HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 31, 2009 Work SessionCITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS Mayor
(iarv 1;. Peleneuft
Councilmembers
ltnhar~ A. M~illicrm.r
590 40t° Avenue NE, Columbia Heights, MN 55421-3878 (763)706-3600 TDD (763)'706-3692 B,•n~~ h'aa~rrcki
Tammera piehm
Vuitourwebsiteat: www.ci.columbia-heights.mn.us BruceR•eL-enher};
City Manager
GValier K. Fcha~t
ADMINISTRATION
NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING
to be held in the
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
as follows:
Meeting of: COLUMBIA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL
Date of Meeting: August 31, 2009
Time of Meeting: 7:00 P.M.
Location of Meeting: CONFERENCE ROOM 1
Purpose of Meeting: WORK SESSION
1. Gateway Pedestrian Bridge -Aesthetic Design Standards
SRF will be present and distribute materials
2. Refuse Contract Proposal Review
(please bring these materials with you to the Sept. 14 Council meeting)
* The next City Council work session will be held on Wednesday, September 9, 2009.
The City of Columbia Heights does not discriminate on the basis of disability in the admission or access to,
or treatment or employment in, its services, programs, or activities. Upon request, accommodation will be
provided to allow individuals with disabilities to participate in all City of Columbia Heights' services,
programs, and activities. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request when the
request is made at least 96 hours in advance. Please call the City Clerk at 763-706-3611 to make
arrangements. (TDD/706-3692 for deaf or hearing impaired only)
CITY COUNCIL LETTER
Meeting o£ 8/31 /09
AGENDA SECTION: WORK SESSION ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER
PUBLIC WORKS
ITEM: Refuse and Recycling Proposals BY: K. Hansen BY:
DATE: 8/27/09 DATE:
Background: Below is a summary of our refuse services for residential properties through our current
contractor Allied Waste:
SERVICE LEVEL ADDITIONAL SERVICES
90 GAL Weekly collection w/extra bags, 1 Appliance, large items, furniture, yardwaste, weekly
2 sort rec clin
60 GAL Weekl collection, 1 a liance, ardwaste, weekl 2 sort rec clin
30 GAL Weekl collection, 1 a liance, ardwaste, weekl 2 sort rec clin
Dumpster (all) Weekly or more, 1 Appliance/rental unit, large items, furniture, weekly or more 2 sort
rec clin
At the April 13th Council Work Session, staff reviewed the current service levels of our Refuse/Recycling
contract with the council with anticipated rate changes of 15 - 20% from our current contractor, Allied
Waste. Staff was directed to prepare an RFP to obtain proposals from the market to obtain the lowest pricing.
The 2009 prices the City pays are $14.71/month for the average 90 gal service. This includes $2.11 for
recycling and $1.68 for yardwaste. The remaining $10.92 includes service of the container and collection of
extra bags, appliances, large items, and furniture. Apartments and other multi-dwelling (4 or more rental
units) dumpsters pay various rates according to size and collections/week, with the most used being a 1 yard
dumpster with 1 /week collection at $12.55/month (which includes appliances, large items, furniture) and
$1.67/stop for recycling.
Analysis/Conclusions: Staff prepared an RFP that requests services matching our current service levels
with 3 alternates. Staff believes it would be of value to obtain alternate bid prices that eliminates some
certain additional services to reduce the expected increase in a new contract. Below are the alternate
descriptions:
1 . Renu~t~e 1~'[ulti-c~l~~~cllin~. (4 or more rur71a1 urlit~i f'ror31 contractcd City ~crvice.
?. lZemc~ve .~1~~i~Ii~tt~e~, i<~r-ge item.:;, furniture, rubbish, any( extra ba~~~ f~rozl~ tl7e re`~i~la~- i~atie 5~~-vi~e cllar`~~:.
3. 1'ruvid€: 5i~1t.~le Sent lZecycling.
Six contractors received copies of the RFP and four submitted proposals on August 26th. Three addendums
were provided to clarify questions or provide additional information during the RFP stage. Staff has been
informed that the Anoka County disposal site, RRT, will have significant price increases (see attached RRT
letter dated August 13th, 2009). Due to these increased rates, differing contract lengths, and sustainability of
the RRT, staff clarified in addendum 3 that the City will pay tipping fees directly, rather than having them
included in the proposal rates. THEREFORE, the rates in the attached proposals are for service only, and
disposal tipping fees will be paid by the City under a new contract. This is similar to what the City of Blaine
COUNCIL ACTION:
CITY COUNCIL LETTER
Meeting of: 8/31/09
AGENDA SECTION: WORK SESSION ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER
PUBLIC WORKS
ITEM: Refuse and Recycling Proposals BY: K. Hansen BY:
DATE: 8/27/09 DATE:
and North St. Paul have in their recent contracts. The Council should also be informed that the tipping fee
will increase in Anoka County from $35.75/ton to $52.00/ton beginning October 1st 2009 throw hg 2010. This
represents a 45% increase over the existing rates.
Veolia Environmental Services provided the apparent low bid. A summary comparison of the rates for
residential services (does not include disposal -tipping fees are paid by the City) is as follows:
Service Veolia Allied Waste
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
90 gal $6.70 33701.00 6.93 7.17 7.42 7.68 $6.97 35059.10 7.21 7.47 7.73 8.00
60 gal $6.70 2445.50 6.93 7.17 7.42 7.68 $6.97 2544.05 7.21 7.47 7.73 8.00
30 gal $6.70 824.10 6.93 7.17 7.42 7.68 $6.97 857.31 7.21 7.47 7.73 8.00
senior $6.70 2097.10 6.93 7.17 7.42 7.68 $6.97 2181.61 7.21 7.47 7.73 8.00
•ecycling $2.70 15743.70 2.79 2.89 2.99 3.09 $3.00 17493.00 3.11 3.21 3.33 3.44
ardwaste $1.93 11253.83 2.00 2.08 2.15 2.22 $2.50 14577.50 2.59 2.68 2.77 2.87
esidential
TOTAL $66,065.23 $72,712.57
Service Walters Rec clin Waste Mana ement
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
90 gal $7.94 39938.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $7.98 40139.40 8.30 8.63 8.98 9.34
60 gal $7.22 2635.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $7.93 2894.45 8.25 8.58 8.92 9.27
30 gal $7.07 869.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $6.16 757.68 6.41 6.66 6.93 7.21
senior $7.07 2212.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $6.16 1928.08 6.41 6.66 6.93 7.21
recycling $3.70 21574.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $2.89 16851.59 3.01 3.13 3.26 3.39
iardwaste $1.83 10670.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $2.78 16210.18 2.89 3.01 3.13 3.25
;esidential
TOTAL $77,901.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $78,781.38
*Walters annual price increases were given as tied to the CPI.
Veolia also provided the rates for multiple dwelling service levels and other facilities, the price comparisons
are provided on the attached bid tabulation.
:~ltcrrlr t~ i : l~~~me~~ve Multi-tiw~llin~ {~ ~n- rnt~rc rental u~~its} fi~«m col~tract~ci City service. Alternate 1 did
not provide a reduction in the Veolia bid for residential service, and actually increased the bid for residential
COUNCIL ACTION:
CITY COUNCIL LETTER
Meeting of: 8/31/09
AGENDA SECTION: WORK SESSION ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER
PUBLIC WORKS
ITEM: Refuse and Recycling Proposals BY: K. Hansen BY:
DATE: 8/27/09 DATE:
service from Allied.
:~lternrttc ?: Rem«vc Ai~l~liancc, Iar~e item, Cut•niture, rttl~bi~;l~, at~El extra baggy burn thy: re`rttltte base 5crviec
charge. Again, alternate 2 did not provide a reduction in the Veolia bid for residential service. Allied's
pricing for alternate 2 was reduced down to Veolia's pricing for residential service container levels, but only
by removing this service.
Alta-date 3: Prc~~~ide 5i~t~le `~«rt Recy~clit7~. The City of Columbia Heights past experience with single sort
recycling via a test area has been very positive. There are arguments that it may increase or decrease actual
volume of recycling (see attached memo explaining a test study from the City of White Bear Lake). A single
sort container does provide the convenience of a larger container that is picked up less frequently (every
other week). Our current contract requires all recyclables to be placed curbside for pickup -where trash is
picked up in all alleys, or curbside only where alleys don't exist. Again, the lowest residential pricing for this
alternate was lowest from Veolia.
The primary negative in switching to single sort is adding another heavy vehicle trip on City alleyways,
which in many cases poor condition and not designed for heavy wheel loading. If the City desires to award
this alternate, staff will need to further clarify and designate pickup routes and containers.
Proposals were received on Wednesday, August 26`h and with an initial review conducted by staff
immediately following. The proposals will need continued review and analysis following council work
session review on the 31st and prior to full consideration in the first meeting in September.
Recommended Motion: Review /Discussion of the Proposals for Refuse and Recycling Contract Services,
including alternates 1-3.
Attachments: Proposals (4)
Bid tabulation
RRT letter dated 8/13/09
WBL memo
KH:kh
COUNCIL ACTION:
2009 REFUSEIRECYCL INO RFP BASE BIDS 2009 REFUSElRECYCLINO RFP B ASE BIDS
Service Veolia Allied Wade Walters R ciin W aste Man a ement
Residential 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2010 2011 2012 2019 2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
5030x90 al 6.70 33701.00 6.83 34857.90 7.17 36065.10 7.42 37322.60 7.68 38630.40= ! 6,97 35059,10 7.21 36266.30 7.47 37574.10 7.73 36881.90 8.00 40240A0, ` 794 3993820 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.98 40139.40 8,30 8.63 8.98 9.34
365 x 60 ai 6.70 2445.50 6.93 2529.45 7.17 2617.05 7.42 2708.30 7.88 2803.20' ia 6.97 2544.05 7.21 2631.65 7.47 2726.55 7.73 2821.46 8.00 2920,00 ' ~ 7.22 2635.30 0.00 0.00 D.00 0.00 7.93 2894.46 8.25 8.58 8.92 927
128 x30 al 8.70 824.10 6.93 852.39 7.17 881.91 7.42 912.66 7.68 944.64. .. 6.97 867,31 7.21 886,83 7.47 918.81 7.73 950.79 8,00 984.00 ' 7.07 869.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.16 757.68 6.41 6,66 6.93 7.21
319xsenior 8.70 2097.10 6.93 2169.09 717 2244.21 7.42 2322.48 7.68 2403.84'. x_ 6.97 218161 721 2256.73 7.47 2338,11 778 2419.49 8.00 2504.00 : 707 2212.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.18 1926.08 6.41 6.66 6.93 7.21
5891 x din 2.7D 157437D 2,79 16268,49 2.89 16651.59 2.99 17434,69 3A9 18D17.79 ~ ~ 3.OD 17493.00 3.11 18134.41 3.21 18717.51 3,33 1941723 3.44 20058.G4 `- 3.70 21574.70 0.00 0,00 O.OD 0.00 2.89 16861.59 3.01 3.13 3.26 3.39
5831x ardwaste 1,93 11253.88 2.00 1166200 2,08 12128.48 2.15 12536.65 222 12944,82 i =; 2.50 14577.30 2.59 16102.29 2.68 15627.08 2.77 1615187 2.87 16734.97: , 1.83 10670.73 0.00 0,00 0,00 0,00 2.78 16210.18 2.89 3.01 3.13 3.25
RasldentialTOTAL $66,065 $68,339 570788
__. $73,237
~...~:;~_
~-- $75746=
~r_.::
:._.-- $72713
~ 976,278 $77,902 $60,643 583,442 ;. note $77,901 $D 50 $D
~;,~-~ 50 $78781
~
~
~
Multi le dwellin
._.~ __ ' ~. M.. ,
~~
^
~~~
T^
~
~~
55x1 rclwl1 u 17.32 952.60 17.93 886.15 18.66 102D.80 19.21 1056.55 1988 1093.40 ~ 11.80 649.00 1221 671.65 1264 695.20 13.08 71940 13.64 744,70 ` 36.77 196736 0,00 0.00 900 O.W 61,65 3390,75 64,11 68.67 69.34 72.11
7x1 ardwl2 u 34.64 242.48 36.88 261.02 37.06 259.83 38.39 268.73 39.80 278,60= ' 2360 165.20 24,42 170.94 2528 178.96 26.16 183.12 2708 1895f. 65.61 460.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.OD 123.27 662.89 128,16 133.31 138,62 744.18
2x1 ardwl9 u 51.96 103.92 53.78 107.66 56.62 111.24 6760 115.2D 59.71 119,428 3540 70.80 38.63 73.26 37.92 75.84 39.24 78.48 40,62 8124 , 95.85 191,70 0.00 ODO 0.00 0.00 189.88 369.]6 192.19 199.94 207
90 216
21
3 x (2) t yard w/i pu . .
6 x 1 erd wl1 u 17.32 103.92 1793 107.68 18.56 111.36 19.21 715.28 19.88 119.28 ~. 11.80 70.80 12.21 73.28 72.64 75.84 13.08 78.48 13.54 8124 35.71 214.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 61.65 389.90 64,11 66.67 89.34 72,11
1 x (2) t yard w12 pu
•
•
=2x1 erdw/2 u 3464 69.28 35.86 71.72 37.09 74.18 38.39 76.78 39.60 79.60
' 23,60 47.20 24.42 48.84 25.28 50.58 26.16 52.32 27,08 54.16 ~ 85,81 131.82 O.W 0.00 0.00 0.00 123.27 246.54 128.16 133.31 138.62 144.16
4x1.6 aNwM u 21.66 86.6D 22.41 89.6A 2319 92.76 24.00 96,D0 24.84 99.36: 19.86 78,64 20,35 81,40 21.06 8424 21.80 87.20 22.56 90.24 := 36.97 147.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 o.DO 68.30 273.2D 71,03 73.87 76.82 79.90
5x2 Nwl1 u 21.65 108,25 22,41 112.05 23,19 11595 2AA0 120,00 24.84 124,2D~ ~ 25.56 127.80 2645 132.25 27.38 136,90 28.33 141.66 29.33 946.65 . 40,60 202.50 OAO 0.00 C00 0.00 76.86 379.30 78.89 82.05 85.33 88.74
1x2 rdwl3 u 64.85 64.95 6727 6721 69.6t 69.61 72.06 72.06 74.56 7A,65m ; 76.68 76.68 79.35 79.36 82.14 82.14 84.99 84,99 87.99 87.99' • 104.80 104.80 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 227.50 227.60 236.67 24607 255.83 266.18
3 x (2) 2 yard w11 pu
=6x2 erdwli a 21.65 129,90 22.41 134.48 23.19 139.14 24.00 144,00 24,84 149,04; 25.56 163.38 26,45 168,70 27.38 164.28 28.33 169.98 29.33 176.98 40.60 24300 OAO 0,00 0,00 0.00 75.86 465.16 78.88 82.05 8533 88
74
2 x (2) 2 yard wl2 pu .
=4x2 ardwl2 u 43.30 173.20 44.84 179.36 46.40 186.80 48.03 192.12 49,69 198.7A~ 51.12 204,48 52.80 211.60 5476 219.04 56,66 226,64 58.66 234.84s ~ 72.85 290.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 161.67 BO6.68 157.78 164.06 970.63 171.46
2x8 ardwl1 u 2165 43.30 22.41 44.82 23.19 46.38 24.00 45W 24.64 48.68 38.32 78.84 40.69 61.38 4212 84.24 43,59 8718 45.12 9024 7 42.89 85.78 O.CO 0.00 O.W 0.00 90.35 180.70 93.96 9772 101.63 105.69
2x1 and+1.5 ardwl2 86.60 173.20 89.68 179.36 92.60 185.80 96,06 192.12 99.39 198,78; 2 62,92 125.84 65.12 130.24 67.40 134.80 69.76 139.52 72.20 144,40 ~ " 132.82 285,84 0.00 0.00 D.00 0,00 259.85 519.70 270.19 281,05 29225 30395
21x4 b w11 u 21.65 464.65 22.41 470.81 23.18 486.99 24,00 604.00 24.84 521.84 ~ ` 51.11 1073.31 52.80 111D.9D 54.75 7149.75 56.67 1190.07 68,65 1231.65 = 48.63 1019,13 0.00 9W 0.00 0,00 104.67 2195.97 10875 113.10 11762 122.33
8 x 4 aM w12 u 43.30 346.40 44.84 358.72 46,40 37120 46.03 384.24 49.69 397.62: 102.22 817.76 105.80 848.40 109.50 876.00 113.34 906]2 117.30 938,40 " ' 8360 688.80 0.00 0.00 O.OD 0.00 209.1A 1673.12 217.48 226.20 235.22 244.65
2x4 aMw13 u 64.95 129.90 6727 134.54 69.61 139.22 72.06 144.12 74.55 149.10; - 153.33 306.66 156.70 317.40 184.25 328.50 170.01 340.02 175.95 351,90 :' ' 11867 237.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 31331 627.42 32620 339,30 352.82 386
97
1 x (2) 4 yard w/3 pu
" ,
=2x4 erdwl3 a 84.95 129,90 67.27 134.54 6961 13822 72.06 144,12 74.55 149.10 163.33 306,68 158,70 31740 164.26 328.50 170.01 340.02 175.95 361.90 ~ ° 118.67 237.34 0.00 0,00 0,00 0.00 313.71 627.42 32620 339,30 352.82 386.97
2x6 ardwl1 u
.
:::
M
._~---__-~~~~.~ ~: 21.65
_.._._.._._ 43.30
.._,_.. _ _..
: 2241
.._
: 44.82
. ~
~ 23~1B 48.38
- 24.00
_.. 48.00
. 24.84 49,68° - 77.65 156.30 80,37 160.74 83.18 166,36 B6.A9 172.18 89.11 17822 •. 65.48 110.96 0,00 OAO 0.00 0.00 134.22 268.44 139.58 146.17 150.97 157.01
....
.
_.._._ ..... ................
.._~:~::~--:~..._._._
._.__._._
_,_...._..
_ .~-.:
~
.__._ ~:.
~ ~.,
~.._._.,
:-m
yam-.,
:~:
._.,_:,
~._,__.~..
.r;
. -
=
__.,
~~
=.:=
~~~~~
~
....__,,._ .~
~"~~~~
.. ._
~ _....
....m
._
Other Facilities
Crestviewcom stied
1x2 and wl1 a 2165 21.65 22.41 22.41 23.18 23.19 24,00 24A0 24.84 24,84:= 60.42 60.42 62.63 62.53 64.72 6472 66.99 66.98 69.33 69.33 ~ :~ 111,00 111,00 D.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 122.22 122.22 127.10 132.19 1374$ 142.98
Noncom acted
Crestview 1x8 and wA 181.55 161.55 166.99 168.99 162.44 162.44 168.19 168.19 173.96 173.96 ~. 672,00 672.00 695.52 596.62 719,88 719.88 74508 745.08 771.19 771.19 - ~ 289.34 289.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 O,OD 1136.06 1138.05 1181,51 1228.79 1277,90 1329.11
Hei hlsManorlx2 arct 43,30 43.30 44,84 44.84 46.40 46,40 48,03 48.03 49.69 49.69 i'= 5i~i2 5192 62.90 52.90 54.76 54.76 56.66 56.66 58.66 58.66•: , 72.65 7265 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 161.67 16167 157.78 164.08 17063 177.A6
R cePlaceix2 artiw 4330 43.30 44,84 44.64 46,40 46,40 48.03 48.0.4 49.89 49.69•` 51.12 51.12 52.80 52.90 54.76 54.76 56.66 66.68 58.66 58,66 ' 7266 72.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.W 161.67 151.67 157.76 164A6 170,63 177.46
Columbia Villa e 1 x 2 43.30 43.30 44,84 44.80. 46.40 48.40 48.03 48.03 49.89 49.69:. 51.12 51,12 62.90 52.9D 54.76 54.76 66.66 56.86 58,66 58.86 ` 72.65 72.86 0,00 0.00 0,00 0.00 151,67 151.67 15778 164.06 fl0.63 177.46
1818xMutti•unit Olin 1.75 3181.60 9,81 3290.58 1,87 339966 1.94 352692 2.01 3654.18='- 1.60 272700 1.56 2836A8 1,89 2926.98 167 3036.06 1.72 3128.96 ~ 2.70 4908.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.16 3908.70 223 2,32 2.41 2.51
Multi•dwellin TOTAL 6840.36 707892 731995 7584.50 7853.78 "" 8120.91 8418.44 8705,01 9016.08 9316.57 ~~ note 12108.82 OAO 0,00 0.00 0.00 18896.43
TOTAL 0 C 0 S
MONTHLYBILL 572,9D6 575,418 578,108 S6D,622 583,598`x: : S6D,633 583,697 586,607 589,659 592,758'- 590,008 SO 50 SO SO 597,678
Waste ma ns errant con sidered d is osal o usts Tor d um ster
35.75 3514.82 36.75 36.75 35.76 36.75
94162.99
DISPOSAL FEES (PAID
BY CITY) ~
610.29 TONSIMONTH 52,00 31735.D8 54 32966.66 58 35398.62 58 35396.82 58 35396.82 " 62,00 31735.08 54 32955,86 58 36396.82 58 35396.82 58 35396,82 =:x 52,00 31735,08 54 32956.66 56 35396.82 58 35396.82 58 35396,82 52.00 31735.08 54 66 58 58
TOTAL ESTIMATED
REFUSE COST 104,641 108,374 113,505 116,219 118,995 112,569 116,652 122,004 125,056 128,155 - ' 121,743 32,956 35,397 35,397 35,397 125,898
August 13, 2009
Dear Anoka/Sherburne County Hauler:
Resource RecQVery
Technologies, LLC
Resource Recovery Technologies LLC (RRT) is pleased to announce that the Anoka County Board of
Commissioners has approved a new contract with RRT Elk River Resource Recovery Facility (ERRRF). This new
contract will enable RRT to continue the processing of municipal solid waste generated in Anoka County in to
refuse derived fuel as part of Great River Energy production of renewable, "green" energy for the citizens of
Minnesota.
Your company and your customers have been an integral part of Anoka County's past success in resource recovery
efforts, and your continued participation is even more important as the ERRRF project moves forward. In an effort
to increase participation from current levels, Anoka County has established a new Hauler Rebate program. I have
attached the new RRT/Anoka County msw delivery agreement for your review and signature.
The following is a summary of the County contract terms and pricing schedule:
-The new Anoka contract is modeled after the current Ramsey-Washington County contract with RRT and
the term extends through December 3 1, 2012.
-RRT will contract directly with haulers for the delivery of waste to the facility. The gate rates are as
follows:
Period
August 20, 2009 -September 30, 2009
October 1, 2009 -December 31, 2010
January 1, 2011 -December 31, 2011
January 1, 2012 -December 31, 2012
Licensed Hauler Rebate (per ton)
Base Tipping Fee
{$35.75 Anoka / $45.00 Sherburne}
$64.00
$68.00
$72.00
2009-2010 2011 2012
$12 $14 $14
During the transition period between August 20 and October 1, the structure of the ERIZRF gate fees and
any related County hauler rebate will remain at the current level. Beginning on October 1, 2009, the County
will pay a quarterly rebate to haulers for waste delivered from Anoka and Sherburne Counties.
Thank you for your past patronage and RRT looks forward to working with you as we continue msw processing in
Anoka County. If you have any questions please call Kevin Tritz or Kevin Nordby at (952) 946-6999.
Regards,
~~2~,~-----_
Kim Erickson ~'~
President, Resource Recovery Technologies
6321 BURY DRIVE, SUITE #13 EDEN PRAIRIE, MIDI 55346
PHONE: 952-946-6999 FAX: 952-946-975
2008_g:\pw\public works\city council\city council letters\2009\august\dual sort vs single sort_wbl.doc
Dual-stream recyclin~: Currently residents are required to sort their recyclables
into two separate categories, rigids and fibers. Blue recycling containers are
provided free of charge for residents to hold their bags at the curbside for pickup.
There continues to be interest among some to move to single-sort recycling,
whereby residents would use one larger container for all co-mingled recyclables
that would be picked up every other week by the hauler. The City considered the
benefits and drawbacks of adopting asingle-sort curbside recycling program and
asked residents to indicate their preference through acity-wide survey.
Overwhelmingly, 70% of those that responded to the survey indicated that they
prefer to continue the dual-stream recycling program. Eureka Recycling also
offered the following arguments in favor of keeping the current system:
- More gets recycled in adual-stream recycling program than a single stream program
because less has to be thrown away after processing.
A common argument in favor ofsingle-stream collection is that resident
participation will rise once the necessity of sorting is eliminated. Eureka
Recycling's study tested this assumption and discovered that container capacity,
not less sorting, was the significant factor in determining the amount of materials
set out at the curb. When recyclers were given larger containers or more frequent
collection, they recycled more material in both adual-stream and single-stream
system. However, just because more materials are being collected, doesn't mean
more materials are being recycled. The residual rate (the contaminated amount
that needs to be thrown away) for asingle-stream program can be as high as
27%-meaning almost one third of the materials collected for recycling in a
single-stream program are thrown out as trash. Average residuals for single-
stream collection range from 14% to 27%, which results in a net loss of
materials, despite an increase in the amount of materials collected. In contrast,
Eureka Recycling's dual-stream facility has a residual rate of less than 2%.
- Dual-stream recycling results in higher quality materials, meaning it's better for the
environment.
The environmental benefits of recycling are dramatically reduced in a single-
stream recycling program. For example, the quality of glass in single-stream
programs is highly compromised and, in the metro area, is most often used for
landfill cover instead of recycling. Paper quality suffers as well, since glass and
plastic become embedded in the paper.