My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2019_09-924_PWETCpacket
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Agendas and Packets
>
201x
>
2019
>
2019_09-924_PWETCpacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/20/2019 10:01:34 AM
Creation date
9/20/2019 10:00:51 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Agenda/Packet
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
9/24/2019
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
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
171 $123,000 difference. He indicated staff does not know how much the city is <br />172 actually going to end up paying Eureka in 2020 to process the materials. <br />173 <br />174 Member Joyce thought glass is the big candidate to stop collecting because it is <br />175 costing the city the most money. <br />176 <br />177 Chair Cihacek noted glass is losing the same amount as the residual recycling right <br />178 now. <br />179 <br />180 Member Wozniak explained it is also a consistent twenty percent of the volume <br />181 that is collected which is a lot. <br />182 <br />183 Mr. Culver noted that is by ton and glass is going to weigh more than aluminum. <br />184 <br />185 Chair Cihacek explained there is also a cost to re-educate people. He also did not <br />186 think people would say it is ok to landfill the glass bottles. It does not make sense <br />187 in today's environment. <br />188 <br />189 Member Wozniak indicated the glass bottle would not go to a landfill it would go <br />190 to the waste processing facility in New Port which is required by law. <br />191 <br />192 Chair Cihacek explained he was ok with the $58 as an estimate of actual cost. <br />193 <br />194 Mr. Culver indicated that the city can assume that the glass that Eureka is collecting <br />195 and processing will eventually get recycled and reused versus going to a landfill. <br />196 A lot of people would say that even it if cost more to process that glass bottle and <br />197 eventually end up using it in some other product or getting a second life that would <br />198 be preferable over putting it in a landfill. <br />199 <br />200 Member Spencer supported that thought. <br />201 <br />202 Member Joyce thought Mr. Culver was right and people do not want to throw things <br />203 of value or could be used in a landfill. <br />204 <br />205 Member Wozniak noted the energy savings from recycling glass and making it into <br />206 new glass versus creating it from scratch is tremendous. <br />207 <br />208 Mr. Culver explained that philosophy or value does not help the city budget. <br />209 <br />210 Member Wozniak asked if the goal is to try to address the budgetary deficits or to <br />211 reduce risk. <br />212 <br />213 Mr. Culver thought that was a good question and staff wants some input from the <br />214 Commission on that. He indicated the Finance Department is going to recommend <br />215 $9.00, increasing the recycling fee from $7.15 per quarter to $9.00 per quarter in <br />216 2020. If the city goes with the proposal from Eureka, he imagined the city will <br />Page 5 of 7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.