City of
Recycling and Resource Conservation
Advisory Board
|
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
|
|
MEMBERS ABSENT: |
|
|
STAFF PRESENT: |
|
|
GUESTS PRESENT: |
|
|
PUBLIC PRESENT: |
|
1
2005
Annual Recycling Report - DISCUSSION W/
Q. (Routh) Two thousand tons of
Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) were generated less
than in 2004 – why do you think there is this difference? Are you able to find out what types of MSW
were generated less?
A. (Yoos) It’s hard to know the exact
changes in waste composition.
Example: The weight of yard waste
can change year to year based on weather patterns. It also could be changes in economic activity
– a
The Board should notice that the 2005 report
shows that the MSW generated (tons/capita) in
Q. (Poull) Does our data include the
A. (Yoos) Yes.
Q. (Routh) Is it the intent of the
Annual
The Annual
Q. (Poull) Are any property management
companies in
A. (Yoos) Not to our knowledge.
Comment: (Heckler) We’re doing good,
but we could do better.
Comment: (Yoos) Yes, and it gets harder
and harder to gain more recycling percentage points. However, a beverage container deposit law for
the state of KS should be continued to be encouraged as they have shows to
significantly (a) reduce litter; and (b) increase MSW recycling rates in the
states and communities in which they’re adopted.
Comment: (Routh)
Comment: (Yoos) Redemption Centers are
an option / a
Comment (Poull): Our cheap landfill disposal rate is both a
blessing and curse to recycling efforts.
Also, the
Comment (Yoos): Good point.
An example is city of
Comment (Routh): One discomfort I have
is not to do with the activism of the city, but rather the economics of waste
management globally. By focusing
primarily on the short term waste management costs as a “cost/ton function” –
we risk becoming complacent. The city
should not tout the benefits of cheap landfill disposal that we have in
a)
the
b)
there could be a lapse in groundwater protection; and/or
c)
the city could lose the autonomy of disposal options.
Comment (Strecker): Pay-as-you-throw
(PAYT) programs reduce trash while increasing recycling rates. Example:
Comment (Yoos): As a public entity, it
is the responsibility of the SW Division to achieve our integrated waste management
goals in the most cost-effective manner and environmentally-responsible way for
our ratepayers. Both the city commission
and the public dislike cost spikes in service fees.
In regards to PAYT programs, there are
many variables that are different between communities. What works for others may not work for
us. My analyses shows – due to our high
population of mu
Q. (Heckler) Who pays for the disposal
of “move out” trash?
A. (Yoos) The landlord or property
owner in most cases. The City’s finance office attaches that fee to their
facilities’ utility bill. The SWD
prefers to try and get large rolloff containers to apartment complexes prior to
move out (end of lease) date.
Q. (Routh) Who communicates the
availability of roll-off containers to mu
A. (Yoos) The Solid Waste Division and
WRR Division
Q. (Routh) Are subscription to
roll-offs on a voluntary basis?
A. (Yoos) Yes.
Q. (Dobbs) What is the cost of a
roll-off service for trash?
A. (Yoos) size of rolloff (rental fee)
x frequency of collection x landfill disposal costs (assessed by scale house at
landfill)
Q. (Dobbs) How does this fee structure
compare with Deffenbaugh’s costs?
A. (Yoos) Comparable. We’re less expensive that Hamm Companies roll
off services we’re the only ones to provide these roll-off services to
residents within the city.
Q (Dobbs) By ordinance?
A. (Yoos) Yes
Q. (Dobbs) What do you consider the
barriers to mandatory curbside?
A. (Yoos) The cost factor and the
dissent by the public with government “telling them what to do”.
Comment (Routh): One could tweak the
program such that mu
Comment (Yoos): Oread Neighborhood
would be a good candidate in regard to that consideration.
Q. (Poull) What incentives could be
created to encourage recycling?
A. (Yoos) The definition of an
incentive can change between people – but cost is still a factor. In breaking down our current residential
solid waste services rate for one month, 18% of that fee goes for disposal –
the remains of that month fee cover the costs of operations and administration.
Q. (Dobbs) What would it cost for the
city to provide curbside recycling services?
A. (Yoos) $8.00 - $12.00/month per
household depending upon level of service.
Those are the fees derived in the most recent “2004 Increasing
Q. (Routh) Did you look at other methods
of collection? Example: NOT
city-provided curbside collection?
A. (Yoos) – Bob reported to the Board
the information within the table below.
|
City |
Curbside Recycling Available |
Public or Private |
Charge |
|
|
Yes |
Private (they use Drop-offs) |
Varies, $6-$15/month |
|
|
Yes |
Public (City MRF) |
Included in Fee |
|
|
No |
|
|
|
|
No |
|
|
|
|
No |
|
|
|
|
Yes (Mandatory) |
Public (City MRF; private MRF) |
Included in Service Fee ($18.50) |
|
|
Yes |
Public (Private MRF) |
$2.70/month |
|
|
Varies by Vendor |
Private (Private MRF) |
$1.75/month |
|
|
Yes |
Public (Private MRF) |
$10 sign-up fee, $4.90 a month |
|
|
Yes |
Private (Private paper MRF) |
$10/Month varies |
|
|
Yes |
Private (Private MRF) |
$4.50 and up/month |
Q. (Strecker) The city currently
operates drop off boxes for ONP and OCC – would you consider adding drop off
boxes for OWP?
A. (Yoos) That’s a viable option, while
we haven’t looked at that option – it would be a feasible option.
Q. (Strecker) What about drop off boxes
for plastic beverage containers?
A. (Yoos) It would be expensive, for
little (recycling rate) benefit. The
plastic would need to be hauled loose in rolloffs to KC (Deffenbaugh). 60 miles round trip at $3.00/gallon would be
expensive.
Q. (Dobbs) What about baling it (plastic)
at your facility?
A. (Yoos) We have space limitations on
the processing floor at our current SWAN facility. There would have to be adequate storage space
available to compile “bale-able amounts” – there would be no sorting room
capacity to remove contamination of plastic, etc.
Q. (Routh) What about going to bid for
a recycling service to serve
A. (Yoos) We could, however,
Deffenbaugh would leverage themselves into the solid waste collections over
time and they’d also put the current private recycling companies out of
business. Deffenbaugh has approached the
city in the past. At that time our city
manager believed if we let go of or infrastructure and personnel – we’d never
get that back. He turned them down.
Comment (Routh):
Q. (Yoos): Did the recycling company
have a facility to take their materials to locally?
A. (Routh): Yes
Comment (Routh): The city could ask
within the RFP that the awardee build a MRF – perhaps the city would give them
a tax exemption to do so. The RFP should
be a visioning process.
Q. (Routh): Couldn’t a RFP be
constructed as a public-private partnership?
A. (Yoos): Yes, it could be written that way. A question to consider is who would be
responsible for the billing.
Q. (Heckler) Assume you are mandated to
provide curbside recycling. What would
you do?
A. (Yoos) I would do what the city
commissioners ask me to do. But I’d
recommend we first break ground and construct a MRF (materials recovery
facility) – as is documented in the 2004 report “Evaluation of Waste Diversion Strategies for
Q. (Heckler) Can you do that and still
have private haulers employed?
A (Yoos) We would have to open the RFP
process to all haulers.
Q. (Heckler) Can you establish
preference points for small businesses?
A. (Yoos) We would have to first ask
and discuss what our legal restrictions are.
Q. (Poull) Can a MRF pay for itself?
A. (Yoos) No, not at current
prices. We’d have to hire a consultant
to aide us constructing the appropriate size MRF based on capture rate of
specific recyclables, and estimated growth in capacity over a 20 year period.
Comment (Routh): We need to re-evaluate
ourselves as a community. Do we choose
to implement programs based solely on a “balancing the books” model where we
demand recycling pay for itself, and abandon any idea of curbside
recycling? Or do we implement programs
based on the Long Term picture whereby we extend the life to the landfill. Is there the political will to do this?
Comment (Yoos): It appears to me the
real question is, “what price do we want to pay for convenience?” Also, it is the city commission’s decision to
implement a program. The Solid Waste
Division has never expected our services to pay for themselves.
Comment (Routh): I disagree that
curbside recycling wouldn’t increase the recycling rate. I have the right to respectfully
disagree. I don’t hear what you’re going
to do to expand recycling, increase recycling convenience and
opportunities. All I hear is that we’re
not getting curbside recycling and why we shouldn’t get it.
Comment (Routh): I want to see vision,
motivation and willingness to find new ways of increasing service.
Comment (Yoos): I don’t see a problem
with what we’re doing now. I write within the Report that residential curbside
would increase our recycling rate by an estimated 2-4%; and it would be
expensive in gaining that increase as described in the report. We could assume that the Walmart Drop Off
center would most likely close and we would also close down the drop off boxes
and private curbside recycling companies would go out of business.
Comment (Routh): I think the focus
should be on the non yard waste materials that need to be recycled.
Q. (Dobbs): Do we know the quantity of
non yard waste materials being generated by
A. (Yoos): Yes.
Comment (Poull): I think we should remove
yard waste from our Recycling Rate.
Comment (Dobbs): We’re seeing things in
different ways. Tons and dollars vs.
resource conservation. We’re not
currently measuring the intangibles of feeling like you making a contribution
to the world we live in by having mandatory curbside recycling. It is an activity that bonds the family and
bonds the community.
Comment (Poull): Staff don’t
vision. Boards vision. We tell staff what we vision.
Comment (Dobbs): Corliss said push the
envelope.
Comment (Heckler): I would like to
experiment with more drop box locations sites.
For example at Parks and
In summary, the board and staff thought
these types of meetings are valuable to all, and the board would like to
continue them – but all noted the meetings should be respectful in tone.
2
Approval of
Meeting Minutes
Laura Routh made the motion that June
RRCAB Meeting Minutes be approved. Motion
seconded by Dickie Heckler. Motion
approved unanimously.
Action to be taken: Staff will provide
approved minutes for submission to the City Commissioners and posting on the
city’s website.
3
The Board decided to defer submittal of
“Improving Residential Recycling” memo so that another revision may occur based
on the conversation today.
Comment (Dobbs): The
next version of the memo should include language referencing the other
intangible reasons why increased recycling should happen in
Comment (Routh): Someone
else should take on the task of revising the memo as she is too close to it.
Comment (Poull): It is
fine if we disagree with the city. We
can make recommendations that aren’t necessarily “cost effective”. We don’t need to include Bob’s comments in
our memo.
9Action Item:
Daniel Poull will take on next revision of recycling memo to the city
commissioners. Board members should get
their comments to Daniel within 2 weeks (around July 26).
9Action Item:
Kevin Dobbs will email board members and update them on the recycling memo
issue and request they send comments to Daniel within timeline established.
4
Energy
Conservation Subcommittee Report
No meeting of the Energy Conservation
Subcommittee was held.
9Action Item:
Aimee Stewart will follow up with Carol Nalbandian re: getting
Lied-knowledgeable speaker for the Library Advisory Board and what schedule
would work best for their Board.
Question was asked if John Craft had
drafted, “..a memo for revision and review of
the Board. The eventual memo should be
sent from the Chairperson, Kevin Dobbs.” (per
9Action Item: Cindy Strecker will call John and see if he needs
assistance on that memo.
The next meeting
scheduled for the Energy Conservation Subcommittee will be at Yello Sub (on
campus), July 18th @
5
Energy
Conservation Subcommittee Report
Laura Routh had concerns that RRCAB
meeting minutes were not getting to the City Commissioners. She found gaps of 6 months of RRCAB minutes
not included on the city website in 2005-2006.
Comment: (Mangerich) The board
shouldn’t assume that if Minutes aren’t posted on the website, they weren’t
forwarded to the city commissioners.
9Action Item:
Mollie will ask Tammy Bennett about RRCAB minutes (posting on city website and
giving them to our City Commissioners) and report back to the Board.
9Action Item:
Laura will email Mollie the missing months she has noted and the URL on the
City’s website where they are missing.
6
Home Energy
Conservation Fair and Sustainable Homes Tour
Copies of the “save the date” HECF were distributed to
Board Members.
7
Waste Reduction
and
Printed copy of monthly updates
provided to Board.
8
Follow up to
Energy Conservation Memo
Mollie reported to Board w/ handouts
what is occurring re: energy conservation strategies being implemented at the
City Department/Division level. She then
reported back to the board on each item listed as a recommendation memo of
December 2004. The Board would like her
to write up her comments and submit to the Board
9 Action Item
Mollie will write up her comments on RRCAB’s Energy Conservation memo and give to board by August Board
meeting
9
Miscellaneous
·
Some board members noted difficulty sending or receiving
emails to/from KU campus.
9Action Item:
Mollie will talk with Information Systems and try to get this fixed.
·
Cool Cities Campaign and US Mayor Climate Protection
Agreement
9Action Item:
Kevin Dobbs will draft a memo to the city commissioners requesting what action has occurred towards implementing
these initiatives.