My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2003_0929_packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2003
>
2003_0929_packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/2/2011 9:37:30 AM
Creation date
10/19/2011 4:20:20 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
208
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Message <br />-----Original Message -- <br />Fru : Amy Ihlan [mailtoANWINKINENEW <br />Sent: Sunday, September <br />To; city. council oi, rosevi <br />Subject: Deport From Waste Managment Open House <br />Pagel o f <br />I attended the open house at the waste Management (WM) recycling center on Saturday. I <br />learned some interesting facts that might be useful to the council. Here is my report: <br />group of residents from St. Loins Park also attended the open house. According to the <br />manager of the WM facility, St. Louis Park is in the process of adopting a - stream recycling <br />system. During the presentation before the tour, someone asked the WM manager which is <br />better, 2 stream or single stream recycling He said that neither one is better — it is a matter <br />of what customers prefer, and what works best for a particular community. <br />2. The NM facility processes both 2 stream and single stream recycling. Thus, there is no need <br />for Roseville to switch to single stream to have our recycling processed at the new, state -of- <br />the -art facility. Presumably, it is already. <br />3. During the tour, the manager said that the recycling facility pays for itself from the proceeds <br />WM gets from selling the recycled materials it recovers. e also indicated that the facility is <br />already making a profit.) A Roseville resident then asked what our monthly recycling fees <br />pay for. The manager responded that our monthly fees pay for the costs of hauling our <br />recycling to the facility. This suggests that the single- stream alternative should actually be <br />cheaper than 2 stream} instead of more expensive — if WM can dump the recycling bms into <br />one truck mechanically, as it does with garbage, then the single-stream hauling process would <br />be quicker, and less labor - intensive than our current system, where a person has to dump <br />individual bags and bias into the hauling truck by hand. So we ought to be getting a decrease <br />in rates for going to single stream, rather than the increase that has been proposed. <br />4. Though WM is currently the only local provider of single- stream recycling, there is still <br />competition in the recycling services market. There are other recycling service providers <br />(including BFI and Eureka recycling, a non-profit corporation that handles St. Paul's <br />program). 'Mere are other materials recovery facilities besides WM-s. Haulers other than <br />WM use wM's recycling facility. <br />Although the WM facility is impressive, and single stream recycling may turn out to be a viable <br />option to consider in the future, the tour did not provide any factual information supporting an <br />mediate switch to single stream recycling on an extended contract at a higher price than w4 now <br />pay WM for two stream recycling. if WM has reasons for wanting Roseville to switch to single- <br />stream recycling immediately, then it should offer us market incentives to do so. otherwise, we <br />should continue to study single stream recycling and consider it when our contract comes up for <br />/1 5/2003 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.