Loading...
CR 88-97 Recycling Center -. 'I f1 "'. . May I 1, 1988 Report: 88-97 RECYCLING CENTER OPERAflON PrOQosed Action StaFF recommends adoption of the Following motion: authorize the Mayor and City Manager to enter agreement with the C..ilY... of Mfnnetonka to operate reeyel fng center. Move to into an q Jo f nt If the motion is adopted the Joint center should be open to Hopkins residents by June 1. Overview . The City has been rev f ew I ng var i ous recyc ling opt f ons For severa 1 years. The Reuter Company mechan I ca 1 separat fon plant ~as hoped to be accepted as recycling qualiFied. but this Is not yet true. The council authorized the operatfon o~ a recycling center late last year and ImplementatIon has been undsr negotiation and consideration until now. This report is a recommendation to Implement a Joint center wtth the City of Minnetonka, continue the yard waste. leaF pick up and brush pick up programs now In place and study the implementation of residential curb side pick up, commercial/Industrial recycling, and multiple unft dwellfng recycling possibilities. Primary Issues to Cons~der o Is a recycling center a useful recycling option? o Is a Hopkins-Minnetonka jOint recycling center the best current option? Supportinq Information o LocatIon map Or the Hopkins sfte and the proposed Hopklns-Mlnnetonka joint site. o Recycl ing center option spread sheet. o Hopkins and Hopkins/Mfnnetonka monthly operatIng costs. estimates of o Summary of recycled material buyers. o Mlnnetonka/Super Cycle contract. >U Works Director , .' . . I. .- - .' . ~ . '= . .~, J '"., -. .... ., - ~ '. ~ Councl I Rpt: 88-97 Page 2 . pETAlLED 8ACKGROUND In the past few years the Metropolitan County, State Agencies, and the State Introduced laws, resolutions. rules and requ I r'e source separat Ion of rTh3ter I a Is for Council, Hennepin Legislature have ordinances that r ecyc 1 I ng . Th I 5 15 understandab I e as I nd I cated by we II documented problems with landfi I I siting, landfill groundwater contam I nat i on ete. The var i ous governments 1 un i ts wh I eh have been tasked wIth FindIng a way to alleviate the Qverf 1 Ow of reFuse have chosen source separat i on as one element to help solve the problem. The other major element 1 s the construct lon of process i n9 P I ants to convert the remaining waste to energy. . The Reut er plant I s a hybr r d p I ant I n that 1 t produces refuse derived fuel (RDF) pellets from paper products. It mechanically separates recycled materfals for resale. ThIs process has b€en and fs In use In Europe. The Metropolitan Counc r 1 and Hennep in county have chosen not to accept the plant as an alternative to "source separation". This means that at. the present tIme the waste we haul to that plant cannot be counted as a recycled percentage. HennepIn County is the governing unIt For requfrements imposed on cities in theIr Jurisdiction and is constructing a "burn" plant and a transFer station. Their amended solid waste plan ca 115 rot'" a source separat i on of 9 percent f n 1988. 13 percent in 1989 and 16 percent in 1990. Also, a recent resolution requires that curb sIde recycling be provided by May 1989 to all s1ngle Family residential areas. Hopkins was put in a sItuation that made it diFFicult to determine the correct approach with the uncertain acceptance of the Reuter plant mechaniCal separation. This now appears to have been made a mute point by the requirement of curb side recycl ing pick up. The s i tuat i on at present appears to be the operat i on of a recycling center as a First ~tep and the thorough study of curb side recycl ing, commercial/industrial and multI unIt housing recycling. An administrative intern, Kathleen Bodmer, has been employed to accomplish these objectives. ANALY;;IS . The operation of a recyclIng center has the fa) lowIng Issues to consider: Is a recycl ing center a useFul recyc! lng option? . j _ .. ~ . r' . ';.":. :.. .' .~. '. .....:~.." . ." .' :.~ ...~ f '." .',"" '. .' ~~. .. .,. . "- . . . Rpt: 88-97 Recyc I I ng centers have been used as a First step by many citIes and counties to get into the recycling mode. Th's Is the least costly method but also Is limiting in the results that can be expected. Recycling recovery of 2 to 3 percent Is average with 5 percent being the maxfmum that should be expected from a recycling center. Recyc 1 I ng centel~s have proven that they can be successf'u' with act} ve promot I on. re 1 i ab I e hours of' operat i on and good management. Many c it I es that operate curb s I de programs have found they st ill need drop off' sites f'or peop I e who were missed. businesses and residents not provided with curb side service. Is a Hopkins-Minnetonka Joint recycling center the best current option? A review of several options was undertaken to arrive at the best overa! I solution (see option spr?ad sheet): 1. Operation of' a Hopkins recyctrng center at County Road 73 and Mlnnetonka Boulevard by a volunteer group. Th l s opt i on was attempted f n the ear 1 y part of thfs year wfth only one respondent. no insurance ava 11 ab I e for the respondent and B requ f rement o'F extens$ve City involvement. 2. Ope rat i on Or a Hopk f ns recyc 1 I ng center at the same site by a contracted hauler. This option Is only available by using Super Cycle or Waste Management. The bottom 1 i ne cost us! ng either is approximately equal. The Cfty would have to provide site supervision. 3. Ope rat I on of a Hopk f ns recyc ling center at site by making arrangements with recycle brokers. the same material This option works well with paper only as Waldorf or Pioneer will drop off and piCk UP containers. Glass and aluminum would have to be cOllected fn our own containers and hauled to the broker. The cost or containers. equipment and manpower appear to negate any payments received for the mater'als. The City would have to provide site supen/isfen. 4. Operation of a Hopklns-Minnetonka Jotnt recyclfng center at the M i nnetonka 5 i te at the I r Operat I on and Maintenance facIlity on Minnetonka Boulevard. r' I CouncIl Rpt: 88-97 14 This option appears to oFfer the lowest cost and the most hours of operation ava' lable (50 vs 12). Mfnnetonka has offered to provide the site supervision at not cost to Hopkins. Hopkins would pay a share of the pick up costs based on household numbers (presently) 40~ Hopkins and 6D~ M I nnetonka T and pay for any sign changes. The amount of recycled materials credited to Hopkins would likewIse be 40~. 5. Operation o~ a Hopkins recycl ing center at the Hennepin County Maintenance Faci1 lty. This option may be available but would take con s i derab 1 e time to f mp 1 ement. The County may also want to use this site as a County-wfde drop o~f which would make monitoring of percentage very diff'icL:lt. ALTERNATIVES e The City Counci I has the rollowfng alternatives regarding this issue: L . Author I ze the operat, on of a Hopk f ns recyc 1 f ng center at Mfnnetonka Boulevard and County Road 73 with a contract hauler or with material brokers and City personnel supervision, 2. Authorize the operation or joint Hopkins- Minnetonka recycling center at the Mlnnetonka Operations and Maintenance facilities. This subject to an agreement that is acceptable to both cities. Hopkins to retain the fenced area at M I nnetonka Blvd. and County Road 73 for at I east one year to assure an alternate site is available If the agreement is unsatisFactory. The fence to be moved inside the gravel pit and used f'or secure storage if the joint center is successful. 3. Discontinue pursuit of a recycling center entirely and proceed directly to implementation of a curb side program. 4. Discontinue pursuit of all reCYCling optIons at this time. RECOMMENDATION . S~aff recommends Alternative No.2. Along with the pursuit of' a Hennepin County grant to provide approximately 50~ of' cost of the recyc 1 i ng center ,..HId other recyc I! ng reI ated costs, '~~I "~ ~ . -.