HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-03-27_PWETC_AgendaPacketRoseville Public Works, Environment and
Transportation Commission
Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, March 27, 2012, at 6:30 p.m.
City Council Chambers, 2660 Civic Center Drive
Roseville, Minnesota 55113
6:30 p.m. 1. Introductions /Roll Call
6:35 p.m. 2. Public Comments
6:40 p.m. 3. Approval of February 28, 2012 Meeting Minutes
6:45 p.m. 4. Communication Items
7:00 p.m. 5. LED Street Lighting
7:30 p.m. 6. Assessment Policy Discussion
8:00 p.m. 7. Overhead Electric/ Underground Policy
8:25 p.m. 8. 2011 Year End Recycling Report
8:30 p.m. 9. Possible Items for Next Meeting —April 24, 2012
8:35 p.m. 10. Adjourn
Be a part of the picture... get involved with your City... Volunteer!
For more information, stop by City Hall or call Carolyn at 651 - 792 -7026 or check our website at
www.cityo(roseville.com.
Volunteering, a Great Way to Get Involved.
Roseville Public Works, Environment and
Transportation Commission
Agenda Item
Date: March 27, 2012 Item No: 3
Item Description: Approval of the Public Works Commission Minutes February 28, 2012
Attached are the minutes from the February 28, 2012, meeting.
Recommended Action:
Motion approving the minutes of February 28, 2012, subject to any necessary corrections or
revision.
Move:
Second:
Ayes:
Nays:
1
2
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
31
32
33
1.
2.
3.
Roseville Public Works, Environment
and Transportation Commission
Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, February 28, 2012, at 6:30 p.m.
City Council Chambers, 2660 Civic Center Drive
Roseville, Minnesota 55113
Introduction / Call Roll
Chair Jim DeBenedet called the
Members Present:
Members Excused:
Staff Present:
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
6:30 p.m.
Gj erdingen;
ng Minutes
Felice seconded, approval of the January
4. Communication Items
Public Works Director Duane Schwartz noted that updates on various
construction projects were included in tonight's meeting packet or available on-
line at the City's website at www.cityofroseville.com /projects, and as detailed in
the staff report dated February 28, 2012.
Discussion included the City Council's award at their February 27, 2012 meeting
of the 2012 sanitary sewer lining project, and the favorable reduction in per foot
Page 1 of 13
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
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
5.
costs since the program's implementation in 2006, and a brief review of
credentials of the low bidder: Visu- Sewer. Additional discussion included the
anticipated potential deferral by Ramsey County Public Works of the County
Road B -2 project due to major funding challenges; revisions to future roadway
projects; and whether projected growth in roadway needs between now and 2030
will continue to increase, or decrease based on e- commerce impacts to brick and
mortar retail.
tion
with Parks
ks Renewal
ah.serving as the
the Parks Mas
Mr. Brokke p
identified to
and detaile
advised that
through the Ci
an
Mr. Doneen e the results of programming proposed for Natural
Resources and s provided in packet materials; as part of MP
Mr. Doneen recognized that City Engineer Debra Bloom had greatly assisted the
group in understanding community, regional and metropolitan area pathway
issues and those plans already in place. Mr. Doneen reviewed proposed and
Page 2 of 13
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
initial trail connection projects as detailed in Attachment A of the agenda packet.
The presentation included potential partnership opportunities and challenges;
roadway jurisdictions; and southwest Roseville storm water upgrades (near
Fairview fields) planned in the near future that could potentially incorporate
natural trails with those upgrades.
Mr. Schwartz noted that scoring results
had submitted an application for federa
from Long Lake Road to the wester
Village; and as part of the applicat
included.
Mr. Evenson briefly rev'
was developed and contin
after a thorough review of tl
that the concept was to seek
making adjusJjJJVAkLndic
ng, but Ramsey County
Itruct County Road C
is at St. Anthony
'I diagonal had been
p and how the aster Plan
pathways (Attachment B); and
L ter :Seeking Plan. Mr. Evenson noted
consistency and
;llation areas, from his perspective,
arks, and should allow funneling
�ulties in fighting traffic and providing
signage for those areas to assist that access and
avina served as a skeleton for the constellation
Mr. Doneen nued with his review of Natural Resource Projects (Attachment
A) for HANG, eservoir Woods; Oasis Park; Villa Park; Langton Lake Park; as
well as system -wide projects. Mr. Doneen noted his continued astonishment with
the potential volunteer force for Buckthorn eradication in Roseville, and
emphasized the need to capitalize on that interest by providing professional
training and initial supervision for that volunteer corp.
HANC
Mr. Schwartz noted past and continued efforts of the Grass Lakes Water
Management Organization (GLWMO) in partnering with the Ramsey
Conservation District (RCD) to assess where potential Best Management
Page 3 of 13
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
Practices (BMP) sights would most impact Lake Owasso and subsequently
HANC.
Mr. Doneen offered the interest of the Park Renewal Program (PRP) in helping to
implement those BMP's; with Mr. Schwartz anticipating that some of the BMP's
would help qualify for future Legacy Grant funding.
Member Felice, as a resident in the
need to include pathways leading to
noted the need to plan for coopera
adjacent communities.
Mr. Brokke advised that
process with both commu
current Recreation Agreem
their parks and resident/noi
discussions Nulftw nc
quad f Roseville, noted the
Heights an uderdale parks, and
S for park pro s with those
;olf courses in this
t new members to
em as open spaces in
U of MN and
Regarding Buckth rn removal, Member Gjerdingen noted the amount of funds
anticipated in Reservoir Woods alone, and questioned why such a high number of
$300,000 rather than utilizing volunteers.
Mr. Doneen clarified that the cost included experts training and initially
supervising the volunteer pool to ensure proper eradication in targeting the right
species; as well as costs in the initial removal of large growth or more established
Buckthorn infested areas requiring specialized equipment. Mr. Doneen noted that
volunteer efforts would be ongoing, and it was hoped that those efforts could
reduce the projected costs.
Page 4 of 13
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
Chair DeBenedet noted the passion of many Roseville residents in Buckthorn
eradication; and encouraged the Park and Recreation Commission and staff, at
their earliest convenience, get those volunteers and Scout Troops organized in
identifying Buckthorn, and removing from public and /or private property.
Mr. Doneen a.�
workgroup wa
make connecti
the b
g decisi as finalized or
ever, Mr. e responded
s and Recreat Department
problematic, since volunteer
g for overtime staffing
I th atural Trail and Pathway
of availa le volunteers and intended to
s summer to begin developing a
expanded and developed.
on vious PWET Commission discussions and
iding feedback as trails and pathways are
Mr. Evenson referenced the Park and Recreation Proposed Pathway Map included
in attachments; and noted that the constellation map provided the common link
and should serve to be all- inclusive with the overlay of both the Public Works
Page 5 of 13
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
Pathway Master Plan and the more recent Parks and Recreation Master Planning
process. Mr. Evenson assured PWET Commissioners that it was never the intent
to replace the existing Pathway Master Plan; and the efforts to correlate locations
was based solely on safety (e.g. Safe Routes to Schools), and was always part of
ongoing discussions.
d h ide of Owasso and Victoria Street,
per p t ha ?nh ed bo s i�
�cles e d and at was pe mbe�
conside anging fruit"
antly c he safety of tr rperspective w
ande at the corner
tr fic.
I co ns at Victoria and Dale Streets and the impact
ould have on safety through its review of future road
.wised that the current traffic counts were 9,500, while
;re at 11,000; and suggested that the Commission may
ations and suggest to Ramsey County that they review
some of those safety issues.
Member Vanderwall concurred, and opined that it wouldn't hurt to do so at the
intersection of Dale Street with County Road B as well.
Mr. Brokke encouraged PWET Commissioners to keep in contact with the Parks
and Recreation Department and staff as projects moved forward; and invited their
attendance at any Parks and Recreation Commission meetings as well; opining
that their input and comments were always appreciated, since everyone was
working toward the same goals.
Page 6 of 13
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
Chair thanked presenters for their attendance and their informative presentation.
Recess
Chair DeBenedet recessed the meeting at approximately 7:40 p.m. and reconvened at
approximately 7:45 p.m.
Ms. Bloom advised that, staff -level di
for assessments on roadways not A
County or State of MN).
Mr. Schwartz noted that discussions
expectations in the future reasi
jurisdictions.
At the request of Chair DeBe t to mar mparisons as provided in
Attachment m prov a b out, ached hereto and made
apart her d en "Sped en ey Spreadsheet — 2010
(Market Cit tro Po tion be 50 000 and 100,000)."
Ms. ooNevieAd the cu mm and discussion among staff and
Commissi uded: furthe i s for Minnesota State Aid (MSA)
funding frconstruction for quired 48' wide, 9 ton roadway to
a menions based on a 32' wide, 7 ton street, with the City picking up
the ional construction costs.
Chair DeBI
source also
if MSA funds were not available, another funding
znd to facilitate those construction costs.
Further discussion ncluded remaining sections of roadway (e.g. frontage roads)
classified as "non- permanent" estimated at two (2) miles remaining; and
challenges for them as they were "single- loaded," but their reconstruction costs
would be much higher than that.
Mr. Schwartz opined that, given rising expectations for other jurisdictions and
local cost participation, assessment costs would need to be revised and increased.
Mr. Schwartz noted the City of Roseville's placement at the low end of
assessment policy comparisons from the survey provided for metropolitan
communities with populations between 50,000 and 100,000, compiled in 2010.
Page 7 of 13
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
Mr. Schwartz further opined that it only made sense to get those additional
contributions from benefitting property owners.
Member Vanderwall noted the
undergrounding electrical lines.
Chair DeBe
justify assessm
is for
�enedet, Ms. Bloom advised that current interest rates
the City's Finance Director, based on State Statute,
6-6.5%.
Ms. Bloom noted at the City of Arden Hills assessed for property owners with
40% of mil and overlay projects, and that those costs could be significant for
those property owners.
Member Vanderwall noted that, in the list of comparable metropolitan
communities, Roseville was the only first -ring suburb with the exception of the
City of Bloomington that also had a large commercial area. Member Vanderwall
suggested the need to look at the City of Richfield and other inner -ring suburbs
with a different demographic, rather than the Cities of Woodbury or Lakeville.
Member Vanderwall noted the demographic of Roseville residents, some having
Page 8 of 13
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
lived here for fifty (50) plus years, with retirement and income situations different
than those newer suburbs. Member Vanderwall questioned where the
Commission should focus their discussion: on population demographics in
general or on commercial properties. Member Vanderwall noted that in the
current political and economic times when jurisdictions area asked to lower taxes,
and continued demands on communities to provide services while keeping taxes
in line, businesses may question revised assessment policies as an indication of
how business - friendly Roseville is. However, Member Vanderwall noted that the
only reason the services and /or improvements existed was because they were
needed by those very businesses; and further noted the need for the community to
address public safety issues for the broader commynity.
Ms. Bloom advised that the Cities of Mi
annual construction projects to their ann
assessment. Based on the numerous is
communities felt this was the only
sustainability issues for communit
Member Va
considering an
w' e need to
Mounds View added their
ludgets as a city -wide
�Ld.vised that those
n it created
'MP was i ed in 1986 to
however, he ted that in
as well such as pathway
1P fund. Mr. Schwartz
ko to reassess that fund; and
Ms. Bloom advised that the City of St. Paul was a Statutory City and therefore
were not required to go through the same Public Hearing process for assessments
as needed for the City of Roseville.
Chair DeBenedet suggested that the City of St. Paul not be used as a comparable,
since theirs was a different situation. However, Chair DeBenedet opined that
Page 9 of 13
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
there was a nexus or connection between the cost of rebuilding or improving a
road in front of a busy, commercial area (e.g. turn lanes, traffic signals) since the
business(es) created that additional traffic and they preferred to locate in that area
based on the high traffic volume. Chair DeBenedet suggested that the
Commission consider land uses when revisiting the Assessment Policy, such as
residential areas (LDR and MDR) versus commercial lots and base assessment
percentages on that land use. Chair DeBenedet supported assessing all properties
based on a 7 ton, 32' wide street, with commercial and residential treated the
same up to a certain limit. Chair DeBenedet noted previous comments of
Member Vanderwall on Rosedale Mall's property taxes benefitting the
community overall; however, he questioned wheth their other benefits (e.g. Fire
and Police services) were not part of the discus ' well.
Ms. Bloom noted that, duel
(TIF), use of that revenue f
Mr. artz
Works cia
utility in
funding sou
to base capital
capital improv
discussion; and also noted
osing 40% of those tax
ing it difficult for
ra rom the region
bas that traffic
for tax increment financing
,vere now limited.
ng, traffic controls, etc.
d /or sizes of businesses and
could be tied to square
kosedale Mall and how to apply those
access for one or more parcels.
it on g discussions among City engineer and Public
)rted street utilities being allowed, such as the City's
icing that would allow cities to have an alternative
I be area -wide; or addressed with transportation districts
ent projects on an area -wide basis specific to those
Ms. Bloom noted the support in the City of Minnetonka from their business
community based on identified improvements and area benefits (e.g. Highway
169 and I -494) and applicable assessments; however, she noted that such a
transportation utility policy did not move forward. Ms. Bloom reviewed the
fundamental basis for a transportation utility was based on trips generated and
assessed accordingly, similar to what was done for the Twin Lakes
Redevelopment Area.
Page 10 of 13
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
Mr. Schwartz noted that it was still supported by many, including Chamber of
Commerce groups, but with the current legislature, it was not moving forward at
this time, and hadn't even though under discussion for the last 15 -20 years.
Chair DeBenedet suggested a policy such as:
"The existing Assessment Policy applied to properties zoned 1 -2 family;
with all others assessed at 25% of the equivalent of a 7 ton, 32' wide
street, in addition to related roadway costs (e.g. curb and gutter, medians,
turn lanes, drainage, all lighting, signals, and landscaping) assessed at 90%
of total construction costs."
Chair DeBenedet noted that such a policy woul e it much less affordable for
small businesses.
At the reques eB
Division forth r inp d
districts: HDR omme 1
(e.g. schools, c es
ene edustrial, fere talk to the Planning
Mr. note eed to consider all zoning
Retail Residential, as well as Institutional
zonins).
tion b
,tied to
m, Chair DeBenedet spoke in support
land use, not zoning.
year to year.
Mr. Schwartz concurred, noting that further discussion was needed on the annual
portion of the City's tax levy that was set aside for funding infrastructure needs;
with Member Vanderwall expressing his 100% support of such an allotment for
funds. However, Member Vanderwall noted that the political ramifications of
such a discussion would be translated to individual City Council candidates, as it
would be seen as potentially "raising taxes."
Page 11 of 13
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
Member Gjerdingen questioned if levy funds were intended for reconstruction or
for maintenance needs.
Ms. Bloom clarified that it was basically a discussion of needs, with the City
currently performing 3 -5 miles of mill and overlay projects annually, requiring
significant dollars to perform that maintenance, and currently requiring the City to
dip into the PMP principal, diminishing its reserves. Ms. Bloom projected that
costs would only continue to increase, and questioned the status of those funds
would be within ten (10) years.
Mr. Schwartz advised that the City
the PMP.
Chair DeBenedet noted that
supporting assessin g constn
aware of
ng gap in
dual Commissioners
public pay for a portion
could also force them to
I arly 1980's when neighborhoods were
o , an
;tid unwilling to pay for them, creating
is in the future.
In conclusion, Ms. Bloom defined and clarified her direction from Commissioners
to facilitate further discussion:
• Get more information from the Cities of Richfield and St. Louis Park, as they
were more similar to the City of Roseville;
Page 12 of 13
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
7.
8.
• Talk to the City's Planning Division about zoning, the breaking point for
residential, and bringing forward the land use map as additional information in
the future;
• Review current Institutional parcels and uses in place;
• Add the proposed language provided by Chair DeBenedet into a revised
DRAFT Policy; and
• Include State Aid broken out for zoning: MSA versus non -MSA construction
costs and assessment calculations.
Chair DeBenedet expressed his concern that MSA funding could be inconsistent;
however, Ms. Bloom advised that it was percenta sed and should remain
consistent. At the request of Member Gjerdin s. Bloom advised that she
would ensure that the revised policy include 11 provisions currently in
Section 2.g of the existing policy.
Commission volvement in
TING — Bloom)
is versus cost - savings for the
and PWET Commission
lks were conforming or
seconded, adjournment of the
Page 13 of 13
Roseville Public Works, Environment and
Transportation Commission
Agenda Item
Date: March 27, 2012 Item No: 4
Item Description: Communication Items
• Attached is a handout from the LMC with some tips on "Making Meetings Work"
• Projects update -
o Josephine Woods— Pulte has indicated that they have sold 10 lots in this
development.
o Josephine Lift Station— Staff is reviewing 90% plans for this improvement. We
are scheduled to bid this project in April.
o Rice Street Reconstruction Phase 2- Staff is working on the feasibility report for
this project. We have also been working with the private utilities on the costs to
underground the overhead utilities in this corridor.
o 2012 Pavement Management Project, which includes the annual Mill and Overlay
Project and the County Road C -2 work, is out for bids. Bid opening will be
3/29/12.
o Staff is working on final plans for the following projects:
• Fairview Pathway Phase 2
• Drainage improvements
• Waterman lining project
Recommended Action:
None
Attachments:
A. Roseville Cleanup Day Flier
Page 1 of 2
1&se &'s Clean vp
When:
What:
Saturday, April 28, 2012 from 8 am - 3 pm
Items that can't go in your regular trash - listed
below - or extra stuff you want to get rid of
(Sorry no hazardous materials - that site opens in June)
Attachment A
If you have reusable clothes, books, sporting goods or housewares take them to Goodwill, 1627 W. County Rd B.
Take reusable mattresses, box springs, furniture and other household items to Bridging, 1633 Terrace Dc These
charities will NOT accept large appliances or electronics.
Pickup Load $25.00 Minivan /SUV Load $12.00
Car Load $6.00 Trailer (4'x4'x8') $25.00
Above prices are for general loads. Prices below are for specific items. If you have a general load and a specific item
you will be charged for both. Unusual items such as tractor tires and railroad ties are extra.
Appliance $7.00
Couch $7.00
Electronics* $5.00 (each)
Tires $1.50
Appliance w /Freon $12.00
Stuffed Chair $4.00
Auto Batteries $1.00
Hide -a -beds $12.00
Mattress /Box Spring $12.00 (each) Scrap Metal $4.00 /yard
Lawn Mowers /Snow blowers $7.00 (each) Child Car Seat $10 /each
* Electronics includes computers, monitors, peripherals, TVs, stereos, VCRs, DVD players, etc. Computer hard drives
will be erased before being recycled.
Where: The Dale Street Soccer Fields Parking Lot 2555 N. Dale (see map)
Enter from Dale Street heading south
Questions: Call 651 -792- 7027
County Road C :Inj For waste reduction and recycling
information www.RethinkRecycling.com
or call 651`633-3279.
NT Take a break from cleaning up your
Out Z corner of the earth and celebrate Earth
ti y� Day Saturday, April 21 at the
m
m m Harriet Alexander Nature Center,
'-' 252o Dale Street. To volunteer call
County Road B2 651 - 765 -HANG.
Roseville pays one-third of the disposal /recycling costs. This program is paid for with rev- ����
enue from the sale of your curbside recycling material, as well as from funds received from ��
the State of Minnesota and Ramsey County. Printed on 100% recycled paper
R
HILL �
� � Shoreview
�1�
are pleased to host a
COMPOST BIN and RAIN BARREL
TRUCKLOAD SALE
ONE DAY ONLY •ONE DAY ONLY •ONE DAY ONLY •ONE DAY ONLY
Saturday May 5, 2012
9:00 am until 3:00 pm
The SYSTERN Rain Barrel
Did you know that
one inch of rain falling on a
1,000 ft' roof harvests up to
600 gal of rainwater for use
on your lawns and gardens
without turning on the tap?
a $120 value for :included
$ 55- °°
STER
5
$ 7.00 Compost Turners and Kitchen Sc
ind. tax
SYSTERN Rain Barrels and Earth Machine' Compost Bins
will be available at the following location:
The Earth Machine TM
Did voi it know that
Roseville City Hall
2660 Civic Center Drive
Roseville, Minnesota
r. VISA DISC VER
CHECKS ACCEPTED
Checks and Credit Cards ONLY- NO CASH ACCEPTED!
To learn more about the SYSTERN Rain Barrel or Earth Machine'" Compost Bin, please visit www.systern.com and www.earthmachine.com
Job #:120684
N Date: 3.13.12
• -T :.... Operator: JS
K """•""""""CCC Version Roseville Back
6:
Roseville Public Works, Environment and
Transportation Commission
Agenda Item
Date: March 27, 2012 Item No: 5
Item Description: LED Street Lighting
Background:
The Commission requested a discussion of LED street lighting to be a part of the agenda for this
month. For this discussion we have invited Ed Biegling, a manager of outdoor lighting for Xcel
Energy to discuss where this technology is today as it relates to street lighting. They own and
maintain the majority of the street lights in Roseville and the city pays them a monthly fee per
light.
Staff will also discuss with the Commission what we are doing to further the reduction of energy
use for parking lot and pedestrian lighting. We have some preliminary cost estimates stated in
payback years for the upfront costs of changing to LED fixtures.
Recommended Action:
Discuss benefits of LED lighting conversion.
Attachments:
A.
Roseville Public Works, Environment and
Transportation Commission
Agenda Item
Date: March 27, 2012 Item No: 6
Item Description: Assessment Policy Discussion
Background:
At the February meeting, the Public Works Commission discussed the City's Assessment policy.
The Commission asked staff to follow up on a few items as it relates to the policy.
Attached is another assessment policy summary table from 2008. In the interim, staff contacted
Maplewood and Richfield to discuss their assessment policies. We have updated their
information on this 2008 table.
Attached is a summary of the zoning districts and residential density.
Recommended Action:
Discuss assessment policy and potential changes for different zoning districts.
Attachments:
A. Assessment Survey from 2008
B. Zoning District Summary
city
Two Harbors
St. Francis
Chisholm
Falcon Heights
Hermantown
East Grand Forks
Mahtomedi
North Branch
Crookston
Thief River Falls
St. Michael
Virginia
Arden Hills
Hugo
Cloquet
Mendota Heights
Bemidji
Marshall
Mounds View
Vadnais Heights
Hutchinson
Elk River
Hopkins
Northfield
Columbia Heights
New Brighton
White Bear Lake
Moorhead
Richfield (2012)
Roseville
Mankato
Maplewood (2012)
Minnetonka
Blaine
Woodbury
Coon Rapids
Eagan
St. Cloud
Rochester
St. Paul
Minneapolis
FINAL ASSESSMENT SURVEY
9/15/2008
Population
Assess MSA Routes
Resident Share of
Reconstruction %
Resident Share of
Mill & Overlay %
Separate Residential
and Commercial Rates
FF or SF
Unit
Capped
Overlay
Rate
Comments
3,613
Yes
50% Ave's only
50% Ave's only
No
FF
No
50%
City pays 100% for streets
4,910
Yes
40%
40%
Yes
Adjusted FF
Yes
based on bids
4,960
No
30%
40%
No
FF
No
NA
Rates based on standard road width (28 feet). New streets paid 100% by
owner.
5,572
Yes
40%
40%
Yes
FF
No
0%
100% rate for tax exempt
7,448
No
Not %
Don't assess
Yes
FF or Unit
No
NA
No uniformity of lots, methods vary by project/property
7,501
No
100%
No
FF
No
$30 /FF
Concrete new@ $45 /FF
7,563
Yes
50%
30%
Currently revising policy, getting appraisals to determine benefit amount
8,032
Yes
Not %
Don't assess
Yes
Unit
Yes
NA
Cap= Special Benefit Analysis, Residents' share of recon determined by
Special Benefit Review
8,192
Yes
$25 /FF
$25 /FF
No
FF
Yes
$25 /FF
8,410
Yes
60%
6' Edge mill
No
FF
No
NA
Side streets included lots of reclaiming
9,099
Yes
40%
0%
Yes
Unit res, FF
comm.
Yes
NA
Residential reconstruct $2,500 unit
9,157
Yes
ADT >1000 =50 %,
ADT<1000 =75%
ADT >1000 =50 %,
ADT<1000 =75%
No
FF or SF
No
$18.959/FF or
$0.3162/SF
Rates increased by Consumer Price Index
9,652
Yes
50%
50%
Yes
Unit
No
50% Res, 70%
commind
Res. share of partial recon. @ 50%
10360
Yes
Not %
Not %
Yes
Unit res, FF
comm.
Yes
$1,800- 3,400 /Unit
$4,100 for partial recon, $5,200 for complete recon
11,201
Yes
About $20 /ff
No
Yes
FF
Yes
NA
Residential equivalent, they assess for utilities approx. 25%
11,434
Yes
50%
50%
FF
$6 -8 /FF
11,917
Yes
80- 100%
Don't assess
No
Unit
No
0%
12,735
Yes
$5,200
Don't assess
Yes
FF
Yes
NA
Maint overlays, do sample appraisal
12,738
No
25%
Don't assess
Yes
Unit
Yes
NA
Res. Share of partial recon @ 25%
13,069
Yes
50%
50%
Yes
Unit
Yes
$36 /FF
Calculate rate & turn it into a
per unit assessment
13,080
Yes
Not %
Not %
Yes
FF
Yes
$20 /FF
Res. Recon. $80 /FF, Reclaim St. $42 /FF with curb spot repair, $55 /FF
with full curb repair
16,447
Yes
25%
100%
Yes
Unit
Yes
$1,950 /unit
This is the residental rate
17,145
Yes
Res. 50 %, Comm. 70%
Don't assess
Yes
FF
Yes
NA
On MSA Routes Res.= 50% and Comm.= 70 %, no cap on comm. rates,
Res. partial recon.= 70%
17,147
Yes
$2,500 now
Have not
No
Yes
NA
Currently revising policy, getting appraisals to det. FF cost
18,520
No
50%
85%
Yes
Unit
No
$2,034 /unit
Res. Share of partial recon @ 70 %, 100% of seal coat
22,206
Yes
100% curb, +25% rest
0%
No
Unit
No
NA
Res. Share of partial recon @ 25 %,
24,723
Yes
33%
Don't assess
Yes
FF
Yes
$39 /FF
.12 SF storm
32,786
Yes
30%
30%
No
SF
Yes
$18 FF
$40 /FF for reconstruct
35,000
No
Don't assess
Don't assess
Don't assess
Don't assess
Don't assess
Don't assess
33,105
Yes
25%
0%
No
FF
No
0%
Res. Share of partial recon. @ 25%
33,925
Yes
25%
50%
No
FF
Yes
$18 FF
Reconstruct rates @ $78 /FF
35,945
Yes
Not %
Not %
No
Unit
Yes
Not %
Complete before and after appraisals, averages out to be around 30% of
project cost
51,519
No
0
Don't have to assess
0
0
0
NA
Maint crews 3/4" overlays a year 13Mi, 4 -6 miles, gen. fund
54,927
Yes
25% of partial
no money for overlays on
MSA routes
Yes
Unit
Yes
NA
Based on residential equivalent
55,395
Yes
33%
33%
Yes
Unit res, FF
comm.
Yes
32' equivalent width
62,310
Yes
50%
NA
Yes
Unit
Yes
$30 /FF
Res. Share of partial recon @ 50 %, comm. overlay is double res. rate
64,006
Yes
75%
50%
Yes, and high density res.
Unit
No
$600- 1,000 /Unit
64,711
Yes
50% of standard rate
Don't assess
Yes
FF
Yes
NA
Sometimes get an outside appraisal for assessment rate. Standard rate
for 2008 (bituminous, 36' wide, with curb & gutter) is $108 /assessable
foot.
98,649
Yes
50%
(not implemented but policy
in place)
Yes, and Industrial
FF
Yes
NA
Policy and Rates are inconsistent. Actual Assmt. Rates (ENR CCI Annual
Adjustment) cover about 25% of costs, but Policy requires 50%
coverage. Policy provides for Overlay Assmt., but Rate not established
by Council.
287,151
1 Yes
25%
No
Yes
FF
Yes
NA
Overlays done with maintenance assessment
373,188
1 Yes
25%
60 to 75% no Milling)
Yes
FF
Yes
FF x depth (influence area) back to alley
Attachment A
Attachment B
City of Roseville
Zoning Districts Summary
For more information go to:
www.citvofroseville.com/zoning
Residential Districts
Density (residential only)
LDR -1, Low Density Residential (One - Family) District- 1
8 Units /net acre - averaged across
development site
LDR -2, Low Density Residential District -2
8 Units /net acre - averaged across
development site
MDR, Medium Density Residential District
5 -12 Units/ net acre
HDR -1, High Density Residential District -1
12 -24 Units /net acre
HDR -2, High Density Residential District -2
24 or more Units/ net acre
Commercial and Mixed Use Districts
NB, Neighborhood Business District
CB, Community Business District
RB, Regional Business District
CMU, Community Mixed Use District
Employment Districts
O /BP, Office /Business Park District
I, Industrial District
Other Districts
INST, Institutional District
PR, Park and Recreation District
Roseville Public Works, Environment and
Transportation Commission
Agenda Item
Date: March 27, 2012 Item No: 7
Item Description: Overhead Electric / Underground Policy
Background:
The City council has requested staff to develop an Overhead Electric Power Line
Undergrounding Policy. We have not been able to locate a current policy in place in another
community. We would like to have a discussion with the Commission on the parameters of such
a policy understanding that undergrounding of existing power lines is very expensive and there
are limitations on how the community funds this type of project. This type of policy should
include how these projects are prioritized and scheduled.
Staff will present information on the existing overhead electric facilities for major corridors in
Roseville.
Recommended Action:
Discuss the content of an Electric Undergrounding Policy
Attachments:
A.
Roseville Public Works, Environment and
Transportation Commission
Agenda Item
Date: March 27, 2012 Item No: 8
Item Description: Annual Recycling Report/Eureka
Background:
This is an opportunity to discuss the annual recycling report from Eureka Recycling. We will not
be having representatives from Eureka attending the meeting this year. We have attached the
report for your review. Let us know if you have specific questions you would like staff to follow
up on prior to the meeting.
Recommended Action:
Discuss content of the report
Attachments:
A. Annual Report from Eureka
Attachment A
City of Roseville
Year -End Recycling Report 2011 www.eurekarecycling.org
cling.
www.eurekarecyeling.org
Overview
Our mission is to reduce
In 2006, the City of Roseville, recognizing the community's desire for a
waste today through
recycling program that is part of demonstrating that waste is completely
innovative resource
preventable, partnered with Eureka Recycling to design a zero -waste recycling
management and to reach
program for its residents.
awaste -free tomorrow
by demonstrating that waste
Recycling is an important part of zero waste that complements other strategies
is preventable, not inevitable.
such as composting, redesigning the products we need, and reducing the amount
of stuff we produce and use in the first place. After all, zero waste is not about
deprivation and never buying another product again! It's about having safe,
non - toxic, healthy, and durable products that bring happiness into our lives
without polluting or damaging our bodies and planet. Recycling alone will not
accomplish this, but a zero -waste approach to recycling benefits our
environment, our health, and our communities and is effective at reducing
waste as well as reducing our use of natural resources.
Zero -waste recycling is an approach to recycling that is first and
foremost about the natural resource we use for the products we need,
not collection or profit margins on hauling. It considers the highest and best
use for the material at each step in the process. It is about respecting,
preserving, and creating the rapidly depleting resources that our lives depend
on. It requires that we make efforts to reduce what manufacturers produce and
what we buy. We begin with prevention first, not as afterthought. Then, we
recycle as close to the source as possible, making sure that recycled materials
are used for making new products instead of virgin materials. And our
education and outreach doesn't stop with recycling; we ensure that residents
are engaged and educated more broadly about source reduction, producer
responsibility, and the ways they can help reduce the amount of new materials
that are produced.
The end result of zero -waste recycling is that our recycling efforts
have the highest benefit for the environment and the community. We
do this by a providing a constant and full analysis of recycling that takes into
account not only the costs, but the environmental benefits and impacts, and
the impact on and convenience for our community.
An affirmative action, equal
opportunity employer.
Q Printed on 100% postconsumer
recycled paper that was processed
without the use of chlorine.
Eureka Recycling, like the City of Roseville, also believes that a zero -waste recycling
is responsive to and benefits the community. Successful recycling is only possible with
informed community engagement that results from providing people access to real, not just more
information. This includes education about challenges as well as the environmental, social, and
economic benefits of recycling. This is how recycling is started, supported and embraced by
communities for the long term. Education needs to be responsive to the unique needs of each
community, and created and delivered in partnership with existing community networks, so that
the tools and resources introduced will be seen as a relevant part of people's daily lives and will
remain as part of the community's knowledge long after it is introduced.
About Roseville's Successful Zero -Waste Recycling Program
The City of Roseville's recycling program is exceptional because it uses this zero -waste
approach. Here are some examples of the benefits that the City of Roseville has ensured on
behalf of its residents.
In Roseville, more residents recycle more materials.
These are examples of materials that have been collected in the City of Roseville's program that
other cities either do not include or include but cannot ensure are actually recycled:
• Cloths & Linens
• Milk Cartons & Juice Boxes
• Pop & Beer Boxes
• New in 2011: Pizza Boxes
Eureka Recycling is constantly looking for ways to add additional materials to the zero -waste
recycling programs. We complete a full analysis and work with end markets to explore the
specific sorting and preparation methods that ensure the materials can be made into new products
when they reach the manufacturer. In 2012, several waste haulers are following suit and adding
some of these materials to their programs, or changing the way they prepare and sell these
material to ensure they really get recycled. They are also adding new plastic items to curbside
recycling programs in other cities. Eureka Recycling will complete a full analysis of additional
plastics and, as always, will work with the City of Roseville to add new material in an authentic
and transparent way that gives residents the ability to find out where their recycling goes and how
it is recycled to the highest use possible, balancing the environmental, social, and financial
benefits, and honoring the values that Eureka Recycling and the city share.
In Roseville, the basic recycling education is far from basic. It is robust.
Roseville residents receive "How To" instructions each year in the mail. But recycling education
in Roseville goes far beyond simple recycling to give residents the broader zero -waste perspective.
Every day Eureka Recycling drivers cater education to specific recyclers by leaving informative
tags designed to be friendly, helpful, and informative, not punitive to help residents who are
trying to recycle the right way do even better. Residents can also contact a live hotline if they
want to speak to a zero -waste specialist about their recycling or other waste reduction questions
and challenges. Throughout the year residents can learn about the challenges as well as the
environmental, social, and economic benefits of recycling, or the next steps they can take to
2
eliminate all waste not just recycle via Eureka Recycling's website, Guide to Recycling, or
articles in the City of Roseville's newsletter.
This education not only helps residents know how to participate, it also gives them ongoing
support to understand what can be included in their program and why. It helps to keep the
quality of material high and ensures that residents have an authentic understanding of what
products can be recycled into new products and what materials currently cannot.
Roseville residents are great recyclers and want to do more.
A zero -waste perspective helps communities transition from a solid waste management
philosophy, in which waste is assumed to be inevitable, to a zero -waste system, where waste is
completely preventable.
Using nature as the model, we create items to be durable not disposable, reusable, and recyclable,
and ult mately remade into new products that start the process over again, which decreases or
eliminates the need for new raw materials to replace what was lost to trash. This process would
have little or no negative impact on the health of the community, economy, or the environment
Here are some examples:
• Eureka Recycling's annual recycling guide motivates and inspires people with information
about what their neighbors are doing to reduce waste and lead more sustainable lives. It
also provides residents with information on the economic and social benefits of recycling
and zero waste. It is even used as an invitation for people to engage in deeper
conversations with us about producer responsibility, plastics recycling, compost ng, and
other important zero -waste issues.
• Eureka Recycling's Zero -Waste Hotline is not simply a customer service line to call with
complaints. Our hotline is staffed by trained zero -waste educators who help thousands of
residents each year with questions and concerns about all aspects of zero waste. In 2011,
our zero -waste education staff had conversations with 411 Roseville residents who had
questions about:
• Backyard compost ng
• Reuse options for durable items
• Influencing producers to make more sustainable packaging
• Where to take bulky, hard to recycle items
• How to get involved with other community groups working on environmental
proj ects
• And many more waste reduction and sustainability issues
• Eureka Recycling also has been a strong partner supporting the city in its efforts to make
as many city events as possible zero - waste. By helping to provide education, equipment,
staff, and transportation of compostable materials to processors, we have seen the City of
Roseville become a leader in authentic zero -waste events that other communities hold up
as a mentor for their own efforts.
3
• In 2011, we worked with the city and end markets that we partner with to create
newsletter profiles of local and regional companies that turn material recycled in Roseville
into new products, creating local jobs and benefiting the community.
The high level of engagement and authentic waste reduction efforts undertaken by the
city and Eureka Recycling has also inspired many residents to reduce the amount of trash
they generate at their homes and create nutrient -rich soil by composting food scraps in
their backyard. The City of Roseville and Eureka Recycling have offered backyard
compost ng workshops to residents to help them not only gain technical knowledge about
how to compost but to also understand the important role compost ng plays in zero waste.
2011 Review & Highlights: Benefits of Roseville's Zero -Waste Recycling Program
Because of the City of Roseville's decision to create a zero -waste recycling program, it enjoys the
environmental, social, and financial benefits. These results are not typical of recycling programs
that focus on solely on collection and not on true recycling or additional zero -waste efforts.
Despite the downturn in the national economy participation in Roseville's
recycling program —as well as the amount of material recycle— remains steady
at a very high level.
2. Revenue share is at its highest level since the recycling program began,
giving the city the ability to go even deeper and engage residents further
on zero waste.
3. The environmental benefits of Roseville's zero -waste recycling program are
significant.
4. Next steps in 2012.
1. Despite the downturn in the national economy, participation in Roseville's
recycling program —as well as the amount of material recycle remains steady at a
very high level.
It also means that despite the current fluctuations in the financial social and environmental realities
of our current economy, Roseville's recycling program remains stable at a very high level. Despite
increases in home vacancy rates participation in the recycling program remains stable at a
comparatively high rate. Despite economic uncertainty and high unemployment, the quantity of
material recycled in Roseville remains stable and the quality of material remains extremely high.
Despite the fluctuating markets for all commodities, the revenue share earned by the sale of
Roseville's material is increased over 2010.
4
Tonnage
Route
2006
Total
Tons
2007
Total
Tons
2008
Total
Tons
2009
Total
Tons
2010
Total
Tons
2011
Total
Tons
Monday
852
893
832
740
758
743
Tuesday
464
500
467
420
436
436
Wednesday
454
457
461
420
435
421
Thursday
706
736
719
669
673
656
Fri day
482
1 507
1 465
1 426
1 440
1 422
Curbside Total
2,958
3.094
2,994
2,675
2,742
2,678
Mul6family Total
483
587
612
606
580
566
Roseville Total
3,441
3,681
3,556
3,281
3,322
3,244
Annual Composition Study
Type of
Material
2006
% of Total
Tonnage
2007
% of Total
Tonnage
2008
% of Total
Tonnage
2009
% of Total
Tonnage
2010
% of Total
Tonnage
2011
% of Total
Tonnage
Total Annual
Tons
3,441
3,681
3,556
3,281
3,322
3,244
Papers
News Mix
63.98%
56.46%
66.00%
61.65%
59.68%
51.53%
Cardboard
6.71%
13.23%
4.50%
5.48%
7.34%
10.33%
Boxboard
2.37%
7.60%
2.60%
5.48%
3.79%
7.04%
Wet Strength
0.36%
0.10%
0.50%
0.00%
1.77%
0.46%
Phone Books
1.33%
0.11%
0.10%
0.02%
0.12%
0.14%
Milk Cartons &
Juice Boxes
Not
collected
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
0.02%
0.03%
Textiles
0.40%
Negligible
Negligible
0.02%
0.02%
Negligible
Residual
0.24%
0.11%
.5%
0.06%
0.07%
0.27%
TOTAL
75.40%
76.60%
74.20%
72.72%
72.81%
69.79%
Containers
Total Glass
14.89%
15.15%
16.70%
17.54%
17.31%
18.08%
Steel Cans
2.64%
2.00%
2.40%
2.43%
2.65%
2.49%
Aluminum
1.48%
1.10%
1.40%
1.40%
1.43%
2.10%
Total Plastics
4.70%
4.01%
4.60%
5.75%
5.67%
6.94%
Residual
0.89%
0.15%
0.70%
0.17%
0.12%
0.60%
TOTAL
24.60%
22.40%
25.80%
27.28%
27.19%
30.21%
Total Residual
1.13%
0.26%
1.2%
0.23%
0.19%
0.91%
For more information on the methodology of the composition analysis done by Eureka Recycling, please see Appendix B.
Roseville's Very Low Residual Rate
In 2011, the City of Roseville had a remarkable 0.91% of residual rate, meaning only 0.91 of one
percent of all the total materials collected in Roseville is not recycled. The fact that Roseville's
residual rate remains one of the lowest residual rates in the state of Minnesota is truly astounding
and something to be very proud ofl
Engaging with residents through education, including the Guide to Recycling, educational tags,
and postcards, continues to lead to a low residual rate. Creating this system for authentic recycling
sets a precedent for people to respect and support their zero -waste recycling program.
Impact of Decreasing Newsprint on Roseville's Tonnage
The amount of newsprint as a specific component of the paper stream continues to decline. With
fewer people subscribing to printed newspapers and the size of those papers decreasing, this trend
is expected to continue. All other material types in the recycling program are either trending up as
a part of the recycling program or are holding steady.
In 2008, there were 3,556 total tons of materials recycled in Roseville. In 2011, the total was
3,244 tons, a decrease of 312 tons. If you look at just newspaper, there were 2,347 tons recycled
in 2008 and 1,665 tons in 2011. That means that the city's recycling program has lost
approximately 685 tons of newspaper.
The nearly 9% decrease in the tons recycled in Roseville is directly and solely
related to the decrease in the size and number of newspapers and newsprint
produced in this marketplace, and without the changes happening to the newspaper
industry, Roseville's recycling tonnage would be increasing even in these difficult
economic times.
We have all seen in recent years that the size of the newspaper is smaller. The number of ads and
inserts has dramatically decreased and the number of people who subscribe to a physical
newspaper service is down dramatically with more and more people getting their news online.
However, while we recognize that there is not as much newsprint at the curb, the newsprint that
is being marketed is very valuable, so promoting all materials to be recycled remains crucial.
End market manufacturers continue to demand recycled content, recognizing the enormous
energy- and cost - saving benefits from using recycled materials over cutting down more trees for
paper or making more glass from silica and other raw materials.
New Materials Recycling Continues to Improve
For the second year in a row, the amount of Tetra -Pak (milk cartons and juice boxes) collected in
Roseville's program was consistently measurable. This is exciting because it means that the
education about this relatively new material has been absorbed and residents are increasingly
aware of the option to recycle this type of material. This achievement is the result of sustained
educational efforts by Eureka Recycling and the city working in partnership.
Annual Participation and Set -Out Rate Studies
Roseville is one of the few cities in the metropolitan area in which the actual participation
information is city- specific. Each year, Eureka Recycling counts set -out rates on each collection
6
day for four straight weeks. This study yields information on how many residents set out material
in any given week as well as on the total percentage of residents that take part in the program.
This information gives city and Eureka Recycling staff the ability to target efforts and messages to
the areas that need it the most. This not only saves in the cost of sending unnecessary mailings, it
provides the opportunity to examine the specific areas that need improvement and find ways to
reduce the barriers to participation on a more personal level.
hureka Recycling conducted the annual participation and set -out rate study from October 5 to November 4, 2009, and from
October 4 to October 29, 2010. (See Appendix C for the definitions and methodologies of the participation and set -out rate
studies.)
While 2011 saw a slight drop in participation, Roseville has maintained a high participation rate,
which can be attributed to the consistent and high quality education and information that the city
provides to its residents. This information both informs them of new materials like milk cartons,
juice boxes, and wet strength packaging, but also inspires them with information about the
economic and environmental benefits of recycling. This information gives the residents the tools
they need to participate and the motivation to take steps in their own households to help reduce
waste. This participation rate is still one of the highest participation rates in Minnesota.
Multifamily Building Recycling
The City of Roseville plays a leading role in the metropolitan area in establishing successful
recycling programs for all of its residents. This is demonstrated by the 100% participation rate of
its multifamily recycling program.
Roseville's multifamily recycling program also acknowledges the need to inspire residents about
the impact they make by recycling. Eureka Recycling shares each building's amount of recycling
for the previous year to acknowledge their commitment to the recycling program and works to
continue to improve recycling at multifamily buildings. Sharing this information with the
property managers, who share it with their communities, is an important element of a zero -waste
recycling program.
2. Revenue share is at its highest level since the recycling program began, giving the
city the ability to go even deeper and engage residents further on zero waste.
The monetary value created by the set -out, collection, processing, and sale of recyclable material
in Roseville is shared back with the residents who protected that material from being trashed. A
zero -waste recycling program that includes revenue share recognizes the value of these materials
and how that value can be used to support other recycling and waste reduction initiatives.
Since 2006, the City of Roseville has received more than $643,000 in revenue from
recycling to continue to invest in the city's recycling program or other environmental programs.
7
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Set Out Rate
60%
50%
58%
53%
50%
53%
Participation Rate
74%
75%
82%
78%
76%
75%
hureka Recycling conducted the annual participation and set -out rate study from October 5 to November 4, 2009, and from
October 4 to October 29, 2010. (See Appendix C for the definitions and methodologies of the participation and set -out rate
studies.)
While 2011 saw a slight drop in participation, Roseville has maintained a high participation rate,
which can be attributed to the consistent and high quality education and information that the city
provides to its residents. This information both informs them of new materials like milk cartons,
juice boxes, and wet strength packaging, but also inspires them with information about the
economic and environmental benefits of recycling. This information gives the residents the tools
they need to participate and the motivation to take steps in their own households to help reduce
waste. This participation rate is still one of the highest participation rates in Minnesota.
Multifamily Building Recycling
The City of Roseville plays a leading role in the metropolitan area in establishing successful
recycling programs for all of its residents. This is demonstrated by the 100% participation rate of
its multifamily recycling program.
Roseville's multifamily recycling program also acknowledges the need to inspire residents about
the impact they make by recycling. Eureka Recycling shares each building's amount of recycling
for the previous year to acknowledge their commitment to the recycling program and works to
continue to improve recycling at multifamily buildings. Sharing this information with the
property managers, who share it with their communities, is an important element of a zero -waste
recycling program.
2. Revenue share is at its highest level since the recycling program began, giving the
city the ability to go even deeper and engage residents further on zero waste.
The monetary value created by the set -out, collection, processing, and sale of recyclable material
in Roseville is shared back with the residents who protected that material from being trashed. A
zero -waste recycling program that includes revenue share recognizes the value of these materials
and how that value can be used to support other recycling and waste reduction initiatives.
Since 2006, the City of Roseville has received more than $643,000 in revenue from
recycling to continue to invest in the city's recycling program or other environmental programs.
7
This revenue gives the city the resources to continue to do zero -waste events, support the
citywide clean -up events, continue to support compost ng in the city, and offer other additional
engagement and education opportunities none of which would have been possible if the recycling
collector kept all of the value to themselves.
In 2011, the City of Roseville enjoyed its highest revenue share since the program began in 2006,
with an increase of 65% over 2010 revenues. This gives the city an opportunity to invest in
recycling and additional zero -waste initiatives to draw closer to zero waste. The financial benefits
from Roseville's recycling program can be used to benefit the community even more.
Eureka Recycling shares the city's belief that the revenue received from the sale of the material
collected in Roseville should be shared back with the city. This will provide revenue to use
locally to maintain the low cost of the program for residents and to support other waste reduction
efforts of the city and its residents. More than $11.00 per household was shared back with the city
in 2011. Please see the "Next Steps in 2012" section of the report for Eureka Recycling's
recommendations on ways to engage residents even more.
The two -sort system consistently results in higher quality materials that are in high demand in the
markets, and thus have a higher value. Keeping paper and cardboard separate from bottles and
cans helps keep the glass and plastic from getting into the paper, which increases the quality of the
paper. This ensures that what residents put out to recycle is actually getting recycled to its highest
value, resulting in less resources and energy used to make products out of virgin materials.
Recycling the high quality paper that comes from Roseville residents back into high quality paper
allows that paper to be recycled more times than if it was recycled into lower quality paper.
Making newspaper back into newspaper is much better for the environment, and leads to higher
revenue back to the city.
The materials that Roseville residents set out each week are valuable. It required tons of natural
resources, a great deal of energy, and hours of labor to produce, and much of that value still
remains in the items after they are used. Recycling captures that value and renews it. This material
is highly sought after by manufacturers who want to make new products out of it. That market
for material generates billions of dollars each year in the United States alone.
3. The environmental benefits of Roseville's zero -waste recycling program
are significant.
Steady recycling in Roseville equals continued environmental benefits. Another important
component of Roseville's zero -waste recycling program is that these environmental benefits are
2006 Rev
2007 Rev
2008 Rev
2009 Rev
2010 Rev
2011 Rev
1st Quarter
$21,165.32
$22,749.81
$33,159.16
$859.83
$21,111.03
$38,554.41
2nd Quarter
$23,403.59
$27,992.48
$39,090.85
$4,810.17
$28,141.61
$50,099.29
3rd Quarter
$19,483.86
$30,002.00
$47,928.25
$8,587.23
$23,044.87
$47,235.78
4th Quarter
$22,661.14
$343551.08
$143170.61
$153946.38
$323448.84
$363455.29
Total
1 $86,713.91
1$115,295.371$134,348.871$30,203.611$104,746.351
$172,344.77
Eureka Recycling shares the city's belief that the revenue received from the sale of the material
collected in Roseville should be shared back with the city. This will provide revenue to use
locally to maintain the low cost of the program for residents and to support other waste reduction
efforts of the city and its residents. More than $11.00 per household was shared back with the city
in 2011. Please see the "Next Steps in 2012" section of the report for Eureka Recycling's
recommendations on ways to engage residents even more.
The two -sort system consistently results in higher quality materials that are in high demand in the
markets, and thus have a higher value. Keeping paper and cardboard separate from bottles and
cans helps keep the glass and plastic from getting into the paper, which increases the quality of the
paper. This ensures that what residents put out to recycle is actually getting recycled to its highest
value, resulting in less resources and energy used to make products out of virgin materials.
Recycling the high quality paper that comes from Roseville residents back into high quality paper
allows that paper to be recycled more times than if it was recycled into lower quality paper.
Making newspaper back into newspaper is much better for the environment, and leads to higher
revenue back to the city.
The materials that Roseville residents set out each week are valuable. It required tons of natural
resources, a great deal of energy, and hours of labor to produce, and much of that value still
remains in the items after they are used. Recycling captures that value and renews it. This material
is highly sought after by manufacturers who want to make new products out of it. That market
for material generates billions of dollars each year in the United States alone.
3. The environmental benefits of Roseville's zero -waste recycling program
are significant.
Steady recycling in Roseville equals continued environmental benefits. Another important
component of Roseville's zero -waste recycling program is that these environmental benefits are
quantified so that all residents have a chance to see how their efforts and the impact of those
efforts can be measured.
There are many ways to calculate the benefits of recycling. To better explain these benefits in
commonly understood terms, government agencies, research scientists, and economists have
created several "calculators" to translate the amounts of recycled materials collected and processed
into equivalent positive societal and environmental benefits.
Most recently, it has become imperative to measure waste reduction (and all of our activities) in
terms of its impact on climate change. This allows us to speak in a common language, understand
the impact of our choices, and help us prioritize the personal and policy actions that we take.
Many cities around the country work with the International Council for Local Environmental
Initiatives (ICLEI) to quantify and now register the climate change impacts of their city. It is also
important to calculate the carbon impact of waste reduction as the global effort continues to enact
a carbon "cap and trade" system.
In addition to climate change mitigation, there are other environmental benefits to recycling,
including saving energy and protecting air quality, water quality, natural resources, natural beauty,
habitat, and human health. Some of these human health benefits are quantified in the Jeffrey
Morris Calculator below.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) WARM Calculator
The equations used in environmental calculations try to take into account the "full life cycle" of
each material everything from off - setting the demand for more virgin materials (tree harvesting,
mining, etc.) to preventing the pollution that would have occurred if that material were disposed
of (burned or buried). Different calculators may include some or all of the many factors that
contribute to the "full life cycle," so results from calculator to calculator will vary.
While there are many models emerging to calculate greenhouse gas reductions, the most
recognized and standard model is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Waste Reduction
Model (WARM). WARM was designed to help solid waste planners and organizations track and
voluntarily report greenhouse gas emissions reductions from several different waste management
practices. WARM, last updated in February 2012, recognizes 46 material types.
9
*MTCE (Metric tons of carbon equivalent) and MTCOiE (Metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions) are
figures commonly used when discussing greenhouse gas emissions.
What do all these numbers mean?
The numbers above help municipalities calculate and track their environmental footprint. For
more information about the process of measuring the environmental benefits of waste reduction,
visit httn: / /el2a.gov /climatechange /wvcd /waste /measureghg.html #click.
These numbers, however, don't have much meaning to the average person. To help recyclers
understand the significance of their actions, the EPA has also developed tools to translate these
numbers into equivalent examples that people can more easily understand.
• For example, using the figures above, the EPA estimates that Roseville would have had to
remove 1,574 cars from the road for one year to have had the same environmental impact
in 2011 as they did recycling. To achieve this, over 10% of Roseville's households would
have had to give up one car for a year.
• Another example of how these efforts can be translated into energy savings can be found
in the EPA calculator. It shows that the energy savings gained by the recycling efforts of
Roseville's residents in 2011 could power 418 homes for one year (over 2.5% of
households).
Although WARM is the most widely peer - reviewed and accepted model, it is considered to have
several flaws. Many believe the use of this calculator is conservative and understates the real
impact of waste reduction efforts. However, despite these flaws, WARM is a well recognized,
published calculator. Until a better calculator is peer - reviewed and accepted, WARM gives us a
conservative starting place to measure these impacts and work towards our goals. Even with
WARM, the impacts are quite significant.
(http: / /el2a.gov /climatechange /wvcd /waste /calculators /Warm Form.html)
10
Total Recycling
Carbon Equivalent
Carbon Dioxide
Reduction
Equivalent Reduction
2006
3,441 tons
2,328 metric tons
8,537 metric tons
(MTCE *)
(MTCO E)
2007
3,682 tons
2,460 metric tons
9,018 metric tons
(MTCE *)
(MTCO E)
2008
3,556 tons
2,383 metric tons
8,736 metric tons
(MTCE *)
(MTCO E)
2009
3,281 tons
2,206 metric tons
8,090 metric tons
(MTCE *)
(MTCO E)
2010
3,322 tons
2,303 metric tons
8,443 metric tons
(MTCE *)
(MTCO E)
2011
33244 tons
2,190 metric tons
8,030 metric tons
(MTCE *)
(MTCO E)
*MTCE (Metric tons of carbon equivalent) and MTCOiE (Metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions) are
figures commonly used when discussing greenhouse gas emissions.
What do all these numbers mean?
The numbers above help municipalities calculate and track their environmental footprint. For
more information about the process of measuring the environmental benefits of waste reduction,
visit httn: / /el2a.gov /climatechange /wvcd /waste /measureghg.html #click.
These numbers, however, don't have much meaning to the average person. To help recyclers
understand the significance of their actions, the EPA has also developed tools to translate these
numbers into equivalent examples that people can more easily understand.
• For example, using the figures above, the EPA estimates that Roseville would have had to
remove 1,574 cars from the road for one year to have had the same environmental impact
in 2011 as they did recycling. To achieve this, over 10% of Roseville's households would
have had to give up one car for a year.
• Another example of how these efforts can be translated into energy savings can be found
in the EPA calculator. It shows that the energy savings gained by the recycling efforts of
Roseville's residents in 2011 could power 418 homes for one year (over 2.5% of
households).
Although WARM is the most widely peer - reviewed and accepted model, it is considered to have
several flaws. Many believe the use of this calculator is conservative and understates the real
impact of waste reduction efforts. However, despite these flaws, WARM is a well recognized,
published calculator. Until a better calculator is peer - reviewed and accepted, WARM gives us a
conservative starting place to measure these impacts and work towards our goals. Even with
WARM, the impacts are quite significant.
(http: / /el2a.gov /climatechange /wvcd /waste /calculators /Warm Form.html)
10
Jeffrey Morris Calculator
Jeffrey Morris, Ph.D., Economist at Sound Resource Management in Seattle, has developed a
calculator that begins with the EPA's calculator and expands upon it to gather information on not
just carbon and CO, but also several other important environmental and human health indicators.
Although new and not yet widely used, this calculator shows the significant benefits that WARM
does not consider.
For more information about the process of measuring the environmental benefits of waste reduction, visit
htttp //epa.gov/cli atechange /wvcd /waste /measureghg.htn l #cock
4. Next steps in 2012.
The residents of Roseville not only participate enthusiastically in their recycling program but also
embrace waste reduction as a path to sustainability. This is evidenced by excellent community
involvement when we have promoted and offered other zero -waste initiatives like zero -waste
events, the Twin Cities Free Market, and backyard composting. The opportunity to engage
Roseville's informed recyclers even more is very exciting and it can lead the way to expanding
outreach around even more areas of waste reduction.
The opportunity to go even deeper and invest the added revenue Roseville residents earned in
2011 into more zero -waste initiatives means there are choices and strategies to be made. We look
forward to sitting down with residents and city staff to have a conversation about the ways
Roseville can get even closer to zero waste.
In the meantime, here are a few important updates about Eureka Recycling.
• In 2011, Eureka Recycling celebrated our 10 -year anniversary. As Minnesota's only zero -
waste organization, our mission as always been to demonstrate that waste is completely
preventable. In 2012, we will complete our next strategic plan. The planning process has
reaffirmed our deep commitment to ensuring zero -waste services in the Twin Cities and
11
2006
2007
2008
2009 1
2010
2011
3,441
3,682
3,556
3,281
3,322
3,243 tons
Total Recycling
tons
tons
tons
tons
tons
Carbon Dioxide
9,437.3
9,619.0
9,683.5
8,814.0
8,739.3
8,425.1
Equivalent Reduction
metric
metric
metric
metric
metric
metric
(MTCO E)
tons
tons
tons
tons
tons
tons
Human Health
4,609.7
5,253.0
4,665.7
4,452.0
4,518.0
4,699.6
Non - Carcinogen Toxins
Reduction
tons
tons
tons
tons
tons
tons
Human Health
Acidification (SO)
26.9 tons
27.0 tons
27.3 tons
25.3 tons
25.5 tons
27.1 tons
Reduction
4.4
6.6
4.2
4.4
4.8
Human Health
5.9 metric
Particulates Reduction
metric
metric
metric
metric
metric
tons
tons
tons
tons
tons
tons
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
Human Health
2.0 metric
Carcinogens Reduction
metric
metric
metric
metric
metric
tons
tons
tons
tons
tons
tons
For more information about the process of measuring the environmental benefits of waste reduction, visit
htttp //epa.gov/cli atechange /wvcd /waste /measureghg.htn l #cock
4. Next steps in 2012.
The residents of Roseville not only participate enthusiastically in their recycling program but also
embrace waste reduction as a path to sustainability. This is evidenced by excellent community
involvement when we have promoted and offered other zero -waste initiatives like zero -waste
events, the Twin Cities Free Market, and backyard composting. The opportunity to engage
Roseville's informed recyclers even more is very exciting and it can lead the way to expanding
outreach around even more areas of waste reduction.
The opportunity to go even deeper and invest the added revenue Roseville residents earned in
2011 into more zero -waste initiatives means there are choices and strategies to be made. We look
forward to sitting down with residents and city staff to have a conversation about the ways
Roseville can get even closer to zero waste.
In the meantime, here are a few important updates about Eureka Recycling.
• In 2011, Eureka Recycling celebrated our 10 -year anniversary. As Minnesota's only zero -
waste organization, our mission as always been to demonstrate that waste is completely
preventable. In 2012, we will complete our next strategic plan. The planning process has
reaffirmed our deep commitment to ensuring zero -waste services in the Twin Cities and
11
in deep community engagement. This year we will want to meet with residents and staff
in Roseville to report the specifics of our plans going forward and how they open new
areas for Eureka Recycling and the city to work together to reach zero waste.
• In 2012, Eureka Recycling will also complete an updated analysis of plastics recycling
opportunities and options. We are preparing for conversations with Roseville city officials
about the environmental and cost impacts of plastics recycling. We are also preparing for
conversations with Roseville residents about this issue, which will include:
• The 2012 Guide to Recycling, which focuses on the complications of plastic
recycling.
• An online questionnaire getting feedback from residents about their thoughts and
values around plastics and plastics recycling.
• Updated plastics information on our website.
• Outreach through city events and our Zero -Waste Hotline.
• For 10 years, Eureka Recycling has been working on building and implementing a
citywide zero -waste composting program for your neighbors in the City of Saint Paul. A
program of this scale has not been done in this marketplace before. Once complete,
having a thriving composting model will have the effect of making composting that is
designed to reduce waste and create dirt more achievable in small- and mid -sized suburbs
like Roseville.
This is a zero -waste composting program, which means it starts with prevention, not
collection, and contains programmatic elements to help residents prevent wasted food and
backyard and worm compost. These are things that Roseville residents can do right now
(and many do!). Although we are not focusing on a collection program for Roseville in
2012, there may be ways for residents to benefit from Eureka Recycling's leadership in
preventing wasted food and commitment to backyard and worm composting.
We look forward to talking with you about Roseville's zero -waste and waste reduction goals and
exploring ways we can help work with your highly engaged and informed residents to build a
sustainable, zero -waste city.
About Eureka Recycling
Eureka Recycling is the only organization in Minnesota that specializes in zero waste. The
organization's services, programs, and policy work present solutions to the social, environmental,
and health problems caused by wasting. A 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, based in the Twin
Cities of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, Eureka Recycling's mission is to demonstrate that waste is
preventable, not inevitable. Because this mission is realized by any person or group that chooses to
prevent waste, Eureka Recycling provides opportunities for everyone to experience firsthand that
waste can be prevented.
Perhaps most well known for its $9 million annual recycling operations, Eureka Recycling has
provided curbside and apartment recycling services, education, and advocacy since 2001. Eureka
Recycling has a wide range of initiatives designed to prevent the needless wast ng of our discards
through reuse, recycling, composting, waste reduction, producer responsibility and more. These
12
initiatives provide over 100 jobs for individuals who demonstrate their mission every day in the
work that they do.
Examples of Eureka Recycling's work include:
• The Twin Cities Free Market, an internet program that lengthens the life of durable goods
by connecting community members who have and can use them.
• The Recycled Paper Co -op, which offers residents and businesses quality recycled paper at
competitive costs.
• Zero -waste event services from small meetings and block parties to large events like the
Minnesota State Fair.
• Composting and zero -waste services for restaurants, farmers markets, grocery stores, and
many others.
• The most environmentally sustainable method of managing food waste: backyard and
worm composting workshops that reach hundreds of people each year.
Eureka Recycling also examines how waste can be prevented before we turn to recycling and
composting and calls for accountability from the producers of packaging and products to better
design their goods.
By its efforts in programs, services and advocacy, Eureka Recycling aspires to help individuals,
organizations, and communities understand the significance of zero waste and to achieve their
own zero -waste goals.
13
City of Roseville
Outreach and Education Summary 2011
Community engagement and education are important elements of a zero -waste recycling
program. In 2011, Eureka Recycling and the City of Roseville expanded outreach to many
events to bring a zero -waste message to residents of Roseville. Together, we continued to support
the efforts of the city of Roseville to make city events zero -waste. This was the second year we
distributed recycling bins and educational material at Night to Unite parties. The Living Smarter
Fair, Wild Rice Festival, and Earth Day celebration were also successful events in bringing
attention to zero -waste issues to the residents of Roseville while diverting over 450 pounds of
discards from the waste stream. That means that over 96% of the material discarded at these events
was either recycled into new products or composted and turned into soil. This effort and success
continues to show the City of Roseville's leadership in its commitment to zero waste and
sustainability.
Roseville residents continue to participate in their zero -waste recycling program at rates that are
among the highest in the state. In 2011, we continued to educate residents about the curbside
zero -waste recycling program and the benefits of reducing waste; recognizing that there is more
to waste reduction than just recycling.
Zero -Waste Hotline
In 2011, Eureka Recycling's hotline staff had 330 conversations with Roseville residents who live
in single- family homes (or duplexes) about their zero -waste recycling program.
Hotline staff also answered 81 calls from apartment and townhouse building contacts and residents
participating in the zero -waste recycling program and had questions unique to their program.
Eureka Recycling worked with these residents and building staff to help them manage their
multi - family recycling set -ups, add carts or collection days, provide them with education materials
for their residents, and help improve their service in many other ways.
otline Calls
09
2010
Curbside Calls
425
540
480
410
330
Multi - family Call
49
78
35
74
81
Total Calls
474
618
515
484
411
equests for
rinted Materials
Curbsidel
41
74
21
43
47
Requests for Printed Education Materials
Throughout the year, Eureka Recycling mailed specific curbside recycling schedules, sorting
information, and clothes and linens stickers to 47 Roseville residents in response to their questions
and calls.
Curbside Program
Guide to Recycling
All Roseville residents in the zero -waste recycling program received the
2011 Guide to Recycling through direct mail. In addition to the basic
instructions for how recycling should be set out and the materials collected,
we focused the 2011 Guide to Recycling on members of the community
and the impact of individual efforts on waste reduction with actions that
bring us closer to zero waste.
Direct Education
Eureka Recycling and the City of Roseville share a value that all the material that can be recycled
should be and that material that cannot be recycled should not be collected. Taking non -
recyclable items on a ride in a recycling truck and through a processing facility not only wastes
the fuel and energy to transport and process the material, it also leaves the residents with the
mistaken impression that the material can be recycled when in fact it cannot.
Eureka Recycling drivers educate residents at the curb using educational tags for specific
problems. In 2011, drivers left approximately 50,061 educational tags in recyclers' bins.
Our experience has shown that the absolute best place to educate residents about their zero -waste
recycling program is right at the curb. We work with our drivers to ensure they take advantage of
every opportunity to provide additional education. This is efficient because drivers can educate
the residents that are confused and it also begins a conversation with the residents. All of Eureka
Recycling's tags encourage residents to call our hotline where zero -waste educators are waiting to
clear up confusion about why certain items are not recyclable or to explain how residents' efforts
at the curb can have such an important impact on the value of the material and the environmental
benefits of recycling.
Marked with a &,r or t$
r
N
e a� TsoAo
Y
The city provides bins to FLATTEN
hold your recycling! THEM
Sample Tags
2
daft 't
's
This
`material
cannot
be recycled.
You can call the hotline to find out
what's recyclable and Mat's red.
2006
2007
2008
2009
Zulu
2
Driver Tags
9,540
10,156
7,367
13,565
13,010
50,061
Postcards
650
822
451
742
559
1,136
Personalized Letters
30
51
0
3
10
41
Our experience has shown that the absolute best place to educate residents about their zero -waste
recycling program is right at the curb. We work with our drivers to ensure they take advantage of
every opportunity to provide additional education. This is efficient because drivers can educate
the residents that are confused and it also begins a conversation with the residents. All of Eureka
Recycling's tags encourage residents to call our hotline where zero -waste educators are waiting to
clear up confusion about why certain items are not recyclable or to explain how residents' efforts
at the curb can have such an important impact on the value of the material and the environmental
benefits of recycling.
Marked with a &,r or t$
r
N
e a� TsoAo
Y
The city provides bins to FLATTEN
hold your recycling! THEM
Sample Tags
2
daft 't
's
This
`material
cannot
be recycled.
You can call the hotline to find out
what's recyclable and Mat's red.
Postcards and Letters
When there are no bins available in which to leave a tag, drivers report any issues on a separate
form, and in order to conununicate with these recyclers directly, we send educational postcards.
These are similar to the tags and encourage residents to give us a call with questions.
It was a great year for our education team; drivers were diligent in their educational tagging and
Eureka Recycling staff made sure residents received all the extra education they needed to
successfully participate in the program. Drivers and hotline staff worked together to send out
1,136 educational postcards in 2011, which was a sharp increase in the amount of postcards sent
when compared to previous years. This increase can be attributed to a driver -led project aimed at
increasing resident awareness of non - recyclable items being placed in recycling bins, and how to
properly sort their recycling materials. This direct approach is aimed at ensuring more efficient
routes with trucks spending less time on roads, and residents that are more informed and engaged
about their zero -waste recycling program.
As in previous years, the most common issues for residents that required direct education were
confusion about plastics (what types ofplastic are recyclable) and proper sorting.
Personalized letters are another form of communication about programs and services Eureka
Recycling provides. There are three types of personalized letters sent to residents:
1. Chronic problem letters provide detailed information and instructions about setting out
recycling. These letters are used when the usual tab and postcards have not been
successful in correcting repeated problems. Drivers keep a daily record of the addresses
that have received tags but still need further education. Addresses that have received tags
or postcards for three consecutive weeks with no change in how they are recycling receive
a personalized letter that encourages the resident to contact us so we can have a more in-
depth conversation.
2. Letters to update service information for Special Pickup Instruction (SPI) customers.
These letters are sent when SPI residents have changed the location of their recycling, or if
it appears the resident has moved out of the home and no longer needs the service.
3. Letters to address service issues that are filed by residents or issues that are reported by
drivers. These letters help residents better understand the program and are a more personal
way to have detailed conversations with them about issues that may be confusing.
In 2011, Eureka Recycling sent 48 personalized letters to residents.
Special Pickup Addresses
To ensure that every resident has the opportunity to recycle, Eureka Recycling offers to collect
recycling from locations other than the curb for residents who request special pickup service due
to short- or long -term physical limitations. This service is provided free of charge to ensure that
anyone who would like to recycle has the opportunity and to help remove any physical barriers
residents may have. At the end of 2011, the service was extended to 102 Roseville residents. Of
those 102 Roseville residents that requested special pickup service, 28 of those were added in
2011!
3
Multifamily Zero -Waste Recycling Program
The City of Roseville has a very organized multifamily
zero -waste recycling program. In 2011 Eureka
Recycling added recycling services for three buildings:
Applewood at Langton Lake and McCarron Lake 0 0
Condos and only cardboard services for the Keystone
Food shelf. We now have a total of 175 multifamily , r
complexes, 163 residential buildings, and 11 city
buildings /parks, 1 business and 1 nonprofit for a total of 5,999 units being serviced in Roseville's
multifamily program.
In February 2011, Eureka Recycling mailed reports to all of Roseville's multifamily building
managers providing them with the data on the tonnage recycled for their building(s), a
comparison of the amount of tonnage recycled for the whole city's multifamily program, and the
environmental benefits of the entire city's effort in recycling. This communication provides the
building managers with a concrete tool to work with their residents to got them inspired and
motivated to increase their recycling rate. Eureka Recycling's staff also updated building
managers' contact information whenever possible. This has a significant impact on staying
connected with buildings and the residents. If it were not for the diligent work of Eureka
Recycling staff to ensure correct and updated data, effective and timely communication, like the
tonnage sunnnaries for buildings, would not be possible.
Multifamily Educational Materials and Customer Service
Eureka Recycling continues to monitor the performance at each account on an ongoing basis in
order to improve participation. Our drivers track issues and Eureka Recycling staff arc able to
follow up immediately to offer suggestions that address the specific needs of the building and to
provide educational materials for residents. Eureka Recycling provided 905 pieces of recycling
education (instructional posters, brochures, schedules, etc.) to the building management and
residents of the newly established and existing multifamily accounts in 2011.
Eureka Recycling continues to monitor the performance and service issues at each account in
order to adjust service levels on an ongoing basis. Capacity for storage is an issue that is addressed
through our attentive drivers and involved on -site contacts so that more carts get added as
residents recycle more.
This year we tracked outgoing Multifamily calls to property managers to work with them to
coordinate issues such as trash or blocked carts, on call pickups, and outreach such as updating
contact information and coordinating outreach efforts. This year (beginning in March) we
contacted mangers and caretakers at 77 multifamily properties to work more closely with them to
engage and educate their residents.
Special Education and Outreach
Outreach at Roseville Events
In 2011, Eureka Recycling and the City of Roseville partnered once again to bring recycling
education to residents of Roseville as well as experiencing that waste is preventable through
Eureka Recycling's Zero -Waste services through three events this year. Eureka Recycling staff
4
attended and helped monitor the zero -waste stations and educated residents about recycling and
zero -waste issues at these events.
At the Roseville Living Smarter Fair on February 19, 2011, we were able to have several
conversations about backyard and worm composting. Living Smarter participants had many great
questions regarding what types of materials can be placed in backyard compost bins. Our display
compost bin also drew a lot of people in who were interested in getting started with backyard
composting, giving us an excellent opportunity to show Roseville residents how easy it is! People
were also interested in the Twin Cities Free Market and were glad to hear they have this option
available when they need to get rid of their usable items.
On April 23, 2011, at the Roseville Earth Day event, Eureka Recycling and the city had a table
of information about recycling, backyard composting, and Eureka Recycling's other zero -waste
programs. We engaged with many people attending the event around how they can help their
families begin backyard composting their kitchen food scraps and yard waste, and gave them
information on how to get their own compost bin.
Roseville Residents Experience Zero Waste For Themselves!
This year Eureka Recycling's continued sponsorship of zero -waste events in Roseville provided
residents with the opportunity to have a personal experience seeing zero waste in action. Eureka
Recycling supported making all of the following events zero -waste:
• The Living Smarter Fair (95 %)
• The Earth Day Celebration at Harriet Alexander Nature Center (96 %)
• The Wild Rice Festival (98 %)
The percentage listed after each event above represents the total percentage of items discarded by
event attendees that was either recycled into new products or composted into nutrient -rich soil.
Public events tend to be huge waste generators. Roseville's efforts to address this problem, and the
95 -98% diversion of waste from these public events, continues to show the city's incredible
leadership. Other cities are constantly asking Eureka Recycling work with them to help develop
the knowledge and build the comnutment to waste reduction that would make them as successful
as Roseville.
Night to Unite
In 2011, we again joined the City of Roseville in their Night to Unite celebration. Together, we
recognized it as an opportunity to connect with Roseville residents on a night where the
community gathers. The city and Eureka Recycling thought it best to bring resources to residents
as well as take the time to build connnunity and answer questions. The mission was to talk with
residents at area block parties, answer questions they had about recycling, talk to them about the
environmental and economic benefits of recycling, and distribute recycling bins to anyone that
didn't have one or who needed an extra to help recycle more. With a full truck of recycling bins,
Roseville city staff and Eureka Recycling staff headed out to at least 10 neighborhood gatherings
and distributed approximately 130 recycling bins. Residents were very excited not only to get
recycling information and more recycling bins but also to have conversations about composting,
ways to influence producers to make more sustainable products and packaging and other zero -
waste topics as well!
5
We also distributed 2011 Guides to Recycling and brochures with information about the Twin
Cities Free Market to anyone interested. There were many people interested to hear about the
opportunity to give and get free stuff through the Free Market!
We even worked with the city to encourage block party organizers to register their parties with
the city by offering the opportunity to any registered neighborhood party that wanted a backyard
compost bin to get one for free. A total of twelve compost bins were given to leaders of Roseville
block parties. Registering parties helps the city to retain the information about who the energized
and engaged residents are and develop stronger relationships with those residents to get
community feedback and to help disseminate information on important community initiatives to
neighbors through these highly engaged residents. A couple of parties raffled the bins off to party
attendees; while others used them to compost the food scraps from the party. We also offered a
fact sheet about making neighborhood events zero - waste. This fact sheet is available on our
composting wcbsite at
http:// www .makedirtnotwaste.org/�pdf/Your zero waste neighborhood event.pdf.
Twin Cities Free Market
Through Ramsey County funding, residents of the City of Roseville have the opportunity to
exchange reusable materials via the Twin Cities Free Market (www.twinciticsfrecmarket.org). As
mentioned in the 2011 year -end report, the Twin Cities Free Market is a great way for residents
to give and get free, reusable items while keeping them out of the landfill or incinerator. Nearly
five tons (9,716 pounds) of usable items, mostly furniture, electronics, and appliances, were spared
from the landfill or incinerator by Roseville residents in 2011 because they had the Twin Cities
Free Market as an alternative to disposing of these items!
While 1 in 6 metro area households have used the Twin Cities Free Market, there are still many
that do not know about it or have forgotten about it as an option to get rid of their reusable
items. To help promote the benefits of the program, Eureka Recycling and ParkTV (St. Louis
Park) created a public service announcement about the Twin Cities Free Market and its ease of
use. This public service announcement was very popular and aired on CTV to Roseville residents
through early 2011.
6
Appendix A
Roseville Multi - Family Tonnage by Property - 2011
Property Name
Primary Address
#
Units
2006
Total lbs.
2007 Total
lbs.
2008 Total
lbs.
2009 Total
lbs.
2010 Total
lbs.
2011 Total
Ibs.
1144 Dionne Street
Dionne Street, 1144
23
7,150
8,457
5,961
5,167
6,906
5,892
1363 County Road B
County Road B, 1363
11
1,892
1,910
2,744
2,629
2,255
2,090
161 McCarrons Street
McCarrons Street, 161
11
439
198
-
-
-
-
161 Minnesota Avenue
Minnesota Avenue, 161
6
148
678
423
646
1,076
1,264
1610 County Road B
County Road B, 1610
11
2,266
2,324
1,967
2,396
21079
1,858
1614 Eldridge Avenue
Eldridge Avenue, 1614
11
1,424
1,280
2,651
4,237
3,583
3,858
1615 Eldridge Avenue
Eldridge Avenue, 1615
11
1,809
1,091
1,721
2,076
1,922
1,678
1624 Eldridge Avenue
Eldridge Avenue, 1624
11
2,541
2,029
1,996
2,629
2,249
1,842
1629 -1635 Skillman Avenue
Skillman Avenue, 1629 -1635
14
2,505
3,002
2,951
2,686
2,151
1,981
1635 Eldridge Avenue
Eldridge Avenue, 1635
11
3,284
1,702
1,650
2,333
2,380
2,026
1705 Marion Street
Marion Street, 1705
0
1,437
1,578
224
291
1,370
840
1750 Marion Street-
Marion Street, 1750
24
3,511
3,576
4,317
3,906
3,386
2,741
2125 Pascal
Pascal Street, 2125 -2133
22
2,514
3,184
5,239
4,717
4 829
5,007
2180 Haddin ton Road
Haddin ton Road, 2180
5
964
1,285
737
1,690
1,484
1,214
2275 Rice Street A
Rice Street, 2275
8
1,924
2,830
2,852
2,973
869
-
2447 County Road B
County Road B, 2447
17
2,584
2,867
3,143
2,519
2,567
2 572
2610 Snelling Curve
Snelling Curve, 2610
17
2,929
2,696
3,164
3,113
3,284
3,323
2900 Hi hcrest Road
Hi hcrest Road, 2900
11
4,581
4,436
2,715
2,534
3,597
3,512
2950 Hi hcrest Road
Hi hcrest Road, 2950
12
2,980
2,295
2,486
2,6851
2,496
1 742
Applewood Pointe
Applewood Court, 1480
94
47,799
58,215
46,499
39,220
36,217
30,640
Applewood Pointe at Langton
Lake
Langton Lake Drive 1996
48
7 419
Aquarius Apartments
County Road C2, 2425
99
-
-
15,391
17,449
12,570
11,702
Bonaventure
Lexington Avenue North, 3090
30
7,490
8,105
7,033
5,497
5 281
Centennial Gardens East &
West
Centennial Drive, 1400 -1420
190
26,759
21,852
22,677
21,122
20,025
Coventry Seniors Apartments
Snelling Avenue, 2820
196
19,939
19,110
22,729
U24,
22,952
21,268
Dale Terrace A artments
Count Road B, 720
42
9,360
7,793
12,033
12,343
11,572
Dellwood Condominiums
Dellwood Street, 1725
12
1,226
1,923
2,650
2,7211
3,298
Property NamWE,
Prima Addr
#
2006
otal lbs.
2007 Total
lbs.
2008 Total
lbs.
2009 Total
lbs.
2010 Total
lbs.
2011 Total
Ibs.
Eagle Crest
Lincoln Drive, 2925
216
13,892
60,799
56,057
57,249
64,086
67,291
Executive Manor Condos
Old Highway 8, 3153 -3155
72
12,385
14,530
17,674
17,185
15,918
16,897
Garley Apartments
County Road B, 1634
11
2,153
1,161
1,415
1,547
1,420
1,793
Greenhouse Village
Larpenteur Avenue, 1021
102
19,032
37,098
28,751
24,581
30,384
25,402
Hamline House Condos
Hamline Avenue, 2800
150
34,102
33,973
32,182
29,441
24,522
22,481
Hamline Terrace
Terrace Drive, 1360 -1410
102
12,817
12,230
17,366
19,233
23,416
23,105
Heritage Place
County Road B West, 563
50
21,892
23,110
17,258
16,066
19,781
18,879
Hillsborough Manor
Woodbridge Street, 2335-
2345
206
16,298
17,755
28,418
35,852
29,398
21,312
Karie Dale Apartments
Dale Street North, 2355 -2393
44
6,691
7,455
9,794
8,483
7,508
7,910
Lake Josephine
Condominiums
Lexington Avenue North, 3076
23
9,411
8,313
7,040
6,632
6,179
6,603
Lar Dale Apartments
Larpenteur Avenue West, 655
17
2,068
2,189
2,348
1,546
2,472
2,865
Lexington Court
Lexington Avenue, 2192 -2206
52
3,390
2,970
4,293
5,076
4,092
4,808
Lexington Twin Apartments
Lexington Avenue, 1890
22
5,674
5,519
5,456
5,689
5,014
5,371
Lexlawn /Roselawn
Apartments
Lexington Avenue, 1943
34
3,142
2,888
3,774
4,033
3,788
4,074
Marion Street/ Brittany
Apartments
Larpenteur Avenue, 175
277
11,980
16,150
17,191
17,485
18,645
11,838
McCarrons Apartments
McCarrons Boulevard North,
166 -204
67
5,092
4,919
5,543
5,039
4,939
4,172
McCarrons Lake Condos
McCarons Boulevard N., 185
42
5 076
Midland Grove Condos
Midland Grove Road, 2200-
2250
174
48,162
60,937
50,758
45,718
48,159
50,575
MSOCS - Group Home
Huron Street North, 1898
0
-
-
-
615
4,326
3,717
Northwestern College
Apartments
Lydia Avenue, 1610
40
6,061
7,839
4,941
4,379
4,055
4,111
Northwestern College /Snelling
Terrace
Snelling Drive East, 2906
48
7,386
16,027
12,542
12,253
12,443
10,702
Palisades
Sandhurst Drive West, 535-
570
330
40,078
41,635
55,306
51,667
45,972
47,910
Parkview Estate
Condominiums
Oxford Street, 2670 -2680
I
204
1
28,447
1
29,206
30,816
29,683
24,738
24,793
Propertyl
ima Address
#
Units
2006
Total lbs.
2007 Total
lbs.
2008 Total
lbs.
2009 Total
lbs.
2010 Total
lbs.
2011 Total
Ibs.
Parkview Manor
Dale Street North, 2202 -2210
34
4,931
4,553
5,085
5,612
4,698
4,518
Parkview Terrace Condos
Oxford Street, 2690 -2700
105
3,960
33,244
28,285
23,919
21,702
19,169
Ramsey Square Condos
Dale Street North, 2700 -2730
192
-
35,796
34,991
35,127
41,288
38,930
Riviera Apartments
Highway 36 West, 925 & 965
64
12,473
13,597
19,108
17,369
15,204
15,900
Rose Hill Estates
County Road B, 591
51
4,341
4,904
5,880
5,345
3,775
5,514
Rose Mall Apartments
Albert Street, 2201 -2221
54
37,328
41,412
43,984
47,376
41,250
42,786
Rose Park Apartments
Fry Street, 2128 -2136
22
4,757
5,426
6,065
6,466
4,253
4,591
Rose Vista Apartments
Rose Vista Court, 1222 -1263
175
19,697
18,366
24,634
26,822
23,830
23,146
Rosedale Estates North
Rice Street, 2835 & 2855
180
21,885
24,253
33,475
34,0831
26,954
22,234
Rosedale Estates South
Rice Street, 2735
180
20,750
23,864
26,581
27,377
23,770
21,632
Roselawn Village
Roselawn Avenue, 1074
32
5,576
5,950
5,616
5,417
4,730
5,563
Rosepointe
Hamline Avenue North, 2545
&2555
190
32,645
29,485
33,312
31,688
31,195
29,229
Roseridge Estates
Samuel Street, 2086 -2090
18
2,653
3,099
3,829
4,537
3,744
5,739
Rosetree Apartments
Highway 36, 655
48
12,251
12,3941
12,654
11,831
10,236
8,515
Roseville Apartments, LLC
Eldridge Avenue, 1625
11
2,037
2,546
1,833
2,106
1,730
2,172
Roseville Arms Condos
Elmer Street, 160 -170
34
789
1,565
3,269
3,0681
2,074
2,780
Roseville Commons
County Road C2 West, 2496
30
8,332
7,515
8,281
9,065
6,415
6 470
Roseville Estates
Lexington Avenue, 2599
107
5,593
9,842
12,312
10,028
7,472
6,588
Roseville Seniors
Lar enteur Avenue, 1045
127
25,581
33,600
30,521
27,577
23,698
24,268
Roseville Terrace
Dunlap Street, 1759
36
5,363
4,785
5,032
5,469
4,658
4,167
Roseville Townhomes
Old Highway 8, 3085
40
-
13,423
20,619
24,021
23,733
22,322
Rosewood Estates (Roseville)
Victoria Street, 2750
106
20,205
22,122
23,413
21,614
20,340
18,408
Rosewood Village
Highway 36 West, 1630
201
44,374
41,062
34,271
43,368
38,264
36,605
Sienna Green Apartments*
Snelling Avenue, 2225
120
9,199
9,683
9,659
11,486
7,813
13,325
South Oaks Apartments
County Road D West, 1080
25
4,067
5,951
6,751
5,930
5,969
4 886
Sun Place Apartments
Marion Street, 1721
30
5,169
4,093
4,926
6,107
6,451
5,942
Sunrise Assisted Living
Snelling Avenue North, 2555
77
17,031
16,647
15,869
16,693
13,118
11,330
Talia Place
Old Highway 8, 3020
ill
1790
11683
1,761
2,569
2,6201
1,892
Terrace Park
Terrace Drive, 1420
1 361
12,784
13,0451
9,8531
8,9111
10,5331
11,067
Property Name
Primary Address
#
Units
2006
Total lbs.
2007 Total
lbs.
2008 Total
lbs.
2009 Total
lbs.
2010 Total
lbs.
2011 Total
Ibs.
The Lexington (Roseville)
Lexington Avenue North, 2755
150
37,081
30,796
35,417
35,409
38,816
39,023
The Riviera 2
Highway 36 West, 885
32
6,562
6,602
8,968
8,053
6,740
5,431
Valley 8 Apartments
Old Highway 8, 3050
85
11,085
9,910
12,626
13,491
11,637
12,593
Victoria Place
Victoria Street North, 2250
58
-
14,911
16,130
14,015
14,647
15,396
Villa Park Community
Condominiums
County Road B, 500
1
95
15,890
14,276
18589
16,924
17,962
15,178
Villas at Midland Hills
IFulham Street, 2001
32
2,873
11,6531
12,6001
11,5061
11,3751
11,722
Total Pounds - Residential
5,9991
889,6591
1,103,1721
1,161,0751
1,154,9841
1,095,8541
1,065,358
Municipal Buildings
Property Name
Primary Addre
Sites
2006
Total lbs.
2007 Total
lbs.
2008 Total
lbs.
2009 Total
lbs.
2010 Total
lbs.
2011 Total
I bs.
Acorn Park
County Road C, 286
1
-
184
Central Park Victoria West
Victoria Street North, 2495
1
-
-
-
-
-
46
City Hall Roseville
Civic Center Drive, 2660
1
28,244
28,474
24,682
20,562
21,228
21,590
Evergreen Park Ballfield
County Road B West, 1810
1
497
515
456
818
305
336
Fire Station 1 RosevilleA
Lexington Avenue, 2701
1
3,226
3,630
2,134
2,058
2,063
1,890
Fire Station 3 Roseville
Dale Street North, 2335
1
1,564
2,786
3,604
2,960
3,968
3,437
Golf Course Roseville
Hamline Avenue, 2395
1
2,729
2,654
2,080
2,149
2,689
2,048
License Center
Lexington Avenue, 2737
1
79
178
10
38
31
26
Owasso Ballfields
Victoria Avenue, 2659
1
120
36
400
361
295
-
Public Works Garage
(Roseville)
Woodhill Drive, 1140
3
8,341
12,089
13,916
13,566
16,863
16,644
Skating Center
Civic Center Drive, 2661
2
4,877
5,038
5,244
3,938
5,057
7,514
State Farm Insurance
Lexington Avenue North, 2201
1
-
-
705
1,758
7181
759
Wildlife Rehabilitation Center
Dale Street North, 2530
1
14,607
13,948
12,726
12,513
11,8401
10 509
Total Pounds - Municipal
16
64,283
69,348
65,957
60,7201
65,057
64,983
Nonprofits
Total Units in 2011
2006
Total I bs.
12007 Total
I I bs.
2006
2007 Total
2008 Total
2009 Total
2010 Total
2011 Total
Name
Primary Addr
s
1,215,70411,160,9111
1,144,598
Total I bs.
I bs.
I bs.
I bs.
I bs.
I bs.
Keystone Foodshelf
Hamline Ave North, 2833 1
Roseville
14,258
Total Pounds - Nonprofits 1
14,258
Total Units in 2011
2006
Total I bs.
12007 Total
I I bs.
2008 Total
I I bs.
2009 Total
I I bs.
2010 Total
I bs.
2011 Total
I bs.
MultiFamily& Non - Residential Totals
1
1 953,94211,172,52011,227,0321
Total Units in 200
367
1,215,70411,160,9111
1,144,598
Total Units in 2011
5,999
Total Units in 2010
5,781
Total Units in 2009
5,781
Total Units in 2008
5,781
Total Units in 2007
5,662
Total Units in 200
367
A2275 Rice Street canceled September 2010. Building is demolished
*Har Mar Apartments changed name to Sienna Green Apartments as of November 2010
—1705 Marion is a builing with no units, this was corrected in 2011. In 2010 it was reported with 3 units.
AFire Station 1 was demolished and is being rebuilt. Will reopen in 2013
Appendix B
Eureka Recycling
Composition Analysis Methodology
Eureka Recycling collects materials in two streams: a "papers" stream
consisting of various grades of paper (including cardboard), and a "containers"
stream consisting of food and beverage containers (including glass, plastic
bottles, and metal cans) . As outlined in our contract, Eureka Recycling
conducts an annual composition study of the two streams to create a basis on
which the percent of each commodity collected in the two - stream
commingled program can be estimated based upon total weight collected in
the truck.
Composition by Stream
During the composition study, Eureka Recycling weighs each truck before
and after tipping the papers to determine the weight of the papers and
containers streams. Each truck has a stored tare weight that is updated regularly
for accuracy. This weighing process allows us to determine what percentage of
the total recycling collected makes up the papers stream, and what percentage
makes up the containers stream.
Composition by Commodity of Each Recycling Stream
The composition study starts with
Eureka Recycling storing all of the
materials collected in the city in the
containers stream during a one -
week period in a separate bunker
from all other materials at the
facility. Eureka Recycling sorts
these containers by material
separately from all other containers
at the facility using the sort line.
The sorted materials are then baled or put into a hopper and transported with a
forklift to the truck scale to be weighed. Finally, Eureka Recycling weighs the
total amount of each sorted material grade (including residual) to establish a
percentage of composition each grade represents within the containers stream.
The entire process is then repeated with the papers stream to establish a
composition percentage of each grade of paper within the stream.
(651) 222 -SORT (7678)
www.eurekarecycling.org
Our mission is to reduce
waste today through
innovative resource
management and to reach
a waste -free tomorrow
by demonstrating that waste
is preventable, not inevitable.
An affirmative action, equal
opportunity employer.
Printed on 100% postconsumer
recycled paper that was processed
without the use of chlorine.
Appendix C
Eureka Recycling
Participation Analysis Methodology
Eureka Recycling conducts an annual participation study in which both
set -out and participation rates are analyzed and documented.
The set -out rate is the average number of households that set materials out
for recycling collection on a given day. For example, every Monday for one
month, collection drivers count the number of households that set out
recycling on that day. Then the four numbers are averaged to determine the
average number of households who set out recycling on a given Monday.
The participation rate is the number of households who set materials out
for recycling collection at least once over a period of one month. The
Participation rate is a better indication of overall recycling participation
because it includes households that recycle at least once a month,
recognizing that some households may not set out recycling every week. It
more accurately indicates how many households are participating in the
recycling program overall, as opposed to the number of participants on a
specific day.
Summary of Process
The study spans one month of collections. Eureka Recycling selects random
sections to study for each daily recycling route, each section being
comprised of about 200 households per day, for a total study of over 1,000
households. These same sections will be studied every year for consistency.
Over a four -week period, Eureka Recycling tallies the exact number of
households that set out recycling for collection in the morning of their
collection day, before the driver services the section. The four -week study
tracks recycling set -outs over the five days of collections during the week,
totaling 20 days of set -out tracking.
(651) 222 -SORT (7678)
www.eurekarecycling.org
Our mission is to reduce
waste today through
innovative resource
management and to reach
a waste -free tomorrow
by demonstrating that waste
is preventable, not inevitable.
An affirmative action, equal
opportunity employer.
® Printed on 100% postconsumer
recycled paper that was processed
without the use of chlorine.
Roseville Public Works, Environment and
Transportation Commission
Agenda Item
Date: March 27, 2012 Item No: 9
Item Description: Look Ahead Agenda Items/ Neat Meeting April 24, 2012
Suggested Items:
• Stormwater Management Plan Update
Recommended Action:
Set preliminary agenda items for the April 24, 2012 Public Works, Environment &
Transportation Commission meeting.