlon to - the north of, theLdnecul-de-sac. It has been -taken out at citydilori staffFOcthowever, It could be put backIt. If the Council
87-469
wants
MOTION WAs.,m,ade by. Councillmember S13k,.36conded:byVasilIduio:, -t Councilmember
ablei.the matter until the 3uly .27 meeting for areport'from'.DLiect6i Blank regarding the size ofr1dors. and the trailthe cor- access.. foe. future *t o'the north.
Notion carried" five *ayes:
NOTION W43 made by,td6ncjl member. Sisk, Seconded.by Counclimember. tux, - .adopt - RESOLUTION NO,-.87-474APPROVING CONDITIONAL'.
RESOLUTION
N'
o
FOR MMES. F-- .MINUTEMAN AtSSINTEPRESSRATIL07070Y INUTEINT—
8707'
J..
fedo'n--A Rol't:Gail vote' five aY03.
Item .7-84
Regular Council MeetingJuly20, 1987
Page 211
CITY OF, PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
MEMO
DATE: July 16, 1987
o 1-t
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: James G. Willis, City Manager
SUBJECT JULY 20 PUBLIC HEARING ON MAN, TORY RECYCLING AND ORGANIZED COLLECTION
SUMMARY: The City Council has scheduled July 20 as a public hearingtoreceiveresidentinputwithrespecttoinitiatingamandatory
source separation program for recycling materials and consideration of
a resolution of intent to initiate organized collection. I have
attached material for the public hearing, providing backgroundinformationonthesubject. Fred Moore and Dick Pouliot will be
present at the meeting along with Hennepin County representatives to
make brief presentations to the public. The remainder of this
memorandum sets forth a general outline which the Council may wish to
consider in moving ahead with the issue of mandatory recycling and
organized collection following the public hearing.
County ordinances provide that municipalities within the County mustadoptbyJanuary1, 1988, ordinances, establishing source separation
programs which achieve the goal of diverting 16% of their solid waste
stream by January, 1990. According to the City Attorney, the County
ordinance does not require mandatory source separation at the presenttime -- only a source separation program which reaches the 16% solid
waste diversion goal. The County has also provided an approximate
three year period for communities to meet County targets. To complywithCountyordinances, the City must develop a program for
achievement of these goals within the specified time frames.
At the conclusion of the public hearings and subsequent consideration
of public input, the Council may wish to consider the followingpositionswithrespecttothisissue:
1. The City Council and residents of Plymouth have historicallydemonstratedadesiretoberesponsibleCountyresidents.
2. We recognize and support State, Metropolitan Council and Countyeffortstodivertrecyclablesfromsolidwastelandfills, and
will work towards the solid waste reduction objectives set forthinthelawaswellasthepolicies/plans of the Metropolitan
Council and/or Hennepin County.
1
Mayor and City Council
July 16, 1987
Page 2
3. The success of recycling programs is dependent upon resident
cooperation and participation. Consequently, the adoption of
mandatory programs may not necessarily be the best first step
toward achieving County objectives.
4. Cooperative plans which entail the least change from the
resident's point of view are. likely to have the greatest success.
The Council may, therefore, prefer such efforts over programs
requiring substantial change in resident behavior over short time
periods.
5. Plymouth's initial efforts should concentrate on education and
public relations to improve .participation rather than through
mandatory source separation or organized collection programs. The
City should also investigate, after receiving the concurrence of
the County and/or Metropolitan Council, the possibility of
implementing a Reuter type program for private carriers serving
Plymouth.
6. Only if the permissive recycling program encouraged through
aggressive public relations has proven unable to meet County solid
waste reduction targets, should the City Council entertain the
implementation of mandatory programs in either source separation
or organized collection.
The Council may wish to elaborate upon the foregoing general
statements, but I believe they are a measured and moderate approach
around which the City staff can develop program guidelines over the
next three years which meet Metropolitan Council and Hennepin County
solid waste reduction objectives.
JGW:kec
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION SHEET
INTENT TO INITIATE ORGANIZED REFUSE COLLECTION
ESTABLISHING MANDATORY SOURCE SEPARATION PROGRAM FOR RECYCLABLE MATERIALS
JULY 20, 1987 - 7:30 D.m.
ORDER OF PUBLIC HEARING
1. Called•to order by Mayor Virgil Schneider
2. The purpose of the public hearing is for the Citizens of Plymouth to express their
comments and opinions with regard to the proposed ordinances..
3. Staff presentation
A. City Staff - Introduction: James G. Willis, City Manager
B. Hennepin County Staff: Dan Huschke,.Recycling Coordinator
C. City Staff - Conclusion: Fred G. Moore, Director of Public Works
4. Procedure for public hearing
A. Write Your name and address on a blue card.
B. Pass your blue card to the person collecting them, or give them to the Mayor.
C. When your name is called, come up to the podium to address the City Council.
D. .No one may speak twice until all others who wish to have done so. Please give
your name and address each time you speak.
E. A maximum time limit of 10 minutes has been established for each speaker at any
one time. The hearing will continue until all present have been given an
opportunity to speak.
F. Written comments will also be received at the public hearing.
4. Open public hearing: Mayor Schneider
5. Close public hearing:. Mayor Schneider
6. Determination of City Council (Note: It is not anticipated that the City Council
will make any decision with respect to either of the two ordinances this evening. The
Council will likely consider and review the public comments and discuss the subject
further at a subsequent meeting.)
19
TUR PRnRT,EM
Continuing urbanization within the Twin City Metropolitan Area has created
increasing pressures on available sanitary landfills for the disposal of solid
waste. Also, the burying of solid waste in sanitary landfills is deemed to present
hazards to our environment, such as pollution of ground water supplies. Because of
this and other concerns, the Minnesota Legislature required that the Metropolitan
Council develop .a plan to address the need to reduce dependence upon sanitary
landfills. The Metropolitan Council, in 1985, adopted its "Solid Waste Management
Development Guide/Policy Plan". This plan requires each county in the Seven -County
Metropolitan Area to develop its own plan to implement the policies of the
Metropolitan Council. One of the policies in the Metropolitan Council's plan
requires that residents shall .be responsible for separation of certain recyclable
materials from .their garbage. These recyclable materials are to be collected
separately. The Hennepin County plan, in seeking to meet the Metropolitan Council`s
Recycling goals for the County, has established a recycling goal of 16% for each
city in the county.: This means that each city is responsible to develop mechanisms
by which 16% of its current solid waste stream will be removed for recycling by
1990.
THE QUESTION
What should the city do to comply with the intent of the Metropolitan Council's
Solid Waste Management Development Guide/Policy Plan" and Hennepin County's "Solid
Waste Master Plan" including "County Ordinances No. 12 and 13"? The City Council
has directed its staff to review the city's obligations under the present county
requirements. The two ordinances which are the subject of the hearing tonight are
responsive to carrying out the requirements of Hennepin County Ordinances 12 and 13.
The City Council recognizes the need to reduce public dependence upon landfills, as
well. as to support recycling efforts. For the past two years, the City has actively
sponsored and supported a voluntary recycling program in Plymouth.
PROPOSED ORDINANCE: SOURCE SEPARATION PROGRAM FOR RECYCLABLE MATERIALS
In response to guidance from the State Legislature and the Metropolitan Council, the
Hennepin County Board of Commissioners adopted Ordinance 13 on October 30, 1986.
This ordinance requires every Municipality within Hennepin County to adopt
ordinances relating to the separation of recyclables from solid waste. The purpose
of the ordinances adopted by the cities is to reduce the amount of solid waste
generated within the City by at least 16 per cent during the calendar year 1990.
Plymouth is required to adopt the ordinances and implement them prior to January 1,
1988.
The Hennepin County ordinance requires all persons who are owners, lessees and
occupants of any building, commercial or residential, which generates mixed
Municipal Solid Waste to separate from all solid waste the designated recyclable
materials before disposal, removal or collection. The County has designated the
following material for recycling:
Aluminum Containers
Steel Containers
Glass Containers
Newsprint
Yard waste (leaves and grass clippings)
Mao
The proposed City ordinance requires all persons who are owners, lessees or
occupants of any single family residence, duplex, triplex, or fourplex who generate
mixed solid waste to separate all of the recyclable materials from this solid waste.
The ordinance further provides that the City will provide a recycling program to
collect these recyclable materials.
It is the intent of the City to continue the Curbside Collection Program for
recyclable materials which was established in 1986. Plymouth will continue to
evaluate the existing Recycling Program in order that improvements can be made to
correspond with the mandatory source separation of recyclables.
PROPOSED ORDINANCE: ORGANIZED REFUSE COLLECTION
Plymouth's current ordinance requires that each resident, business or industrydisposeoftheirsolidwasteinasanitarymanner. Most people within Plymouth use
a licensed refuse collector to dispose of their solid waste. Although the refuse
collector is licensed by the city, it is .the responsibility of each person to
contract with an individual hauler to collect their waste.
Because requirements of the Metropolitan Council's "Solid Waste Mangement
Development Guide Policy/Plan" and Hennepin County's Ordinance 13, which require
that Mandatory Recycling Programs which must be implemented by the city before
January 1, 1988, the city is considering organizing the refuse collection system.
This organization would only apply to single family, duplex, triplex and fourplex
dwelling units. It would still be the responsibility of residents with greater than
four units, businesses and industries to provide for their own refuse collection.
The system of organized collection being considered by the City would continue with
the existing private refuse .haulers providing the service. The city would organize
the entire community into districts or routes with an. individual hauler being
assigned a specific area. The hauler would provide service to all 1, 2, 3 and 4
residential dwelling units within that area.. Instead of each individual 'property
contracting with the hauler for this service, the city would contract with and paythehaulers. Each resident would pay the City for the service.
An organized system of refuse collection can most effectively be coordinated with
the collection of recyclable materials. If the City Council makes a decision to
adopt an organized collection system, further study will be required on the type of
service (curbside, back door, etc.) which would be provided.
ai
Q First Bank Place West
ineapolis
inesota 55402
ephone (612) 333-0543
ecopier (612) 333-0540
yton L. LeFevere
bert P. Lefler
Dennis O'Brien
in E. Drawz
rid J. Kennedy
aeph E. Hamilton
in B. Dean
nn E. Purdue
hard J. Schieffer
arles L. LeFevere
rbert P. Lefler III
nes J. Thomson, Jr.
Xmas R. Galt
yle Nolan
an F. Rice
in G. Kressel
nes M. Strommen
nald H. Batty
liam P. Jordan
t J. Erickson
Iliam R. Skallerud
dney D. Anderson
rrine A. Heine
vid D. Beaudoin
it E. Rasmussen
wen M. Tallen
3ry F. Skala
ristopher J. Harristhal
nothy J. Pawlenty
If A. Sponheim
L(T(were
Lefler
Ke n nc d}'
O'Brien K-
D <iwz
a ProfCssionnl
Association
July 16,. 1987
Mr. Frank Boyles
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, Minnesota 55447
RE: Source Separation and Organized Collection
Dear Frank:
You have asked me to briefly comment regarding the
requirements on the City pertaining to source separation
and organized collection. Because these issues get
confusing when they are combined, I think it would be
helpful if I divided my comments by subject matter.
ORGANIZED COLLECTION SYSTEM
Under the present law there is no mandatory requirement
that the City implement an organized collection system.
During the last legislative session the legislature
authorized municipalities to organize collection after
certain notification requirements have been met. The
purpose of the law was to ensure that cities were exempt
from any potential antitrust violation for adopting such
a program. Apparently, other municipalities have made
attempts to adopt organized collection systems and they
have been challenged on the basis of federal antitrust
laws.
The recently adopted state law does not implement a
mandated organized collection program. It does, however,
authorize counties to require cities to implement an
organized collection system. Hennepin County has not
adopted such a requirement to my knowledge.
SOURCE SEPARATION
The Metropolitan Council, as authorized by state statute,
has adopted a Solid Waste Management Development
Guide/Policy Plan. One aspect of the Plan establishes a
goal that Hennepin County reduce, through source
separation methods, the amount of solid waste by 16% by
Mr. Frank Boyles
July 16, 1987
Page 2
1990. Hennepin County has adopted an ordinance
implementing the Metropolitan Council guidelines. Under
the provisions of that ordinance each municipality in
Hennepin County is required to adopt an ordinance
establishing a source separation program, the purpose of
which is reduce the amount of solid waste generated
within the municipality by at least 16% during calendar
year 1990. If a municipality fails to adopt an ordinance
that establishes some type of source separation program
by January 1, 1988, or implements a program that does not
meet the 16% waste reduction goal during calendar year
1990, the County may adopt a mandatory source separation
ordinance for the municipality.
In summary, there is no state or county law that requires
the City to adopt a mandatory source separation program
at the present time.
I will be prepared to answer any additional questions
that the City Council may have at the July 20, 1987 City
Council meeting.
Sincerely,
LeFEVERE, LEFLER, KENNEDY,
O'BRIEN & DRAWZ
ames Thomson J .
JJT/kjj
cc: Jim Willis
Fred Moore
a3
DATE
TO
FROM
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTHBLVD.,
ONE (61O2) 559-2800
MINNESOTA 55447
TE
MEMO
July 16, 1987 For Council Meeting of July 20, 1987
James G. Willis, City Manager
Fred G. Moore, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Public Hearings
Intent to Initiate Organized Collection
Ordinance Establishing Mandatory Source Separation Program
for Recyclable Materials
sir
This memo will supplement and provide additional infor-mation to your
memorandum to the .City Council with regard to the above two referenced
public hearings. This material will provide additional background
material for the City Council.
Attached herewith is the following information:
1. A letter from the City Attorney addressing the present law
with regard to the two ordinances.
2. A listing of telephone calls received by the Engineering
Department either in favor of, or opposed to the proposed .
ordinances. Also attached are written letters or
information received since the public hearing was
announced.
3. The material received by the City Council (identified as
Item 8.S) when they established the public hearing which is
to be held June 20. Included as part of this information
is a draft copy of each ordinance on which the public
hearing is being held.
Fred G. Moore, P.E.
FGM:kh
Attachments: Letters
Listing
Informational Material
aq
0 First Bank Place West
ineapolis
nesota 55402
ephone (612) 333-0543
ecopier (612) 333-0540
yon L. LeFevere
rbert P. Lefler
Dennis O'Brien
hn E. Drawz
vid J. Kennedy
seph E. Hamilton
hn B. Dean
inn E. Purdue
hard J. Schieffer
tarles L. LeFevere
rbert P. Lefler III
mes J. Thomson, Jr.
omas R. Galt
tyle Nolan
ian F. Rice
hn G. Kressel
mes M. Strommen
nald H. Barry
illiam P. Jordan
jr[ J. Erickson
illiam R. Skallerud
3dney D. Anderson
xrine A. Heine
avid D. Beaudoin
Sul E. Rasmussen
even M. Tallen
iary F. Skala
nristopher J. Harristhal
mothy J. Pawlenty
olf A. Sponheim
Lc (w( rc
Lc•f k'r
Kcnned
O'Brien i`
Ih•a'.
a Professional
Association
July 16, 1987
Mr: Frank Boyles
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, Minnesota 55447
4M
RE: Source Separation and Organized Collection
Dear Frank:
You have asked me to briefly comment regarding the
requirements on the City pertaining to source separation
and organized collection. Because these issues get
confusing when they are combined, I think it would be
helpful if I divided my comments by subject matter.
ORGANIZED COLLECTION SYSTEM
Under the present law there is no mandatory requirement
that the City implement an organized collection system.
During the last legislative session the legislature
authorized municipalities to organize collection after
certain notification requirements have been met. The
purpose of the law was to ensure that cities were exempt
from any potential antitrust violation for adopting such
a program. Apparently, other municipalities have made
attempts to adopt organized collection systems and they
have been challenged on the basis of federal antitrust
laws_
The recently adopted state law does not implement a
mandated organized collection program. It does, however,
authorize counties to require cities to implement an
organized collection system. Hennepin County has not
adopted.such a requirement to my knowledge.
SOURCE SEPARATION
The Metropolitan Council, as authorized by state statute,
has adopted a Solid Waste Management Development
Guide/Policy Plan. One aspect of the Plan establishes a
goal that Hennepin County reduce, through source
separation methods, the amount of solid waste by 16% by
Q 5 "
Mr. Frank Boyles
July 16, 1987
Page 2
1990. Hennepin County has adopted an ordinance
implementing the Metropolitan Council guidelines. Under
the provisions of that ordinance each municipality in
Hennepin County is required to adopt an ordinance
establishing a source separation program, the purpose of
which is reduce the amount of solid waste generated
within the municipality by at least 16% during calendar
year 1990. If a municipality fails to adopt an ordinance
that establishes some type of source separation program
by January 1, 1988, or implements a program that does not
meet the 16% waste reduction goal during calendar year
1990, the County may adopt a mandatory source separation
ordinance for the municipality.
In summary, there is no state or county law that requires
the City to adopt a mandatory source separation program
at the present time.
I will be prepared to answer any additional questions
that the City Council may have at the July 20, 1987 City
Council meeting.
Sincerely,
LeFEVERE, LEFLER, KENNEDY,
O'BRIEN & DRAWZ
ames Thomson J .
JJT/kjj
cc: Jim Willis
Fred Moore
RE
July 16, 1987
This is a list of Plymouth residents who called to voice their support or
opposition to the City's proposal for Mandatory Recycling and Organized
Garbage Collection.
THOSE OPPOSED:
Tom Barker, Chelsea Woods
Ron Haberson, 16645 21st Avenue North
Hazel Smith, 473-1321
Sally Evson, 476-0090
THOSE IN FAVOR:
Cal Flaig, 2415 Holly Lane
Tom Bricks, 18845 9th Avenue North
Kathleen Mungavan, 473-3520
Mrs. Richard Dunn, 473-7007
Earl & Joanne Skinner, 473-6046
Wayne Fredrickson, 476-4547
Jim Knaak, 12120 48th Avenue North
George Bevis, 18755 11th Avenue North
Bill Rose, 475-3164
Jeannie Joseph; 55371411
Peggy Anderson, 1325 Urbandale
Elaine Bardouche, 473-2211
Zande & David Cote, Schmidt Lake Hills
Arlene Smith, 1705 Merrimac Lane
Mr. and Mrs. Roode, 2020 Walnut Grove
Paul Svensson,.11745 Bass Lake Road
Jerry Stoltman, 473-3647
B. J. Smith, 1705 Merrimac
Louise Blodgett, 16725 12th Avenue North
Mr. and Mrs. O'Hare, 2335 Troy
Joan Schwartz, 17600 12th Avenue North
Attached to this listing are copies of letters which were received on the
subject.
aD-
Gordon W. Ryan
The Village
18745 - 11th Auenue North G 7
Plymouth, MN 55447
c--7-
CZ
7 a f 7 -Q- r
7/6
rIjL
ct71Ce2,
L
17
ya W y a 7 c:7,21=7,1
Z
zzz 1-7
VI12-7
as
SAM B. HUMPHRIES, JR,
520 KIMBERLY LN.
PLYMOUTH, M.N 55447
June 8, 1987
Mr. Pouliot
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, Mn. 55447
We are all well aware of the need to recycle because the landfill
situation is in big trouble. We admire you for your enthusiasm but think
you might be getting ahead of yourself to have set July 1 as the target
date for organized garbage collection to start in Plymouth.
In the Sailor article dated May 25th, we saw no mention of Reuter, who
is looking for garbage for their recycling plant and who runs Waste
Technology. In the June 1 edition of the Sailor, they tell how the suburbs
and County cannot agree on a location for a transfer station, etc., and
how they will manage the 800 tons of garbage slated to NSP within 2 years.
We have been recycling our newspapers, cans, and glass for some years
taking them to the Golden Valley Recycling Center every Saturday morning.
It has become an easy habit to get into, and the center is convenient.
We happen to use Waste Technology (Reuter) as our hauler at $9.85 per month
which we pay for a year in advance. They provide the garbage can and
replace it when it wears out. The service has been very good.
Now the City is going to tell us about your plan to force us to recycle,
use the hauler of your choice and pay probably more each month. The .City
will do the billing and probably charge a service charge as they do with
sewer and water.
We understand the need to force some people to recycle, but it should
not be at a cost of money and inconvenience to those of us who do so already
and who are completely happy with the company that does the hauling. 'We -
believe the open -haul system still will work the best if the haulers will
contribute by not picking up those who do not recycle, and leave the paper-
work to the companies as it has been in the past. The city of Minneapolis
may have been able to work it out efficiently, but St. Paul. has not been so
fortunate with organized collection.
We think more
to get rid of such
the program.
advertisement of the recycling program and for places
things as used oil, etc. would be of bigger benefit.to
Thank yo} ,
Mrs. Robert H. Chapman
10877 So. Shore Drive
30
2345CO
6 •\
cu y CPP
22zlZOZ6\,!
31
WNOTICE OF HEARING
BY CITY COUNCIL
A R ESS OLUTION OF INTENT
REFUSE
COLLECMPLEMENT
TION
ORGANIZED
ON NTHE
CITY OF PLYMOUTHl„ ""t "," `
I .n .. w, ` \ P l/''--To Whom It May Concern
lice is hereby given that the City
1 ` \\v`Rv"-'R \-
CounC
l
it of the City of Plymouth. Min
Av,
f^ 1,,
neSOIa wimeet in'the City Council
I1\ o `" j Chambers.
l
Plymouth City Center.
U .rSe J t LAJ N 1 \\ 3100 Plymouth Boulevard, a1 7:30
r CkA p.m. on Monday, July 20, 1987 to con-
sider toe resolution of intent to orga
the
G
1 nize collection of refuse within the
a
t>, (
City of Plymouth and inviting the
f participation of interested persons in
K ( planning and establishing the Orga•
nized Collection System.
Such persons as desire to be heard
ith reference to the above will be
heard at this meeting.
s/ Laurie Brandt
Dear Friend and Customer,
On Monday, July 20th, at the Public Hearing you will have the
opportunity to express your views on the proposed organized
collection system the City of Plymouth wishes to initiate this
fall. The City has to meet certain goals by certain dates set
by Hennepin County or Hennepin County.will take over the solid
waste management themselves (pick up of garbage, recyclables
and composting). But at what cost to you the taxpayer?
As I see it the City has three choices:
1. The City could put it up for bid with only one hauler
doing the whole city and the rest of us would be out o.f
business.
2. The,City could buy it's own equipment and do it
the elves with all the present haulers out of business.
7'fl The City could do what they are trying to do on the
20th, which i.s to negotiate a contract with the present haulers
and keep us all working.
Naturally I am in favor of #3, which is what the City of
Plymouth is trying tp do on the 20th.
Please try to be at that meeting to support the City's program
for Organized Collection which will keep me working in the City
of Plymouth. If you cion' not attend the meeting PLEASE call or
write to your City Council for your support. Their number is
559-2800 at City of P1ymoUth 3400 Plymouth Blvd. Plymouth, Mn.
55447.
Thank you in advance.
Your Garbage Hauler
P. S. These Plymouth Haulers also support the City's propos d-
Organ.ized Collection plan to keep all the Haulers workin `,L_Ad ,
Block Sanitation Inc. ^`
I ?
FFFIVP
C1 eanway Sanitation Inc. JUL 15 1987
Crosstown Sanitation
CZf
Dave's Sanitation CITY Cr Lriv UUTH
G. D. Li,.F'l ant Sanitation Inc.
Scherer Sanitation 3a
r;
p17-7
GvcP° T T'``om
CVOOL b GoM TSN v c. 7'0 U s c- TH
K c -S T/,2 r7
PLV MUv7-yAll / ,
IV
V
f
E6 r
C 198,
r
ti
PETER T. COOK
18420 14th AVENUE NO. • MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55447
July 9, 1987
City Council
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Blvd.
Plymouth, MN 55412
Re: Solid waste Management
Public Hearing July 20, 1987
Dear Council Members,
J
L1
r r f L t)
IN,
I cannot attend the July 20 Public Hearing on
the proposed organized collection system therefore
I would like to express my view, which is to support
the City of Plymouth negotiating a contract with
the present haulers, therefore continuing with
our current collection system.
Yours sincerely,
P ter
8420 14th Avenue North
Plymouth, Minnesota
nm
35-
NOT --- ICE OF HEARING
BY CITY COUNCIL
A RESOLUTION OF INTENT
TO IMPLEMENT ORGANIZED
EFUSE
CTYCOFLPECTION
IN THE
L MOUTH
i
y/, / 6 To Whom It Concern:
S"`' (.l /.f( Notice is hereby given that the City
Council of thehe CCiti of Plymouth, Min
7• v nesota will meet in the City Council
Chambers, Plymouth City Center,
Y/fiJ/L, ! Gt 3400 PlymouthBoulevard, at 7:30
P.M. on Monday, July 20, 1987 to con.
sizer the resolution of intent to or
ithe
City
collection of refuse within the
City o4 Plymouth and inviting the
participation of Interested persons in
planning and establishing the Orga-
nized Collection System.
Such persons as desire to be heard
with reference to the above will be
y/• heard at this meeting.
rQ ,
ly-.%
K, - ` / /
s/ Laurie Brandt
Dear Friend and Customer, .(moo¢-yu ' •
On Monday, July 20th, at the Public Hearing you will have the
opportunity to express your views on the proposed organized
collection system the City of Plymouth wishes to initiate this
fall. The City has to meet certain goals by certain dates set
by Hennepin County or Hennepin County will take over the solid
waste management themselves (pick up of garbage., recyclables
and composting). But at what cost to you.the taxpayer?
As I see it the City has three choices:
1. The City could put it up for bid with only one hauler
doing the whole city and the rest of us would be out of
business.
2. The City could buy it's own equipment and do it
themselves with all the present haulers out of business.
3. The City could do what they are trying to do on the
20th, which is to negotiate a contract with the present haulers
and keep us all working.
Naturally I am in favor of #3, which is what the City of
Plymouth is trying to do on the 20th.
Please try to be at that meeting to support the City's program
for Organized Collection which will keep me working in the City
of Plymouth. If you can not attend the meeting PLEASE call or
write to your City Council for your -support. Their number is
559-2800 at City of Plymouth 3400 Plymouth Blvd. Pl ymouth
2
1' 123QS
55447. , 6>
Thank you in advance. N o
ocam,
Your Garbage Hauler `261S6L49
P.S. These Plymouth Haulers also support the City's proposed
Organized Collection plan to keep all the Haulers working.
Block Sanitation Inc.
Cleanway Sanitation Inc.
Crosstown Sanitation
Dave's Sanitation
G. D. LaPlant Sanitation Inc.
Scherer Sanitation
a'--
r zz a
G
i 7
c,
9`S26Z £ZZL L
L
31
much more ettiaen?ly, use\Ness aasoltne, generoie iess uii uunuuun Ut•U
erase less veor and teor e k,„the` ity Streets.
uld there be any difference"atheJ cost to the resident for one type of
rice or the other?
ause it would be more economical to pick up under Organized Collection,
anticipated that the refuse could be picked up for less than or eq4o[ jo /
it they are now paying under the current system. l /
Nv
of woul be one wi e money saved by switc ng to r /
2
1 rte 1v1crLftCU UtL N
A /
4 E f t f1it l-)
t have enough information to wield pc
t them. Give them the information!
fid' p
redly, don'I XPI
10. 94 FRIDAY,MAY 1 £`
ly Mon. thru Fri., Except P.O. Holidays
onirac_? wi , U - 89torylyL 't .l. nod ,
rr
Private Contractors Haul G T CID
1
For Half Of -Government Co
DON LARSON. Editor & Publisher
Don Larson's Business Newsletter
Why does government cost us so much?
There are hundreds of reasons, but one of
the most important is the waste of hiring
public employees to do jobs that could be
done more efficiently and at much less cost
by the private sector.
Take the job of collecting garbage. I
mentioned in a newsletter a few weeks back
that St. Paul allows private contractors to
pick up garbage, and that the system works
Did U.S. Do The Right Thing
When It Invaded Grenada?
JOHN ELVIN
F;ashinplon Tames Service.
Prime Minister Hebert Blaize of Grenada
says he takes some heat from leftist leaders
around the world about the U.S. invasion of
his country when it was about to fall to
communism.
Did Grenadians really welcome the U.S.
action?
Blaize told a story that he says illustrates
how Grenadians felt. He said there was a
religious man who did not believe in the
power of spiritual healing. One day a woman
came to the man with her little boy in her
arms. She said the boy was deathly ill and no
cure could be found. Would he pray for the
boy'
The religious man said yes, even though
CONTINUED ON PAGE 2
916
wonderfully.
St. Paul city officials are planning to screw
things up with changes that will make
garbage collection more bureaucratic and,
probably, more costly.
All St. Paul officials need to do is to look at
the inefficient and costly garbage system in
sister city Minneapolis.
About half of Minneapolis garbage is
picked up by city crews, and the system is
dismali and getting worse.
For instance, the Minneapolis City Budget
Office has just discovered that city garbage
collectors work an average of only five hours
and 10 minutes a day, but they get paid for a
full eight hours. Unions representing city
garbage collectors don't deny this ripoff. In
fact, union leaders defend the practice as
being "efficient".
The city of Minneapolis, which has 68
public employees, using 13 trucks, to pick
up garbage at 61,679 dwellings, assigns
each truck to a certain number of pickups.
When all the stops are made, the crews can
go home. Records show that each crew
needs only five hours and 10 minutes to
complete the routes. Then they can quit for
the day, even though they get paid for a full
eight hours.
And the pay these city employees receive
is way out of line with salaries paid garbage
collectors with private companies.
Under the new contract just approved for
Minneapolis city garbage collectors, they are
CONTINUED ON PAGE 2
NI
1-
i
STEVEN L RK:KER
3530 ROSEWOOD LN
PLYMOUTH MN 65441
i
Tib -I
Na
Randy Roskowlak
479.3335
RAN DY'S SANITATION
Rt. 3, Box 342
Delano, MN 55328
July 13, 1987
Dear Customer:
This letter .is to bring your attention to a public hearing
being held by the City of Plymouth on Monday, July 20,
1987, in the Plymouth City Center, 3400.Plymouth Blvd.
at 7:30 p.m. -The purpose of the hearing is to solicit
opinions from all concerned people about a "Resolution
of Intent" to adopt an Organized Refuse Collection
System in Plymouth.
By "Organized Collection" the City is proposing to divide
Plymouth into sections and awarding each licensed hauler
a section of the City equal to the number of houses he
presently services.
Putting aside the concerns that we have as a hauler in
the City, we felt there were some concerns that should be
addressed by the citizens:
1. Organized collection takes away the right to chose
who picks up your garbage and what level of service you
prefer.
2. Organized collection would make garbage service
pay
mandatory. Whether you want or need service, y
for it.
3. Because Organized Collection creates a closed monopoly
market, there will no longer be the desire to go the
extra mile" to ring the bell if you forgot it was garbage
day or to get the really smelly can behind the, garage
that you don't want your neighbors to notice. There will
be no incentive to provide that personal touch because
there will be one level of service, one rate, and one
hauler whether you like him or not.
Whether you agree or disagree with the issues I have raised,
I urge you to attend this hearing and voice your opinion.
Sincerely,
P`uw,Lr' -P .-&bb j2
Randall R. Roskowiak
President ri U lti rte/
RESIDENTIAL • COMMERCIAL • SPECIALCLEANUPS I?
93
Randy Roskowiak
479-3335
RANDY'S SANITATION
Rt. 3, Box 342
Delano, MN 55328
July 8, 1987
Mr. Jerry Sisk
17015 - 24th Ave. No.
Plymouth, MN 55447
Dear Mr. Sisk:
nrFu tai
Enclosed is a proposal put together by several independent
garbage companies regarding waste recycling and waste
reduction.
We believe this is a viable solution to the problem that.
the City of.Plymouth has in regard to establishing a
source -separation recycling program, yet it eliminates
the unwanted problems that can.be caused by organized
collection.
We would be very happy to meet with yur Council to
discuss this proposal.
Sincerely,
Sandra L. Roskowiak
Vice -President
Enc.
RESIDENTIAL • COMMERCIAL • SPECIAL CLEANUPS
qq
PRIVATE INDUSTRY'S PROPOSAL
to meet
THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH'S
WASTE RECYCLING/WASTE REDUCTION REQUIREMENTS
1p' c P a,- a Z r- Y r-- 7-
ys
Goals
Plymouth, like every city in the metropolitan area, is faced with the task
of complying with the waste reduction levels mandated in the Metropolitan
Council's Solid Waste Management Development Guide and Policy Plan. Under
the plan, every municipality must, by December 31, 1990:
Have 80% "central processing" of mixed municipal waste
Have 16% source separation of mixed municipal waste
Have 4% waste reduction (at the point of generation) of mixed municipal
waste
To ensure that these goals are achieved, Hennepin County has passed Ordinance 13
which requires each municipality to plan and implement a source -separation
recycling program by January 1, 1988. The main goal of both these programs
is the 16% reduction, above. The Metropolitan Council has determined that
this goal can be reached by. removing 50% of recyclables and 100% of the yard
wastes from the waste stream.
Waste Recycling/Reduction Plan
To achieve the immediate goals of Plymouth, i.e., the development of a
source -separation recycling program and -the 9% waste reduction goal for 1988
set by the Hennepin County Solid Waste Master Plan, it is.proposed that Plymouth
use the following programs:
I. Bi -Weekly City -Wide Residential Curb -Side Recycling Program
A private contractor will provide collection at the curb of three priority
recyclables - glass, cans and newsprint - on an. ever y -other -week schedule.
Savings of the Curb -Side Program
It is estimated that a single-family dwelling unit generates on average
14.1 pounds of recyclable material per week. Even with the collection
of only 50% of those materials, as estimated by the Metropolitan Council,
each single-family dwelling unit hauler would realize a savings in avoided
cost of landfill disposal of $4.39 per unit per year (see attached
analysis).
Waste Stream Reduction of Curb -Side -Proaram
Based on the collection of only 50% of the priority recyclables, Plymouth
would achieve a reduction of 1,980 tons/year from the mixed municipal
waste stream.
qb
2 -
II. City -Wide Yard Waste Elimination Program
Yard waste comprises over 9% of the total mixed municipal waste stream.
An effective program to eliminate yard waste from the total waste stream
is essential to the success'of an overall waste reduction program. Through
mulching and the weekly collection of yard waste by a private contractor,
Plymouth can eliminate yard waste for the mixed municipal waste stream.
Savings of the Yard Waste Elimination Program
It is estimated that the City of Plymouth will generate over 3,289 tons
of yard waste in 1987-88. The total avoided cost of disposal of that
yard waste represents, an estimated saving of $7.30 per single-family
dwelling unit hauler per year (see attached analysis).
Waste Stream Reduction of Yard Waste Elimination Program
The mulching and city-wide collection of yard waste will reduce Plymouth's
mixed municipal waste stream by over 3,289 tons per year.
Total Savings of haste Recycling/Reduction Program
Total savings to the homeowner's hauler is as follows:
Curb -Side Collection of Recyclables $4.39 per year
Elimination and Curb -side Collection of Yard Waste 7.30 per year
Total Savings $11.69 per year
97 per month)
Total Waste Stream Reduction of Waste Recycling/Reduction Program
Curb -side Collection of Recyclables 1,980 tons
Elimination and Curb -side Collection of Yard Waste 3,289 tons
5,269 tons per year
The 5,269 tons removed from the mixed municipal waste stream represents a
27.4% reduction in Plymouth's residential waste stream as estimated by Hennepin
County in their Solid Waste Master Plan. When compared to the 1987 "Total
City" tonnage of 47,436, the 5,269 tons represents an overall reduction of
the waste stream of 11%.
Funding of Programs
The key to the funding of any waste recycling/reduction program is found in
the disposal savings that will accrue to each Plymouth residential refuse
N4-
3-
haul er.
3 -
hauler. The $11.69 savings per home mentioned earlier actually represents
a reduced disposal bill charged to the refuse hauler. This disposal savings
of $.97 ($11.69 + 12) per month would be collected by the City in the form
of an operating licensing fee. When issued an operating license every six
months, each residential refuse hauler would be charged $1.00 per month per
home serviced. The purpose of this license fee would be two -fold. First,
the $1.00 savings in disposal would help fund the waste recycling/reduction
program. Secondly, it would then be in the refuse hauler's financial interest
to have his customers participate in the recycling programs (the operating
license fee having been paid in advance).
Along with funding from a licensing program, additional funding will be
available from Hennepin County. Monies collected by the County from the
Landfill Abatement Tax are distributed to municipalities to assist in source
separation projects. From this source, the City of Plymouth could be reimbursed
up to 80% of its net project expenditures (based on the percentage of waste
stream recovered). It is estimated that 11% of the total waste stream will
be recovered; this would make the City eligible for. a 70% reimbursement of
the cost of the programs. A copy of .the actual sliding scale used by the
county is attached for your review.
Additional funding programs are being finalized by Hennepin County. These
programs are planned to include the continuation of the current $4.00 per
ton payment to municipalites for each ton recovered from the waste stream
or payment of a $.50 per home per year subsidy for ongoing recycling programs.
Since all funding programs will be based on participation, it is important
to have a highly visible recycling program. The use of cable TV, local
newspapers and a "door to door" recycling literature distribution program
will be effective ways of promoting this recycling program. The use of special
containers for recyclables can also be very important in gaining high
participation levels (brochure attached).
By using the licensing fee system in conjunction with funding available from
Hennepin County, the out-of-pocket cost of the waste recycling/reduction program
to the City of Plymouth and it's residents would be ZERO..
Problems of Other Systems:
RDF
The idea of mandating flow control of all Plymouth waste to the Reuter Refuse
Derived Fuel (RDF) Plant is not a way to achieve the source -separation level
mandated by the Metropolitan Council and Hennepin County. Since the waste
would not be source -separated by the generator, .it will not promote the 4%
point of generation" reduction required by the Met Council. It is also
the policy of Hennepin County to disapprove any plan in which the waste is
not separated by the generator.
4-
Organized Collection
CZ
The theory of organized collection poses many concerns and potential problems
for the general public, the private hauler and especially municipalities.
Concerns of the General Public
Organized collection takes away the consumers freedom to choose who picks up
his/her trash and at what level of service that pick up can be offered. Plymouth,
as an affluent suburb, has a relatively high percentage of "back door" service.
A reduction in this rate of service will be an unpopular proposal to many
residents.
Other concerns of the general public would be the mandatory service required
under an organized system. The choice of those independent home owners who
choose to take their trash to the landfill/transfer station themselves is taken
away.
Since, under organized collection, each refuse company would be granted a separate
district in which only that company can provide service, what alternative would
the resident have if the refuse removal service proved unacceptable? The refuse
hauler no longer has an incentive to provide good service or competitive rates
to his customers, he now operates in a closed monopoly market.
Concerns of the Private Haulers
As mentioned earlier, organized collection destroys the incentive of the private
refuse hauler to provide his customers with good service. The incentive to
provide good service is competition. Organized collection is an anti -competitive
system which denies private industry any opportunity to expand its service area
or capitalize on its ability to meet the different needs of the public. Many
residential refuse haulers rely on their "personal touch" service to retain
and expand their customer base. Organized collection negates any advantages
a private refuse hauler might have in offering a different type of service.
Private haulers face many service inequities under an organized system. Every
refuse hauler has different costs and procedures of operation. Organized
collection does not take in to account some key elements of the refuse collection
business:
1) Volume
2) Unequal distance to landfill/transfer station
3) Differences in growth potential
If all the rates are the same, how does a hauler get compensated for a greater
distance to the landfill/transfer station? If one side of the city is fully
developed and the other side a new and growing development, who gets this new
expansion? These concerns are answered by private industry, not organized collec-
tion.
49
5 -
Concerns of Municipalities
The "active supervision" required by law of an organized
be a major undertaking for the City of Plymouth. With
to administer the program, monitor service complaints,
expense of "no payments" or "late payments", etc., the
enter the refuse collection business in a very big way.
collection system would
the expense of staff
realign boundries, the
City will unknowingly
Safety and third party liabilities are also a concern of municipalites. Since
the City would be under contract to the Organized Collection Corporation, the
City would have the ultimate responsibility for the trash under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (Superfund). The City must also be concerned
with the insurance coverage levels of all of the refuse haulers. By contracting
with the Organized Collection Corporation, the City could be named as a third
party in any resulting lawsuit. This third party liability would also include
any possible Workers Compensation action.
Organized collection exposes the City of Plymouth to areas of liability and
expense that are now handled and absorbed by private industry. The actions
necessary for installing an organized system, districting (lack of choice),
mandatory service, limited service and potential bad service open City officials
to large areas of potential public outcry.
Recycling, which is the main goal of Plymouth, is not
collection. A private industry effort, like the one
the City, can and will solve the needs of Plymouth as
politan Council.
50
dependent on organized
proposed, supported by
mandated by the Metro -
Analysis of savings and total waste stream reduction of proposed waste recycling/
waste reduction programa
Curb -side Collection Program
14.1 lbs. of recyclable material generated per home per week
14.1 lbs. x 52 weeks = 733 lbs. of recyclables generated per year
733 lbs. 1 2,000 = .366 tons of recycl abl es that will be removed from the waste
stream
366 tons x $24.00/ton (current disposal rate) = $8.78 savings of avoided disposal
cost per home per year
8.78 x 50% = $4.39 savings per home per year
50% is the amount estimated by the Metropolitan Council to be recovered.
Elimination of Yard Waste Program
3,289 tons of yard waste generated per year
3,289 tons x $24.00/ton (current disposal rate) = $78,936/year avoided disposal
cost
78,936 1 10,800 homes = $7.30 savings of avoided disposal cost. per year
Total savings in avoided disposal cost per single-family dwelling:
Curb -side Recycling $4.39
Yard Waste $7.30
11.69 savings in disposal/year
11.69 1 12 months = $.97/month
Total reduction of the waste stream:
Curb -side Recycling 1,980 Tons
Yard Waste 3,289 Tons
5,269 Tons/year
5,269 Tons = 27.4% reduction of waste stream
19,210 (total residential tonnage generated in Plymouth)
5,269 Tons = 11.0% reduction of waste stream
47,436 (total of all tonnage generated in Plymouth)
51
lebrvary 24, 1966;
The County board rill prwA de financial assistance for source-sepe.ration
projects to govern ental units in Eerr*pin County in accordance vith the
follovinb guidelines.
no and Level of County Participation
It is the policy of the County to sake grants to eligible applicants
in amounts which are the greater of:
A percentage of documented net project expenditures directly applicable
to the project as follows:
5M of net project expenditures for program's in cities where 0%
to 5% of the local waste stream is being recovered;
60% of net project expenditures for program in cities where over
5% to 10% of the local waste stream is being recovered;
70% of net project expenditures for programs in cities where over
lo% to 16% of the local waste stream is being recovered.
80X of net project expenditures for programs in cities where over
16% of the local waste stream is being recovered.
OR -
for documented project expenses, an amount not to exceed $0.25 per
household (according to current available Metropolitan Council
estinates) per community, per year, for eligible cities and townships.
Project expenses include, but are not limited to, expenditures for:
contract payments for collection, transport, or
processing of recyclable materials;
equipment;
land and buildings;
purchase or rental;
direct salary of employees working part-time on
the project for planning, coordination, publicity,
inspection, collection, transport, and/or processing
of materials;
direct salary and fringe benefits for employees working
full -tine (annual basis) on the project for planning,
coordination, publicity, collection, transport, and/or
processing of materials;
costs of consultant services for planning, coordination,
publicity, inspection, collection, transport, and/or
processing of materials.
net project expenditures" in this policy statement means the City's
project costs after deducting-
revenues from sale of recyclable materials;
State Landfill Surcharge funds distributed by Metropolitan Council
per -tonnage and per household payments); or
other grants received from government units or agencies made
specifically for the said source separation/recycling project.
sa
Soul gasto Sourco-S+pamtton rrcCrVM
no 2
ilirible Intitiaa
Cities and toy athi p in Sennepin Canty
Bli=ible Sourct-Scperation Activities
Curbs ide/Alleyside collection of recyclables.
Recycling drop-off centers-
Recycling redemption centers.
Tard-vaste composting and co -composting;
Separate collection and composting of yard waste.
Program for the recovery of commercial and
industrial vaster, such as office paper and corrugated paper.
program for the recovery of special waste categories, such as
trees, tires, etc., are not eligible under this policy, but
v1ll be considered by the County Board.
Cities may apply for percentage reimbursements for more -than
one source-separat ion/ recycl in& program.
PlEd -Duration
The County will fund ongoing programs; bovever, County
participation will be on a year-to-year basis. After six
months of the initial program, applicants may apply for
subsequent one-year fundings and such applications must be
accompanied by a report on program results and costs.
Funding Sources
Hennepin County's share of the metropolitan counties' landfill
surcharge tax allocated for abatement shall be the first priority
funding source.
A special. fee added to the waste-to-energy/transfer station tipping
fee shall be the second priority funding source. The County shall
estimate and budget funds for annual source -separation costs until
such time as tipping fee proceeds are available.
Cost Effectiveness
Applications for initial funding, and subsequent one-year fundings,
Aust demonstrate that the total program costs per ton of waste processed
through the program are less than other major long-term waste -
management methods set forth in County vaste-management plans.
53
LMlication Procedure
applicants must submit tvo copies of their application to the Chairman
of the County Board. The application must include infgrmation vhl ch
ad"taly describes the project; sets forth the proj*ct's operation,
financing, and management plan; and includes estimates of the project's
coats and benefits. County staff shall reviev all initial applications,
and all initial applications shall be submitted to the county Board for
consideration. If approved for furAi.ng, contracts shall be executed
according to County contract preparation and approval provisions.
The County shall endeavor vithin four years to have all grants to
cities on the same annual funding cycle, and the County shall establish
procedures to simplify the funding renewal of on-going city source-
separation/recyclirig programs where there is little or no change from
year to year.
DGY: mvr
FUNDDC
2/24/86
s'1
COMPANY
BACKGROUND
A-1 Products Corp. was incorporated in August,
1984 to specialize in complete "package deals" for
recycling equipment.
The principals of the company bring 8 years of direct
experience in recycling and 28 years experience
in materials handling and the development of the
business. V* have:
Taught materials handling at several colleges.
Researched a wide range of projects on how plas-
tics most effectively relate to materials handling.
Bulk containerized in plastic for the recycling Indus-
try Dealer and Broker network In Canada and the
United States.
N Been involved in the supply and development of
l
containers for curbside recycling programs for the
City of Kitchener, the City of Mississauga', the Re-
Bion of ottawa/Carleton, and Monroe County, Wisc,
A-1 Products Corp. brings an in-depth understanding
of the recycling industry and materials handling. We
are in an unique position to advise companies and
municipalities on the use of containers in curbside,
multi -material recycling programs. The A-1 recycling
container reflects this expertise.
The larRrsr rvrAridr rcprl(rGq prt?grvm In ACxth Amrra.
Awt
2
Box 61, Etobkoke, Ontario, Canada M9C 4V2
INTRODUCES
THE
BWEBO)
CURBSIDE RECYCLING In addition to being an Internal householder 2. PROCESS: This one pkce in*don molded i
reminder, A I containers are a powerful neighbour- taincr is tapered to permit bulk nesdn for sig
hood publicity tool when set out at curbside on cant Improvement In tmnsportadon/stoi
t
1' 1 ur idpalides across North America face increasing collection days. Neighbours will feel pressure to eflidency. This process guarantees a uniform
waste disposal problems. Mste quantities continue to add their container to the line-up on their street. thickness to ensure maximum designed smn
increase and as existing landfill sites become filled, they Collection time is saved through easy identification at all points of every A-1 container.
are difficult to replace and costly to develop. of recyclables by collectors, and collection stops are 3. DURABIl.]<I'Y: Since curbside containers
Governments at all levels now recognize that recycling reduced where homeowners are educated to only exposed to extreme weather conditions
can be an n=mely important part of waste manage- put their containers out when they are full. abusive handling, it is important that they be rr
ment as new curbside recycling programs appear Contamination will be lessened at the point of from the strongest, most durable material.
almost wrekly In progressive communities throughout loading when appropriate containers are used to
easily separate various materials,
containers will:
o withstand temperamm from —500F to +15NorthAmerica.
A-1 PRODUCTS CORP. has played an important role in 0 A-1 containers avoid the usual problems of paper o resist damage from most household then -k
solvenm
many of these communities by providing A-1 recycling
containers which has dramatically increased pardcipa-
bags and boxes which deteriorate when wet and
stick to snow and ice, resulting In scattered o reser deterioration fivm sunt; a UV sabi
don in existing programs. Curbside recycling is a rapidly materials. This litter is a public relations problem; is blended Into the material.
o not rust, dent or fade; they react the hon" expanding field which will continue to grow In the an irritation to the collector; increases collection
in perfect condition and stay looking deetfuture. A-1 PRODUCTS CORP. will be an important costs.
bright for marry yeampartofthatfuture. It is strongly recommended that arty municipality
studying curbside collection should seriously consider
4. UNIQUELY REINFORCED DESIGN:
THE ADVANTAGES OF using 1 containers
containers are
and upper pm
Q KCYCLINGWl-iY TME A-1 EMURES OORP"
YC. ONTAINERS BLUE BOX IS THE
5. OTHER
Fadded
MI PPMUM
MIMARKETLEADERforarecyclingconminetfor
Recycling containers have become a critical part of
tainers' unique RD drainage systan win ms
leakage of spilled Ik* residue ortro any door
many curbside programs in the United States and The "Blue
allows full drainage of ail excess rain wawa
Canada. Practical experience praves that participadon A-1 Box" is the only appropriate container snowmelt.
can grow from 30-35% to as high as 75-80% with for use in multi -material, curbside recycling programs. The A-1 container is familiar to Maces as "
tonnages increasing by as much as three times, it incorporates, the results of years of "hands on'.
Blue Box" but a variety of standard cobu
where appropriate containers are used, recycling experience with recent research findings to available
One major waste management company that uses A-1
You
provide the homeowner and the program operator with
a custom designed container for their needs. to most Mi PRODU
containers has told us can't get people to recycle CORP a ProcnAeasily, but give them a free A-1 container and they put Outstanding quality is a hallmark of A-1 Products' message (eg. "WE RECYCLE.? on e
their rccyclables at the curb even before the program recycling containers: container.
starts!" There are marry reasons why A-1 recycling con-
tainers make sense, e.g.:
1. RAW MATERIAL: A-1 PRODUCTS CORP. sped- The A-1 dyfiestopqualitymediumdensity, high flow polyeth- container will contributesigni(icw to
12 A-1 containers add to the convenience of sorting ylene to ensure maximum strength with minimum success of any current recycling program an
and storage in the home which presents a strong weight. This is particularly important in a recycling designed to accommodate future advances in hand
inducement for the householder to begin, and sus- container where the homeowner must carry rela- and sorting technology now w)der dvm], mene.
twin, source separation activitim lively heavy material from the home to curbside. Contact us to tram how A-1 PRODUCT'S CORP.
enhance the success of yvtu program. r°
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
MEMO
DATE: June 10, 1987 for the Council Meeting of June 15, 1987
TO: James G. Willis, City Manager through Fred G. Moore, Director of
Public Works
FROM: Dick Pouliot, Project Coordinator
SUBJECT: Organized Refuse Collection in the City of Plymouth
Attached is a memo dated February 17, 1987,, containing an excerpt
from the Metropolitan Council Solid Waste Management Development
Guide and Policy Plan on the advantages of an Organized Waste
Collection System, and the recommendations of the Plymouth Recycling
Committee to proceed toward an Organized Collection System. Also
attached is Resolution No. 87-134, which the City Council passed in
response to the above said memo. The resolution basically directed
the staff to meet with the licensed refuse haulers in the City of
Plymouth and hold informational meetings with citizen groups and
draft necessary ordinance with the intent that .following a public
hearing by the City Council an Organized Solid Waste Collection
System would be implemented in the City of Plymouth.
In response to the above resolution, meetings were held with the
licensed haulers in the City of Plymouth. They have taken
preliminary steps toward forming a corporation or partnership in
order to negotiate a contract for Organized Refuse Collection in the
City of Plymouth. In the process of forming this corporation, their
efforts were hindered by a law suit against the City of Champlin, who
was also proposing an Organized Refuse Collection System. The basis
of the suit was that this violated the anti-trust laws of the State
of Minnesota. The Minnesota Legislature in its latest session passed
an amendment to the Waste Management Act of 1980 (excerpts attached)
which states that local government units may organize collection as a
municipal service, or ordinance, franchise, license, negotiated or
bidded contract or other means using one or more collectors or an
organization of collectors. It further stated that at least 90 days
prior to implementing Organized Collection in the City, a resolution
of intent to implement must be passed by the City Council and that
the resolution of intent could be passed only after at least two
weeks public notice and mailed notice to the persons known by the
S_
Memo: James G. Willis
June 10, 1987
Page Two
City to be operating collection services within the City.
The attached resolution establishes July 20 as the date for said
public hearing on the resolution of intent to implement Organized
Collection Service in the City of Plymouth at a point in time not
less than 90 days after the date of said public hearing. Attached is
a draft copy of the Ordinance which would implement Organized
Collection.
arf (no,6.A , a. - '. ,
Richard J.- PAliot
RJP:kh
Attachments: Memo
Resolution 87-134
Excerpts
Draft Ordinance
Resolution
DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES
ORDINANCE NO. 87 -
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE,
ESTABLISHING AN ORGANIZED REFUSE COLLECTION SYSTEM
WITHIN THE CITY FOR REFUSE COLLECTION,
AMENDING SECTION 600 OF THE PLYMOUTH CITY CODE,
AND ADDING A NEW SECTION TO THE CODE
The City Council of the City of Plymouth ordains:
Section 1. The Plymouth City Code, Section 600.01 is
amended by adding new subdivisions to read:
Subd. 4. "Organized Refuse Collection" means a system for
collecting refuse in which a specified collector, or a member of
an organization of collectors, contracts with the City to collect
some or all of the refuse that is generated within the City or
within a defined geographic area of the City.
Subd. 5. "Refuse" means both garbage and rubbish.
Section 2. The Plymouth City Code, Section 600 is amended
by adding a new subsection to read:
600.04. Organized Refuse Collection. The City shall
provide organized refuse collection for all single family
residences, duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes within the City.
Owners or occupants of such residences desiring to begin or
terminate organized refuse collection service shall notify the
City Finance Department.
Section 3. The Plymouth City Code, Section 600.05 is
amended to read:
600.05. Use of License Collectors. Pereens Owners and
Occupants of property other than single family residences,
duplexes, triplexes, and four lexes desiring to make use of the
services of licensed garbage-and-ubbzsh refuse collectors may do
so by notifying such collector and paying the fees provided for
in this section.
Section 4. The Plymouth City Code, Section 600.09,
Subdivision 1 is amended to read:
600.09. License Required for Collectors. Subdivision 1.
General Rule. It is unlawful for any person to collect garbage
without having first secured from the Council a license so to do- or without having first entered into a contract with the City for
organized refuse collection.
Section 5. The Plymouth City Code, Section 600.13 is
amended to read:
600.13. Service Charges; Manner of Payment. The expense ,of
garbage collection except organized refuse collection shall be
paid to the collector monthly, by the owner, agent, occupant, or
tenant of the premises form which such garbage is collected, and
such fee shall be full compensation for his services in such
collection but in no case shall the fee charged for such
collection exceed maximum sums set by the Council, provided that
if the tenant or occupant of the property fails to pay said
expense, the owner shall be liable therefore to the collector.
The collector may refuse to make collection from any premises
when the fees provided for herein are not paid within 30 days
from the date when due. The collector shall notify the Health
Officer and the Chief of Police of the discontinuance of such
service to any premises within two days after service is
discontinued. The fee for organized refuse collection shall be
billed to the owner, agent, occupant or tenant on a monthly basis
and. shall be paid monthly to the City in the same manner as
payment on the City's water and utility bill. Any un aid bill
for organized collection services.may be collected in the same
manner as an unpaid water and utility bill.
Section 6. This Ordinance is effective on
Adopted this day of
ATTEST:
Laurie Brandt
City Clerk
1987.
Virgil Schneider
Mayor
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400
PLYMOUTHBPLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
TEEPHONE (
MEMO
DATE: February 17., 1987 for the Council Meeting of February 23, 1987
TO: James G. Willis, City Manager through Fred G. Moore, Director of
Public Works
FROM: Dick Pouliot, Project Coordinator
SUBJECT: Recycling Status Report
Solid Waste Collection
In calendar year 1986 the total recyclables collected by the City of
Plymouth reached 546.8 tons for a nine month average of 60.75 tons per
month. The City's monthly goal, established by Hennepin County and the
Metropolitan Council for 1986 was 150.6 tons per month. The contract
hauler was paid $20,250.00 for the nine month period which equates to
37.03 per ton of recyclables, this figure is very close to that paid by
other cities. As the volume increases the cost per ton to pick up will go
down.
I have attached a graph which shows the January 1987 tons collected of 52.2
tons, which is up somewhat from the previous three months.
A meeting of the Recycling Committee made up of Councilmembers David Crain
and Bob Zitur, Frank Boyles, Fred Moore and Dick Pouliot, met on Tuesday
evening February 10th to discuss plans for the 1987 Recycling Program. The
The Committee recommended that we proceed to finalize the 1987 Recycling
Contract with Super Cycle, Inc. which would start April 1st for a one year
period. The new Contract would increase collections to twice per month,
and would also expand service to multifamily apartment buildings on a
subscription basis. Additional dropoff centers will also be provided at no
additional cost to the City.
In order to capture the additional tons of grass clippings and leaves now
going to landfills, the Committee recommends that a Compost Curbside
Collection Program be initiated in May and continue through October. The
County goal for composting material for 1987 is 2% of the total waste
stream, or 904.2 tons per year. If this total is collected over a six
month period, it equates to 150.7 tons per month. Arrangements to pick up
the material and haul it to a County or local composting area would be by
an addition to the Recycling Pickup Contract or a separate Contract.
In order to satisfy the requirements of the Hennepin County Designation
Ordinance and Ordinance 13, new City Ordinances will be required, which:
a. Designate that all Plymouth solid waste remaining after
separation of recyclables be disposed of at the Greyhound
Burn Facility as soon as it is operational.
1
1'M WV.•• ------
February 17, 1987
Page Two
b. Require all residents and Commercial/Industrial establish-
ments to source/separate recyclables from other solid waste.
C. Prevent any hauler from collecting or picking up any
non -separated or mixed solid waste from any location in the
city.
d. Prevent any non -authorized person or hauler from scavenging
separated or unseparated solid waste in the City.
The Committee agreed that the City basically has no choice but to make
every attempt to reach the recycling goals set by Hennepin County and the
Metropolitan Council, and that in order to reach these goals major changes
will be necessary in the future methods of solid waste collection in the
City. The "Outline Guide Toward Implementation of an Organized Refuse
Collection in the City of Plymouth" (December 12, 1986 memo, attached) was
reviewed. It was agreed or conceded that the City of Plymouth has no Solid
Waste Management System at the present time; that in spite of several years
of increased emphasis on Solid Waste Disposal Management, we are still
merely standing by and "observing. what is happening" versus "making things
happen". An Organized Refuse Collection System would provide a management
tool to determine how much refuse is collected, when it is collected, where
it is deposited, etc. It would provide a means to enforce ordinances
required by County Ordinance 13 and would be a much more efficient system
than the open system now in effect. It was recognized that there is always
resistance to change and this may be unpopular with the public at first.
Some advantages of organized collection are recognized in the Metropolitan
Council Solid Waste Management Development Guide Policy Plan, which was
adopted in 1985. (excerpt attached).
The following two methods of organized collection were discussed along with
some advantages and disadvantages of each:
1. The , City buys trucks and hires additional people and
performs a collection service in house.
2. The City assumes the collection responsibility and contracts
for .the service via a bid or negotiated contract.
Because of the large capital outlay required for Option 1, as well as
ongoing maintenance and management costs, it is not recommended. Option 2
would be the form of organized collection recommended. There would be no
large capital outlay and all services would be by contract and either bid
or negotiated. To bid the contract would open the door for very
competitive bids by the large contract haulers who would then squeeze the
smaller contractors out of business. Since this is undesirable and the
City has no desire to force the small contractors out of business, a
negotiated contract is recommended. A parent company would be formed by
the collectors now licensed in the City and each would be reassigned the
same number of pickups that he had before, only in a concentrated area of
the City. In the event a contract could not be negotiated, or if the
service level were to. deteriorate, the option to bid a new contract would
always be retained and available.
Memo: James G. Willis
February 17; 1987
Page Three
How to pay for the pickup service is a question with some options which
would need to be decided..
1. The contractor "parent company", would bill the resident
directly for the service.
2. The City would pick up the billing responsibility, bill the
residents for service and pay the contractor monthly; similar to
water/sewer billing.
3. The City would pay the contractor monthly from the general fund.
The City is permitted to levy a tax which is not included with
levy limits.
Of the above options Number 2 is recommended. It could be performed by the
City for little additional cost such as programming the computer and adding
it on to the sewer/water bills. It would save the administrative cost to
the contractor and these savings would then be passed on to the residents.
In addition to the administrative cost saved the hauler's time and gasline
costs could be reduced by as much as 50% by having all customers in a
concentrated area. Preliminary information shows that pickup costs
currently vary from $8 to $11 per month. By negotiating a contract which
reflects the cost saving to the hauler mentioned, and by billing the
residents no more than the current average charge per service, the entire
cost of recycling pickup service should be covered and would no longer
require payment from the general fund.
In establishing an Organized Collection System, a, major question which must
be answered is: "What would the standard level of service be"? (i.e.
curbside pickup or at garage pickup, etc.) Since recyclables are now
picked up at the curb, and eventually it is hoped that both the refuse and
recyclables could be picked up the same day and in the same place, I would
recommend starting with the curbside level of service. A later study could
determine the feasibility and desirability of a higher level of service for
both trash and recyclables.
The present system of each unit being able to choose the company, or the
person who would perform the service at any particular location, is a
choice that would be removed by an organized system. All companies now
licensed in the City are considered to be doing a fine job and it is
expected that this would continue no matter who the individual company or
person was doing that collecting. Therefore, this forfeiture is considered
minimal.
The attached resolution would instruct the staff to proceed with the
necessary informational meetings and draft the necessary resolutions which
would eventually be brought back to the Council for a public hearing and
final decision on the implementation of an organized refuse collective
system in the City of Plymouth, along the general guidelines as recommended
above.
J. Pouliot
RJP:kh
Attachments
NO
D E F',
1!',`--.'---
l--.-'- L. 1 1%, ILL -
in
I
Ail
I "PR
OUTLINE GUIDE TOWARD IMPLEMENTATION OF
AN ORGANIZED REFUSE COLLECTION SYSTEM IN
THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH
I. The Solid Waste Committee, consisting of Councilmembers Crain and
Zitur, Frank Boyles, Fred Moore and Dick Pouliot, set date and hold
meeting to discuss the following:
A. The 1987 Recycling Program and Goals:
B. Hennepin County Ordinance 13
Have the City Attorney draft City Ordinance required by
Ordinance 13 for Council action.
C. The Metropolitan Council Organized Collection Study.
D. The need for a Solid Waste Advisory Committee.
E. Billing options under an organized collection system.
1. Ad Vlourum Tax and furnish collection as a service.
2. Special Assessment
3. Monthly billing by Finance Department
II. Notify all Plymouth licensed refuse haulers of a meeting to discuss
organized residential refuse collection for the City of Plymouth.
A. Set date.
B. Invite Chuck Cutter from MRI.
C. Hold the discussion meeting.
D. Determine feelings pro and con of haulers, answer questions and
discuss concerns of the haulers.
E. Suggest additional organizational meetings of haulers and
preliminary organizational steps be taken toward forming a
corporation with the intent toward a negotiated contract with
the City.
III. Review City Ordinances for changes needed to implement organized
collection.
A. Have City Attorney draft new ordinances as necessary.
IV. Advertise, set date and hold public information meeting on proposed
organized collection system and ordinance changes.
A. Deter -mine feelings pro and con of public, answer questions,
discuss concerns with the public, and point out the advantages.
N1
V, Monitor progress of haulers organization
A, Obtain estimated date to implement organized
collection from
hauler's prospective.
B. Set proposed future date.
VI. Advertise, set date and hold public hearing on
implementation of
residential
organized refuse
collection system by the City of Plymouth
nces effective on dates set in VB. and proposed ordina
tiations with newly formed (PRI?) representatives.
VII. Begin contract nego
A. Review the Minneapolis
contract with MRI, Inc.
B. Sign negotiated contract.
n th e City Of
VIII. Begin organized
residential ref use collectionartment Complexes.
Plymouth. Single family through multiple ap
Continue to Review Commercial n
lectionCitlnWiderlal
all
Tefese
Collection
Toward Evenual Or anized Col
on
implementation of organized refuse
IX. Set date, hold public hearing
collection city-wide, all types.
Im lenient Or anized Refuse Collection City -Wide all Types
0
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
DEVELOPMNENT GUIDE/POLICY
PLAEXCERPT
WASTE COLLECTION SERVICES
The regional strategy depends on efficient solid waste collection services - Most of the waste is collected in the Metropolitan Area under an "open arrange-
ment"
where the collector contracts directly with those who generate thewaste. This arrangement, however, has resulted in waste collection servicesthatinmanyareasoftheregionareinefficient. Frequently, for example, there are several waste collectors collecting from homes along the samestreets, perhaps even on the same day. As a result, waste collectors have to
30
travel greater distances between stops, which increases their fuel and laborcosts. For the community, it means more truck traffic, street maintenance, noise and vehicle emissions and safety problems.
This open arrangement has also been a hindrance to recycling and resourcerecovery. Under the existing system, the waste collector, not the recyc1er orresident, benefits from recycling. For each ton of material removed from thewastestream, the waste collector is rewarded by collecting, transporting anddisposingofonelesstonofwaste. If the benefit of recovery, in this case. avoided -costs, is not distributed equitably throughout the system, there is nosignificantfinancialmotivetoexpandexistingrecyclingprograms.
Under an organized system, the alternative to the open arrangement, the localgovernmentorresidentialassociationcouldnegotiatewithcollectorsforwastehaulingon. behalf of households,, businesses and other generators of waste.' Con- tracts with the collectors tan -establish efficient routing systems and provideforlocalrecyclingandotherrecoveryservices. .An example that works well istheMinneapolisprogram_ Working with a consortium of waste collectors, thecityhasbeenabletoprovideefficientcollectionservicesandcurb -siderecyclingcity-wide.
Organized collection services could play a major role in implementing theregionalstrategy. Organized collection is particularly adaptable to using sub - regional service areas, and offers savings to the local community and wastecollector. The Council is currently evaluating organized collection, and willcompleteareportinmid -1985.
It is im rtant that enough markets, or consum/exiilling to taketheproductsfmsolidwasterecoveryprograms, sy, compost, grass, paper and res' uals like a.sh. Without this derecovery has littlechanceofsucceing. Although markets have afactor in past decis- ions, there has n er been a concerted effort arket conditions intheregion.
Markets can include indu ries, businesses governmental units, groups of peo- ple and individuals. Cruci 1 to the suc ss of the regional strategy is expand- ing existing markets and deve' ping ne, ones. Priority must be given to havingsuchaprograminplacein198 . Mar is will see this as a serious commitmenttochangingwastemanagementprac ' _s and an opportunity for investments.
Enacting an innovative program r uire the cooperation of a number of govern- mental agencies and the businez communi Currently cnma neo r _
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a meeting of the City
Council of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota was held on the day of
1987. The following members were present:
The following members were absent: *'
introduced the following Resolution and moved
its adoption:
RESOLUTION N0. 87 -
DIRECTING STAFF TO PROCEED WITH INFORMATIONAL MEETINGS WITH
REFUSE HAULERS AND THE PUBLIC TOWARD EVENTUAL IMPLEMENTATION OF
ORGANIZED REFUSE COLLECTION IN THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH
WHEREAS, the City of Plymouth currently has an open system of refuse collection;
and
WHEREAS, the Metropo.litan Council Solid Waste Management Development Guide and
Policy Plan points out the advantag-es of an Organized Collection System; and
WHEREAS, increasing emphasis by State, Metropolitan Council and County
Governments dictate a more active role in the Waste Management area by local
governments; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to reach the Recycling goals established by Hennepin
County; and
WHEREAS, an Organized Garbage Collection System would provide a means to
achieve those goals.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA That City Staff proceed to hold informational meetings with
the licensed refuse haulers in the City of Plymouth and hold public information
meetings and draft necessary Ordinances with the intent that following the
final public hearing the issue of an Organized Solid Waste Collection System
will be brought before the City Council.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded by
and upon vote being taken thereon, the
following voted in favor thereof:
The following voted against or abstained:.
Whereupon the Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
69
ter*
I section may be enforced by the agency pursuant to section
2 115.071.
3 Sec. 26. Minnesota Statutes 1986, section 115A.921, is
4 amended to read:
5 115A.921 [CITY OR TOWN FEE AUTHORITY.)
6 A city or town may charge impose a fee, not to exceed i5 25
7 cents per cubic yard of waste, or its equivalent, of -sol=d -waste
8 accepted -and -disposed -of on landT-to operators.of facilities for
9 the disposal of mixed municipal solid waste located within the
10 city or town. The revenue from the fees shall -go must be
11 credited to the city or town general fund and used only for
12 purposes of landfill abatement or for purposes of mitigating and
13 compensating for the local risks, costs, and other adverse
14 effects of facilities. Waste residue from energy and resource
15 recovery facilities at which solid waste is processed for the
16 purpose of extracting, reducing, converting to energy, or
17 otherwise separating and preparing solid waste for reuse shall
18 be exempt from one-half the amount of the fee imposed by a city
19 or town under this section if there is at least an 85 percent
20 volume reduction in the solid waste processed. Before any fee
21 is reduced, the verification procedures of section 473.843,
22 subdivision 1, paragraph (c), must be followed and submitted to
23 the appropriate city or town.
24 Sec. 27. (115A.94) [ORGANIZED COLLECTION.]
25 Subdivision 1. (DEFINITION.) "Organized collection" means
26 a system for collecting solid waste in which a specified
27 collector, or a member of an organization of collectors, is
28 authorized to collect from a defined geographic service area or
29 areas some or all of the solid waste that is released by
30 generators for collection.
31 Subd. 2. [LOCAL AUTHORITY.) A city or town may organize
32 collection, after public notification as required in subdivision
33 4. A county may organize collection as provided in subdivision
34 5,
35 Subd. 3. [GENEP.AL PROVISIONS.) (a) The local government
36 unit may organize collection as a municipal service or by
F"V
mowH.F. No. 794
1 ordinance franchise, licenser negotiated or bidded contract, or
2 other means, using one or more collectors or an organization of
3 collectors.
4 (b) The local government unit may not _establish or
5 administer organized collection in a manner that impairs the
6 preservation and development of recycling and markets for
7 recyclable materials The local government unit:shall exempt
8 recyclable materials from organized collection upon_a showing by
9 the generator or collector that the materials are or will be
10 separated from mixed municipal solid waste by the generator,
11 se rately collected, and delivered for reuse in their original
12 form or for use in a manufacturing process.
13
w (
c) The local government unit may invite and employ the
14 assistance of interested persona, including persons operating
15 solid waste collection services, in developing plans and
16 pro sals for organized collection and in establishing the
17 organized collection system.
1B (d) Organized collection accomplished by contract o r as a
19 municipal service may include a requirement that all or any
20 portion of the solid waste except 1 recyclable materials and
21 (2) materials that are processed at a resource recovery facility
22 at the capacity in operation at the time that the requirement is
23 imposed, be delivered to a waste facility identified by the
24 local government unit In a district or county where a resource
25 recovery facility has been designated by ordinance under section
26 115A.86, organized collection must conform to the requirements
27 of the designation ordinance._
28 Subd. 4. (CITIES AND TOWNS; NOTICE; PLANNING.] a At
29 least 90 da s before proposinq an ordinancel
franchise, license,
30 contract or other means of organizing
collection, a city or
31 town by resolution of the qoverninq body, shall announce its
32 intent to organize collection and invite the participation of
33 interested persons in planning and establishing the organized
34 collection system.
35 (b) The resolution of intent must be adoptedafter a public
36 hearing. The hearing must be held at least two weeks after
f
1 public notice and mailed notice to persons known by the city or.
2 town to be operating solid waste collection services in the city
3 or town. The failure to give mailed notice to persons or defect
4 in the notice does not invalidate the proceedings, provided a
5 bona fide effort to comply with notice requirements has been
6 made.
7 (c) During the 90 day period following the resolution of
8 intent, and before proposing a method of organizing collection,
9 the city or town shall develop or supervise the development of
10 plans or proposals for organized collection.
11 ( ) Upon request, the city or town shall provide mailed
12' notice of subsequent proceedings on the organization of
13 collection in the city or town.
14 Subd. 5. (COUNTY ORGANIZED COLLECTION.] (a) A county may
15 by ordinance require cities and towns within the county to
16 organize collection. Organized collection ordinances of
17 counties may:
18 11) require cities and towns to require the separation and
19 separate collection of recyclable materials;
20 L2) specify the material to be separated; and
21 13) require cities and towns to meet any performance
22 standards for source separation that are contained in the county
23 solid waste plan. ~
T
24 (b) A county may itself organize collection in any city or
25 town that does not comply with a county organized collection
26 ordinance adopted under this subdivision, and the county may
27 implement, as part of its organized collection, the source
28 separation program and performance standards required by its
29 organized collection ordinance.
30 Sec. 28. Minnesota Statutes 1986, section 115A.95, is
31 amended to read:
32 115A.95 [RECYCLABLE MATERIALS.]
33 A resource recovery facility that is composting waste,
34 burning waste, or converting waste to energy or to materials for
35 combustion, and is owned or operated by a public agency or
36 supported by public funds or by obligations issued by a public
g
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTHBONELVD(MO2UTH, MINNESOTA 55447
TE
MEMO
DATE: June 10, 1987 for the Council Meeting of June 15, 1987
TO: James G. Willis, City Manager through Fred G. Moore, Director of
Public Works
FROM: Dick Pouliot, Project Coordinator
SUBJECT: Proposed City Ordinance Establishing a
Source Separation Program for Recyclable Materials
In response to guidance from the State Legislature and the
Metropolitan Council the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners
adopted Ordinance 13 on October 30, 1986, a copy of which is
attached. Section 2, General Provisions, Subsection 1 requires each
municipality to "adopt an ordinance or ordinances •relating to the
separation of recyclables within the boundaries of the municipality,
the purpose of said ordinance being to reduce the amount of solid
waste generated within the municipality by at least 16% during
calendar year 1990".
Attached is a proposed ordinance for Plymouth which would comply with
the provisions of Hennepin County Ordinance 13, and establishes a
Source Separation Program. The proposed ordinance follows the same
general provisions of Section 5. of Hennepin County Ordinance 13 which
would be implemented by the County in the City in the event that the
City failed to meet the objectives of the Hennepin County goal.
In order that this matter can have public input it is recommended
that the City Council hold a public hearing. We would notify
homeowner associations of the public hearing along with a flyer in
the July issue of "Plymouth on Parade".
Attached is a resolution which would establish July 20 as the date
for a public hearing on the proposed ordinance.
a-& I
Richard J. Pouliot
RJP:kh
Attachments: Ordinance 13
Proposed Ordinance
Resolution
113
DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES
ORDINANCE NO. 87 -
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE,
ESTABLISHING A SOURCE SEPARATION PROGRAM FOR
RECYCLABLE MATERIALS, AND AMENDING CHAPTER VI
OF THE PLYMOUTH CITY CODE BY ADDING
A NEW SECTION TO THE CODE
The City Council of the City of Plymouth ordains:
Section 1. The Plymouth City Code, Chapter VI, is amended
by adding a new section to read:
620.01. Policy and Purpose. The purpose of this section is to
promote and protect the health and welfare of the residents of
the City of Plymouth by requiring the separation, of recyclable
materials from rubbish by the implementation of a
source -separation program, and to comply with the goals
established by Hennepin County in Ordinance No. Thirteen adopted
on October 30, 1986. The City Council finds that such a program
is necessary in order to reduce the amount of rubbish and the
need for landfills.
620.03. Definitions. Subdivision 1. The following words and
phrases, when used in this section, unless the context clearly
indicates otherwise, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in
this subsection.
Subd. 2. "Aluminum Recyclables shall be deemed to include
all disposable containers fabricated primarily of aluminum and
commonly used for soda, beer, or other beverages.
Subd. 3. "Can Recyclables" shall be deemed to include all
disposable containers fabricated primarily of metal or tin.
Subd. 4. "City Manager" means the City Manager or any City
employee designated by him to implement and enforce this section.
Subd. 5. "Collection" means the removal of waste from the
place at which it is generated and includes all activities up to
the time when the waste is delivered to a waste facility.
Subd. 6. "Collector/(s)" means any persons/ (s). who owns,
operates or leases vehicles for the purposes of collection and
transportation of any type of mixed municipal solid waste, and/or
recyclables.
Subd. 7. "Compostible Material" means organic material
consisting of grass clippings, leaves and other forms of organic
yard waste.
Subd. 8. "Garbage" means the same as defined in Section
600.01, Subd. 2 of this Chapter.
f
Subd. 9. "Generation" means the act or process of producing
waste as defined in Minn. Stat. Sec. 115A.03, Subd. 11.
Subd. 10. "Generator" means any person who generates waste
as defined in Minn. Stat. Sec.'115A.03, Subd. 12.
Subd. 11. "Glass Recyclables" shall be deemed to include
jars, bottles and containers that are transparent or translucent
and primarily used for packaging and bottling of various matter.
Subd. 12. "Hauler" means a collector or transporter of
recyclable materials.
Subd. 13. "Mixed Solid Waste" means garbage, refuse and
other solid waste from residential, commercial, industrial and
community activities which is generated and collected in
aggregate', but does 'not include auto hulks; street sweepings,
ash, construction debris, mining waste, sludges, tree and
agricultural wastes, tires and other materials collected,
processed and disposed of as separate waste streams.
Subd. 14. "Paper Recyclables" shall be deemed to include
paper of the type. commonly referred to as newsprint. Expressly
excluded, however, are all magazines or similar periodicals.
Subd. 15. "Person" means any human being, any public or
private corporation, any partnership, any firm, association, or
other organization, any receiver, trustee, assignee, agent or
other legal representative .of any of the foregoing or any other
legal entity.
Subd. 16. "Recyclable
recyclables, can recyclables,
recyclables.
Materials" means aluminum
glass recyclables and paper
Subd. 17. "Recycling" means the process of collecting and
preparing recyclable materials and reusing the materials in their
original form or using them in manufacturing processes.
Subd. 18. "Rubbish" means the same as defined in Section
600.01, Subd. 3 of this Chapter.
Subd. 19. "Source Separation" means the separation of
recyclable materials from mixed solid waste at the source of
generation.
Subd. 20. "Solid Waste" has the meaning given it in Minn.
Stat. Section 116.06, Subd. 10.
Subd. 21. "Recyclable Materials Processing Facility means
a facility established and used for the receiving, storage,
preparing and/or processing of recyclable materials for sale or
reuse.
Subd. 22. "Waste Facility" means any resource recovery
facility or related Transfer Station or similar facility to which
waste is required to be delivered.
Subd. 23. "Waste Tire" means a pneumatic'tire or solid tire
for motor vehicles as defined in Minn..Stat. 169.01 and included
in the Solid Waste Management Plan pursuant to Minn. Stat.
115A.46.
620.05. Pre -Collection and Collection. Subdivision 1.
Pre -Collection. All persons who are owners, lessees, occupants
of any single- family residence, duplex, triplex, or fourplex
within the City, whichgenerates mixed solid waste, shall
separate from all solid_ waste -the recyclable materials before
collection in the following manner: s
i) Paper recyclables shall be bundled separately and/or
secured in such a manner as to prevent them from being
blown or scattered, and shall be maintained in a dry
condition free of any other substance and shall not be
placed in plastic bags.
ii) Aluminum recyclables shall be clean of all contents and
such recyclables shall not be placed in plastic bags.
iii) Glass recyclables shall be clean of all contents.
Caps, lids and all metal shall be removed prior to
collection and such recyclables shall not be placed in
plastic bags.
iv.) Can recyclables shall be clean of all contents. Can
recyclables shall not be placed in plastic bags.
v) All aluminum, glass and can recyclables shall be placed
into containers and not mixed with other forms of solid
waste or mixed solid waste in a manner consistent with
the rules, regulations and procedures adopted by the
County Board.
Subd. 2. Container Requirements. Containers shall be
provided by all persons who are owners, lessees, or occupants of
any building, commercial or residential, and shall be:
i) maintained in a clean and sanitary condition in
accordance with all pertinent health. statutes,
ordinances, rules and regulations;
ii) located in such a manner so as to prevent them from
being overturned or obstructing pedestrian or motor.
vehicle traffic or being in violation of any statute,
ordinance, rule or regulation; and
iii) adequate and substantial enough to contain the
recyclables therein.
Subd. 3. Collection. The collection of recyclables shall
be supervised by the City Manager,Vhall have the power to
establish the time, method and routes of service. Special times
for large item pick-up may also be established. Collection
provisions shall include but not be limited to the following:
i) Notice of dates and times of collection will be
published or otherwise made available to persons
affected herein.
ii) The City Manager may establish drop-off or collection
sites where any person may deposit recyclables at such
times and locations as determined.
iii) It shall be unlawful for any person other than
authorized persons, collectors or haulers to
distribute, collect, remove or dispose of recyclable
materials after said materials have been placed or
deposited for collection.
iv) Nothing in this Section shall abridge the right of any
person to give or sell their recyclable materials to
any recycling program lawfully operated for profit,
non-profit or charitable purposes.
v) Nothing in this Section shall abridge the right of any
authorized recycling program to lawfully operate within
the City, subject to such other licenses, or other
regulations as may be required by law.
vi) It shall be unlawful for a person to collect, remove or
dispose of mixed solid waste which consists of
recyclables combined with other forms of mixed solid
waste.
620.07. Violation and Penalty. Subdivision 1. Misdemeanor. Any
person who fails to comply with the provisions of this Section
may be charged with a violation not exceeding a misdemeanor and
upon conviction shall be punished as provided by law. A separate
offense shall be deemed committed upon each day during or on
which a violation occurs or continues.
Subd. 2. Remedies Cumulative. No remedy set forth in this
Section for violation of this Section is intended to be exclusive
of any other available remedy or remedies, but each and every
such remedy shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to every
other remedy given under this Section or now or hereafter
existing at law or in equity or by statute. No delay in the
exercise of any remedy for any violation of this Section shall
later impair or waive any such right or power of the City.
Subd. 3. Injunctive Relief. In the event of a violation or
a threat of violation of this Section, the City may institute
appropriate actions or proceedings including application for
FW
injunctive relief, action to compel performance or other
appropriate action to prevent, restrain, correct or abate such
violations or threatened violations.
620.09. Costs and Special Assessments. Subdivision 1. If a
hauler or any person within the City collects or disposes of
recyclable materials in violation of this Section, the City may
take the necessary steps to correct such violations and the costs
thereof may be recovered in a civil action in any court of
competent jurisdiction or, at the discretion of the City Council,
the costs may be certified to the County Auditor as a special tax
against the real property owned by such hauler or person in the
manner specified in Minn. Stat. §-
620.11. Enforcement. Subdivision 1. Warnings. The City
Manager may issue a warning notice to any person observed not in
compliance with any provision of this Section.
i) The warning notice shall- be on such form (s) as
established by the City Manager.
ii) Forms shall be provided to collectors and haulers who
may issue such warning notices by placing or attaching
them to waste containers or on the premises where the
violation occurs.
iii) A copy of any warning notice as issued by a collector
or hauler shall be forthwith sent to the City Manager.
Subd. 2. Collection Refusal. A collector or hauler may,
upon issuance of a warning notice for noncompliance, not accept
for collection the noncomplying waste materials.
Subd. 3. Costs for Compliance. A collector or hauler may,
upon issuance of a warning for noncompliance, undertake to render
any noncomplying recyclables placed for collection to be in
compliance and a reasonable fee for undertaking shall be allowed
and reported to the City Manager.
Subd. 4. Citations. The City Manager shall have the power
to issue citations for violations of this Section, but this shall
not permit such representatives to physically arrest or take into
custody any violator except on warrant duly issued. Citations
shall contain at least the following:
i) The name and address of the person charged with the
violation or the owner or person in charge of the
premises at which the violation occurs.
ii) The date and place of the .violation.
iii) A short. description of the violation followed by. the
section of this Ordinance violated.
iv) The date and place at which the person receiving the
citation shall appear and a notice that if such person
does not respond, a warrant may be issued for such
person's arrest.
v) The name of the person issuing the citation.
vi) Such other information as the Court may specify.
Subd. 5. Issuance of Citations: Whenever the City Manager
discovers any violation of this section, he may issue a citation
to the person alleged to have committed the violation of. this
subdivision. Such citation shall be made out in quadruplicate
4). One copy thereof shall be issued to the person alleged to
have committed the violation; one copy shall be filed with the
City Manager; two copies thereof shall be filed with the County
Ordinance Violation Bureau. The citation shall be issued to the
person charged with the violation, or in the case of a
corporation or to any officer or agent, expressly or impliedly
authorized to accept such issuance.
620.13. Separability. It is hereby declared to be the intention
of the City Council that the several provisions of this Ordinance
are separable such that if any court of competent jurisdiction
shall adjudge any provision of this ordinance to be invalid, such
judgment shall not affect any other provision of this ordinance
not specifically included in said judgment.
620.15. Provisions are Accumulative. The provisions of this
Section are accumulative to all other laws, ordinances and
regulations heretofore passed, or which may be passed hereafter,
covering any subject matter in this Section.
Section 2. This Ordinance is effective on
Adopted this day of , 1987.
ATTEST:
Laurie Brandt
City Clerk
Virgil Schneider
Mayor
La
ORDINANCE NUMBER THIRTEEN
SOLID WASTE SOURCE SEPARATION
FOR
HENNEPIN COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY
ADOPTED BY THE
HENNEPIN COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
OF HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ON OCTOBER 30, 1986
IN ACCORDANCE WITH
LAWS OF MINNESOTA 1969 CHAPTER 847
WE
MINNESOTA STATUTES SECTION 473.801, ET. SEQ.
ORDINANCE NUMBER THIRTEEN
SOLID WASTE SOURCE SEPARATION
FOR HENNEPIN COUNTY
ials from
An ordinance regulating the separation
ollectionble
of suchrmaterials withinmmunicipalsolidwastebygenerators, before
Hennepin County; defining the geographic area and the types of materials subject
to designation; establishing procedures and principles to be followed by thevarious.municipalities located in Hennepin County in order to reduce the vlum
of solid waste generated in the County as specified herein; in order to promote
the health, welfare and safety of the public pursuant to Laws of Minnesota 1969,
Chapter 847, and Minn. Stat. Section 473.801, et. seq.
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council, by state statute, has established a
source -separation goal of at least sixteen (16%) percent for Hennepin County; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Hennepin County is required
to establish source -
separation goals for each city in Hennepin County; and
WHEREAS, said sixteen (16%) percent source -separation goal is hereby
established for each city in Hennepin County; and
WHEREAS, the County desires to provide financial incentives for cities toestablishsource -separate programs to meet their city's source -separation goals
and contribute toward meeting County.source-separation goals; and
WHEREAS, the County desires to establish a further inducement to cities todevelopsource -separation programs which meet source -separation goals by adopting
a County. source -
separation ordinance re uirinof materialstheeparationn
f miedi
municipal
waste by generators, before
separated for use or re -use; and
rams
WHEREAS, the County desires to sup port local source-sland/
oron
gprepabe
establishing a facility or facilities to receive, store, process
for sale, reuse, or otherwise dispose of recyclable materials.
The County Board of Hennepin County, Minnesota, does ordain:
SECTION I DEFINITIONS
The following words and phrases, when used in this ordinance, unless the
context clearly indicates otherwise, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in
this section.
all
Subsection 1 "Aluminum
atea PL1
maleilysofll
be
aluminum
andeemed
t
ommonlyeused for
disposable container
soda, beer, or other beverages.
Subsection 2 "Can Recyclablfs" shall
metal
bedeemedto include all disposable
containers fabricated primarily o
n.
Subsection 3 "Cities" means statutory and home rule charter cities and
towns authorized to plan under sections 462.351 to 462.364.
1
H
Subsection 4 "Collection" means the aggregation of waste from the place at
which it is generated and includes all activities up to the time when the waste
is delivered to a "waste facility".
Subsection 5 "Collector/(s)" means any person/(s) who owns, operates or
leases vehicles for the purposes of collection and transportation of any type of
mixed municipal solid waste, and/or recyclables.
Subsection 6 "Compostible Material" means organic material consisting of
grass clippings, leaves and other forms of organic yard waste.
Subsection 7 "County Board" is defined as the Hennepin County Board of
Commissioners and their authorized representatives.
Subsection 8 "Department" means the Hennepin County Department of
Environment and Energy.
Subsection 9 "Facility" means any resource recovery facility or related
Transfer Station or similar facility to which waste is required to be delivered.
Subsection 10 "Garbage" means animal and vegetable wastes resulting from
the handling, preparation, cooking and consumption of food.
Subsection 11 "Generation" means the act or process of producing waste (as
defined in Minn. Stat. Sec. 115A.03, Subd. 11).
Subsection 12 "Generator" means any parson who generates waste (as defined
in Minn. Stat. Sec. 115A.03, Subd. 12).
Subsection 13 "Glass Recyclables" shall be deemed to include jars, bottles
and containers which are transparent or translucent and primarily used for
packaging and bottling of various matter.
Subsection 14 "Hauler" means a collector or transporter of recyclable
materials.
Subsection 15 "Metropolitan Council" means the council established in Minn.
Stat. Sec. 473.
Subsection 16 "Mixed Municipal Solid Waste" means garbage, refuse and other
solid waste from residential, commercial, industrial and community activities
which is generated and collected in aggregate, but does not include auto hulks,
street sweepings, ash, construction debris, mining waste, sludges, tree and
agricultural wastes, tires and other materials collected, processed and disposed
of as separate waste streams.
Subsection 17 "Municipality" means any incorporated city within the
boundaries of Hennepin County, Minnesota..
Subsection.18 "Paper Recyclables" shall be deemed to include paper of the
type commonly referred to as newsprint. Expressly excluded, however, are all
magazines or similar periodicals.
Subsection 19 "Person" means any human being, any municipality or other
public agency, any public or private
corporation, any partnership, any firm,
association, or other organization, any receiver, trustee, assignee, agent or
other legal representative of any of the foregoing or any other legal entity.
Subsection 20 "Political Subdivision" means any municipal corporation,
governmental subdivision of the state, local government unit, or special district.
Subsection 21 "Recyclable Materials" means all items of refuse designated
by the Hennepin County Department of Environment and Energy to be part of anauthorizedrecyclingprogramandwhichareintendedfortransportation,
processing and remanufacturing or reuse.
Subsection 22 "Recycling" means the process of collecting and preparing
recyclable materials and reusing the materials in their original form or using
them in manufacturing processes.
Subsection 23 "Source Separation" means the separation of recyclable
materials from mixed municipal solid waste at the source of generation.
Subsection 24 "Solid Waste" has the meaning given it in Minn. Stat. Section
116.06, Subdivision 10.
Subsection 25 "Recyclable Materials Processing Facility" means a facility
established and used for the receiving, storage, preparing and/or processing of
recyclable materials for sale or reuse.
Subsection 26 "Waste Tire" means a pneumatic tire or solid tire for motor
vehicles as defined in Minn. Stat. 169.01. and included in the Solid Waste
Management Plan pursuant to Minn. Stat. 115A.46.
SECTION II GENERAL PROVISIONS
Subsection 1 It shall be the responsibility of each municipality to adopt
an ordinance or ordinances relating to the separation of recyclabl.es within the
boundaries of the municipality, the purpose of said ordinance being to reduce the
amount of solid waste generated within the municipality by at least 16% during
calendar year 1990 which is an amount established by the Metropolitan Council and
adopted by the Hennepin County Board as set forth in Hennepin County Solid Waste
Master Plan.
Subsection 2 The implementation and enforcement of said ordinance shall be
the responsibility of each respective municipality. If a municipality should
fail to implement a program by January 1, 1988, or implement a program which
fails to meet the 16% waste reduction percentage during calendar year 1990, as
set forth in Subsection 1, the provisions appearing in Section V of this
Ordinance shall come into effect. This Ordinance shall not prohibit a
municipality or municipalities from entering into agreements relating to any
facet of source separation of recyclables.
3
J)
SECTION III REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
Subsection 1 Each municipality shall report all information relating to
waste generation, collection and disposal within its boundaries to the Hennepin
County Department of Environment and Energy. Such information shall include but
not be limited to; data on tonnage generated in the municipality, data on
recyclable materials generated and collected within the municipality, and such
additional information as is requested by the Department of Environment and
Energy. Such information shall be provided on an annual basis by or on March 1st
of each year, or as otherwise directed by the Department of Environment and
Energy.
SECTION IV MUNICIPAL FAILURE TO MEET STANDARDS ESTABLISHED IN SECTION II
If any municipality fails to establish or implement a source -separation
ordinance as provided in SECTION II, or fails to meet the percentage level of
waste reduction as established by the County Board, the County Board may
implement a source -separation program which includes source separation provisions
as provided in section V, within the boundaries of said municipality. If such a
program is implemented it shall be enforced upon all persons residing in said
municipality. This ordinance shall be applicable to all municipalities,
unincorporated areas, and political subdivisions within the geographical
boundaries of Hennepin County Minnesota.
SECTION V SOURCE SEPARATION PROVISIONS
The County Board may implement any of the provisions contained in this
section within the boundaries of a municipality, if said municipality fails
to meet the requirements established in section II of this ordinance.
A. PRE -COLLECTION AND COLLECTION
Subsection 1 Pre -collection. All persons who are owners, lessees, and
occupants of any building, commercial or residential, within Hennepin County,
which generates mixed municipal solid waste, shall separate from all solid waste
the designated recyclable materials before disposal, removal or collection:
a.) Paper recyclables, which shall be bundled separately and/or
secured in such a manner as to prevent them from being
blown or scattered, and shall be maintained in a dry
condition free of any other substance and shall not be
placed in plastic bags.
b.) Aluminum recyclables shall be clean of all contents and
such recyclables shall not be placed in plastic bags.
c.) Glass recyclables shall be clean of all contents.
Caps, lids and all metal shall be removed prior to
collection and such recyclables shall not be placed
in plastic bags.
d.) Can recyclables shall be clean of.all contents.
Can recyclables shall not be placed in plastic bags.
All aluminum, glass and can recyclables shall be placed into containers and
not mixed with other forms of solid waste or mixed municipal solid waste in a
manner consistent with the rules, regulations and procedures adopted by the
County Board.
Subsection 2 Container Requirements. Containers shall be provided by all
persons who are owners, lessees, or occupants of any building, commercial or
residential, and shall be:
a.) maintained in a clean and sanitary condition in accordance
with all pertinent health statutes, ordinances, rules and
regulations;
b.) located in such a manner so as to prevent them from being
overturned or obstructing pedestrian or motor vehicle
traffic or being in violation of any statute, ordinance,
rule or regulation; and
c.) adequate and substantial enough to contain the recyclables therein.
Such further specifications relating to containers may be adopted by the
County Board.
Subsection 3 Collection. The collection, removal and disposal of
recyclables shall be supervised by the County Board, which shall have.the power
to establish the time, method and routes of service. Special times for large
item pick-up may also be established: Collection provisions shall include but
not be limited to the following:
a.) Notice of dates and times of collection will be published
or otherwise made available to persons affected herein.
b.) The Department may establish drop-off or collection sites
where any person may deposit recyclables at such times and
locations as determined.
c.) It shall be unlawful for any person other than employees of
the Department, or authorized persons, collectors or haulers
to distribute, collect, remove or dispose of recyclable
materials after said materials have been placed or deposited
for collection.
d.) Nothing in this Ordinance shall abridge the right of any
person to give or sell their recyclable materials to any
recycling program lawfully operated for profit, non-profit
or charitable purposes.
e.) Nothing in this Ordinance shall abridge the right of any
authorized recycling program to lawfully operate within
Hennepin County, subject to such other licenses or other
regulations as may be required by law.
f.) It shall be unlawful for a person to collect, remove or
dispose of mixed municipal solid waste which consists of
recyclables combined with other forms of mixed municipal
solid waste.
B. VIOLATION AND PENALTY
Subsection 1 Misdemeanor. Any person who fails to comply
with the provisions of this ordinance may be charged with a violation
not exceeding a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be punished as
provided by law. A separate offense shall be deemed committed upon
each day during or on which a violation occurs or continues.
Subsection 2 Remedies Cumulative. No remedy set forth in
this Ordinance for violation of this Ordinance is intended to be
exclusive of any other available remedy or remedies, but each and
every such remedy shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to
every other remedy given under this Ordinance or now or hereafter
existing at law or in equity or by statute. No delay in the
exercise of any remedy for any violation of this Ordinance shall
later impair or waive any such right or power of the County.
Subsection 3 Injunctive Relief. In the event of a violation
or a threat of violation of this Ordinance, the County may institute
appropriate actions or proceedings including application for
injunctive relief, action to compel performance or other appropriate
action to prevent, restrain, correct or abate such violations or
threatened violations.
Subsection 4 Costs and Special Assessments.
a). If a Hauler or any Person within said County collects or
disposes of recyclables in violation of this Ordinance, the
County may take the necessary steps to correct such violations
and the costs thereof may be recovered in a civil action in
any court of competent jurisdiction or, at the discretion of
of the County Board, the costs may be certified to the County
Auditor as a special tax against the real property owned by
such hauler or person.
b). If any municipality, unincorporated area, or political
subdivision within the geographical boundaries of Hennepin
County fails to meet the requirements established in Section II
of this ordinance, the County Board, to the extent that. it has
assumed the responsibilities that the local unit has failed to
assume pursuant to Section II, may seek reimbursement in any
court of competent jurisdiction, for all costs, expenses and
expenditures which the County has incurred incident to the
1
M10
adoption, implementation, administration and enforcement of a
source—separation ordinance within the boundaries of a local unit.
C. ENFORCEMENT
Subsection 1 warnings. The Department or any of its duly authorized
representatives and collectors and haulers of recyclables, may issue a warning
notice to any person observed not in compliance with any provision of this
Ordinance.
a.) The warning notice shall be on such form(s) as provided by the
Department.
b.) Forms shall be provided to collectors and haulers who may issue
such warning notices by placing or attaching them to waste
containers or on the premises where the violation occurs.
C.) A copy of any warning notice as issued by a collector or hauler
shall be forthwith sent to the Department.
Subsection 2 Collection Refusal. A collector or hauler may, upon
issuance of a warningnotice for noncompliance, not accept for collection the
noncomplying waste materials.
Subsection 3 Costs for Compliance. A collector or hauler may, upon
issuance of a warning for noncompliance, undertake to render any noncomplying
recyclables placed for collection to be in compliance and a reasonable fee for
undertaking shall be allowed and reported to the Department. The Department
may certify the fee as costs to the County Auditor as a special tax to be
assessed against the real property of the person in noncompliance.
Subsection 4 Citations. The Department or any of its duly authorized
representatives shall have the power to issue citations for violations of
this Ordinance, but this shall not permit such representatives to physically
arrest or take into custody any violator except on warrant duly issued.
a.) Form of Citations: Citations shall contain at least the
following:
1) The name and address of the person charged with the
violation or the owner or person in charge of the
premises at which the violation occurs.
2) The date and place of the violation.
3) A short description of the violation followed by the
section of this Ordinance violated.
4) The date and place at.which the person receiving the
citation shall appear and a notice that if such
person does not respond, a warrant may be issued
for such person's arrest.
5) The name of the person issuing the citation.
6) Such other information as the Court may specify.
b) Issuance of Citations: Whenever any representative of the
Department discovers any violation of this Ordinance, he
may issue a citation to the person alleged to have com—
mitted the violation and such citation shall be in the
form specified in paragraph A) of this subsection.
Such citation shall be made out in quadruplicate (4).
One copy thereof shall be issued to the person alleged
to have committed the violation; one copy shall be
filed with the Department; two copies thereof shall
be filed with the County Ordinance Violation Bureau
hereinafter referred to as Bureau].
c) Issuance: The citation shall be issued to the person
charged with the violation, or in the case of a corporation
or municipality, to any officer or agent, expressly or
impliedly authorized to accept such issuance.
d) Appearance: After the issuance of the citation and
within such time as shall be fixed by court rule, the
person charged with the violation shall report to the
Violations Bureau.
e) Complaint: If the person charged with the violation
does not appear at the Bureau within the time
specified by court rule, the Bureau shall send him a
notice directing him to respond to the citation
within seven days of the date of the notice and if
such person fails to respond, the Bureau shall cause
a complaint to be signed and a warrant to be issued
for the arrest of such person to compel his
appearance in court.
SECTION VI SEPARABILITY
It is hereby declared to be the intention of the County Board that the
several provisions of this ordinance are separable in accordance with the
following:
Subsection 1 If any court of competent jurisdiction shall adjudge any
provision of this ordinance to be invalid, such judgment -shall not
affect any other provision of this ordinance not specifically included in said
judgment.
SEC'T'ION VII PROVISIONS ARE ACCUMULATIVE
The provisions of this Ordinance are accumulative to all other laws,
ordinances and regulations heretofore passed, or which may be passed hereafter,
covering any subject matter in this Ordinance.
14
MR
A P
Passed by the Board of County Commissioners of Hennepin County this day
of , 198_.
Assistant County Attorney
9
COUN'T'Y OF HENNEPIN
STATE OF MINNESOTA
BY
Chairman of the County Board
ATTEST:
Clerk of the Board
Falcon Heights - xhtiml template 1, level 2 Page 1 of')
HOME City._of.Falcon ...Heights > Recy.,.cling and R..e...fuse > Organized._ Collection
Process 2004 > Background
LATEST NEWS
GOVERNMENT IOWA,
0% afturgalrafl,-Zed Lua-Alectkpll
COMMUNITY
RESOURCES
POLICE & FIRE
Zly. U U 4 a % klig"m u in d
PARKS &
RECREATION
Next Steps: The Commission report was presented to the '
BUILDING PERMITS Council on October 13. We are currently in the 90 day
RECYCLING &TRASH discussion period required by the statute.
STREETS & Final Council Decision expected: January 25, 2005
UTILITIES
History eJfthe_Organized Collection. Process in Falcon._NLrgh$s, tO..,.d..a.teEVENTS
Latest_.Update.. on_the_Process
PHOTO GALLERIES
Interim-_RePort.,.on...Study...To.._Date,..,June.,_23,..,2004
INFORMATION
GUIDE Cop.y_of Introductory,__Presentation„_fro n,... March .,24.._l eating
CONTACT CITY HALL How._to..,give._feedback_o n.._fhis._issue.._to.._the,.City...
Background:
On the recommendation of the City's Solid Waste
Commission, Falcon Heights City Council decided
on January 28, 2004, to look into the possibility of
negotiating a trash collection contract on behalf of
all residents in single-family dwellings. This is
called "organized collection.” M_in_nes _ota,._Statute,.,.§
A_.9.41.15allows cities to do this and gives very
specific rules on the process. At the end of the
process Falcon Heights may or may not decide to
go for organized collection.
A Letter was sent to all residents in single-family
homes to let them know about the plans. The City
also wrote to our licensed garbage haulers to invite
them to participate in the study and discussion,
and to business owners to let them know what is
going on. Commercial properties and large
apartment buildings are not included in the present
process.
There will be several public hearings for
information and feedback. The first hearing was on
March 24, 2004. After the hearing the Council
voted a "resolution of intent" that permits study
and discussion to continue on this topic. This is
required by Statute....§._i_1.5A._94. The Council will not
decide on whether or not to adopt organized
collection for at least 6 months.
Bookmark this page for further information as it
goo
Organized Collection
means a City arranging
a contract for garbage
pickup on behalf of
residents, with a. hauler
or haulers
does NOT mean City -
owned trucks and City
drivers
has NOT been
adopted in Falcon
Heights, but a study
is under way to find
out if this would
benefit residents
When will the final
decision be made?
After the statutory
period of discussion,
planning and study,
most likely in January,
2005.
Most cities, including
Falcon Heights, use
organized collection for
curbside recycling
Falcon Heights - xhtml template 1, level 2 Page 2 of')
become available.
pickup.
Letter to..._Res _d_eatsj-3a_nu.ary 29.,.. 20.0,4
Goals. fo_r_Sol,id.._Waste,,._C.oa„lect_i.on,._ reco_mme.n0edby__th.e Solid
Waste Commission and adopted by_the ON Council.
History of the Organized Collection Issue in
Falcon Heights
1990 City Council last considered organizing trash collection,
on the recommendation of the Solid Waste Commission.
Organized Collection was not adopted, although options
were left open.
2002 Ramsey and Washington. Counties enter into the
organized collection process defined by Minnesota
Statute 115A.94. In the end organized collection was not
adopted, although it was retained as an option if
environmental goals are not met.
2002 Solid Waste Commission reactivated after several years
of inactivity to consider future of the City recycling
contract and to develop a comprehensive plan for solid
waste disposal in Falcon Heights. Commission develops
mission statement and goals and recommend extension
of recycling contract with EZ.
2002 City Wide Survey — include several questions related to
trash collection, formulated by the Commission
January, 2003 Commission begins a year of research and discussion on
all aspects of solid waste.disposal, including new
technologies in recycling. Concerns about long term
environmental implications of trash disposal and impact
of garbage trucks on city streets are some factors that
lead the Commission to include organized collection in
the program of study
February, 2003 On the recommendation of the Solid Waste Commission,
used clothing and household textiles are added to the
recyclables picked up twice a month at curbside.
July - November, 2003 Commission develops comprehensive goals for solid
waste collection. Commission votes to convert Falcon
Heights recycling to a 2 -sort system, made possible by
major upgrades of sorting technology at EZ
December, 2003 Solid Waste Commission votes to recommend to the City
Council that the City enter into the process ordained in
Minnesota Statute 115A.94 to more formally consider the
option of organized collection. Commission adopts final
list of goals and send it to the Council for endorsement
January, 2004 By resolution, City Council adopts the solid waste goals
and directs Staff to proceed with the steps laid down in
MN Statute 115A.94. The required public hearing is
scheduled. Letters are sent to residents, business
owners, apartment owners, and to the garbage haulers
registered to do business in the City.
March, 2004 Public Hearing on March 24. Council adopted "Resolution
Falcon Heights - xhtml template 1, level 2 Page 3 of')
To.p
2004 City of Falcon Heights
1. r 1 1 1. / / A 1 1 1 . i A /1 1 /llll/1/".
of Intent" to organize, but stressed that final decision will
only be made after a period of study. Staff recorded
input from the public.
April, 2004 Solid Waste Commission met with haulers to listen to
their ideas on how the City goals can be met.
Commissioners visited the Newport Resource Recovery
Facility.
May, 2004 The Commission met with haulers again on May 12.
There was a public information meeting on May 20, at
which Commissioners reported on their progress,
responded to some concerns that were raised at the
march 24 hearing, and took comments from the public.
June, 2004 Commissioners met with the City Attorney to explore
licensing and regulation options other than organized
collection. A large amount of research material has been
collected and is being read. On June 22, Commissioners
toured the Elk River Landfill. On June 23, the Commission
presented an interim progress report to the Council and
asked for more time to complete the study.
July - September, 2004 Research continued
October, 2004 Commission presents the final report on the study
requested by the Council. Commission presents their
recommendation and the recommendation of the haulers.
Ninety (90) day statutory discussion period begins.
October 18 - December Comments accepted from the public.
30
January, 2005 City Council will decide whether to implement organized
collection or adopt another option.
To.p
2004 City of Falcon Heights
1. r 1 1 1. / / A 1 1 1 . i A /1 1 /llll/1/".
Letter from the Solid Waste Commission, January 29, 2004 Page 1 of 2
HOME C.it.1/.._of.._F_alcon-__Hei-g_hts, > Trash an.d..Rec.clina
LATEST NEWS
GOVERNMENT
COMMUNITY
RESOURCES
POLICE & FIRE
PARKS &
RECREATION
BUILDING PERMITS
RECYCLING & TRASH
STREETS &
UTILITIES
EVENTS
PHOTO GALLERIES
INFORMATION
GUIDE
CONTACT CITY HALL
January 29, 2004
A note to Falcon Heights residents from the
City's Solid Waste Commission:
About a year and a half ago, the Solid Waste Commission was chartered to
study solid waste removal and disposal in our city — that is, everything
having to do with recycling and trash. Our mission is to develop "a more
efficient, more economical, and more environmentally sound solid waste
disposal system, and build a waste management education plan for all age
groups, starting with our youngest citizens."
Last year we began to study the question of whether our residents could get
better trash hauling service at a lower price if we band together as a city to
contract with a hauler or haulers. This is called "organized collection," and
two of our neighborhoods already do something like this on their own.
Under Minnesota ..Statute ..§.._1..1.5A..,9.., cities are allowed to consider organized
collection; many cities around us have done so. We came up with many
questions. Here are some of them:
Could we get better prices for everyone if we negotiate as a city?
Would our streets and alleys last longer if we had fewer garbage
trucks on them each week? Would we save money in future street
maintenance assessments?
Can we keep the same quality of service we have now? Could we
maybe get better service, with more features like extra -small,
reduced -rate trash cans for small households? Could we keep the
convenient Friday all -City pickup?
If we had a contract through the City, who would I complain to about
poor service or a busted wheel on my garbage can?
If we negotiate as a City, how can we make sure small, local haulers
are included?
Where does our trash go after it is collected? Do we.have any say
about this, as a city or as individuals? Are we doing the best we can
for future public health?
We, your neighbors on the Solid Waste Commission, are recommending to
the City Council that Falcon Heights begin a study and discussion process,
according to the rules set by the State of Minnesota. We have set 16
pre.l rn.in.ary,.go_a.ls, which are enclosed.
What do you think? Please attend our first Public Hearing at City
Hall, 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, March 24, and give us your input.
Thanks!
The Solid Waste Commission
q,3
I_._. //_..-7-:--- -: r_7---_ 7__:-1_1---------x-.---'----n_'" _ ---1-nI nnnA 1_a___1 A11 nen nn'7
Falcon Heights - xhtml template 1, level 2 Page 1 of 2
HOME
LATEST NEWS
GOVERNMENT
COMMUNITY
RESOURCES
POLICE & FIRE
PARKS &
RECREATION
BUILDING PERMITS
RECYCLING & TRASH
STREETS &
UTILITIES
EVENTS
PHOTO GALLERIES
INFORMATION
GUIDE
CONTACT CITY HALL
City.of Falcon Heights > Recycling and Refuse > Organized„Collection
Process 2004 > Goals
This is the list of goals that was approved by Council resolution on
January 28, 2004. The document is also available as a pdf file here and as
A.p.pgndix„A of the Commission's final report.
44'” 0% on% &.” ^ f
A=%
5 o I i d. W waft
Iss
4 t
oulle
iz Falcomnyll
v-hts
jolia Waste Commission of Falcon
Heiahts
4
It is the mission of the Falcon Heights Solid 'Waste Commission
to develop a more efficient, more economical and more
environmentally sound solid waste disposal system, and build a
waste management education plan for all age groups, starting
with our youngest citizens.
Based on this mission statement, the Commission has developed the
following goals for solid waste collection in Falcon Heights.
More Efficient
1. Refuse collection shall be on one day of the week for all residences in single-
family residential zones.
2. Waste collection base plan shall include refuse, recycling and yard waste, with
options provided for appliances and other large objects.
3. There shall be an efficient quarterly billing procedure with clear, itemized
charges for each resident.
4. The City shall manage service and resident concerns.
More Economical
5. To reduce road maintenance costs, each street or alley shall be served by only
one hauler, one truck per collection day. The City may choose the option to
designate one or more zones, one hauler to a zone, and may choose to
contract separately for recycling.
qq
Falcon Heights - xhtml template 1, level 2 Page 2 of 2
6. The City shall specify the maximum size of garbage trucks, in the interest of
safety and protecting citizens' investment in City infrastructure.
7. Prices shall be competitive with what Falcon Heights residents are paying now
and with what is being charged in other Metro area cities. Pricing options shall
be the same in all neighborhoods of the city.
8. A choice of service levels shall be provided, based on bin size. An extra -small
size shall be available. Residents shall be allowed to share service. Service
shall include options for additional services or special pick-ups.
9. Residents shall have option of temporary suspension of service, with either a
one-month or two-month minimum.
10. Any contract for organized collection made by the City shall be for 3 or more
years and shall include conditions for termination prior to the end of the
contract.
More Environmentally Sound
11. Refuse shall go to the Ramsey/Washington County Resource Recovery Facility
in Newport, or a similar environmentally sound facility at the direction of the
City, if the Newport facility is no longer available. Hauler(s) must certify this
quarterly.
12. Waste collection service shall be consistent with sound public health policies
and a clean city.
13. Within the first year of the contract, hauler(s) shall provide a viable plan to
implement collection of organics for composting.
Public Education
14. The City shall have the option to provide informational inserts to be sent out
with bills, at the City's discretion.
15. Hauler(s) shall provide accurate quarterly tonnage reports to the City.
16. The waste hauler(s) shall support the City's efforts to educate residents and
students on solid waste and recycling issues.
Top I Solid.._ Waste._Rep_ort 1 20.04...Organ_zed,..CoJlecton... Process.
2004 City of Falcon Heights
q5,
Special Issue on Trash Collection October - December 2004
Inside this special issue:
Background on the City 2
Solid Waste Study
Falcon Heights Residents 3
DO Pay More
Where Does Our Trash 4
Go?
Where Should Our Trash 6
Go?
Garbage Trucks Have an 7
Impact on Our Streets
Haulers'Proposal 8
Commission Findings 9
and Recommendations
Industry Changes 10.
Frequently Asked 10
Questions
Links for Information 12
Council Seeks Input
From Residents
Comments from residents
will be accepted until
December 30, 2004.
See page 9 for "how-to"
information, to make sure
your comment counts.
Commerits must be in
writing and you must give
your name and address.
Your comment must come
from you directly.
No phone calls will be
accepted.
n Wednesday, October 13, the City Council received the Solid Waste
Commission's report on organized collection and voted to begin a 90 day
discussion. period before making a final decision. Citizen input will play an
important role in their decision. Please read this newsletter, find out the facts
and pros and cons, and send in your input. The final decision will be made on
or after JanuaryZ6, 2005.
When the Falcon Heights City Council decided to consider organized waste
collection under the terms of Minnesota Statute 115A.94 on March 24, 2004,
Council members said that the final decision would not come until the end of
the process. The Council authorized the Solid Waste Commission to undertake
an in-depth study.
The Commission focused its research on the areas where they felt the City's
goals are not being met. They had the following questions:
Do Fa/con Heights residents pay more for trash pickup than residents of
cities that have organized collection?
Would it make areal difference to our quality of life and our community
infrastructure if we had fewer garbage trucks on our streets?
What is the best environmental practice in disposing of the trash we do not
recycle or compost? Should we keep this decision in our community or
leave it to the industry?
The Commission maintains that these are not trivial issues. These themes
come up over and over again in the documents of other cities and counties that
have considered changes in solid waste management.
This newsletter is a summary of the Solid Waste
Commission's final report on organized collection, which is
almost 70 pages long. We encourage residents to read the
full report in order to learn about the issues and give informer
comment.
You can find the report on our website:
http://www.ci.falcon-heights.mn.us/gov/sw/finaIrep.htmI
You can request a copy by returning the coupon on page 1.L.
q&
PAGE 2
J F
For many years Falcon Heights has had an "open"
system of trash collection. The City does not provide
municipal refuse collection. Residents, apartment
owners and business owners are required to arrange
their own collection service. They must choose from the
haulers licensed in the City.
There is another way to do it. Some cities have a city-
wide contract with a hauler or group of haulers. This is
called "organized collection."
In order to have organized collection, a city has to follow
Minnesota Statute 115A.94, a process that takes at least
6 months. Falcon Heights began that process on March
24. We are now entering the final three month phase.
Timeline
2002 — Ramsey and Washington Counties consider organized
collection. See the final report on their study at http://
www.co.ramsey.mn.us/recovery/PublicCollectionFina1.asp
2002 — Falcon Heights City Wide Survey (questions on farmers
market, parks, waste collection and other subjects) shows
support for a city contract if prices are lower.
2003 — Falcon Heights Solid Waste Commission considers or-.
ganized collection and does preliminary study
January 28, 2004 — Council accepts Commission's goals and
authorizes Staff to prepare for Minnesota Statute 115A.94
process
January 29, 2004 — Commission sends letters to residents and
haulers
February — March — Haulers lobby residents to oppose organ-
ized collection. Resident comments recorded at City Hall.
March 24, 2004 — Public hearing. Council passes resolution of
intent and authorizes in-depth study.
March — September, 2004 — Commission continues study
June 23, 2004 — Commission submits progress report and ex-
tends planning period to accommodate the study.
October 13, 2004 — Council receives report on the study and
votes to go ahead with the process. Ninety day discussion
period begins.
October 14 — December 30 — Public comment period
January 26, 2005 — Earliest day for a Council decision.
q,f
This is the state law that describes what a city or
county must do to organize refuse collection.
Public hearing
Passage of a resolution of intent
Planning period of at least 90 days, which must
include the opportunity for haulers to participate
Discussion period of at least 90 days
At the end, the city may implement organize collec-
tion after making specific findings of fact. The city is
not required to go ahead with organized collection.
Read the whole statute:
www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats/1 1 5A/94.html
Minnesota's Solid Waste Law:
www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats/I 1 5A/02. html
PAGE 3
Falcon Heights Residents DO Pay More!
City Type of col-
lection 30 gallon 60 gallon 90 qallon
Falcon Heights (average of 6 companies) Open 13.59 15.56 17.17
Roseville (average of 7companies) Open 12.85 14.90 16.84
Maplewood (average of 9 haulers) Open 12.19 14.11 16.08
North St. Paul, 2003 Organized 8.07 8.86 10.39
Shakopee, 2004-2005 Organized 8.60 10.65 12.24
Little Canada, 2002 (most recent rates listed) Organized 8.29 9.77 11.29
White Bear Lake Organized 7.50 11.00 15.00
Stillwater, 3 years ending 12/31/05 Organized 8.16 10.06 12.03
Note: All rates given are base rates that do not include County Environmental Charge, tax, yard waste, special offers or
introductory offers. Rates for other cities are given on the cities' websites or were communicated by city staff. Every effort was
made to "compare apples to apples." Note that White Bear Lake has structured its rates to encourage waste reduction by
increasing the differential between fees on bin sizes.
Over the long term, prices are likely to rise, whatever option
the City chooses. This is because costs go up -for instance,
the price of fuel for trucks. Structured price increases are
usually built into service contracts that last over several
years. For example, both North St. Paul and Shakopee built
small increases into their contracts. This is only fair when a
provider's costs are also rising due to .inflation. But Falcon
Heights residents have also seen their prices go up under the
open system.
There is no reason to expect that haulers would refrain from
all future price increases if the City decides not to go ahead
with organized collection.
The Falcon Heights average was calculated from the rate schedules
haulers are required to submit with their annual license application.
Taxes were subtracted from the Falcon Heights rates that included them.
Higher fees did not necessarily correspond to larger bins.
Smallest size container
30 - 38 gallons):
Average: $13.59
Range: $12.00 - $16.00
Medium size container Average: $15.56
60 - 68 gallons): Range: $13.48 - $17.65
Large container Average: $17.17
90 - 98 gallons): Range: $15.67-$19.28
www.ci.fa Icon-heig hts.mn
Does efficiency really matter?
Yes, it does. According to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, trash
pick-up is the most costly phase of solid
waste management, up to 62% of total
system costs. Finding ways to pick up
more waste with fewer trucks and fewer
people in less time can have a big impact
on total costs.
The big question for consumers, however,
is whether those savings are passed on to
them or pocketed by the hauler.
PAGE 4
dY"
Most haulers licensed in Ramsey County are under contract to take all or part of the residential
waste they pick up to the Resource Recovery Facility in Newport. All of these contracts expire
on July 13, 2007.
Falcon Heights haulers who contract to take all Falcon Heights haulers who contract to take some
Horrigan Hauling BFI
Gene's Disposal Service Superior/Onyx
Waste Management Walters
Since 1993, landfills in the United States
have been required by federal law (RCRA
Subtitle D) to meet strict safety standards
designed to keep waste from polluting the
surrounding land. All active landfills in
Minnesota meet these federal standards.
According to the haulers' representative,
all the out-of-state landfills used by our
haulers also meet these standards.
Municipal Solid Waste Landfill
Components
Liner Systems can include clay, geotextiles,
and/or plastics on the bottom and sides of the
landfill to prevent liquids from leaving the
landfill and polluting groundwater. In this
cross-section, the liner system is comprised
compacted clay liner topped by a synthetic liner.
Where does the rest go? It's up to the hauler.
of a
The gas is. extracted under vacuum and pumped to a
flare for burning off or to a generator plant.
Leachate Collection System (LCS) is placed on top of
the liner to collect and remove water (rainwater or
liquids contained in the waste) draining through the
waste. This water is called leachate. The collected
leachate is treated on- or off-site.
Cap System: A final cap . with the same hydraulic
conductivity as the liner is placed on top of the landfill
when the final height has been reached. On top of the
hydraulic barrier, a soil layer is installed for growing
vegetation. The cap system prevents precipitation from
infiltrating into landfill after the landfill is closed.
Gas Collection System is installed in the landfill using
perforated vertical and horizontal pipes to prevent
methane and other trace organic gases from escaping.
Surface Water Control System: A network of storm
water drainage channels is installed on and around the
landfill to collect precipitation and channel it to a
rainwater retention pond. The stormwater collection
system controls erosion on the cap and adjacent areas to
prevent surface water contamination.
Monitoring System: A comprehensive environmental
monitoring system is installed around the landfill to
ensure that the liner system and gas collection systems
are operating properly and human health and the
environment are protected.
Land611 information provided courtesy of NSWMA
PAGE 5
gry ; ri rl1i, ) .riff: x j }
The Resource Recovery Facility in Newport is one of three plants in
the Twin Cities area that prepare municipal solid waste as a fuel to
produce electricity. The processed material is called Refuse Derived
Fuel (RDF). After processing, the RDF is trucked from Newport to
facilities in Red Wing or Mankato where it is burned to power
electricity generators.
aIuminurn
According to staff at the Newport RRF:
Municipal solid waste excellent material for
processing into because it goes through
quickly and burns evenly.
78% or more of the waste processed
becomes fuel, 3% is recovered ferrous metal,
half a percent is recovered aluminum. The
remaining residual material is sent on to a
landfill.
The ash left over at the end of incineration
also must be landfilled. The ash takes up only
a small fraction of the volume of the original
waste.
The RDF burners are very "clean" technology;
each one produces about as much pollution in
a year as a single old fashioned back yard
incinerator.
There are two production lines running 24
hours a day, 365 days a year, and room to
add a third line. The limiting factor is the
capacity of the burners.
www.ci.fa Icon-hei g hts. m n. us
Fuel produced by the Newport plant makes
enough energy to supply about 30,000 homes,
or enough to power Woodbury and Oakdale.
Both landfills and incineration are used to produce
electric energy. Incineration uses Refuse -derived Fuel
RDF) produced by resource recovery plants like the
facility at Newport. Subtitle D landfills collect gases
from the decomposition of waste, gas that would
otherwise pollute the air, and channel it to generators.
This is called Landfill Gas technology or LFG.
How do these technologies compare?
Energy production from an individual landfill varies
greatly from year to year. It peaks in the first 5 to 10
years and then tapers off as the decomposable material
is exhausted.
RDF energy production .is constant. On a given year
the energy output can be between 32 to 54 times more
than LFG for the same amount of waste.
RDF technology uses a higher percentage of the waste
because it can make use of materials that do not readily
decompose. under landfill conditions, such as plastic
bottles and organic material that is shielded from
moisture by plastic.
El
PAGE 6
ReducingWaste
Residents on both sides of the issue have
clearly expressed their support for reducing
waste.
That is our highest goal, but there is still a
need to make wise choices in the disposal of
that waste that goes into the containers at the
curb, to be picked up and hauled away every
week.
There are potential hazards associated with ALL means of
municipal solid waste disposal, including recycling and com-
posting.
Landfills are filling up. More space will be needed soon, but
land for landfills is expensive and getting hard to find.
Incinerator ash takes up only a small fraction of the landfill
space that unprocessed waste does, but toxic substances
can be more concentrated in incinerator ash than in general
waste.
Large waste companies own their own landfills; which gives
them a cost-saving advantage over small companies. On
the other hand, the Newport facility charges all companies
on the same basis.
Under an open system, it is the industry, often
in distant corporate headquarters, that makes
that choice about at least part of the waste
that comes from Falcon Heights. Without a
renewal of RRF contracts in 2007, there may
be no local voice in this decision for cities that
do not have their own contracts.
Supreme Court decisions in the 1990s
severely restricted the ability of local
governments to decide what to do with their
municipal solid waste. Cities cannot use their
licensing authority 'to make this decision;
residents have no individual clout. A city
contract, that is, an organized collection
system, is the only tool communities have to
keep this decision local.
6 1
PAGE 7
Extra eTrucks DO Have an Impacd- fi
One Garbage Truck =
1500 cars (Used by MnDoT)
1000 cars (Used by Roseville)
1125 cars (Used by Chanhassen)
857 cars (Used by Falcon Heights;
figures provided by our city
engineers, H. R. Green)
5 trucks = 4,287 cars in one week
222,924 cars in a year
Comparisons are in terms of EquivalentSingle
Axle Weight (E.S.A. LJ
The number of stops and starts may
have as much impact on the street as
the weight of the vehicle. The higher
the speed, the greater the impact.
The number of garbage pick-up stops
on the street is the same, no matter
how many trucks
More trucks 4 stops for each truck are
farther apart 4 average speed of each
truck is faster between stops
4 more damage to the street.
The most dramatic impact of truck traffic will be the
accumulative load effect of trash trucks as a percentage of
the overall average daily traffic. Known as Equivalent
Standard Axle Loads (ESALs), these figures are a measure of
the accumulation of equivalent 18,000 -Ib single axles on the
design lane over the design life of the roadway (usually 20
years)...
7n the case of a trash hauler, a two -axle garbage truck can
have an ESAL equal to 857 automobiles. Therefore,
additional trash trucks on residential streets can impact the
condition of the pavement."
Memo from Falcon Heights City Engineer, October 30, 2003
Garbage trucks are among the oldest, least fuel-efficient and
most polluting fleet vehicles in the United States."
In 2002 INFORM, Inc., a national environmental research
organization, released a comprehensive study of the na-
tion's garbage trucks that found, among other things:
i Diesel garbage trucks are a major source of air pollu-
tion, including particulate matter and greenhouse gasses.
Diesel garbage trucks generate noise levels up to 100
decibels, a level that can cause hearing damage
www.ci.falcon-heights.mmus
Greening Garbage Trucks., New Technologies for Cleaner Air,
INFORM, Inc., 2003
The INFORM study recommended upgrading to natural
gas trucks because they are cleaner and quieter and could
reduce dependency on Middle East oil. Organized collec-
tion is the fastest and strongest tool Falcon Heights has to
get the benefits of this technology. A contract can give
economic incentives for vehicle upgrades. The City cannot
do this through licensing, and individual residents have
very little leverage to motivate a change.
PAGE 8
The Falcon Heights Solid Waste Commission met with
licensed haulers and representatives of the National Solid
Waste Management Association on April 20 and May 12. At
those meetings, haulers suggested a number of ways in
which they would be willing to work with the City. At the
request of the Commission they have put those ideas in a
written proposal which is summarized below.
Hauler Recommendations:
Keep the existing open system because it already meets
most of the goals.
To mitigate the impact of trucks, haulers would
Bring trucks into the city empty
Use left turns into and out of alleys to avoid wheels
running over curbs and boulevards
Not drive on streets and alleys where they have no
customers
Haulers would let the City provide educational inserts to
send in refuse bills.
Haulers could provide tonnage estimates if required.
Companies would continue to abide by their contracts
with Ramsey County
Those that take waste to landfills will continue to use
Subtitle D landfills
These provisions would be put into a Memorandum of
Understanding signed by the haulers and the City.
Due to lack of space, we cannot reprint the whole proposal in this
newsletter. The report is included in its entirety in the full report of
the Solid Waste Commission. Residents are strongly encouraged to
read it on the City website or request a copy at City Hall.
GiveYour InM
1. First, read the report. Please read all of this newsletter, if you are not able to read the full report.
You can get a copy of the full report by sending in the coupon on page 11 or by coming in
person to City Hall to pick up a copy. (Telephone requests will not be accepted.) You can also
find the report on the City website:
http://www.ci.faIcon-heights.mn.us/gov/sw/finaIrep.htmI
2. Send your comments in writing by:
Mail to City of Falcon Heights, 2077 W. Larpenteur Ave., Falcon Heights, MN 55113
Email to mail@ci.falcon-heights.mn.us
Fax to 651-644-8675
3. Please do not call City Hall. Our staff resources for taking calls are very limited, and we want to
have your exact words in the record. See Page 9 for more —>
163
PAGE 9
It is the consensus of the Solid Waste Commission that the interests of the residents of Falcon
Heights can best be served by organized refuse collection because:
Residents in cities with organized collection pay significantly lower fees than the Falcon
Heights average.
If we can reduce the number of garbage trucks in the City, we can make our streets and
alleys last longer and reduce exhaust and noise pollution
Only with a contract can we make the decision about where our garbage goes, based on our
environmental interests, and make sure we have a local voice in other important decisions
about our municipal solid waste
Recommendation of the Commission
In view of the study findings, the Solid Waste Commission recommends the following plan:
Proceed with the 90 day discussion period, including an opportunity for further discussions with haulers.
Put the Commission's report and recommendation and the haulers' recommendation in the hands of
residents.
Take comment from the public under guidelines to be determined by the City Council for a limited period
to be designated by the Council. (See below)
Make findings of fact, as required by Minn. Stat. 115A.94, in January, 2005, at the end of the 90 day
discussion period.
Pending the will of the Council, after the expiration of the 90 days, issue a Request for Proposal for a
city-wide waste collection contract that
Serves the best interests of the residents of Falcon Heights, financially and environmentally
Moves toward all the goals articulated in January, 2004
Covers all types of residential solid waste discussed in the original goals, except recycling, which
shall remain separate for now.
Makes every effort, including innovative strategies developed by other cities, to ensure all haulers
operating in the city, large and small, have a fair chance to compete
4. You must include your full name and address. Anonymous communications will not be accepted
S. Comments must be received by 4:30 p.m., Friday, December 30, 2004
6. All comments are part of the public record.
Important Tips
You may speak only for yourself and your own household. If your friends and neighbors want their
opinions known, they must contact us themselves.
If you contact us more than once, any additional remarks will be appended to your original comments,
not counted separately.
Your comment must come directly from you to the City. We will not accept comments delivered through
a third party.
wwwxi.falcon-heights.mn.us
day
PAGE 10
CAR =,i "w;.. £ ', A'. '. •
6
Is this a done deal?
No. The Council will not make a final decision until after the 90 day discussion period is over. The earliest
this would happen is January 26, 2005.
Why is this taking so long?
The City is required to go through a special process required by Minnesota
state law. It takes at least 6 months. Part of that process was extended
to give the Commission time to do more research. We are now in the
final 90 -day portion of the process.
Does this plan include recycling?
No. Recycling will not change, for now. Keep putting your recycling out
on the first and third Friday of the month.
What about apartments and businesses?
They are not included in this process. Only single family homes and
duplexes would be covered by a city contract, if Falcon Heights makes this
change.
Would we have one hauler for the whole city?
Not necessarily. There could be one hauler, or a consortium of haulers, or the city could be divided into
zones. There are pros and cons to all of these. The study opened our eyes to many possibilities we never
knew existed, so we are keeping the options open at this time.
s
Open collection has not stopped small local companies from going
out of business or being bought out by large companies.
During the 1990s there was a major consolidation in the
waste hauling industry, both nationally and in Minnesota.
In Ramsey and Washington County, 'mergers and
acquisitions reduced the number of active licensed waste
businesses operation in the two counties from 58 in 1995
to 45 in 1999.
Most hauling companies were locally owned and operated
in 1995. But now, according to the Ramsey/Washington
County 2002 report, over 65% of the waste in the two
counties is picked up by BFI, Waste Management and
Superior/Onyx (Vivendi), three large national or
international companies. This means that the decisions
about waste management, which used to be made locally,
are now increasingly geared toward corporate goals..
In 1990, Woodlake was by far the most popular of the 6
Falcon Heights haulers. Woodlake was bought out by
BFI. Of the remaining five, Waste Management and
Gene's Disposal Service still operate in the City. Walter's
was in operation, but it was sold to one of the large
national companies. The present Walter's Refuse and
Recycling was started up five years later by members of
the same family. Poor Richard's and Wiley's, both local
companies, were gone by 1995.
Continued consolidation of the industry in the future
could leave residents with few choices, little power in the
market place and no voice in environmental choices
about municipal solid waste.
Ironically, organized collection can give residents and
communities leverage to keep local haulers in business.
Cities can structure their proposal requests and contracts
to help "level the playing field" for large and small
haulers.
1&5'
P A G E
But I won't get to choose my own hauler.
Probably not, if Falcon Heights goes ahead with organized collection. If that happens we'll use city-wide
consumer power" to make sure you get service as good as you're getting now, or better, at a lower price.
If the City does not organize collection, you will still need to contract for your own trash pickup.
My hauler picks up anything I put out without charging me extra money. I don't want to give
that up.
Your neighbors may be subsidizing your "extras" by paying higher fees. Studies have found that the most
effective way to get people to reduce waste is to have a system where people pay for what they throw away.
But you will always know exactly how much extra. you will pay for special services, like furniture and
appliance pickup. You can reduce your fees by going to a lower volume option and recycling more!
Will my garbage collection day change?
Right now, collection has to be on Friday according to the City Code. It might be necessary to change this so
a small hauler could cover the whole City. Some residents have said they would
really like a change to an earlier weekday. This is another option that needs to
be considered. With organized collection, there will be one truck on your street
or alley on one day of the week, but it might turn out not to be Friday.
What would city-wide service be like?
The Commission came across plenty of good ideas used by other cities around
the country, such as senior discounts and super -low-volume discounts. We are
still looking at many options, and at this time we do not even know if the City will
adopt organized collection in the end. The proposal stage, if we get there, will
be the time to work out the details. We do know that we will insist on a high
service standard. Fees would be structured to encourage waste reduction.
Waste would go to the Resource Recovery Facility. Please see the list of goals
that was distributed in January: www.ci.falcon-heights,mn.us/gov/sw/goaIs.htmI
Request for the Falcon Heights Study on Organized Collection
I' Name
Address
Please send me the Organized Collection Study., Final Report Mail this form to:
Cit of Falcon Heights
I
Please send me the complete Hauler Proposal only y g
This is included in the full report.) 2077 W. Larpenteur Avenue
IFalconHeights, MN 55113
If you wish, add comments below.
Please read "How to Give Your Input," pages 8 and 9)
I---------------------------- o ----
www.d.falcon-heights.mn.us
SM "ON 4RU-19d
NW lined 'IS
4It/d £TTSS NW 's4gb]@H uMle
a6e4sod •S•n -any ana4uadae -M LLOZ
paepue4S pa:Posaad s446iaH uoaled;o RIr:.
lob
Public Meeting on Organized Collection
Falcon .Heights Solid Waste Commission
May 20, 2004
Sources of this document: Staff notes taken at the meeting and the video recording. Numbers in square
brackets [ ] refer to the End Notes.
The meeting was called to order at 7:06 p.m. by Commission Chair Jeff Alexander. Also present
were Commissioners Barbara Leary, Michael Barany, Frank Meah, and Susan Harding, and Staff
Liaison Deb Jones. Mr. Alexander listed some issues remaining from the March 24 hearing. Ms.
Jones gave a repeat of the PowerPoint presentation that was used at the March 24 hearing to
review the background of the organized collection issue and process. (The presentation is available
on the City website and, by request, in printed form.)
Commissioner Leary presented a status report outlining the activities of the Commission since the
March 24 hearing, including two Commission meetings, two meetings with haulers and a tour of
the Resource Recovery Facility in Newport. The report also summarized. findings of the
Commission during that time. A copy of the report is appended to these minutes. Ms. Leary
concluded with thanks to the haulers for their time and cooperation in meeting with the
Commission
Commissioner Alexander noted that the impact of 5 garbage trucks per week on a city street is
equivalent to 2 to 3 cars per minute, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. He also offered some
additional information on the rainwater that seeps through landfills, called leachate, and the new
technology of recirculating that water within the landfill.
Doug Carnival, attorney representing the National Solid Wastes Management Association
NWSMA) offered some clarifying comments on landfills, emphasizing since 1994 the federal
government requires all landfills to meet certain conditions to contain water and keep it from
contaminating ground water. In other words, "these are not potential superfund sites."
Commissioner Meah commented that this technology, now required, goes back to the 1970s, used
for recovery of heavy metals from the sludge.
Chair Alexander reminded the audience of the ground rules. The meeting was then opened up to
public comment.
Henry Ernst, 1467 Iowa, questioned why, if every hauler is required to take rubbish to a qualified
place, why are we even discussing it. Commissioner Barany replied that "qualified places" are not
necessarily the best option and the Commission is pursuing the answer to what is the best solution.
Dave Ward, 1588 Northrop, asked if anyone has estimated how many cubic yards of garbage
we're talking about and therefore what is the optimum number of trucks to get the job done. The
Commission thanked him for the question, which will be noted for future research.
Kevin Silverstein, 2108 Folwell, thanked the Commission for their efforts, recognizing their workZD
as volunteers. He pointed out that even if both these disposal methods meet legal standards, it is
still important to investigate ways to improve recycling and reduction of waste. He asked about
air pollution from the RRF. Commissioner Barany cited the Office of Environmental assistance
Public Meeting on Waste Collection (Solid Waste Commission), May 20, 2004 Page 1 of 7
finding that each facility puts the equivalent of 1 barrel of trash burning in the open air per year.
Commissioner Leary added that the ash is a bigger concern, and Waste Management has a contract
with the Newport RRF to remove the ash it produces to landfill. Commissioner Meah added that
the volume is compressed down to 3% of the original volume of garbage.
Mr. Silverstein continued to say that, as his family makes a priority of reducing the amount of
trash they produce, he contacted the hauler to find out if they could get a smaller container, but
found out that the cost difference is only $1. He feels that we need to encourage people to produce
less waste by having the smallest container as the standard and higher fees on larger bins. In fact,
in his neighborhood a smaller bin is not even an option. [1] Commissioner Alexander replied
that, according to the haulers, the automated trucks require a certain minimum size of bin, and that
bin size makes very little difference to their costs.
Tom Lageson, 1740 Pascal, repeated his opposition to organized collection expressed at the March
24 hearing. He feels the real issue has not been addressed, which is the problem of reducing the .
competition. Even zones would be a problem. "Who would get Walter's?" He also likes having a
choice. He patronizes local stores because of the service they offer and their reputation. The large
national companies have a bad reputation, he said. Reduction of waste is the key goal we should
be pursuing, he said, and the focus of our efforts. His opinion on the 2002 survey was that it was
bogus." He preferred the Ramsey -Washington County survey on the grounds that he was more
in agreement with that survey's results. He said he had talked to the City Engineer who told him
there were too many variables to tell if reducing the number of trucks would extend the life of the
streets. He ended by pleading with the Commission to "let us keep choice."
Betty Ernst, 1467 Iowa, asked the relevance of the information on wood burning (see the
appended report). The Commission replied that they were just following up on an assertion made
on March 24 that the District.Energy plant in St. Paul, "doesn't work." County Commissioner
Rettman, who was present on March 24, followed up on the issue and forwarded to the City her
findings that the plant does indeed work. The Commission brings it up now simply to set the
record straight from March 24. Ms. Jones gave additional information on the new free option for
disposing of brush at certain County compost sites. Mrs. Ernst pointed out that her hauler does
pick up this waste; so this service is available from haulers for an extra charge. In response to one
of her questions, Commissioner Leary repeated that the two neighborhoods in Falcon Heights that
have organized collection, University Grove and Hollywood Court, have done so on their own,
and that this is an option open to every neighborhood. Mrs. Ernst went on to express her belief in
a free enterprise system without government involvement. Her concern is that the March 24
resolution of intent is the final decision. Commissioners Alexander and Barany emphasized that
the language of the resolution is required by state law and that the final decision has not been
made.
Wilmer Rogers, 1947 Autumn, said he was asked to come tonight by other people in his
neighborhood, Falcon Woods. Most of them are older, he said, and not able to come, and over
90% of them are opposed to organized collection. Falcon Woods has no alleys like the
southerners" (i.e. people south of Larpenteur) so one plan for everyone is not practical. People
love" their present hauler and don't like Waste Management and BFI. He criticized the "very
small sample" in the City survey [2] "Private enterprise works great!" he said because people can
switch and get a good deal. He said having one carrier would make the price go up and educating
people would add even more to the cost. He didn't know where the Commission got the figure on
Public Meeting on Waste Collection (Solid Waste .Commission), May 20, 2004 Page 2 of 7
nZ
a truck being the equivalent of 857 cars [3]. He described how some people in his neighborhood
get around the city ordinance requirement to have a hauler by going together on a bin or taking
their garbage to their business or elsewhere. He said it is beyond the scope of the layman to
determine what is most efficient and environmentally sound and that we should trust the haulers.
We trust trash haulers to comply with the laws; we can't do anything about that."
Brian Olson, 1592 Roselawn, insisted he never got the citywide survey because he takes a special
interest in such things and would not have overlooked it. He recommended a website,
stopwmx.org, about the business practices of Waste Management. He wanted to put people on the
alert about the management of County compost sites and said they had been lax in the past, in
particular at the Maplewood site. When told that this meeting was not going out live to the TV
audience, he wanted to know whose decision that was. Ms. Jones said it was hers; the recording is
for documentation purposes. Mr. Olson demanded that the tapes be shown and that the showing
be announced on the cable channel. Ms. Jones said she would look into it, [4]
Tom Baldwin, 1716 Albert, began by requesting a longer time than the allowed three minutes. He
reminded the audience that the streets are built to be used and the question is, is this normal wear?
If so, why are we worrying about it. It would "take an act of God," he said, for any of these
measures to save him more than $100 per year, including any added street costs. He thanked the
Commission for taking another look at this issue. He called the comparison of garbage service to
other services such as police, water, etc. a false analogy. He cited a similar study done by the
Solid Waste Commission in 1990 and its success in making recycling available to all and
educating people about reducing waste. Instead of irresponsible haulers, there are irresponsible
residents, producing more waste than they need to. Why are we feeling compelled to get involved
with the garbage industry? he asked. It's like telling the gas stations they can't sell gas to SUVs
and other inefficient vehicles. He hopes the Commission will formulate ways to help people to
make more responsible decisions but "don't make the decision for us."
Wes Tennyson,1935 Summer Street, said he has been a resident of Falcon Woods 43 to 45 years,
so he guessed he is one of those "old people" Mr. Rogers is talking about. In that time his
household has changed haulers three times and are delighted to find one that meets their needs.
He expressed his skepticism about the previously cited survey which rated cost and the
environment highest because it seemed to him that the results were not what he would agree with,
that choice should be the top issue. He is part of a small group that is conducting their own survey
in Falcon Woods. They have obtained 35 names on a petition which they hope to extend to other
neighborhoods [5]. Out of the 35 names, all 35 were opposed to the organized collection proposal.
He acknowledged that 38 people were contacted but the other three favored organized collection.
Those three were impressed by the argument that they could save some money. Mr. Tennyson
argued the importance of having the right to choose and said that since 9/11, the government is
beginning to restrict our freedoms, and that to take away our freedom to choose our garbage hauler
is "ludicrous.".
Raymond Worth, 1795 Pascal, said he has been a resident since 1958. He likes the idea of what
we have at present, being able to make a choice, and he thinks environmental concerns are being
pretty well taken care of right now. With Walter's (his present hauler), he said, he can "put
seven bags out now," including branches, leaves, etc. — "all you need is environmental bags that
degrade in the landfill at no extra charge, or people can buy a large canister for yard waste for
40. He compared this service favorably to Waste Management, which charges by the bag. When
Public Meeting on Waste Collection (Solid Waste Commission), May 20, 2004 Page 3 of 7
10
we have competition we have better prices for better service, he said. He added that "if you knock
out the smaller haulers," prices go up and you lose service, and said that "unified service" is likely
to knock the smaller haulers out. He discounts the issue of truck wear on the road because the
newer trucks have less impact and because if you don't use the roads they deteriorate. He said the
need is to cut down on packaging and get the word out about reducing waste. He has the
impression the City Council "is pretty gung ho on this new plan" and he doesn't want to see this
change.
Jim Duffy, 1961 Summer, pointed out that almost all of the people present are in favor of choice.
He hasn't heard anyone stand up and say they want "the government, that is you people" making
the decision for people. The Commissioners took immediate issue with this, reminding the
speaker that they are residents, neighbors and volunteers: Representatives of the government,
amended Mr. Duffy. The Commissioners protested that as well. Mr. Duffy said the people here
seem to be satisfied with the way things are now.
Doug Carnival, representing the NSWMA, thanked the Commission for meeting earlier with
hauler representatives. He said the comments people were making this evening regarding choice
are the same comments the haulers are hearing from their customers. He reviewed the efforts of
the haulers to provide education to the Commission on the environmental issues and mentioned
hauler interest in working with the community to minimize impact on streets by protecting
people's choice. He expressed hope that discussions will continue and that voluntary solutions
will be found, not something that takes away people's choice.
Mr. Silverstein asked if the Commission had found out what goals can be met by licensing. Ms.
Jones replied that that piece of the research has not yet been done.
A resident who did not identify himself spoke from the audience and took issue with the research
process itself.
Tom Baldwin said that he could himself come up with arguments in favor of organized collection,
but, absent a clear, compelling reason for the government to be involved, it should not be. The
point is not how many people are for or against it but whether or not there is a compelling need,
and he has not heard one yet.
Tom Lageson remarked that he sees no solid plan or proposal although the first 90 days are nearly
up. He feels confused about who he should talk to and thinks some kind of definite time line
should be announced. He wants to see a focus on reduction of waste. Ms. Jones said that she has
checked with the City Attorney and received from him confirmation that the 90 days is a
minimum and that extending this phase would not invalidate the process. Commissioners
Alexander and Barany emphasized that it is the City Council that will make the final decision; the
Commission is only gathering information and making a recommendation.
Dave Wark raised the question of licensing again and asked for more information on what the City
can and cannot do. Commissioner Leary asked Councilmember Lamb, who was present, to repeat
what he had told the Commission earlier.
Mr. Lamb said the City cannot mandate the number of trucks, the cost of service or destination of
the waste through licensing, according to the City Attorney. What Mr. Carnival was talking about,
Public Meeting on Waste Collection (Solid Waste Commission), May 20, 2004 Page 4 of 7
he said, was a voluntary program, not licensing. In response to a question from Commissioner
Harding he clarified the difference between the City's licensing power and those things that can be
defined in a contract. He pointed out that all of these issues are complex and the City's residents,
as well as the Commissioners need to educate themselves about these things. It is going to take
some time. The haulers have provided a lot of helpful information, and the Commission has done
a good job representing the people's concerns. As we go along, we find out that some of the
original concerns are not well founded and some are very well founded. He asked people to have
some faith that the Commissioners are doing their job and to give them a chance to do their work.
In the end, they will have to sell the plan to the Council on the basis of facts.
Mr. Silverstein asked about the possibility of using licensing to govern bin size and raised the
issue of reduction of waste again. Mr. Lamb agreed that reduction is a very important goal and
that the education going on now is a good thing.
Commissioner Meah suggested that licensing itself is a way of limiting choice. Mr. Ward
countered that licensing can increase choice. by saying that whoever fulfills the requirements can
offer the service and then people can do the hard work of making the choice. Commissioner
Alexander repeated that the Commissioners are volunteers, undertaking a major study on their
own time and that the Commission simply hasn't gotten to the licensing question yet. At this
point the Commission can only give an update on what it has done so far; the date of the meeting
was set before it was realized how long the study would take.
George Walter, of Walter's Recycling and Refuse, told the audience that the haulers are mandated
by the State to offer 3 sizes of carts. His business offers 42, 68 and 92 gallon carts. However, the
majority of the cost is fixed costs such as the truck and driver, that are the same for all customers
regardless of bin size. The only difference occasioned by bin size is the cost of actual disposal of
the waste, that is the tipping fee.
When Mr. Alexander suggested that greater fee differentials might be used as an incentive to
produce smaller waste, Mr. Baldwin responded that it could be a disincentive. He pointed out that
there are people who do not pay for garbage hauling because they don't produce any garbage.
Commissioners said that they anticipated this and intend to address it in such a way as to not
impose unfair charges on such people.
Raymond Worth repeated his previous points about choice and competition. He related, as an
example, how Walter's had picked up his old storm windows after telling hien how to prepare
them for disposal.
A resident, who did not identify himself, asked if one of the original goals was not to have just one
hauler. The Commissioners strongly disagreed, acknowledging that this misconception seems to
be widespread. The statutory process does not necessarily lead to "one hauler," and the
Commission will not necessarily recommend it.
Commissioner Barany reviewed points raised during the evening. Some of these are references to
the status report (attached) delivered by Commissioner Leary:
Areas where more information is requested of Commission
o More efficient routes and more efficient ways to pick up refuse
Public Meeting on Waste Collection (Solid Waste Commission), May 20, 2004 Page 5 of 7
a
Concerns about City's impression of residents sentiments, specifically the 2002 survey
Issues of disposal of waste
o Emissions of RRF in Newport
o Strength of landfill statutes
o City may not be able to effectually judge the best solution
Is the problem the hauling industry or those who produce the trash?
o It is important to find ways to encourage smaller output of waste, whatever system
we end up with.
On the question of street wear and tear, are there too many variables to be addressed by
attention to the issue of garbage trucks?
o Are our streets well built enough so that this is not even an issue?
Major concerns about choice and competition
o There are fewer haulers than there used to be and organized collection may put
even more out of business
o Worry about "who would get which hauler"
o Concern that people would be forced to support businesses they don't regard as
reputable.
Is the Commission considering all the options
o Many services stated in goals are already available
o There is an opportunity for the City to work with the haulers to approach the goals
voluntarily
o Cost savings to residents of organized collection might not be significant
o Haulers have been amenable to working with the City.
Commissioner Barany assured the audience that all of these concerns have been heard by the
Commission and would be carefully considered and that the Commission hopes to come up with
the best solution for everyone.
Although the public comment portion of the meeting was closed, Mr. Duffy requested to speak
again. He asked, is the Commission, then, moving away from the stated goal of only one hauler
per street? Commissioner Alexander said that was the way the goal was originally written but
people could see that the study process was having an effect on the goals themselves and that he
was sure there would be more evolution as the process continues.
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:00 p.m.
Recorded and submitted by
Deborah Jones, Staff Liaison to the Solid Waste Commission
Attachment: Status Report by Commissioner Barbara Leary
Public Meeting on Waste Collection (Solid Waste Commission), May 20, 2004 Page 6 of 7
I13
End Notes
1. University Grove, Mr. Silverstein's neighborhood, has a collective agreement with BFI.
Organized collection in the Grove is long standing, and the City has never been involved. It
should also be noted that the Grove is specifically exempted in the City Code from Friday -only
collection as long as the neighborhood is served by only one vendor. (Chapter 5-2.03.A. Le.)
2. The number of responses in the City-wide survey ranged between 218 to 231 for the questions
related to solid waste, out of 245 surveys returned. In particular, one question mentioned in
the staff presentation was as follows:
Would you be willing to have the Falcon Heights City Council negotiate a contract with a
single garbage hauler if the contract could guarantee lower prices and high quality
service?
Yes 172 74%
No 59 36%
Total Responses 231
The documentation on the survey and a detailed analysis of responses to all the questions, only
3 of which concerned solid waste, are available at City Hall. See also the comment from Wes
Tennyson on the particulars of the Falcon Woods residents' own survey, which had a total of
38 responses, of which 35 signed the petition against organized collection. This neighborhood
effort is the source of the 90% figure that has been quoted by some residents since the
meeting; it was not given out by Staff as a result of the citywide survey. The videotape
confirms this.
3. The number came from the City Engineer, based on standard industry formulae, as stated in
the introductory presentation and elsewhere.
An important clarification is necessary on this matter: No decision was made by City Staff to
actively prevent the meeting from being shown on public cable broadcast. It is City policy to
televise only City Council meetings and Planning Commission meetings. Mr. Olson is aware
of this policy and has expressed disagreement with it on previous occasions. Public meetings
on issues such as organized collection or the Southeast Corner redevelopment never have been
televised. The expectation is that citizens who wish to participate will attend the meeting or
make some effort to communicate their feelings on'the issue at hand. Ordinarily, such a
meeting would not even be videotaped, and there is no legal requirement to do so. The Staff
decision" in this case was to record the meeting for documentation of people's comments as
opposed to not recording it at all, which would be the normal practice. The videotape is freely
available for viewing at City Hall on request during business hours, or a copy may, be
purchased at cost.
5. As of the July 8 Solid Waste Commission meeting, the group sponsoring this petition had not
shared it with the Commission, City Council or the Staff.
Public Meeting on Waste Collection (Solid Waste Commission), May 20, 2004 Page 7 of 7
Iiy
City of St. Cloud Refuse System
Prepared by
Refuse Study Task Force
Prepare for:
St. Cloud City Council
November 12, 1996
The.System
The Service: The City of St. Cloud, under authority of the State of Minnesota and
the Home Rule Charter, operates a municipal solid waste collection/disposal (Refuse)
system that includes the following services: Refuse, recycling, yard waste, demolition
and rubbish. All collection and disposal services are provided weekly except
demolition/rubbish collection which occurs by appointment. All services are provided at
the curb. The system is set forth in the City of St. Cloud Code of Ordinances, Section
240 and Minnesota Statute, Chapter 115A.93 - Solid Waste Collection; Volume or
Weight -Based Pricing. Copies of these laws are contained in Appendix I.
The City chose to provide refuse services to residential units with three or fewer units
per structure. The system has approximately 10,240 customers. On average, each
refuse crew (one driver and one sanitation worker) passes roughly 1282 customers per
day and actually collects from 680 customers per day. A recycling crew (one driver
and two sanitation workers) passes by 854 customers per day and collects from 358
customers. In total, the Sanitation Division has 16 full time employees and one 1/3 time
supervisor. This is broken down as 6 drivers, 10 sanitation workers, and a 1/3 time
supervisor. These workers make up two refuse crews and three recycling crews. In
addition to refuse/recycling duties, all sanitation workers assist in snow removal. In the
1994-95 winter season, the Sanitation employees logged 818 hours of snow removal
work.
The refuse system requires the use of the official City bag with a 30 -gallon capacity.
These bags are available from most grocery and convenience stores in the City at
2.00 each including tax. The bags are sold in groups of 10. For recycling, the City
initially provides all customers with a green hard plastic bin. Customers are required to
S-
separate glass, newsprint, magazines, plastic, and metals. Customers are required to
place separated recyclables in paper grocery bags.
The City also collects yard waste once a week in season. Customers are required to
purchase clear plastic bags (30 -gallon capacity) to dispose of yard waste. These bags
are available in the same places as the green refuse bags and sell for $1.00 each
including sales tax. Grass, leaves and small twigs are acceptable. Larger items fall
under rubbish collection. As an alternative, homeowners may haul yard waste to an
approved site. The contract site manager is responsible for screening all yard waste
delivered to the site. Finally, the City will pick up demolition material and other rubbish.
The City charges $10 for 150 gallons or its equivalent. Often special prices will need to
be established because the uniqueness of the material being disposed.
All other properties are serviced by private haulers in an open system. In an open
system, each business arranges for refuse collection services with a private hauler. For
reason that may be obscured with the passing of time, the City has chosen not to
collect commercial refuse.
Rates: The average City refuse/recycling customers paid $12.67 per month in 1995.
This cost is broken down as follows:
Refuse Disposal
Pass by fee $ 4.50 (Cost of recycling service)
Bag fee $ 7.56 (The average customer uses one bag per week.)
Sales tax $. 44 (Sales tax on refuse, recycling is exempt)
Landfill Surcharge . 17 ($2 per household per year)
Total $12.67
Yard Waste Disposal
Pass by fee Part of the $4.50 listed above
Bag fee 935
Sales Tax 065
Total 1.00
Rubbish & Demolition Disposal
Fee $10 per 150 gallon or it's. equivalent
City Refuse Budget
Although the refuse service is normally described by program, i.e., refuse, recycling,
2
J16
yard waste and rubbish collection, the, annual operating budget is basically a line item
budget. The following is an attempt to translate
Figure 1. Refuse Service the line item budget to program costs.
1996 City of St. Cloud
Pass by
Bags
Rubbish
Interest
Revenues
In 1995, the system collected about 35 percent
of its revenue ($553,662) from the pass by fee,
53 percent from bags sales (826,780), 5.7
percent from rubbish ($89,558), 3.7 percent
from a Score Grant ($57,700), and 2.6 percent
from interest ($40,000). It should be
remembered that Score funds do not occur on a
regular basis.
Score Grant
Expenses
Expenses are shown as follows: Personnel services at 50 percent ($753,300),
425,000 for tipping fees, $65,000 for bags, and $78,300 for a recycling truck. This
total is $1,520,800 for 1996.
Labor cost for the City may be high compared to private haulers. City refuse truck
drivers average $14.87 per hour
Figure 2. Refuse Service Expense
and sanitation workers average
13.20 per hour. If benefits are 1,996 Budget -,City of St. Cloud
included, including insurances, the
wage increases to $21.56 and
18.74 respectively. See
Appendix II for detail on personnel 4.3
costs. City benefits include a
retirement plan, health, dental and 5.2% 27.9%
life insurances. The City pays 100
percent of insurance benefits for
single benefit eligible employees Personal Services
and 90 percent for family benefit supplies & Charges
eligible employees. Normally, Capital Outlay
major capital outlay for equipment -ripping
such as packers and recycling
trucks are purchased from
Bags
operating reserves. The City is in the process of creating an equipment replacement
fund that will separately track reserves funds for equipment purchase.
Currently tipping fees are $45 per ton plus $14 per ton to transport to NSP's burn unit
near Elk River, Minnesota. Since 1992, tipping fees have ranged from $89.67 to
45.25 per ton.
3
The Issues
On December 30, 1995, a historic merger agreement between the then Town of St.
Cloud and the City of St. Cloud went into effect. This agreement caused the Town of
St. Cloud to become part of the Cities of St. Cloud and Waite Park. The agreement
culminated a 22 -month mediation/negotiation effort and settled a 30 -year boundary
dispute. Refuse service in the newly merged areas became one of the most difficult
issues to resolve. In fact, the merger agreement did not directly resolve the issue.
Specifically, the agreement states,
During the first year of the merger, private waste haulers must be allowed to continue servicing the
merged Town area. Private haulers and residents will be subject to all City ordinances. Starting with
the second year (1997), refuse and garbage collection and disposal will be the responsibility of the
City.
The merger negotiators accepted the statement that garbage will be the responsibility of
the City. A review of the City's refuse system between December 30, 1995 and
January 1, 1997, was to further define "... the responsibility of the City."
Recently, the City Council received approximately 600 letters from newly merged
residents asking to retain private collection of waste and recyclable materials. Although
no documents exist which sets forth the specific objections to the City extending its
refuse service to new areas, here are the objections which surfaced in the merger
negotiations and in the recent letter campaign.
1. Object to mandatory recycling. Wish to keep recycling a voluntary
program. N
2. Object to being required to use the green plastic bags.
3. Private garbage is less costly.
4. The City operation is not efficient as private haulers. Private haulers use
fewer people, pay the workers less, and better utilize equipment.
5. The City is bucking the trend of privatization in garbage service
6. The City will need to spend more money to extend its billing system to
new residents.
Analysis
The major differences between private refuse service and the City's are more policy
driven than a question of efficiency. The most obvious is the concern over the most
acceptable means to dispose of refuse. The City maintains that reducing the volume of
refuse placed in landfills is good for the environment and therefore sound public policy.
rd
Ile
Consequently, mandatory recycling is part of the City's system. In essence, State
policy requires reducing the volume of refuse placed in landfills by using "volume -based
pricing" for refuse disposal.
The City maintains and enforces a policy for the proper disposal of refuse by mandatory
volume reduction (recycling) and incineration for these reasons:
Recycling conserves finite resources.
Most often, recyclable material requires less energy to reuse than to
create from raw material.
The cost of disposal (tipping fee) is less if the volume placed
in a landfill is reduced.
It is State law.
In order to comply with the spirit and
volumes of refuse placed in landfill.
and recycling collection
and disposal for three
major private haulers and
0 $
the City of St. Cloud. It is
very clear that 0.16
Private haulers are giving 0.14
volume discounts to
customers. The City
maintains the same unit
price regardless of the
volume disposed. At
lower volumes the City is
very competitive.
However, larger volume
customers will be more
inclined to use private
haulers from an economic
standpoint.
0.12
N 0.1
m
8 0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
intent of the law, incentives are needed to reduce
Figure 3 shows a comparison of charges for refuse
Figure 3. Charges for Refuse and Recycling Collection
Charges Per Gallon Per Month
70 120 120 120 120 140 152 180 240 256 360 360 384
Container Size in Gallons
City and Area Private Haulers ION Per Gal. Per Month 11
If private haulers only
need to be concerned about customer convenience and cost competitive services, they
will dispose of garbage in the most profitable manner. The Counties of Stearns and
Benton have been forced to subsidize tipping fees at the.Elk River burn unit in order to
stop private haulers from hauling out of state.
As stated before, comparing City refuse services and private refuse service is more a
comparison of policy than efficiency. Nevertheless, effectiveness and efficiency are an
important part of providing any service and should be reviewed.
Effectiveness
The objectives of the City's refuse system are:
To maintain the aesthetics of the City and the health and safety of the Citizens
by providing an environment free from the hazards and unpleasantness of
uncollected refuse.
2. To provide a refuse
collection and disposal
system with the least
possible inconvenience
to the customer.
3. To protect the
environment and
valuable resources by
collecting recyclable
materials for reuse.
4. To reduce the amount of
solid waste placed in
landfills.
To encourage recycling
by instituting a volume based pricing system for refuse collection.
6. To increase the efficiency of the City's work force by having sanitation workers
assist in snow removal operations.
As a review of Appendix II would tell you, some of the above Objectives are state
mandates.
Objective 1 is generally measured empirically. City sanitation crews, health and
housing inspectors, other code enforcement personnel, and elected and appointed
officials assess the general appearance and cleanliness of the City. Citizen complaints
are another source of information. Periodic surveys are conducted to obtain citizen
opinions and information about City services. In 1995, a City general survey (via water
bills) asked customers to rate refuse collection in the City. Seventy seven percent of
the customers rated refuse collection high or very high. The survey also asked
customers to rate the overall attractiveness of the City. Seventy one percent rated the
C
attractiveness of the City as high or very high.
Objective 2 reflects the City's weekly recycling and refuse service. Once the City
moved recycling to the same cycle as refuse collection, the refuse/recycling program
began to show results. Figure 4, demonstrates this dramatically. In 1991, the current
weekly recycling/refuse collection began along with the bag system described earlier.
The graph shows the significant decrease in pounds per person for refuse and a
corresponding increase in pounds per person for recycling. The City has had
mandatory recycling since 1983. However, as Figure 4 indicates, participation
remained constant at about 20 pounds per person from 1983 to about 1990. Volume -
based pricing (bag system) and weekly recycling collection instituted in 1991 caused
pounds per person to triple. From this, it is reasonable to conclude that the system is
convenient.
Objective 3, 4, and 5 are reached. Figure 4 shows that the volume of refuse has
decreased and the recyclables have increased. Again this is attributed to volume -
based pricing and weekly collection
Objective 6 is not a component of refuse services. However, it is a component of the
City's work force efficiency. It causes a greater utilization of the City's labor pool which
benefits the utility customer and the tax payer. If the City were to abandon refuse
service, there would be a need to increase costs in the Street Division to either contract
or hire additional help to remove snow.
Based uponthe objectives of the system, it is fair to conclude the City has an effective
refuse system. According to Tri -County Solid Waste Management Commission, private
haulers support a study "... to determine customer satisfaction between various
systems." Certainly, this would give a clearer picture of customer opinions and one
measure of effectiveness.
Efficiency
For purposes of this analysis, efficiency will be construed to mean output verses input.
Although, members of the Refuse Study Task Force, citizens and private haulers may
wish to compare efficiency of the City's operations to that of private haulers, it will
apparently have to be done without comparable data from private haulers. The Tri -
County Solid Waste Management staff has stated that tonnages for residential refuse
and recycling are unavailable from private haulers. Nevertheless, information of the
City's operation is available and in part presented herein. This information is presented
in a series of figures with a brief analysis at the bottom of each page. Figure 5a
through 5f will deal with recycling. Figures 6a through 6f will show refuse. Figures 7a
through 7c will show data on refuse and recycling combined.
See Figures 5a thru 7c)
7
191
Comparisons
A frequently used tool to evaluate efficiency/effectiveness is comparative analysis.
Although this is limited by the differences from community to community and service
provider to service provider, it does provide insight on the nature of St. Cloud's refuse
service. A variety of cities have been contacted for information on solid waste collection
and disposal. These cities vary in size and type of system to collect solid waste.
Cities
FIGURE 8. Comparative Analysis of Weekly Residential Solid Waste
Collection and Disposal Services for Select Minnesota Cities 1995
AVERAGE:
Private 0.09729 0.0616 0.0415
city 0.09375 0.0655 0.056
A reasonable conclusion to reach after analyzing Figure 8 is that public or private
makes very little difference in pricing the services. The price for refuse services in all
communities is very close. The greatest variation occurs with larger volumes users
240 and 360 gallons per month) not between public and private haulers. Recycling
occurs for most cities on a weekly basis, the same as the refuse service.
City Hauler vs. Private Haulers
Figure 9 contains comparative cost information for purchasing and operating a refuse
25
Qa
Refuse Recycling
Service Numberof Total Lbs. Rates per Gallon per Month Total Lbs. Rates per Gallon per Month FrequencyCity
Provider Customers Collected 120 240 360 Collected Per Month
Bemidji (Can System) City 3,434,880 0.0833 0.0417 0.0278 By County
Bemidji (Bag System) City 0.0667 0.0667 0.0667
Moorhead City 7,300 10,880,000 0.0818 0.0559 0.0473 2,772,000 Included in Refuse Charge 2
St Cloud City 10,253 9,154,000 0.1056 0.0861 0.0796 3,520,600 Included in Refuse Charge 4
Detriot Lakes Contract 1,489 4,000,000 0.1055 0.0586 N/A 500,000 Included in Refuse Charge 2
Fergus Falls City 3,677 0.1043 0.0784 0.0693 732,000 Included in Refuse Charge 4
Mankato Contract 7,500 8,231,320 0.1054 0.086 0.0796 697,920 Included in Refuse Charge 4
Shoreview Contract 0.1075 0.0675 0.0559
Stillwater Contract 0.1146 0.074 0.0549
St Joseph
Waite Park Contract 942 1,040,000 0.0933 0.0467 4
Foley Contract 411 0.0446 0.0446 0.0569 128,232 4
Blaine Contract 10,612 22,984,040 0.111 0.0555 0.037 5,084,580 Included in Refuse Charge 4
Brainerd (Can System) Private 5,000 0.0964 0.0596 0.0479 1,280,000 2
Brainerd (Bag System) Private 0.1833 0.1833 0.1833
AVERAGE:
Private 0.09729 0.0616 0.0415
city 0.09375 0.0655 0.056
A reasonable conclusion to reach after analyzing Figure 8 is that public or private
makes very little difference in pricing the services. The price for refuse services in all
communities is very close. The greatest variation occurs with larger volumes users
240 and 360 gallons per month) not between public and private haulers. Recycling
occurs for most cities on a weekly basis, the same as the refuse service.
City Hauler vs. Private Haulers
Figure 9 contains comparative cost information for purchasing and operating a refuse
25
Qa
FIGURE 9. OPERATING AND CAPITAL COST FOR
A PACKER AND CREW PROVIDING WEEKLY SERVICE
1996
Private
City of
Laborand Packer Costs: St Cloud BFI Waste Mgmt. Vasko
Labor Costs:
Employees /Packer 2 1 1 2
Salary 58,387 26,000 31,200 46,571
Longevity Pay 1,177 0 0 0
Sick Leave Reimb. 1,262 0 0 0
FICA 3,771 1,612 1,934 2,887
PERA/Retirement Plan 2,616 1,165 2,794
Medicare 846 377 452 675
Insurances (M,D,L) 9,474 4,000 3,200 2,772
Workers Comp. 7,182 3,198 3,838 5,728
Total Labor Cost 84,715 32,352 40,624 61,428
Costof Borrowing (principal) 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000
1) Interest Rate 4.30% 6.67% 6.67% 6.67%
Payment 18,122 19,338 19,338 19,338
Operating & Maint. Cost 4,590 N/A N/A N/A
Total Cost of Packer 22,712 19,338 19,338 19,338
Operating &Packer Cost 107,427 51,690 59,961 80,766
Profit 0 N/A N/A N/A
Total Cost 107,427 51,690 59,961 80,766
2)Pick-ups Per Day Per Packer 545 N/A N/A N/A .
2)Drive By Per Packer Per Day 1,025 N/A N/A N/A
1) Source: Springsted Inc. Financial advisors to the. City.
2) Based on 1995
packer truck. The information compares the City of St. Cloud with BFI, Waste
Management Inc., and Vasko. Not all helpful information is available from the private
haulers, although they have been cooperative. Nevertheless, you can see, that the
difference in cost is not that significant except in the number of employees per packer.
Apparently BFI uses two employees per packer (observation by City staff). Vasko has
identified that they use two employees per packer. Waste Management Inc. states that
they only use one employee per packer. Of course, it would be very helpful to know the
number of customers per day a one person crew serves as apposed to a two -person
crew. Customers or stops per day have not been obtained from the private haulers.
As a result, it is difficult to compare efficiency/effectiveness without complete cost and
productivity information. Based on the information available and a little deductive
reasoning, it appears that the cost per packer for the City and private haulers is not that
26
Ia3
different.
Extending City Refuse Service
The Department of Public Works staff has informed me that extending the City refuse
service to the newly merged areas will require.the following expenditures:
These costs are based on adding 2,500 accounts to the current 10,250 accounts the
City currently services.
Capital Cost:
1. One recycling truck..............$77,000
Less Score grant ............ $57,700
City Cost..........................................$19,300
2. Recycling bins (2500)..........$16,250
Less Score grant $12,188
City Cost ..........................................$ 4,062
Total Capital Cost.....................................................................$25,362
Operating Cost:
1. Labor Cost:
Equip. Oper. II w/benefits..$40,100
Two San. Workers.............$69,000
Total Labor Cost.............................$109,100
2. Other ..................................................... $219,850
3. Annual Billing Costs:
Postage............................$8850
Forms.................................$360
Envelopes ........................$1686
Handling ...........................$150
Subtotal.............................................$11,050
Total Operating Cost.................................................................$340,000
Total Cost..................................................................................$363,362
The annual anticipated revenue for 2500 accounts would be( $12.06 x 2,500)
361,800. This is sufficient to meet annual operating costs plus contribute to an
equipment purchase fund for future capital purchases. If all assumptions hold, the
equipment will be amortized in 2 to 3 years.
27
I;Rq
Findings
Nothing in the information presented in this report suggests that the City program
is ineffective or inefficient. To the contrary, the.Task Force concluded at its
September 4, 1996 meeting that the City's program is effective and efficient.
2. The study did not reveal or give cause to believe that privatization of all, or any
portion of the City's current refuse collection/disposal program, would be more
effective or cost efficient. Rates for public and private services were very similar.
In fact, for low volume users, the City is less costly than private haulers.
3. If the City does consider privatizing refuse service, it should be organized as
opposed to open service. All contract haulers should be required to conform to
Cities requirements.
5. The City should consider taking over, or at least competing for, commercial
refuse collection and disposal. The increase volume of refuse and income may
afford the City an opportunity to lower its residential rates to all areas of the City.
6. The City's sudden take over of refuse service in the newly merged areas will
have a detrimental effect on the private haulers curently providing service to this
area.
Recommendations
The Refuse Study Task Force has recommended that the City should continue
its mandatory recycling and volume based pricing program. This program is
designed to reduce refuse placed in land fills, reduce the harm to the
environment, and conserve fiscal and natural resources. It is the Task Forces's
conclusion that the City's program represents sound public policy and should be
continued.
2. The City should extend its residential refuse service to all new areas of the City
starting January 1, 1998. Refuse and recycling services should be phased with
the extension of public sewer and water. The Merger Agreement between the
former St. Cloud Township and the City established a ten year schedule extend
sewer and water to the newly merged areas of the City. This will allow the City
time to plan'and extend refuse service and give private haulers time to adjust to
loss of customers.
3 The refuse service should be expanded to include container and bag service.
The Director of Public Works should recommend a container size and pricing
structure to the City Council. The container service, like the bags, is to
incorporate true volume based pricing. The price per unit of measurement
28
OG",
Gallon) shall remain the same or increase as the volume increases. For
example, the City currently charges $2.00 per 30 gallon bag. If the City chooses
to also use the container service at 60 gallons per container, the price per
container per pickup should be $4.00.
29
1a6
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Date: February 20, 2007
Department Approval Administrator Reviewed Agenda Section
ROW EMC
Item Description: Garbage Collection System Options
Background
The Council requested the Environmental Management Commission to review the garbage collection system
and make recommendations on ways to improve efficiencies. At the May 9, 2006 workshop with the Council,
the Commission presented a report that outlined the current licensed system inherent inefficiencies along with
multiple benefits with could be derived from contracted system over the existing licensed collection system.
The Commission's report recommended the Council
Resurvey Oakdale Residents to get their preferences for improving the efficiency of the garbage collection
system in the city. and
Council consider switching to contracted collection system to improve efficiency.
The attached results from the survey completed in January 2007 will be reviewed by the Commission at their
February 26, 2007, meeting. They will forward a recommendation on garbage collection options for your
consideration.
Policy Obiective
To equitably establish and enforce a garbage collections system designed to meet the city's environmental
priorities and that will provide efficient garbage collection services at a fair market rate.
Financial Implications - Na
Staff Recommendation
Provide direction on a garbage collection system for the city. .
Council Action Requested
Based on the Commission recommendation(s) and survey results, the Council should provide direction to staff
to retain the licensed.hauler garbage collection system or direct them to begin the statutory process to consider
an organized garbage collection`system.
Alternatives
Direct the Commission to continue review garbage collection system options
a
D
C,
x t )
f
Administrative Services
Information/ Request Memo
Date: February27, 2007 From: Ronald Ro stad
To: Craig Waldon Questions Call (651) 730-2706
Fax (651 730-2736
E -Mail
ron ci.oakdale.mn.us
RE: EMC action on Garbage Collection
S stem Recommendation
Pacfes 2 Pages:(including this one
At their February 26, 2007, meeting, the EMC addressed the garbage collection system
recommendation for Council action. Interim Chair Miller reviewed the activities the
Commission undertook for over a year in studying and researching the garbage collection
process for ways to reduce our environmental footprint and improve the efficiency of the system,
He reflected that the Commission concluded residents have a greater health and safety risk along
with an increased long term environmental liability from hauler waste disposal choices in a
licensed system. The Commission also determined the existing licensed garbage collection
system has inherent inefficiencies that increase the number of trucks on the road, the wear and
tear on city streets, fuel consumption, air pollution, greenhouse gases, and cost for disposal for
our residents.
Based on research reports and data collected from other communities, the Commission
concluded that a contracted system is inherently more efficient, economical, and environmentally
friendly. A contracted collection system can be designed to provide a level playing field for
small hauler; provide a means to maintain competitive bidding between small and large haulers;
provide more cost effective, higher quality service to the consumer; provide a more effective
means- to ensure comparable service to all residents and address complaints; provide increased
control over health, safety, and waste disposition liability; and provide a smaller community
environmental footprint through reduced fuel consumption, reduced greenhouse gas emissions,
reduced long term consumption of resources on capital road improvements; increased waste to
energy production (using the resource recovery facility); and increased recycling and waste
reduction incentives.
The survey results on what type of garbage collection system our residents would prefer were
inconclusive with the responses closely split between licensed, contracted and not sure. But, the
survey clearly showed residents ranked cost and service as the mos_ t important factors. This was
evident in the email and resident responses received.
The primary objection expressed by residents against a contracted system was taking away the
individuals ability to choose. Secondary concerns were quality of service and support for the
small loca au ers.
Commissioners discussed the statutory process required to switch to a contracted system as well
as various options and arrangements for a contracted system that could provide a level playing
field for small haulers and insure that resident service requirements would be met.
EMC motion on change.doc
Oakdale 2007 Garbage Survey Questionnaire Results
251 responses - 62.75% return rate)
1. Oakdale is considering changing its current system of garbage collection.. As we make this decision, it
would be helpful to know which of the following issues is most important to. you. Please rank them from 1
to 5, with 1 being the most important 2, the second most important, 3 the third most important, 4 less
important and 5 the least important (write one number in each blank).
Reduced pick up costs
High level of customer service(ability to adjust container size, request yard waste pick up, resolve
issues, respond to complaints, etc)
Reduce garbage truck traffic on neighborhood streets
High level of safety for child and adult pedestrians
Ability to choose my own hauler
Rank Costs Service Traffic Safety Choice
1 44.62% 18.33% 13.94% 14.34% 29.88%
2 20.72% 30.68% 12.75% 14.34% 10.36%
3 14.74% 25.10% 13.94% 22.31% 9.96%
4 10.76% 15.14% 22.71% 30.68% 9.96%
5 4.78% 5.58% 30.68% 12.35% 35.06%
1&2 1 65.34% 49.00% 26.69% 28.69% 40.24%
4&5 15.54% 20.720;o 53.39% 43.03% 45.02%
Do you agree or disagree with the following statements. (Circle Your Response)
2. I support maintaining the existing garbage collection system so I can select one of the 5 licensed haulers.
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree
34.26% 18.33% 23.11% 14.74% 8.37%
Strongly Agree or Agree = 52.59% Disagree or Strongly Disagree = 23.11%
3. I support the city contracting with one or more garbage haulers if it will reduce the number of garbage
trucks in my neighborhood.
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree
23.90% 19.52% 21.12% 19.12% 15.54%
Strongly Agree or Agree = 43.43% Disagree or Strongly Disagree = 34.66%
4. Which garbage collection system do you think is best for the city?
Licensed Contract Not Sure No Answer .
39.04% 32.27% 26.69% 1.54%
5. Do you recycle at curbside on at least a monthly basis?
Yes No
85.66% 13.15%
6. Do you have any other comments or concerns current recycling & garbage collection system in the City?
43.43 % (109) provided comments
t
w
0
f
W
w
Ms.
I
I
0
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
Comparison Fees By Collection Type
Small
10 Medium
El Large
Izi mill0.00 b.....:.mi MEMINIIiiMNOUN, s.;<<... WM i,......7
Municipal
r •
Small
Medium
Large
0
a
I
I
The Commission passed the following motion:
MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
BERG THAT THE COMMISSION DETERMINED THE EXISTING LICENSED
GARBAGE COLLECTION SYSTEM HAS INHERENT INEFFICIENCIES THAT CAN
BE ELIMINATED BY SWITCHING TO A CONTRACTED GARBAGE COLLECTION
SYSTEM THAT WOULD IMPROVE EFFICIENCY, REDUCE THE LONG TERM
ENVIRONMENTAL LIABILITY TO THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY, REDUCE THE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND FOOTPRINT OF THE GARBAGE COLLECTION
SYSTEM, AND HELP REDUCE COSTS AND IMPROVE SERVICES TO OUR
RESIDENTS.
THE COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THE CITY COUNCIL BEGIN THE PROCESS
TO SWITCH TO A CONTRACTED COLLECTION SYSTEM; CONSIDER DIVIDING
THE CITY INTO FIVE ZONES FOR CONTRACTED COLLECTION WITH A LIMIT
ON THE NUMBER OF ZONES AWARDED TO ANY HAULER; AND DIRECT STAFF
TO DEVELOP A REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL THAT INCLUDES CUSTOMER
SERVICE, SAFETY RECORD, WASTE DISPOSAL HISTORY, AND/OR SIMILAR
CRITERIA IN ADDITION TO COST TO ADDRESS THE RESIDENTS CONCERNS ON
PROVIDING A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD FOR THE SMALLER HAULER.
4 AYES ALL IN FAVOR
0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED
EMC motion on change.doc
Report on Residential Municipal Solid Waste Collection
City of Eden Prairie
Michael Barone, Assistant to the City Manager
Office of the City Manager department
December 21, 2005
Study Overview Questions
There are three questions to be addressed and answered in this report regarding the
collection of residential municipal solid waste (MSW) and recycling. The questions are:
L What are the basic models used by cities to insure the collection of residential MSW
and recycling?
2. What are the customary monthly charges to residents for each model?
3. What are the advantages and disadvantages of each model?
Quick Answers to Study Overview Questions
1. The basic models used are:
Open Refuse Hauling & Open Recycling 55 cities
Open Refuse Hauling & Contract for Recycling 22 cities
Contract for Refuse Hauling & Contract for Recycling 29 cities
City provided Refuse Hauling & City provided Recycling 1 city
City provided Refuse Hauling & Contract for Recycling 1 1 city
Total 1 108 cities
More detailed information for each of these options are, contained in the next pages of
this report.
2. The monthly fees for both garbage collection and recycling for residential service are
summarized in Appendix A. Additional information on the MLC cities and
Chanhassen are detailed a little further in this report.
Advantages and disadvantages to each type of service are details at the end of this
report.
CADocuments and Settings\rsarigianopoulos\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK2F3\2005-12-21 Final Report on
Residential MSW.doc - 1 -
lye
Background Information
In this study, we are comparing the municipal solid waste and recycling information -of
the City of Eden Prairie to the other member cities of the Municipal Legislative
Commission (MLC) and Chanhassen. The MLC cities are Apple Valley, Bloomington,
Burnsville, Eagan, Eden Prairie, Edina, Maple Grove, Maplewood, Minnetonka,
Plymouth, Shoreview, and Woodbury.
Municipal Solid Waste Overview
Attachment to this report is a detailed listing of monthly fees for residential garbage
and recycling services for the MLC cities and Chanhassen. Information has been
collected on garbage rates only from the "Big 2" refuse companies (BFI and Waste
Management), since these two companies combined serve a vast majority of the
residential customers in the metropolitan area. BFI is also now known as Allied Waste.
BFI is the second largest provider of solid waste management services in the United
States, serving over 10 million customers in the residential, industrial, municipal, and
commercial market.
Waste Management is the largest provider of solid waste management services in the
United States, serving over 21 million customers in the residential, industrial, municipal,
and commercial market. Both companies have a major presence in the metropolitan area.
The rates listed in this survey are generally regarded as "introductory" rates. Both
companies have multiple rates, with up to as many as 30 to 50 different rates that can be
and are implemented to their customers. This large variety of rates is mainly due to the
flexibility needed to compete in this very competitive business in today's marketplace.
As an example, if you have a rate with one of these haulers and wish to switch, for
whatever reason, a call to the other hauler may yield the' same or slightly lower rate in
order to secure your residential account. You may be offered a lower "introductory" rate
for a period of time (maybe 3 to 6 months), with your rate then set at what you were
paying previously in order to entice you to change refuse hauler companies.
Please note that both companies had different approaches when asked about their rates.
In contacting BFI by calling their three main district offices, I was able to obtain rate
information from Customer Service Representatives without providing much explanation
as to the reason for my inquiry. BFI has offices in Eden Prairie, Blaine, and St. Paul,
each serving the cities located geographically in their respective areas. Calls were needed
to all three offices to yield rate information in regards to the MLC in the survey.
In contacting Waste Management by calling their main office, I was not able to obtain
rate information I wanted from the Customer Service representative when I identified
myself and the reason for my inquiry. The Customer Service representative forwarded
my contact information to the Customer Service manager to call me back. I eventually
CADocuments and Settings\rsarigianopoulos\Ucal Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK2F3\2005-12-21 Final Report on
Residential MSW.doc - 2 -
148
ended up talking with the District Manager in order to ask about getting the refuse rates I
desired. I received them via email the next business day, and those are also listed in
Attachment A.
Attachment B lists all the licensed refuse haulers available to residents in each of the
surveyed cities. From discussions with City representatives and looking at City websites,
there are a total of 30 licensed refuse haulers that serve these 13 cities. This information
is for residential service only, and does not include large multi -family, commercial,
industrial, and construction (roll -offs for demolition and construction) related refuse and
debris collection.
A list of licensed refuse haulers that serve the large multi -family, commercial, industrial,
and construction segment of the overall market would include some of these same
companies, but also would include other companies that specialize only in the "non-
residential" segment of the market, so the total list of companies in the refuse collection
business in the metropolitan area overall is quite large.
Attachment C in this report lists all the cities in the metropolitan area (not including
townships) and their refuse hauling and recycling options. There are 108 cities listed in
this Attachment.
By far, the most common refuse hauling designation is the "open hauling" designation,
with 77 of the 108 cities (71.3% of market). This designation is also represents
approximately 83% of all residents. An "open hauling" designation means that residents
of that city have their choice from anywhere from 2 to 10 licensed refuse haulers to pick
from as their residential refuse hauler.
There are 31 cities that do not use the "open hauling" designation, and of this total, 29
contract with a licensed hauler and only 2 cities are in the refuse hauling business. BFI
with 6 % contracts and Waste Management with 10 contracts have a majority of the 29
cities. The remaining 12 % contracts are divided amongst six smaller refuse hauling
vendors. The two cities that provide their own residential refuse hauling are Hopkins
and Farmington. [% contracts refer to cities that awarded contracts to two refuse hauling
companies that "split" their cities refuse business.]
Typically, the cities that contract their refuse collection, or do it themselves, are smaller
than 25,000 in total residential population. Only 3 of the 31 cities in this category exceed
25,000 in population, and they are Blaine (51,002 residents), St. Louis Park (44,513
residents), and Shakopee (28,913 residents).
Recycling Overview
There are a number of different ways that the MLC cities and Chanhassen deal with
recycling in their cities. The following is city by city breakdown.
C:\Documents and Settings\rsarigianopoulos\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK2F3\2005-12-21 Final Report on
Residential MSW.doc -3-
19 q
3-
149
Open Hauling cities
The cities of Bloomington, Chanhassen, Eden Prairie, and Woodbury all are `open
hauling' cities, whereby residents select their refuse hauler from the list of licensed refuse
haulers, and then the refuse hauler is responsible for providing the collection of
recyclables. The rate charged customers for this system is set by the state of Minnesota
and the counties, and is $5 per month, or $60 per year.
Residents in these open hauling cities will see the charge for recycling services on their
refuse hauler bill, and these fees are not taxable.
Open System, but Joint Powers Agreement for Secondary Recycling Activities
The cities of Apple Valley, Burnsville, and Eagan have a joint powers agreement that
created an entity called the Dakota Valley Recycling Association. But each of the three
cities has an "open hauling" system for their recycling services whereby residents select
their refuse hauler from the list of licensed refuse haulers, and then the refuse hauler is
responsible for providing the collection of recyclables.
Dakota Valley Recycling doesn't set recycling rates and isn't in the business of collecting
recyclable materials. Their function is to coordinate and promote recycling related work
in these three cities, such as coordinating clean-up events, coordinating Earth Day and
Recycling Day activities and events, administering grants obtained from Dakota County
to help promote recycling overall in different segments of the communities. As an
example, DVRA currently has a grant to increase recycling in multi -tenant properties in
all three cities. There are two employees of DVRA, and they are housed in Burnsville
Contracted Recycling Services
There are a number of cities that contract their recycling services with some of the private
refuse haulers in the business. The cities of Minnetonka, Plymouth, and Shoreview all
contract with Waste Management. The cities of Edina and Maple Grove contract with
BFI. The city of Maplewood contracts with Onyx Refuse through the end of 2005, and
has a new contract with Eureka Recycling that begins January 1, 2006.
Cities of Plymouth and Minnetonka
The cities of Plymouth and Minnetonka coordinate with the City of Golden Valley in a
three -city collaborative effort (but not via a Joint Powers Agreement) for their recycling
services. They have been collaborating in this fashion since 1986. Together, these three
cities utilize an RFP process to select one recycling services vendor, and then each City
negotiates separate contracts with the selected vendor, currently Waste Management.
The cost effectiveness of this effort lies with the volume of recyclables available based on
the number of households (hh) in the three cities (58,000 combined households = 22,000
hh in Minnetonka, 27,200 hh in Plymouth, and 8,800 hh in Golden Valley), which are
sufficient to keep the recycling trucks busy for all five business days of the week.
The Waste Management recycling trucks work in Minnetonka on Mondays and Tuesday,
in Plymouth on Wednesdays and Thursdays, and in Golden Valley, and a small part of
C:\Documents and Settings\rsarigianopoulos\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK2F3\2005-12-21 Final Report on
Residential MSW.doc -4-
15-0
4-
5-0
Plymouth, on Fridays. These communities just re-signed an extension of all their
agreements for three years for 2006, 2007, and 2008 for their curbside recycling program.
The contracts with Waste Management have the costs for the recycling services
negotiated based on a per household basis. There is also a cost to provide the yard waste
program and site, to coordinate the recycling drop-off recycling centers, a couple of
yearly special recycling collection days, other special events, recycling education
materials, and general program administrative costs.
Revenues are derived from the per -household fee charged by the City (as a line item on
the utility bill), plus any "rebates" paid back to the cities based on a formula for the sale
of the collected recyclable materials generated by residents. These days, the rebates are
such that the overall program costs end up providing each city with a positive revenue
stream. But these `profits' are subject to the market for the recyclable materials. The
markets are more stable these days, as compared to the past, but there still is a level of
vulnerability to it.
Each City is able to set the rate charged to residents separate from one another.
Currently, Plymouth charges $2.00 per month per household, and Minnetonka charges
2.50 per month per household.
City of Shoreview
The City of Shoreview, like the cities of Plymouth and Minnetonka, also has a contract
with Waste Management to provide recycling services to their residents.
The contract with Waste Management has the costs for the recycling service negotiated
based on a per household basis. There is also a cost to provide the yard waste program
and site, to coordinate the recycling drop-off recycling centers, a couple of yearly special
recycling collection days, other special events, recycling education materials, and general
program administrative costs.
Revenues are derived from the per -household fee charged by the City (as a line item on
the utility bill), plus any "rebates" paid back to the cities based on a formula for the sale
of the collected recyclable materials generated by residents. These days, the rebates are
such that the overall program costs end up providing each city with a positive revenue
stream. But these `profits' are subject to the market for the recyclable materials. The
markets are more stable these days, as compared to the past, but there still is a level of
vulnerability to it.
Shoreview currently charges it residents $7.55 per quarter per household (approximately
2.50 per month or $30.20 per year per household).
CADocuments and Settings\rsarigianopoulos\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK2F3\2005-12-21 Final Report on
Residential MSW.doc -5-
6-)
5-
sl
City of Maple Grove
The City of Maple Grove has a contract with BFI to provide recycling services to their
residents.
The contract with BFI has the costs for the recycling service negotiated based on a per
household basis. There is also a cost to provide the yard waste program and site, to
coordinate the recycling drop-off recycling centers, a couple of yearly special recycling
collection days, other special events, recycling education materials, and general program
administrative costs.
Revenues are derived from the per -household fee charged by the City (as a line item on
the utility bill), plus any "rebates" paid back to the cities based on a formula for the sale
of the collected recyclable materials generated by residents. These days, the rebates are
such that the overall program costs end up providing each city with a positive revenue
stream. But these `profits' are subject to the market for the recyclable materials. The
markets are more stable these days, as compared to the past, but there still is a level of
vulnerability to it.
Maple Grove currently charges it residents $5.00 per quarter per household
approximately $1.67 per month or $20 per year per household).
City of Edina
The City of Edina has a contract with BFI to provide recycling services to their residents.
The contract with BFI has the costs for the recycling service negotiated based on a per
household basis. There is also a cost to provide the yard waste program and site, to
coordinate the recycling drop-off recycling centers, recycling education materials, and
general program administrative costs.
Revenues are derived from the per -household fee charged by the City (as a line item on
the utility bill), plus any "rebates" paid back to the cities based on a formula for the sale
of the collected recyclable materials generated by residents. Edina just added the
rebate" portion of the recycling service in contractual negotiations with BFI for the first
time in 2005. The city's goal isn't to provide a revenue stream, but instead to make the
recycling program a break-even venture. Because they expect the rebates to do well in
the next few years, they may reduce the rate charged to residents in future years.
Edina currently charges it residents $6.30 per quarter per household (approximately $2.10
per month or $25.20 per year per household).
City of Maplewood
Now Onyx, then Eureka on 01-01-2006. Info pending a call back from DuWayne
Konweko 651-249-2330
CADocuments and Settings\rsarigianopoulos\L.ocal Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK2F3\2005-12-21 Final Report on
Residential MSW.doc -6-
1 5_a
6-
lsa
Minnesota Statute on MSW
Minnesota Statute 115A.94 "Organized collection" is the section of the state code that
addresses the collection of municipal solid waste. Under Subd. 1, "Organized collection"
is defined as a means or system for collecting solid waste in which a specified collector is
authorized to collect, from a defined geographic service area or areas, some or all of the
solid waste that is released by generators for collection.
Under Subd. 3, a local government unit may organize collection as a municipal service or
by ordinance, franchise, license, negotiated or bidded contract, or other means, using one
or more collectors or an organization of collectors.
Under Subd. 4, any city wanting to change how their organized collection is done must
notice (a) at least 180 days before implementing an ordinance, franchise, license, contract
or other means of organizing collection, a city or town, by resolution of the governing
body (City Council), and shall announce its intent to organize collection and invite the
participation of interested persons, including persons licensed to operate solid waste
collection services, in planning and establishing the organized collection system, and (b)
the resolution of intent must be adopted after a public hearing. The hearing must be held
at least two weeks after public notice and mailed notice to persons known by the city or
town to be operating solid waste collection services in the city or town. The failure to
give mailed notice to persons or defect in the notice does not invalidate the proceedings,
provided a bona fide effort to comply with notice requirements has been made.
Of the 180 days of notice period, a city would have two (2) 90 -day periods with which to
deal'with. The first 90 -day period following the resolution of intent, the city or town
shall develop or supervise the development of plans or proposals for organized collection.
During this 90 -day planning period, the city or town shall invite and employ the
assistance of persons licensed as of the date of the resolution of intent to operate solid
waste collection services in the city or town. Failure of a licensed collector to participate
in the 90 -day planning period, when the city or town has made a bona fide effort to
provide the person the opportunity to participate, does not invalidate the planning
process.
During the second 90 -day period, a city (after the date ending the first 90 -day planning
period) shall discuss possible organized collection arrangements with all licensed
collectors operating in the city or town who have expressed interest. If the city or town is
unable to agree on an organized collection arrangement with a majority of the licensed
collectors who have expressed interest, or upon expiration of the 90 days, the city or town
may propose implementation of an alternate method of organizing collection as
authorized in subdivision 3.
The summary in regards to Organized Collection is that cities that want to move towards
a single, unified contract for either (or both) garbage and recycling can do so in about six
months, but the two majority refuse and recycling companies both indicated that there
would probably be a lot of "rallying the troops" action to encourage residents to lobby
elected officials to preserve the choice available in the market to consumers.
CADocuments and Settings\rsarigianopoulos\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK2F3\2005-12-21 Final Report on
Residential MSW.doc -7-
673
7-
X53
Also, the refuse and recycling companies that have a significant market share would
challenge a City's ability to legally displace them from the marketplace, since their
corporate economics are dependent on the market share currently in place.
Changes/Future Trends in the Recycling Industry
There are a few changes taking place in the recycling industry. The big change that is
taking place now is the move to a "single -sort" recycling container. City of Eden Prairie
residents that have Waste Management as their refuse hauler/recycler have already seen
this change, with those residents that have BFI about to see this "single -sort" system in
early 2006.
Single -sort is where residents place all their recyclable materials together in one
typically a 90 gallon) roll -off container with an attached lid for pickup. The traditional
multiple sort" with the accompanying open top recycling bin will soon be a thing of the
past, where residents have to separate their recyclable by type (newspapers, plastic, glass
cans, cardboard, etc).
There are a number of advantages for both the resident and the recycler to move to a
single -sort process. The main change is that recycling goes from a weekly collection with
an open top recycling bin to an every other week collection with a recycling cart.
Advantages for the consumer is that you don't have to spend time sorting the materials,
and the trips to the curb happen half as often as in the past. When taking the recyclables
to the curb, the resident doesn't have to carry the container, but instead can just roll the
recycling container, similar to the garbage container, to the curb. Initial research has
shown that residents recycle about 25-30% more material with a single -sort system.
Advantages for the recycler include: (1) lessening of fixed costs, especially fuel costs, (2)
ability to retain workers; and (3) lessening of workers compensation claims.
The move to an every other week collection versus a weekly collection of recyclables
cuts in half the wear and tear on recycling trucks and equipment, and also saves fuel costs
significantly. Also, the new single -sort system makes the actual pick-up of the materials
automated" where the truck collection arm can grab the recycling container, like trucks
do now for garbage pick-up, and dump it into the recycling truck. Gone are the days
where hired staff needs to climb on and off the truck, picking up the materials by hand
and dumping them by hand into the separate material bins on the recycling truck. This
change will help retain hired staff and lessen the workers compensation claims.
As for the argument concerning recycling stream breakage and recycling stream
contamination, those are issues that are being dealt with. The breakage occurs, but not as
much as one might think between single -sort and multiple sort. The contamination issue
so far, has been offset by the increase in the capture of recyclable product between the
two systems.
C:\Documents and Settings\rsarigianopoulos\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK2F3\2005-12-21 Final Report on
Residential MSW.doc - 8 -
sy
Another new change, that may not hold as much promise, is the collection of "wet"
garbage. Wet garbage is any type of food scraps that currently go into the garbage
stream. The move to separating wet garbage from other garbage has been taking place in
small pockets in some major metropolitan areas where there is a robust food and
hospitality industry available to concentrate the costs associated for collection in the past
five or ten years, but now this type of recycling is trying to see its way to the residential
market.
The reprocessing of wet garbage is where companies take either of two routes. Using
primarily food waste to make a cooked slurry that is eventually processed and sold to pig
farms as an alternative to regular feed, usually at a substantial savings; or combining food
waste with green waste (yard waste) to create a similar product that can be made into a
compost material for use in plantings, etc.
There are a few school districts doing this now, and some more school districts are trying
it, as well, but the marketplace hasn't developed to the point yet where it becomes
economically viable for companies to go to a residential market for their wet garbage
product.
Currently, the City of Wayzata has a pilot project to recycle "wet" garbage, but there
aren't any other communities planning to do it soon, and the two main refuse and
recycling companies aren't currently planning to do this at this time for their residential
customers.
Advantages and Disadvantages of each Model
Open Refuse Hauling — Open Recycling (55 cities)
Currently the option that Eden Prairie has. This option's advantages are that it preserves
the choices available to residents to use whichever licensed hauler that they prefer. The
disadvantages are that there are more trucks for garbage and recycling collection using
city streets on collection day
Open Refuse Hauling — Contract for Recycling (22 cities)
Advantages are that it preserves the choice for refuse collection and potentially saves
residents money for the purchase of recycling services; and there are fewer recycling
trucks using city streets. Disadvantages are the probable increase in headcount for the
City to manage the contract for the recycling program. Most cities have one FTE that has
their primary duties related to the management of the recycling program and all the
events that go with this function each year.
Contract for Refuse Hauling — Contract for Recycling (29 cities)
Advantages are that it saves residents money for both refuse collection services and
recycling services; and there are fewer refuse and recycling trucks using city streets.
Disadvantages are the probable increase in headcount for the City to manage the contract
for both the refuse and recycling programs. Most cities have one FTE that has their
CADocuments and SettingsVsarigianopoulos\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK2F3\2005-12-21 Final Report on
Residential MSW.doc -9-
155
9-
S5
primary duties related to the management of the refuse and recycling program and all the
events that go with these functions each year.
City provided Refuse Hauling — City provided Recycling (1 city)
Advantages - - If you want to control the refuse and recycling services for your
community, this is the option to have. A city could structure this service into a money
making venture. Disadvantages are that the City is now in the refuse collection and
recycling business with all the fixed costs (trucks, equipments, staff, etc.) that go with
providing the service to residents, displacing a predominantly private sector venture in
the marketplace.
City provided Refuse Hauling — Contract for Recycling (1 city)
Advantages - - If you want to control the refuse service for your community, this is the
option to have. Disadvantages are that the City is now in the refuse collection, but not
into the recycling business, with all the fixed costs (trucks, equipments, staff, etc.) that go
with providing the service to residents, displacing a predominantly private sector venture
in the marketplace.
CADocuments and Settings\rsarigianopoulos\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK2F3\2005-12-21 Final Report on
Residential MSW.doe -10-
5-
4011
Minnesota Statutes -115A.94 Organized collection.
Subdivision 1. Definition. "Organized collection" means a system for collecting
solid waste in which a specified collector, or a member of an organization of collectors, is
authorized to collect from a defined geographic service area or areas some or all of the
solid waste that is released by generators for collection.
Subd. 2. Local authority. A city or town may organize collection, after public
notification as required in subdivision 4. A county may organize collection as provided
in subdivision 5.
Subd. 3. General provisions. (a) The local government unit may organize
collection as a municipal service or by ordinance, franchise, license, negotiated or bidded
contract, or other means, using one or more collectors or an organization of collectors.
b) The local government unit may not establish or administer organized collection in
a manner that impairs the preservation and development of recycling and markets for
recyclable materials. The local government unit shall exempt recyclable materials from
organized collection upon a showing by the generator or collector that the materials are or
will be separated from mixed municipal solid waste by the generator, separately
collected, and delivered for reuse in their original form or for use in a manufacturing
process.
c) The local government unit shall invite and employ the assistance of interested
persons, including persons licensed to operate solid waste collection services in the local
government unit, in developing plans and proposals for organized collection and in
establishing the organized collection system.
d) Organized collection accomplished by contract or as a municipal service may
include a requirement that all or any portion of the solid waste, except (1) recyclable .
materials and (2) materials that are processed at a resource recovery facility at the
capacity in operation at the time that the requirement is imposed, be delivered to a waste
facility identified by the local government unit. In a district or county where a resource
recovery facility has been designated by ordinance under section115A.86, organized
collection must conform to the requirements of the designation ordinance.
Subd. 4. Cities and towns; notice; planning. (a) At least 180 days before
implementing an ordinance, franchise, license, contract or other means of organizing
collection, a city or town, by resolution of the governing body, shall announce its intent
to organize collection and invite the participation of interested persons, including persons
licensed to operate solid waste collection services, in planning and establishing the
organized collection system.
b) The resolution of intent must be adopted after a public hearing. The hearing must
be held at least two weeks after public notice and mailed notice to persons known by the
city or town to be operating solid waste collection services in the city or town. The
CADocuments and Settings\rsarigianopoulos\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK2F3\2005-12-21 Final Report on
Residential MSW.doc - 11 -
153-
failure to give mailed notice to persons or defect in the notice does not invalidate the
proceedings, provided a bona fide effort to comply with notice requirements has been
made
c) During a 90 -day period following the resolution of intent, the city or town shall
develop or supervise the development of plans or proposals for organized collection.
During this 90 -day planning period, the city or town shall invite and employ the
assistance of persons licensed as of the date of the resolution of intent to operate solid
waste collection services in the city or town. Failure of a licensed collector to participate
in the 90 -day planning period, when the city or town has made a bona fide effort to
provide the person the opportunity to participate, does not invalidate the planning
process.
d) For 90 days after the date ending the planning period required under paragraph
c), the city or town shall discuss possible organized collection arrangements with all
licensed collectors operating in the city or town who have expressed interest. If the city
or town is unable to agree on an organized collection arrangement with a majority of the
licensed collectors who have expressed interest, or. upon expiration of the 90 days, the
city or town may propose implementation of an alternate method of organizing collection
as authorized in subdivision 3.
e) The city or town shall make specific findings that:
1) describe in detail the procedures it used to plan and to attempt implementation of
organized collection through an arrangement with collectors who expressed interest; and
2) evaluate the proposed organized collection method in light of at least the
following standards: achieving the stated organized collection goals of the city or town;
minimizing displacement of collectors; ensuring participation of all interested parties in
the decision-making process; and maximizing efficiency in solid waste collection.
f) Upon request, the city or town shall provide mailed notice of all proceedings on
the organization of collection in the city or town.
g) If the city or town and all the persons licensed to operate mixed municipal solid
waste collection services and doing business in the city or town agree on the plan, the city
or town may implement the plan without regard to the 180 -day period specified in
paragraph (a).
Subd. 5. County organized collection. (a) A county may by ordinance require
cities and towns within the county to organize collection. Organized collection
ordinances of counties may:
1) require cities and towns to require the separation and separate collection of
recyclable materials;
CADocuments and Settings\rsarigianopoulos\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK2F3\2005-12-21 Final Report on
Residential MSW.doc -12-
5-0'
12-
58
2) specify the material to be separated; and `\
3) require cities and towns to meet any performance standards for source separation
that are contained in the county solid waste plan.
b) A county may itself organize collection under subdivision 4 in any city or town
that does not comply with a county organized collection ordinance adopted under this
subdivision, and the county may implement, as part of its organized collection, the source
separation program and performance standards required by its organized collection
ordinance.
Subd. 6. Organized collection not required or prevented. (a) The authority
granted in this section to organize solid waste collection is optional and is in addition to
authority to govern solid waste collection granted by other law.
b) Except as provided in subdivision 5, a city, town, or county is not:
1) required to organize collection; or
2) prevented from organizing collection of solid waste or recyclable material.
c) Except as provided in subdivision 5, a city, town, or county may exercise any
authority granted by any other law, including a home rule charter, to govern collection of
solid waste.
Subd. 7. Anticompetitive conduct. (a) A political subdivision that organizes
collection under this section is authorized to engage in anticompetitive conduct to the
extent necessary to plan and implement its chosen organized collection system and is
immune from liability under state laws relating to antitrust, restraint of trade, unfair trade
practices, and other regulation of trade or commerce.
b) An organization of solid waste collectors, an individual collector, and their
officers, members, employees, and agents who cooperate with a political subdivision that
organizes collection under this section are authorized to engage in anticompetitive
conduct to the extent necessary to plan and implement the organized collection system,
provided that the political subdivision actively supervises the participation of each entity.
An organization, entity, or person covered by this paragraph is immune from liability .
under state law relating to antitrust, restraint of trade, unfair trade practices, and other
regulation of trade or commerce.
HIST: 1987 c 348 s 27; 1989 c 325 s 26,27; 1990 c 600 s 1,2; 1991 c 337 s 46; 1993 c
249 s 20,21
Copyright 2005 by the Office of Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota.
C:\Documents and Settings\rsarigianopoulos\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK2F3\2005-12-21 Final Report on
Residential MSW.doc - 13-
6-9
3-
l6-9
f
1 3
4
zM
Three Categories of
Customers
Residential SF, duplex, "owner
occupied", "up to X units per building"
c Multi -family > X units per building
Commercial/industrial
Four Collection Strategies
Public crews
Exclusive contracts
Exclusive franchises
z- Licensing/open hauling
Public Crews
o Government = Market Participant
Can direct materials to specific facility
Red Wing utilizespublic collection crews for
Oggallresidentialandsomeofthecommercial
waste within the city of Red Wing
Exclusive Contracts
ri Government contracts with hauler(s) for
entire jurisdiction or "zones.
Government pays hauler directly for
services using revenues from:
a Property taxes.
General fund.
Utility charge, etc.
Exclusive Contracts
Continued
m Government carries delinquent account
risk.
Government = Market Participant ='
t
n Can direct materials to specific facility
Through contract provisions
Economic flow control
VEK
Exclusive Franchises
E
Government contracts with hauler(s) for
entire jurisdiction or "zones."
Contract specifiesservices, rates, etc
Customer billed directly by hauler.
Hauler carries delinquent account risk.
Exclusive Franchises cont..,
Government = market participant?
Can direct materials to specific facility r WN
r Through contract provisions?
Economic flow control
a
Licensing/Open Hauling
f' r Government issues licenses to haulers Numberal
issued isGovernmenYs prerogative
Customers individually select hauler and services
s Haulers set rates for servicei.
Often arbitrary
Same service=different rates
s Driven by customer savvylattention
Licensing/Open Hauling
cont...
n Customer billed directly by hauler.
m Hauler carries delinquent account risk.
Government not market participant
Cannot direct materials to specific facility
t
Licensing/Open Hauling
Pros/Cons
Licensing/open hauling
Least Government control
Least efficient collection system
Most expensive collection system
Favored by haulers
I
Contracting/Franchising
Pros/Cons
Contracting/franchising
Most Government control
Most efficient collections stem-' y s
Least expensive collection system
IF .... competitively bid!!!
Favored by haulers
f
3
Public Entities
C'
m Interstate Designation Declared Invalid
Under Commerce Clause
If Regulation Discriminates Against
Interstate Commerce, Unless Govt. can .
Show Discrimination is Justified by >
The public sector uses waste assurance for
four key reasons:
i. To compete effectively in the marketplace,
To ensure that waste is managed in a way that
protect the public health and welfare and
benefits the environment;
To ensure that waste is managed in a way that
protects taxpayers from the liabilities
associated with the management of waste; and
i: To. protect the public investment that was
made to build waste management facilities.
r
Public Entities
Minnesota Statute §§ 115A.46 subd 5 and 115A,471
public entitles that manage waste, or contract to have .
their waste managed, must manage their waste in a F ;,
manner that is not inconsistent with the county plan
Ci
Columbia Heights
Excelsior
Minnetonka Beach
North St. Paul
Tonka Bay
Elk River
Farmington
Hopkins
Champlin
Little Canada
Vadnais Heights
Shakopee
Forest Lake
Afton
Oak Park Height
White Bear Lake
St. Bonifacius
Loretto
Maple Plain
Blaine
Centerville
Circle Pines
Hastings
Hilltop
Osseo
Robbinsdale
St. Louis Park
Stillwater
pulation
3,132
18,600
2,400
618
12,273
1,600
20,240
16,775
17,675
23,659
9,890
13,270
28,913
16,800
2,945
4,633
24,922
2,290
4,070
622
2,070
51,002
3,644
4,950
3,900
20,546
768
2,522
13,950
44,511
17,215
Hauling Option
BFI
BFI
BFI
BFI
BFI
BFI
BFI & Randy's
City is Hauler
City is Hauler
Consortium
Consortium
Consortium
Dick's Sanitation
Forest Lake Sanitation
Highland Sanitation
Onyx Sanitation
Onyx Sanitation
Randy's Sanitation
Randy's Sanitation
Randy's Sanitation
Randy's Sanitation
Waste Mgmt
Waste Mgmt
Waste Mgmt
Waste Mgmt
Waste Mgmt
Waste Mgmt
Waste Mgmt
Waste Mamt
Waste
Recycling Option
BFI
BFI
BFI
BFI
BFI
BFI
BFI & Randy's
City is Hauler
Waste Mgmt
Uses Refuse Hauler
Uses Refuse Hauler
Uses Refuse Hauler
Dick's Sanitation
Forest Lake Sanitation
Highland Sanitation
Onyx Sanitation
Onyx Sanitation
Randy's Sanitation
Randy's Sanitation
Randy's Sanitation
Waste Mgmt
Waste Mgmt
Waste Mgmt
Waste Mgmt
Waste Mgmt
Waste Mgmt
Waste Mgmt
Waste Mgmt
Waste Mgmt
Waste Mgmt
Waste Mgmt
Appendix B
Environmental Impacts
Transportation Related Impacts
A comparative analysis of the on -road trucking -related air emissions and fuel
consumption was performed for the following two MSW management scenarios:
Scenario 1: The transportation of Hennepin County MSW from Hennepin County
Transfer Stations to waste -to -energy facilities (HERC and ERRRF) and the transportation
of the associated waste -to -energy byproducts (ash, non-processibles, RDF processing
residues, and extracted ferrous) and bypass MSW to landfills and secondary ferrous
processing facilities
Scenario 2: The transportation of Hennepin County MSW from private metro -area
transfer stations directly to large regional landfills (mostly out of state).
The analysis modeled the year 2000 actual waste flows and utilized waste transportation
data (i.e. the number of semi -trailer loads of a material that were trucked to a facility) and
mileage to determine the truck -miles for each scenario. Dividing by the tons of MSW
input into each scenario normalized the truck -miles. This number (truck -miles per ton of
MSW In) can be thought of as "Transportation Factor" which, in a relative sense, can
compare air emissions and fuel consumption between the scenarios. The analysis
determined the following Transportation Factors:
Scenario Tons in 2000 Transportation Factor (Truck Miles
Description Per Ton of MSW
In
Scenario 1 Hennepin County MSW Management
System in 2000 615,960 1.22
Scenario 2 Aggregate of six private transfer stations
taking Hennepin County MSW in 2000 159,133 5.47
Scenario 2-A Waste Management North Hennepin T.S.
Maple Grove) to Lake Mills, IA landfill
137 miles) 53,858 7.2
Scenario 2-11 Waste Management Gallegher's T.S.
Blaine) to Lake Mills, IA landfill (135
miles) 21,961 7.11
Scenario 2-C Waste Management United Waste T.S. (St.
Paul) to Lake Mills, IA landfill (123 miles) 14,788 6.49
Scenario 2-D Waste Management Richards T.S. (Savage)
to Lake Mills, IA landfill (108 miles) 11, 506 5.7
Scenario 2-E Walters T.S. (Blaine) to Eau Claire, WI
landfill (107 Miles) 11,785 5.62
tons for Scenarios 2A — 2E were included in Scenario 2 tons
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has estimated that heavy duty diesel -fueled
trucks emit the following four pollutants when in transit:
IbT
Pollutant Emission Factor (grams/mile)
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) 1.22
Carbon Monoxide CO 5.45
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 11.8
Diesel Particulates 0.67
Heavy-duty diesel fueled trucks of the type that transport MSW, ash, etc. average 4.5
miles per gallon of fuel consumed.
The environmental analysis for the four pollutants and diesel fuel consumption was done
using the year 2000 Hennepin County throughput (615,960 tons) and private transfer
station throughput (159,133). As such, for comparison the Hennepin County scenario
tonnage was scaled down to the private transfer station scenario tonnage and, conversely,
the private transfer station scenario tonnage was scaled up to the Hennepin County
scenario tonnage. The results are as follows:
VOC's Kilograms Emitted by On -Road Diesel Trucks
Tons of MSW Scenario 1 Hennepin Scenario 2 Private
159,133 237 1,062
615,690 918 4,112
CO Kilograms Emitted by On -Road Diesel Trucks
Tons of MSW Scenario 1 Hennepin Scenario 2 Private
159,133 1,059 4,746
615,690 4,100 18,371
NO,, Kilograms Emitted by On -Road Diesel Trucks
Tons of MSW Scenario 1 Hennepin Scenario 2 Private
159,133 2,293 10,276
615,690 8,876 39,775
Diesel
Particulate
Kilograms Emitted by On -Road Diesel Trucks
Tons of MSW Scenario 1 Hennepin Scenario 2 Private
159,133 130 583
615,690 504 2,258
Fuel Costs Kilograms Emitted by On -Road Diesel Trucks
Tons of MSW Scenario 1 Hennepin Scenario 2 Private
159,133 43,187 193,518
615,690 167,163 749,056
The ratio of the Transportation Factors of the Hennepin County MSW management
system (Scenario 1) to that of the private transfer stations (Scenario 2) is about 1 to 4.48
or 22%). This is a convenient way to approximate the comparative environmental
impacts: The Hennepin County MSW management system emits approximately 78% (i.e.
100% -22%) less on -road diesel truck pollutants per ton of MSW taken in than the private
transfer stations. Correspondingly, the . Hennepin County MSW management system
consumes 78% less on -road diesel fuel per ton of MSW taken in than the private transfer
stations.
Non -Transportation Environmental Impacts
A thorough comparison between the non -transportation environmental impacts of
municipal waste combustors (MWC) and MSW landfills is beyond the scope of this
report '. Air and groundwater emissions from both of these solid waste management
processes are highly regulated under the federal Clean Air Act and Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act and their counterparts. in Minnesota law and rules.
However, differences in the inherent technologies of the these two processes point to
some fundamental differences with respect to the following areas:
The thoroughness and timeliness of monitoring pollutant emissions and
detecting and correcting malfunctions; and
The long-term stability of MWC ash monofills and occurrence of
subsurface fires at MSW landfills.
Thoroughness and Timeliness of Monitoring Pollutant Emissions and Detecting and
Correcting Malfunctions
q
Air emissions from a municipal waste combustor (MWC) pass through specific ductwork
and exit the facility via a known point source. As such, all the exhaust gases from the
MWC move through air pollution control equipment (e.g. dry scrubbers and baghouses at
both the HERC and GRE facilities) and are analyzed by continuous emissions monitors
before exiting the facility.
The combustion operations at the MWC are managed around-the-clock by control room
personnel, who use real-time data from the continuous emissions monitors to constantly
adjust the combustion operations and air pollution control equipment. It is common for an
MWC to cease combustion operations for a while to repair/replace a broken piece of
equipment whose malfunction was detected through an elevated pollutant reading from
the continuous emissions monitor.
By contrast, most of the pollution control appurtenances at MSW landfills (e.g. liner,
cover, and leachate and gas collection systems) are buried. As such, detecting and
correcting malfunctions in these systems is very difficult, particularly in the case of
liners. It has been suggested that leaks in a flexible membrane (i.e. plastic) liner, as
caused by otherwise undetected construction or operational problems or chemical
deterioration, may take up to 25 years to pass through the underlying clay liner, which is
close to the end of the landfill's 30 -year post closure period ". Indeed, Dr. Robert Koerner
of Drexel University, a leading expert on flexible membrane liners, has stated that
Geomembranes are difficult (but not impossible) to place without flaws." iii Even above-
ground pollution control machinery, such as that found in the gas collection and control
system (e.g. blowers, flares, and internal combustion engines), are not monitored around
the clock for operational problems by attendant personnel, but rather use alarms, which
rely on telecommunications and response from off-site personnel during evenings and
weekends.
Term Stability of MWC Ash Monofills and Occurrence of Subsurface Fires at
MSW Landfills
MWC ash is disposed in its own landfill cell (also known as a monofill) pursuant to
Minnesota rules and the current national practice. This is done to minimize the leaching
potential of heavy metals in the MWC ash by not exposing the ash to MSW leachate
which is more acidic than the leachate generated in a MWC ash monofill). An MWC ash
monofill cell has some very distinct advantages over a regular MSW landfill cell. Unlike
the MSW, the MWC ash does not decompose over time in a landfill. Consequently, the
ash does not generate landfill gases, which unless successfully controlled will cause air
pollution and very possibly fires and/or explosions. Also, since the ash does not
decompose, post -closure settlement in a MWC ash monofill cell is much less than in a
MSW landfill cell, thus maintaining the stability of the foundation for the final cover.
This will greatly enhance the integrity of the final cover to minimize water infiltration
and thus minimize leachate generation) during the post -closure period. Indeed, MWC
ash is known to often "set up" in a monofill to the consistency of a low -strength concrete,
due to the granular nature of the ash and chemical reactions between the ash and
accompanying dry scrubber residue (lime). Leachate from a MWC ash monofill has been
consistently characterized as resembling a strong salt water — rich in chloride, sodium,
calcium, potassium, and weak in organics and metals (often the metals content meets
drinking water standards).
As biodegradable waste decomposes in an oxygen -poor area of a MSW landfill cell,
methane gas is produced. In addition to being a major greenhouse gas (a pound of
methane has 21 times the "Global Warming Potential" as a pound of carbon dioxide and
as such methane is second only to carbon dioxide as the predominant contributor to
global warming '"), methane is explosive and flammable when it is mixed with oxygen.
Subsurface MSW landfill fires can occur when atmospheric air intrudes into methane -
rich zones of the landfill with high combustibles content, either through a break in the
landfill cover, a malfunction or poor seal in a landfill gas extraction well, or applying too
much vacuum in the well. Locally, subsurface MSW landfill fires occurred in the 2001 at
the Burnsville Landfill and 1997 at the Pine Bend landfill (caused by an improperly
abandoned gas extraction well "). Subsurface MSW landfill fires are extremely difficult
and expensive to extinguish, which may take months. Water injected into the landfill will
increase the volume of leachate. It is possible that areas of flexible membrane layers in
the liner or final cover may melt. Due to the poor combustion conditions (i.e.
smoldering), there is concern that toxic air pollutants such as dioxins may be emitted
from subsurface MSW landfill fires
i The appendix to this report contains two documents that discuss in further detail the air
and groundwater impacts of MSW landfills: (1) Solid Waste Management Coordinating
Board, Current Research on MSW Landfill Air Emissions, 2000 and (2) Lee, G. F. and
Jones -Lee, A., Detection of the Failure of Landfill Liner Systems, G. Fred Lee &
Associates, El Macero, CA, April (1996). A good discussion of the environmental
impacts of MSW combustion is found in Mattison, D., Waste Incineration and Public
Health, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2000, which may be accessed in its
entirety over the internet from its web page http://www.nap.edu/catalog/5803.html . The
press release for the book is also included in the appendix to this report.
ii Lee, G.F. and Jones -Lee, A., Assessing the Potential of Minimum Subtitle D Lined
Landfills to Pollute: Alternative Landfilling Approaches, Report by G. Fred Lee &
Associates, El Macero, CA, 31 pp, March 1998,
http://www.gfredlee.col,n/altemative if html
iii Koerner, Robert M., Designing with Geosynthetics, 4th Edition, Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall, 1997
iv From U.S. EPA, Climate Protection Partnerships Division, Methane and Sequestration
Branch, Climate Change Methane and Other Greenhouse Gases Web Site, Questions and
Answers Web Page http://www.epa.gov/outreach/ghginfo/qa/index.htm. The web page
also states that landfills are the largest U.S. source of methane emissions.
v From a conversation with Ms. Kathy Holland -Hansen of the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency on May 25, 2001.
iii
vi Federal Register, November 7, 2000, page 66680
Appendix C
Puzzled About Recycling's Value? Look Beyond the Bin
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/recycle/benefits.pdf
U.S. EPA Report
EPA530-K-98-008
January1998
Solid Waste And Emergency Response (5306W)
a
General Summary of Waste & Recycling Collection Systems
The Advantages & Disadvantages of Each)
Open Hauling Systems:
Cities with "Open Hauling Systems" are municipalities where the resident or business is
responsible for selecting their refuse & recycling hauler from a list of licensed haulers.
The service agreement for collection is between the hauler and the resident or business.
Cities with this type of system include Rochester, Austin, Albert Lea and Willmar.
Advantages
Customer Choice is Preserved
No City Administrative Obligations
Disadvantages
Inefficient Use of Resources (Fuel)
Increased Traffic Volumes
Higher Vehicle Emissions
Usually Highest Cost for Services
Excessive Wear & Tear on City Streets
Inconsistent Hauler Practices
Municipal Contract Systems:
A "Municipal Contract System" is a public/private partnership between a municipality
that has entered into a contract(s) with one or more licensed private haulers to provide
garbage collection services within the city. Cities with contract systems include Lake
City, St. Charles, Mankato and Hutchinson.
Advantages
Less Truck Traffic
Reduced Noise & Emissions
Service Requirements Within Contract
Typically Lower Cost for Service
Efficient Resource Expenditure (Fuel)
Reduction in Street Maintenance
Decreased Health & Public Safety Risks
Disadvantages
May Limit Consumer Choice
Administrative Oversight of Contract
Municipal Collection Systems:
Municipal Collection Systems" are those systems owned, and typically operated, by
municipalities, employing staff or contracting with a private entity to provide residential,
and sometimes commercial, waste & recyclable material collection. These systems are
not very common in Minnesota. Some cities that do have this system in place include St.
Cloud, Red Wing, Bemidji and Mountain Lake.
Advantages
Potentially Profitable Municipal Venture
Total Control of Waste Collection
Efficient Resource Expenditure (Fuel)
Reduction in Street Maintenance
1}3
Disadvantages
Fixed Costs (Trucks, Staff etc.)
Displacement of Existing Business
Residents are now Customers
Large Initial Expenditure
Potential Advantages of Open Collection
Residents can select the hauler that provides the level of service most
compatible with their individual needs and can shop among the hauler service
options that are available.
Open system would remain open; residents would not be inconvenienced.
Administrative cost is minimized for City.
Small haulers will face no additional competitive challenges beyond what they
face now within the industry.
Potential Disadvantages of Open Collection
Although choice is available, inertia may be a compelling force for a resident
to stay with the hauler he/she has. Residents must take the time and trouble to
shop around for a better rate — which can be temporary and come with strings,
long term contracts and 'cancellation penalties — or just give in and go along
with higher prices or unsatisfactory service.
Under an open system, costs must be spread over smaller and more uncertain
customer base, so fees must be sufficiently high to cover fixed costs.
Operational cost savings of adding to the customer base are typically seen as
increased profits that are kept by the hauler rather than used to decrease rates.
It is difficult to determine municipal compliance with the Waste Management
Act provision that requires all residents in communities of over 5000 people to
use solid waste collection services. This is due to a lack of credible reporting
and auditing of current waste haulers.
MSW trucks are heavy and have a demonstrated impact on street longevity.
City streets and alleys will continue to be subject to the impact of additional
truck traffic.
Another consequence of overlapping routes and more trucks is more air
pollution and more noise.
Residents do not have a choice about where their refuse goes. If they choose a
hauler on the basis of where the hauler says the trash goes, there is no
assurance that (a) the information is correct and (b) the hauler will not change
practices in the future.
Major decisions that affect quality of life and the environment in which an
individual resides will be driven by corporate priorities, not local interests.
Potential Advantages of Organized Collection
Lower consumer prices: Cities which have adopted organized collection
frequently realize lower rates for their residents. Municipal contracts offer
decreased operational costs and operation time with respect to number of
I q
accounts serviced. This allows haulers to provide lower rates to residents due
to the ratio of operation costs or time to residential accounts serviced. Garbage
truck wear and tear does make a difference to our streets and roads. We can
make our infrastructure last longer if we can reduce the number of trucks.
Stable rates with expected rate increases for the duration of the contract.
Residents would have a clear, one-stop menu of services and costs for each
level of service will be uniform with residents benefiting from an enhanced
negotiating position for services and rates.
Contracts allow municipalities to direct waste disposal to limit the spread of
liability through the use of multiple disposal locations or facility shopping by
haulers looking for low rates. This decision can be used to the benefit of local
interests and local environmental goals, not corporate priorities.
Less truck traffic means less noise and diesel fuel pollution from emissions.
Control over rate schedule to encourage waste reduction, or support pay -as -
you -throw options for residents who produce a very low volume of trash.
With a contract, the City could control the size and quality of trucks used,
specifying lower pollution, better loading and weight bearing technology.
Dependable city business will encourage smaller haulers through the
acquisition of a municipal contract and its stabilized revenue stream to invest
in new equipment or trucks that will be more economically and
environmentally preferable for municipal use increasing the level at which
small haulers can compete with large haulers and level the playing field.
A city contract can enforce good service by building schedule of fines and
escrow account into the contract as well as an available local contact.
City would have a way of enforcing the Waste Management Act that requires
residents of communities with over 5000 people to have garbage picked up
through waste reporting requirements and waste audits.
Potential Disadvantages of Organized Collection,
Although customers would have a choice of service levels, they would lose
the choice of service provider.
Expansion of current public education program to inform the citizenry.
Some residents may experience an increase in price over the introductory low
rates offered by haulers campaigning against organized collection
Residents will have to choose their services from the standard set offered.
This may not include some services they receive now.
Potential increase in the administrative burden as a result of adopting new
system. This work would include RFP development, proposal evaluation,
contract negotiations and contract enforcement.
Residents opposed to organized collection have been far more vocal than
residents who support organized collection. Staff and elected officials are
likely to experience negative feedback from those individuals. In other cities,
this has been temporary. (Opposition to Organized Collection could be offset
by allowing opponents to be involved in the contract evaluation process.)
Potential loss of business opportunities for haulers not used by the City.
S
Attachment A
Municipality Municipal Solid Waste
Average
MSW Waste
BFI
MSW
WM
System BFI
32 gal
Monthly Fees Mgmt
13.07
Monthly Fees
Apple Valley Open 32 gal
14.25
15.50 35 gal
17.00
14.45
Dakota County)
Average Per Gallon Costs
68 gal
Average
16.50 64 gal 15.63
I Gallon WM
95 gal
small
18.50 96 gal
Per gal
18.01
Bloomington Open 32 gal
Per gal
14.95 35 gal
Per gal
14.45
Hennepin County)
0.18
68 gal 15.95 64 gal 15.63
95 gal. 16.95 96 gal 18.01
Burnsville Open 32 gal 15.50. 35 gal 14.45
Dakota County) 68 gal 16.50 64 gal 15.63
95 gal 18.50 96 gal 18.01
Chanhassen Open 32 gal 14.95 35 gal 14.45
Carver County) 68 gal 15.95 64 gal 15.63
95 gal 16.95 96 gal 18.01
Eagan Open 32 gal 15.50 35 gal 14.45
Dakota County) 68 gal 16.50 64 gal 15.63
95 gal 18.50 96 gal 18.01
Eden Prairie Open 32 gal 14.95 35 gal 14.45
Hennepin County) 68 gal$15.95 64 gal 15.63
95 gal 16.95 96 gal 18.01
Edina Open 32 gal 14.95 35 gal 11.45
Hennepin County) 68 gal 15.95 64 gal 12.63
95 gal 16.95 96 gal 15.01
Maple Grove Open 32 gal 13.95 35 gal 11.45
Hennepin County) 68 gal 14.95 64 gal 12.63
95 gal 15.95 96 gal 15.01
Maplewood Open 32 gal 12.95 35 gal 11.45
Ramsey County) 68 gal 14.95 64 gal 12.63
95 gal 15.95 96 gal 15.01
Minnetonka Open 32 gal 14.95 35 gal 11.45
Hennepin County) 68 gel 15.95 64 gal 12.63
95 gal 16.95 96 gal 15.01
Plymouth Open 32 gal 14.95 35 gal 11.45
Hennepin County) 68 gal 15.95 64 gal 12.63
95 gal 16.95 96 gal 1 15.01
Shoreview Open 32 gal 13.95 35 gal 11.45
Ramsey County) 68 gal 14.95 64 gal 12.63
95 gal 15.95 96 gal 15.01
Woodbury Open 32 gal 13.95 35 gal 14.45
Washington County) 68 gal 14.95 64 gal 15.63
95 gal 15.95 96 gal 18.01
Average Monthly Costs Average Average
BFI Monthly $ WM Monthly $
small 32 gal 14.69 35 gal 13.07
medium 68 gal 15.77 64 gal 14.25
large 95 gal 17.00 96 gal 16.63
Average Per Gallon Costs Average Average
BFI I Gallon WM I Gallon
small Per gal 0.46 Per gal 0.41
medium Per gal 0.23 Per gal 0.25
large Per gal 0.18 Per gal 0.18
Attachment A
Municipality Recycling Collection Recycling Collection
System Residential Fees
Apple Valley Open & Charged $5/month
Dakota County) Dakota Valley Recycling Ass'n or $60/year)
on Refuse bill
Bloomington Open Charged $5/month
Hennepin County) Or $60/year)
on Refuse bill
Burnsville Open & Charged $5/month
Dakota County) Dakota Valley Recycling Ass'n or $60/year)
on Refuse bill
Chanhassen Open Charged $5/month
Carver County) Or $60/year)
on Refuse bill
Eagan Open & Charged $5/month
Dakota County) Dakota Valley Recycling Ass'n or $60/year)
on Refuse bill
Eden'Prairie Open Charged $5/month
Hennepin County) or $60/year)
on Refuse bill
Edina Organized - BFI Charged $2.10/month
Hennepin County) or $25.20/year)
Maple Grove Organized - BFI Res charged $5/qtr
Hennepin County) or $20/year)
Maplewood Organized - Onyx Refuse unavailable
Ramsey County) New Contract with
Eureka Recycling on 01-01-06
Minnetonka Organized - Waste Management Does RFP with
Hennepin County) Plymouth & Golden Valley
Res charged $2/month (or $24/yr)
Plymouth Organized - Waste Management Does RFP with
Hennepin County) Minnetonka & Golden Valley
Res charged $2.50/month (or $30/yr)
Shoreview Organized - Waste Management Charges residents $30.20/yr
Ramsey county) single & multifamily)
Woodbury Open Charged $5/month
Washington County) or $60/year)
on Refuse bill
r
CD
0
yCD
a
CD
C
C
yCD
x
CD4y
1
F
CD
omm
ommmm Management
n
omaWaste
vim
Highland Sanitary
WasteMichaelIlli°Master
HallTidyDisposal
BrothersWalz
r
CD
0
yCD
a
CD
C
C
yCD
x
CD4y
1
F
CD
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3.
3
3.
3
3
3'
3,
3'
4
4
4;
4
4,
4
4
4'
4
4
51
Metropolitan Area Cities Refuse Hauling & Recycling Options
2 Columbia Heights
3 Excelsior
1 Minnetonka Beach
5 North St. Paul
3 Tonka Bay
7 Elk River
3 Farmington
3 Hopkins
Champlin
1 Little Canada
2 Vadnais Heights
3 Shakopee
I Forest Lake
5 Afton
3 Oak Park Heights
White Bear Lake
3 Ramsey
Brooklyn Center
Brooklyn Park
I Crystal
2 Edina
3 Fridley
I Maple Grove
i New Hope
3 Lauderdale
7 Maplewood
3 Albertville
Andover
Anoka
I Apple Valley
Arden Hills
3 Big Lake
Bloomington
i Burnsville
3 Chanhassen
Chaska
3 Coon Rapids
Dayton
Eagan
I Eden Prairie
Falcon Heights
3 Gem Lake
Greenwood
i Hanover
3 Hugo
Independence
3 Inver Grove Heights
Lake Elmo
Lakeland
Population Hauling Option
3,132 BFI
18,600 BFI
2,400 BFI
618 BFI
12,273 BFI
1,600 BFI
20,240 BFI & Randy's
16,775 City Is Hauler
17,675 City Is Hauler
23,659 Consortium
9,890 Consortium
13,270 Consortium
28,913 Dick's Sanitation
16,800 Forest Lake Sanitation
2,945 Highland Sanitation
4,633 Onyx Sanitation
24,922 Onyx Sanitation
20,040 OPEN Hauling
29,005 OPEN Hauling
68,992 OPEN Hauling
22,931 OPEN Hauling
48,050 OPEN Hauling
27,088 OPEN Hauling
56,754 OPEN Hauling
20,748 OPEN Hauling
2,330 OPEN Hauling
35,892 OPEN Hauling
5,368 OPEN Hauling
29,262 OPEN Hauling
18,150 OPEN Hauling
48,875 OPEN Hauling
9,620 OPEN Hauling
8,303 OPEN Hauling
85,442 OPEN Hauling
61,425 OPEN Hauling
22,042 OPEN Hauling
21,478 OPEN Hauling
62,243 OPEN Hauling
4,964 OPEN Hauling
65,764 OPEN Hauling
60;460 OPEN Hauling
5,560 OPEN Hauling
442 OPEN Hauling
800 OPEN Hauling
2,188 OPEN Hauling
8,760 OPEN Hauling
3,605 OPEN Hauling
32,193 OPEN Hauling
7,790 OPEN Hauling
1,9231 OPEN Hauling
T5
BFI
BFI
BFI
BFI
BFI
BFI
BFI & Randy's
Uses Refuse Hauler
Waste Mgmt
Uses Refuse Hauler
Uses Refuse Hauler
Uses Refuse Hauler
Dick's Sanitation
Forest Lake Sanitation
Highland Sanitation
Onyx Sanitation
Onyx Sanitation
Ace Solid Waste
BFI
BFI
BFI
BFI
BFI
BFI
BFI
Eureka Recycling
Uses Refuse Hauler
Uses Refuse Hauler
Uses Refuse Hauler
Uses Refuse Hauler
Uses Refuse Hauler
Uses Refuse Hauler
Uses Refuse Hauler
Uses Refuse Hauler
Uses Refuse Hauler
Uses Refuse Hauler
Uses Refuse Hauler
Uses Refuse Hauler
Uses Refuse Hauler
Uses Refuse Hauler
Uses Refuse Hauler
Uses Refuse Hauler
Uses Refuse Hauler
Uses Refuse Hauler
Uses Refuse Hauler
Uses Refuse Hauler
Uses Refuse Hauler
Uses Refuse Hauler
Uses Refuse Hauler
Attachment C
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
Lakeville 49,097 OPEN Hauling Uses Refuse Hauler
Lexington 2,160 OPEN Hauling Uses Refuse Hauler
Lino Lakes 18,725 OPEN Hauling Uses Refuse Hauler
Long Lake 1,804 OPEN Hauling Uses Refuse Hauler
Medina 4,650 OPEN Hauling Uses Refuse Hauler
Mendota Heights 11,720 OPEN Hauling Uses Refuse Hauler
Mound. 9,740 OPEN Hauling Uses Refuse Hauler
Mounds View 12,865 OPEN Hauling Uses Refuse Hauler
Newport 3,700 OPEN Hauling Uses Refuse Hauler
North Oaks 4,200 OPEN Hauling Uses Refuse Hauler
Oak Grove 7,455 OPEN Hauling Uses Refuse Hauler
Oakdale 27,657 OPEN Hauling Uses Refuse Hauler
Orono 7,728 OPEN Hauling Uses Refuse Hauler
Otsego 9,893 OPEN Hauling Uses Refuse Hauler
Prior Lake 21,156 OPEN Hauling Uses Refuse Hauler
Richfield 34,496 OPEN Hauling Uses Refuse Hauler
Rogers 5,760 OPEN Hauling Uses Refuse Hauler
Rosemount 17,740 OPEN Hauling Uses Refuse Hauler
Savage 24,018 OPEN Hauling Uses Refuse Hauler
South St. Paul 20,249 OPEN Hauling Uses Refuse Hauler
Spring Lake Park 6,805 OPEN Hauling Uses Refuse Hauler
Spring Park 1,659 OPEN Hauling Uses Refuse Hauler
St. Anthony 83 OPEN Hauling Uses Refuse Hauler
St. Francis 6,500 OPEN Hauling Uses Refuse Hauler
St. Michael 13,292 OPEN Hauling Uses Refuse Hauler
St. Paul 287,410 OPEN Hauling Uses Refuse Hauler
Victoria 5,480 OPEN Hauling Uses Refuse Hauler
Waconia 8,622 OPEN Hauling Uses Refuse Hauler
West St. Paul 19,481 OPEN Hauling Uses Refuse Hauler
Woodbury 50,050 OPEN Hauling Uses Refuse Hauler
Woodland 488 OPEN Hauling Uses Refuse Hauler
Corcoran 5,875 OPEN Hauling Waste Mgmt
Golden Valley 20,674 OPEN Hauling Waste Mgmt
Grant 4,180 OPEN Hauling Waste Mgmt
Greenfield 2,820 OPEN Hauling Waste Mgmt
Mahtomedi 8,105 OPEN Hauling Waste Mgmt
Minnetonka 51,480 OPEN Hauling Waste Mgmt
Minnetrista 5,250 OPEN Hauling Waste Mgmt
New Brighton 22,333 OPEN Hauling Waste Mgmt
Plymouth 70,682 OPEN Hauling Waste Mgmt
Roseville 34,080 OPEN Hauling Waste Mgmt
Shoreview 26,381 OPEN Hauling Waste Mgmt
Shorewood 7,625 OPEN Hauling Waste Mgmt
Cottage Grove 31,774 OPEN Hauling Uses Refuse Hauler
St. Bonifacius 2,290 Randy's Sanitation Randy's Sanitation
Wayzata 4,070 Randy's Sanitation Randy's Sanitation
Loretto 622 Randy's Sanitation Randy's Sanitation
Maple Plain 2,070 Randy's Sanitation Waste Mgmt
Blaine 51,002 Waste Mgmt Waste Mgmt
Centerville 3,644 Waste Mgmt Waste Mgmt
Circle Pines 4,950 Waste Mgmt Waste Mgmt
Deephaven 3,900 Waste Mgmt Waste Mgmt
Hastings 20,546 Waste Mgmt Waste Mgmt
Attachment C
104
105
106
107
108
Hilltop 768 Waste Mgmt Waste Mgmt
Osseo 2,522 Waste Mgmt Waste Mgmt
Robbinsdale 13,950 Waste Mgmt Waste Mgmt
St. Louis Park 44,511 Waste Mgmt Waste Mgmt
Stillwater 17,215 Waste Mgmt Waste Mgmt
2,274,8341 1
Attachment C
A ends Number: g
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Laurie Ahrens, City Manager
SUBJECT: Set Future Study Sessions
DATE: May 16, 2007, for Council study session of May 22, 2007
1. ACTION REQUESTED: Review the pending study session topics list and set study
sessions or amend the topics list if desired.
2. BACKGROUND: Attached is the list of pending study session topics, as well as calendars
to assist in scheduling.
Pending Study Session Topics
at least 3 Council members have approved the following study items on the list)
Special Assessment Policy (Council; early fall)
Other requests for study session topics:
Possible ordinance on feeding of wildlife (Black)
OFFICIAL CITY MEETINGS
Mai) 2007
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
1 2 3 L 5
Apr 2007
S M T W T F S OM S PLANNINGCOMMISSION, Council
700 PM HUMAN
RIGHTS COMMISSION,
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Chambers Parkers Lake Room
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
5:30 PM CITY COUNCIL
STUDY SESSION-
STREET SWEEPING
PROGRAM AND PRELIM.
200e-208 BUDGET
7:00 PM
ENVIRONMENTAL
ITY COMMITTEE
Medicine Lake
7:00 PM PARK 8 REC
ADVISORY
COMMISSION(PRAC),
COUOcII Chambers
DISCUSSION, Medicine L(EC),
OOfrIS A & B
Lake Conference Room
7:00 PM REGULAR
COUNCIL MEETING,
Council Chambers
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
6:30 PM YOUTH
ADVISORY COUNCIL,
3:00 PM ARBOR DAY
PLANTING, Pilgrim
7:00 PM HOUSING 8
REDEVELOPMENT
9:00 AM -3:30 PM
RECYCLING
Council Chambers Lane School AUTHORrrY (HRA), DROP-OFF EVENT,
Medicine Lake Room A Maintenance Facility,
7:00 PM PLANNING
COMMISSION, Council
Chambers
14900 -23rd Avenue
North
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
5:30 PM CITY COUNCIL
STUDY SESSION-
ORGANIZED GARBAGE
7:00 PM PLYMOUTH
ADVISORY
COMMITTEE ON
COLLECTION ANDTRANSITUPDATEWITHTHECITY
MANAGER, Medlcine Lake
Coherence Room
PACT) ,
Medicine Lake Room A
7:00 PM REGULAR
COUNCIL MEETING,
Council Chambers
27 28 29 30 31
Jun 2007
MEMORIAL DAY S M T W T F S
Observed) - City 1 2OfficesClosed
3 4 '5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
modified on 5/16/2007
OFFICIAL CITY MEETINGS
Jung 2007
Sunday I Monday Tuesday I Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
Ju12007
1 2
May 2007
S M T W T F S S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
27 28 29 30 31 29 30 31
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
7:00 PM PLANNING
COMMISSION, Council
Chambers
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
6:00 PM CITY
COUNCIL STUDY
SESSION - 2006 AUDIT
PRESENTATION,
Medicine Lake
Conference Room
6:00 PM -7:00 PM
PUBLIC MEETING ON
CITY STORM WATER
POLLUTION
PREVENTION PLAN,
Council Chambers
7:00 PM PARK & REC
ADVISORY
COMMISSION (PRAC),
Council Chambers
7:00 PM REGULAR
COUNCIL MEETING,
Council Chambers
7:00 PM
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY COMMITTEE
EOR), Medicine Leke
ROOmaA$B
Flag Day
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
7:00 PM PLANNING
COMMISSION, Council
Chambers
L7:OOPOUSING &
OPMENT
TY(HRA),
ke RoomA
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
6:00 PM CITY
COUNCILSTUDY
SESSION - SPECIAL
ASSESSMENT POLICY,
Medicine Lake
Conference Room
7:00 PM PLYMOUTH
ADVISORYCOMMITTEEON
TRANSIT (PACT) ,
Medicine Lake Room A
7:00 PM REGULAR
COUNCIL MEETING,
Council Chambers
modified on 511612007
OFFICIAL CITY MEETINGS
July 2007
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
INDEPENDENCE
DAY, City Offices
closed
5:15 PM MUSIC IN
PLYMOUTH, Hilde
Performance Center
8 9 10 11. 12 13 14
7:00 PM REGULAR
COUNCIL MEETING,
Council Chambers
5:30 PM
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY COMMITTEE
EQC),Ponds, Plants,
and Practices Tour-
Starting at Plymouth
Creek Center
7:00 PM PARK & REC
ADVISORY
COMMISSION (PRAC),
Council Chambers
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
7:00 PM PLANNING
COMMISSION, Council
Chambers
7:00 PM HOUSING&
REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY (HRA),
Medicine Lake Room A
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
7:00 PM REGULAR
COUNCIL MEETING,
Council Chambers
7:00 PM PLYMOUTH
ADVISORY
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSIT (PACT) ,
Medicine Lake Room A
29 30 31
Jun 2007 Aug 2007
S M T W T F S S M T W T F S
1 2 1 2 3 4
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
24 25 26 27 28 29 30 26 27 28 29 30 31
modified on 5/16/2007
OFFICIAL CITY MEETINGS
August 2007
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
1
PM PLANNING
COMMISSION, Council
Chambers
2 J L
Ju12007
S M T W T F S
Sep 2007
S M T W T F S700
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 9 10 11 12 13 14.15
22 23 24 25 26 27 28 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
29 30 31 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30
S 6 7 8 9 10 11
2:30 PM -5:00 PM
NATIONAL NIGHT OUT
KICKOFF EVENT, Fire
Station III
7:00 PM
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY COMMITTEE
EQC), Medicine Lake
Rooms A 8 B
7:00 PM PARK & REC
ADVISORY
COMMISSION (PRAC),
Council Chambers
6:30 PM -9:30 PM
NATIONAL NIGHT OUT
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
7:00 PM REGULAR
COUNCIL MEETING,
Council Chambers
7:00 PM PLANNING
COMMISSION, Council
Chambers
7:00 PM HOUSING 8
REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY(HRA),
Medicine Lake Room A
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
6:00 PM CITY
COUNCILSTUDY
SESSION -DISCUSS
BIENNIAL BUDGET,
Medicine Lake
Conference Room
7:00 PM PLYMOUTH
ADVISORYCOMMITTEEON
TRANSIT (PACT) ,
Medicine Lake Room A
26 27 28 29 30 31
5:30 PM CITY
COUNCIL STUDY
SESSION -DISCUSS
BIENNIAL BUDGET,
Medicine Lake
Conference Room
7:00 PM REGULAR
COUNCIL MEETING,
Council Chambers
modified on 5/16/2007
OFFICIAL CITY MEETINGS
Spntemher 2007
Sunday I Monday I Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
Aug 2007 Oct 2007 1
S M T W T F S S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 21 22 23 24 25 26 27.
26 27 28 29 30 31 28 29 30 31
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
LABOR DAY - City6:30
Offices Closed
PM CITY
COUNCIL STUDY
SESSION - DISCUSS
BIENNIAL BUDGET,
Medicine Lake
Conference Room
7:00 PM PLANNING
COMMISSION, Council
Chambers
7:00 PM HUMAN
RIGHTS COMMISSION,
Parkers Lake Room
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
7:00 PM REGULAR7:00
COUNCIL MEETING,
Council Chambers
PM
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY COMMITTEE
EQC), Medicine Lake
Rooms A & B
7:00 PM PARK & REC
ADVISORY
COMMISSION (PRAC),
Council Chambers
10:00 AM -5:00 PM
AUTUMN ART FAIR,
Parkers Lake Room
ROSH HASHANAH
BEGINS AT SUNSET
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
7:00 PM PLANNING
COMMISSION, Council
Chambers
9:00 AM-3:30PM
PLYMOUTH CLEAN-UP
DAY, Public Work.
Malnt r—. Facil'.y
YOM KIPPUR
BEGINS AT
SUNSET
7:00 PM HOUSING 8
REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY (HRA),
Medicine Lak. Roo.A
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
7:00 PM REGULAR
COUNCIL MEETING,
Council Chambers
7:00 PM PLYMOUTH
ADVISORYCOMMITTEEON
TRANSIT (PACT) ,
Medicine Lake Room A
1:00 PM Plymouth on
Parade Celebration, City
CenterArea
30
modified on 5/16/2007