My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2013-02-26_PWETC_AgendaPacket
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Agendas and Packets
>
201x
>
2013
>
2013-02-26_PWETC_AgendaPacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/21/2013 11:51:02 AM
Creation date
2/21/2013 11:21:54 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Agenda/Packet
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
2/26/2013
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
349
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Appendix A <br />Policy Implications <br />Several key recycling and solid waste management policy questions are raised within <br />the City of Roseville's pilot collection study and this analysis. <br />Role of the Cities in Minimizing Disposal of Materials Collected for Recycling - <br />Each local municipality has some role in assuring the materials collected for recycling <br />by its contractor are indeed recycled to the maximum extent feasible. The negative <br />public relations caused by materials unnecessarily disposed as waste are a major threat <br />to the residents' trust that is essential in continuously encouraging, maintaining, and <br />improving participation in municipal recycling programs. This is true regardless of <br />collection method (i.e., dual- stream vs. single- stream). <br />There are a variety of optional procedures that a city can implement to maximize <br />recycling and minimize unnecessary disposal of materials collected. These options <br />may not be mutually exclusive and include: <br />■ Tacitly encourage the contractor to maximize recycling. <br />■ Work to provide clear, consistent city- published public education tools as to <br />materials to be included for recycling and excluded (non targeted materials). <br />■ During recycling service procurement (e.g., during development of request for <br />proposals and contract negotiations, etc.): <br />• Adopt clear definitions of terms, including "targeted materials ", "non- <br />targeted materials ", and "processing residuals"; <br />• Specify public education tools to be provided by the contractor and <br />require that the city approve the education materials before they are <br />distributed; <br />• Consciously decide if the contractor shall provide a truck -side quality <br />inspection function (i.e., will materials be rejected by the collection <br />crew and education tags left in the curbside bin); <br />• Specify a maximum processing residuals rate and an agreed upon <br />measurement scheme for objectively monitoring this rate; and /or <br />• Specify a liquidated damage charge to be imposed on the contractor if <br />the maximum processing residual rate is exceeded. <br />Role of the Government in Minimizing Disposal of Materials Collected for <br />Recycling — Provision of standardized definitions, more research, and clear policy <br />direction as to acceptable levels of process residuals would assist cities and haulers <br />with the best available information about the processing residuals issue. For example, <br />there is still little hard data available that characterizes the color- mixed, broken glass <br />generated from MRFs in Minnesota. We still do not know how much single - stream <br />collection and processing systems impact the relative amounts of mixed glass <br />produced compared dual- stream systems. <br />A-V B1605 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.