05-28-2019 Work Session AgendaSPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION
RICHFIELD MUNICIPAL CENTER, BARTHOLOMEW ROOM
MAY 28, 2019
5:15 PM
Call to order
1.I-494 alternatives evaluation process and screening
2.Richfield Organics Task Force recommendations
Adjournment
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be made at
least 96 hours in advance to the City Clerk at 612-861-9738.
AGENDA SECTION: Work Session Items
AGENDA ITEM #: 1.
WORK SESSION REPORT
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
5/28/2019
REPORT PREPARED BY: Kristin Asher, Public Works Director
5/21/2019
CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager
5/23/2019
ITEM FOR WORK SESSION:
MnDOT’s Analysis of I-494 Freeway/Interchange Alternatives
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
A brief presentation at the May 28, 2019 City Council work session will focus on the results of
MnDOT’s Phase 1 screening of I-494 mainline alternatives and access locations. A MnDOT
representative will present the decision -making and rationale for advancing some design
alternatives while not moving forward with other s.
The market impact evaluation regarding the proposed access reconfiguration is underwa y.
Results of the evaluation are tentatively scheduled to be presented to the City Council at a
work session in early July. MnDOT will not be requesting municipal consent on the access
changes until later this year.
Please contact Kristin Asher, Public Wor ks Director, at 612-861-9795 with questions.
DIRECTION NEEDED:
This is intended as a project update and an opportunity for the City Council to ask questions.
No direction is needed at this time.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT :
As part of MnDOT’s planned “Airport to 169” I-494 project, access
reconfiguration at 24th via 77th Underpass, 12th, Portland, and Nicollet is being
considered.
B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES:
The project is slated for a 2022 start date.
PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT THE MEETING:
Andrew Lutaya, MnDOT Metro District, West Area Engineer
Amber Blanchard, MnDOT Metro District, Project Director
April Crockett, MnDOT Metro District, West Area Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
Presentation: I-494: Airport to HWY 169 Project Update
Presentation: I-494 Engagement Update
I-494: Airport to Hwy 169 –
Project Update
SP 2785-424 MnDOT Metro District
5/3/2019 1
Where we are
•Evaluation Process for the I-494
Mainline Alternatives
•Evaluation Process for Interchange
Configuration Alternatives
Project Timeline
5/3/2019 2
Alternatives Evaluation Process
Phase 1: Scoping and Fatal Flaw Screening
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
July/August
WE
ARE
HERE
NEXT
STEP
5/3/2019 3
1.I-494 Mainline: Airport to Highway 169
2.I-35/I-494 Interchange
3.Interchange Reconfiguration: Lyndale to 12th Ave
Alternatives Evaluation Process
Focus Areas
PHASE 1
Focus Areas
5/3/2019 4
TDM/TSM Alternative
•Based on feedback from MnDOT:
•Corridor is already managed with an aggressive TSM system made up
of ramp meters, incident management, and message signs
•Alternative operational impact cannot be quantified using tools
selected for scoping and fatal flaw analysis
•Regional policy indicates that this should be the first option
assessed for corridor improvement
•Will be included during Phase 2 (Alternatives Comparison) and
Phase 3 (Recommended Alternative Impact Assessment)
PHASE 1
5/3/2019 5
HOV Lane Alternative
RECOMMENDATION: Remove from further consideration
LANE UTILIZATION Analysis indicates that the additional lane will not
be fully utilized by high occupancy vehicles only
PHASE 1
5/3/2019 6
Barrier (3+1) Alternatives
RECOMMENDATION: Remove from further consideration
CORRIDOR TRAVEL TIME Limited improvement to travel times over General
Purpose Lane alternative
CONSTRUCTION COST &
MAINTENANCE
Barrier alternatives involve wider typical sections and
greater risk for additional land acquisition and
environmental impacts.
RIGHT OF WAY &
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Higher construction costs and increased management
and maintenance of the facility but limited
improvement to corridor travel times over General
Purpose Lane alternative
PHASE 1
5/3/2019 7
Barrier (2+2) Alternatives
RECOMMENDATION: Remove from further consideration
CORRIDOR TRAVEL TIME
LANE UTILIZATION
CONSTRUCTION COST
& MAINTENANCE
RIGHT OF WAY &
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Barrier alternatives involve wider typical sections and
greater risk for additional land acquisition and
environmental impacts
Higher construction costs and increased management
and maintenance of the facility but limited
improvement to corridor travel times over General
Purpose Lane alternative
Poor lane utilization as travel patterns cause congestion
as vehicles use the main line to get on and off I-494
while there is capacity in the two barrier separated lanes
High cost of the facility but limited improvement to
corridor travel times over General Purpose alternative
PHASE 1
5/3/2019 8
General Purpose Lane Alternative
RECOMMENDATION: Carry forward into Phase 2 analysis
CORRIDOR TRAVEL TIME
CONSTRUCTION COST
& MAINTENANCE
RIGHT OF WAY &
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Narrowest cross section compared to the other
alternatives so less right of way and environmental
impacts anticipated
Provides the best mainline corridor travel time
compared to all other alternatives
PHASE 1
Lower construction costs than barrier separated
alternatives
5/3/2019 9
MnPASS Lane Alternative
RECOMMENDATION: Carry forward into Phase 2 analysis
HOV/TRANSIT
ADVANTAGE
RIGHT OF WAY &
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Lower construction costs than barrier separated
alternatives
Alternative consistent with regional policy by providing
high occupancy vehicles and transit travel time
advantages
PHASE 1
Narrower cross section than barrier separated
alternatives so less right of way and environmental
impacts anticipated
CONSTRUCTION COST
& MAINTENANCE
CORRIDOR TRAVEL TIME Provides the best utilization and travel time among
barrier and managed lane alternatives
5/3/2019 10
I-494 Mainline
Alternatives Carried Forward
115/3/2019
General Purpose Lane
Existing Condition (for baseline comparison)
MnPASS Lane
PHASE 1
I-35/I-494 Interchange
Alternative Carried Forward
Turbine (3 loop) from 2014 Study
PHASE 1
5/3/2019 12
Interchange Reconfiguration –Existing Condition
Access Reconfiguration Need
•Traffic operations and safety are degraded by closely
spaced interchanges
•Westbound 494 in the morning and Eastbound 494 in
the evening both experience 2-3 hours of congestion
during the peak travel times as a result of these closely
spaced ramps
Lane
Drop
PHASE 1
5/3/2019 13
No Reconfiguration Alternative
To be used for baseline comparison
NETWORK TRAFFIC OPERATIONS No reduction in network delay
FREEWAY OPERATIONS
NETWORK CRASHES No reduction in corridor crashes
Current spacing does not meet FHWA minimum
requirements causing both operational and
safety implications
Lane
Drop
PHASE 1
5/3/2019 14
Interchange Reconfiguration
Alternatives Overview
Full Access at Nicollet
(1 interchange option)
Full Access at Portland
(5 interchange options)
Partial Access at
Nicollet and Portland
Lyndale Ave Nicollet Ave Portland Ave 12th Ave
PHASE 1
5/3/2019 15
Full Access at
Nicollet Alternative
RECOMMENDATION: Remove from further consideration
Least desirable alternative for freight travel
distanceFREIGHT TRAVEL DISTANCE
FREEWAY OPERATIONS
Access spacing between Lyndale and Nicollet
provides worse operations than No
Reconfiguration alternative
RIGHT OF WAY IMPACTS ROW impacts to adjacent business properties
Lyndale Ave Nicollet Ave Portland Ave 12th Ave
I-494
PHASE 1
5/3/2019 16
Partial Access at
Nicollet and Portland Alternative
RECOMMENDATION: Remove from further consideration
FREEWAY OPERATIONS
NETWORK CRASHES
Two intersections will maintain traffic signal
control opposed to stop control in the other
alternatives
Least desirable combination of access for
improving highway operations among
reconfiguration alternatives
Lyndale Ave Nicollet Ave Portland Ave 12th Ave
I-494
PHASE 1
5/3/2019 17
Full Access at
Portland Alternative
RECOMMENDATION: Retain for further consideration
Most desirable reconfiguration alternative for
freight travel distanceFREIGHT TRAVEL DISTANCE
FREEWAY OPERATIONS
Improves access spacing and provides the best
traffic operations along this segment of 494
between Lyndale and 12th Avenue
Lyndale Ave Nicollet Ave Portland Ave 12th Ave
I-494
MAINLINE CRASHES Increased access spacing reduces weaving
conflicts and improves safety
PHASE 1
5/3/2019 18
Interchange Reconfiguration
Alternative Carried Forward
Full Access at Portland
(5 interchange options)
Lyndale Ave Nicollet Ave Portland Ave 12th Ave
PHASE 1
5/3/2019 19
Alternatives Evaluation Process
Next Steps
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
July/August
WE
ARE
HERE
NEXT
STEP
5/3/2019 20
I‐494 Engagement Update
EngagementEngagement Opportunities •Jan 7 to Feb 17 ‐Online Survey: (1,425)•Jan 8 – Business Listening Session (35) •Jan 24 –Open House (80) •Feb 2 –Pop‐Up at Walmart (77)Advertising •6,000 mailers, Bloomington & Richfield News Outlets, in‐person fliers, direct contact with local businesses, social services agencies, schools, community centers and religious institutions •$50 Walmart Gift Card Raffle•Surveys, info sheets and fliers in English and Spanish 5/3/20193
EngagementLocation or Residence/Workplace*•I live or work in this area: 71% •Home Zip: •55423 –33.5% (Richfield) •55420 –24% (Bloomington) •55431 –12% (Bloomington) •I own/manage a property or business in this area: 13% •Other (I live/work/or own property outside of this area): 20% *This data reflects percentage of people who selected each response5/3/20194
EngagementDemographics (Open House & Online Survey)•25‐54 years: 61% —55 years and older: 37%•Male: 48% — Female: 51%*•White: 91%, Non‐White: 6%*•Hispanic: 1.9%, Asian: 1.5%, Black or African American: 1.2%, American Indian or Alaskan Native: 1.3%, More than one race: 2%*, Other: 2.7% *Does not include numbers from Open House5/3/20195
Engagement5/3/2019630%25%23%19%3%0%10%20%30%40%Nicollet Ave @ I ‐494 Portland Ave @I‐494 W 82nd St @ I‐35W 12th Ave S @ I‐494 I don’t use any of these Bridges and Ramps Used on a Regular Basis* Data as of 2/4/2019
Engagement – Nicollet and 12th5/3/20197Shows the percentage of individual comments that mentioned each concernCould you support removing freeway access from Nicollet and 12th, and expanding access at Portland?
Engagement –W 82nd and I‐35W5/3/20198Could you support reducing freeway access at W 82nd Street and I‐35W to improve safety and congestion on the freeway and limit property impacts on the surrounding neighborhood?Shows the percentage of individual comments that mentioned each concern
AGENDA SECTION: Work Session Items
AGENDA ITEM #: 2.
WORK SESSION REPORT
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
5/28/2019
REPORT PREPARED BY: Amy Markle, Recreation Services Director
5/21/2019
CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager
5/23/2019
ITEM FOR WORK SESSION:
Organics Task Force Recommendations
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council work session will focus on the work of the Richfield Organics Task Force
including providing:
Background of Hennepin County’s recycling and organics mandate;
An update on the City of Richfield organics drop -off program; and
Task Force recommendations to consider for a June 11 Council vote on the organized
collection of recycling and organic materials.
The Task Force recommendations are:
Pursue organizing curbside organics recycling and single -sort recycling for all
residents in the City.
Initiate planning and outreach efforts immediately and ensure adequate ongoing staff
support.
Continue to fund the two organics recycling dropoff sites.
City works with County and resident volunteers to provide education and outreach to
residents and haulers before, during, and after transition to curbside organics and
recycling collection.
Staff’s recommendations are:
Fully support all four taskforce recommendations.
Offer organized hauling of recycling and organics with a subscription based program
for the organics portion vs. mandatory participation (recycling is mandated by the
county).
Evaluate the creation of a Sustainability Commission to provide environmental and
sustainability leadership to the community.
Fund a Sustainability Coordinator position through the Recycling SCORE grant and
other existing funds.
DIRECTION NEEDED:
Please review the attachments and either prepare comments/questions for discussion at the
work session or send comments/questions to Rachel Lindholm, the City’s GreenCorps
member, prior to the meeting by email at rlindholm@richfieldmn.gov and they will be
addressed at the work session.
The recommendations will be presented to the City Council for a decision at their meeting on
June 11.
ATTACHMENTS:
Organics Task Force Report
Hennepin County Recycling Ordinance Summary
Organics Task Force Pros and Cons Table
Presentation slides
5/28/19
The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Subject: City Council Work Session - Organics Recycling Collection in Richfield
Council Members:
As a member of the GreenStep Cities program, the City of Richfield takes seriously the
importance of environmental sustainability and the role it plays in residents’ quality of life.
Providing recycling opportunities to residents has long been an essential method for cities to
promote sustainability. Organics recycling, also called industrial composting, offers the
opportunity to divert food and other compostable waste from landfills, reduce greenhouse gas
emissions that drive climate change, and create a useable product in the form of a nutrient-rich
soil amendment. Richfield currently has the opportunity to significantly expand access to
organics recycling for its residents.
For the past year, city staff, elected officials, and the Richfield Organics Taskforce have worked
together to pursue organics recycling goals for our city. Our accomplishments to date include:
The establishment of this resident-led Taskforce by City Council, which has held
meetings with city staff approximately monthly since March 2018
The establishment of two organics recycling drop-off sites in Richfield with a grant
obtained through Hennepin County
Registration of over 690 households for the drop-off sites
Community education and outreach at venues such as the Richfield Summer and Winter
Farmers Markets, Lakewinds Food Co-op, Hope Church, and more
Publication of an organics recycling information page on the City of Richfield’s website
In the attached report, we provide further detail on the work that has been completed by the
City of Richfield and the Organics Taskforce, along with recommendations for possible next
steps. Over the next few years, Richfield will need to become compliant with the new
requirements of County Ordinance 13 (attached to the report). The changes that Richfield
needs to make present an opportunity to educate and engage all residents in organics recycling,
which will not only benefit our community but our environment too.
We appreciate your consideration of our findings and recommendations and look forward to
working together to pursue the common goal of creating a greener, safer, and more efficient
waste management system for the City of Richfield.
Sincerely,
The Richfield Organics Taskforce
The Richfield Organics Taskforce was convened to, “be advisory to the City Council on matters
relating to establishing accessible (community-wide) organics collection to the city of Richfield.”
Two weeks after Richfield’s current organics recycling drop -off program was launched,
Hennepin County amended Ordinance 13, “Recycling for Hennepin County”. The taskforce has
since started to consider next steps in Richfield’s organics recycling efforts, due to the new
county mandates along with the great success of the drop-off program. Richfield has also
undertaken other efforts to improve city environmental work by hosting a GreenCorps
member, auditing municipal waste systems, investigating adding recycling in parks, and more.
Passage of County Ordinance 13 revisions, and implications for Richfield
Revisions introduced mandatory business and residential organics recycling. The former
requires businesses and organizations in certain sectors that “generate one ton of trash
or more per week or contract for weekly collection of eight or more cubic yards of
trash” to implement food waste recycling in back of house areas. The latter says, “cities
with more than 10,000 people must make organics service available to all households
with curbside recycling (single-family and dwellings up to 4 units) by January 1, 2022.
Cities can make organics recycling available by contracting for service citywide or
require haulers to provide the service upon request.”
o Those are two feasible options for Richfield but action of some sort needs to be
taken in order to comply with the county ordinance.
Hennepin County is a state leader in recycling initiatives and efforts, but in order to
achieve the state goal of recycling (organics and single-sort) 75% of the Metro area’s
waste by 2030, all municipalities need to do more. The recycling rate is currently slightly
below 50%.
o Both single-sort and organics recycling need to increase in order to meet this
ambitious but attainable goal, but it will be a lot easier for organics recycling to
grow in the near future since it is not as established as single-sort recycling.
Richfield is in a great position after implementing the organics drop-off program
to increase its efforts and make organics recycling/composting a city -wide
household habit.
o 42 of 44 cities in Hennepin County have organized single-sort recycling. Richfield
is one of the two that doesn’t. This can be correlated with lower recycling
participation, less education and outreach with residents, increased
contamination, and more. Additionally, in 2017, Richfield ranked 39th in the
County with only 399 pounds of material recycled per household.1 It is important
to note that the City Attorney’s opinion is that Richfield would not have to follow
1 SCORE data, Hennepin County, 2017.
organized collection procedure found in state statute in order to organize single -
sort recycling and organics recycling.
Establishment of Organics Recycling Drop-off Sites:
Background research on neighboring counties/cities
o Minneapolis, St. Louis Park, and some smaller cities have organized curbside
organics collection and drop-off sites. Taskforce members visited sites in
Minneapolis to see how they were set up, and pictures of Dakota County drop-
off sites were shown to City Council at a work session in 2018.
Site selection criteria
o “The group agreed that proximity to dense housing was the #1 criterion that the
site should meet so the locations would be used in the future…Wood Lake and
Hope Church are the most central locations.” (6/6 meeting minutes)
o Other factors: Wood Lake – staff on-site to answer questions/education, security
cameras and ability to quickly respond to any issues, popular area that sees a lot
of resident attendance and traffic already, located centrally in the city; Hope
Church – Loaves and Fishes on-site, also preschool and adult daycare, residents
regularly visit the church for services/activities/events so it’s convenient for
dropping off organics , located centrally in the city.
Budget details
o The City received a $15,000 grant from Hennepin County in October/November
2018 to fund the program until 5/2021. There are monthly service charges with
Waste Management (currently $200 per month per site, but depends on the rate
of service) and occasional purchases of compostable bags (charges vary based on
size of bags and # of cases ordered). Other one-time charges include site signage,
half of the cost of the bituminous pad at Hope Church, locks, and containers to
store the bags.
o With our expected budget planned out as well as having budgeted out several
hypothetical scenarios, we are confident that the grant will fully fund the
program through May of 2021. We anticipate having dumpsters serviced once a
week for most of the year, and twice a week during the summer.
Education and outreach
o Volunteers and the City’s GreenCorps member tabled at most of the Richfield
Farmers and Winter Markets, as well as at Penn Fest and at Lakewinds Co-op.
Over 1,000 residents were communicated with at these events, and many
directly learned about and then signed up for the program as a result of this
outreach.
o An organics recycling page was created on the Richfield website and is now
housed under a new sustainability umbrella page online which showcases the
variety of environmental efforts Richfield has and continues to pursue.
o The organics drop-off program has received coverage from WCCO, Star Tribune
West Metro, the Sun Current, and a variety of city media (the Annual Report,
social media, That’s Rich(field) podcast, news release).
Status of sign-ups
o As of 5/20/19, over 700 households have registered for the program. 331 of
those registered before the program even officially launched on 11/15,
indicating a clear public desire for organics recycling.
Observations so far
o Staff: Exciting registration numbers show a real interest and need in Richfield for
organics collect ion. Residents are receptive to learning what can and cannot go
into the dumpsters and frequently ask questions about unknown items.
Contamination has been low and mostly unintentional.
o Taskforce: “I noticed when we were out at the farmers markets as well as in my
day-to-day conversations that energy has been generated and community
building has occurred around this issue. It’s a terrific stepping stone to more
critical issues such as water quality and global warming. Composting is a simple
issue that requires minimal energy but it leads to bigger conversations and
tasks. If a resident will compost, they may take recycling more seriously and may
be more willing to change behaviors that lead to a better world for us all. I have
learned so much and it has helped me be more willing to get on the
environmental preservation bandwagon. I think the more we are out there
explaining these simple benefits that each household can contribute, the more
believers we will recruit to the messaging of preservation of our environment.”
o Residents:
Registration feedback is very positive with lots of excitement – residents
are glad Richfield is promoting more sustainable initiatives and following
others when it comes to organics.
We conducted a survey one month in to learn more about our
participants and get feedback about the program. Most had not
composted before this program and now the majority drop off their
organic waste (not just food waste!) once a week. Residents said they
were very appreciative of this convenient progra m, with many of them
having decreased the size of their garbage can and becoming more
mindful of the waste they produce overall. They also appreciate the rest
of the community enthusiastically supporting it; many have told their
friends, family, and neighbors about the program. The biggest “area for
improvement” was a clearly expressed desire for increased sites around
the site/curbside collection, with over 15 responses suggesting it.
Next steps:
What we would like to see achieved:
o Richfield effectively implements County Ordinance 13 through advanced
planning and efficient rollout of new organics recycling opportunities .
o We hope that haulers cooperate with the City and community to provide
curbside organics recycling that is available, accessible, and affordable to all
Richfield residents.
o Community buy-in and high rates of engagement in organics recycling achieved
through education, outreach, and communication with residents.
Recommendations for policy approach:
Our recommendation is to pursue organizing curbside organics recycling and single-sort
recycling for all residents in the City. This would allow residents to keep their desired
trash hauler while reaping the benefits of accessible curbside organics collection.
City initiate planning and outreach efforts immediately and ensure adequate ongoing
staff support
Continue to fund the two organics recycling drop-off sites (through SCORE funding or
otherwise)
o This will allow larger multi-unit residences to continue to participate in organics
recycling even after curbside organics recycling is established. This is especially
important for those who are in close proximity to the current Wood Lake site
who have already enthusiastically adopted the program.
City works with County and resident volunteers to provide education and outreach to
residents and haulers before, during, and after transition to curbside organics and
recycling collection
New requirements will advance recycling
On November 27, 2018, the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners approved revisions to the county’s recycling
ordinance to support our goal of zero waste to landfills by 2030. The changes focus on moving organics recycling forward.
Putting organic waste to a better use can help feed people in need, create compost for healthier soils, and create energy
through anaerobic digestion. Diverting organics from the trash reduces emissions of greenhouse gases, especially
methane that is generated from the decomposition of organic materials in landfills. In addition, the ordinance was revised
to improve conventional recycling at multifamily dwellings and businesses.
Residential organics recycling
Because more than one-third of our trash is organic material that can
be composted, participating in organics recycling is one of the
easiest things you can do to reduce your trash and make a difference.
What do the new requirements mean for residents?
• It will be easier to participate in organics recycling
• If you have your own individual cart for recycling, you will
also be able to sign up for organics service through your
hauler or city
• Larger multi-unit buildings without individual carts for each
household are not required to provide organics service
What do cities have to do?
• Cities with more than 10,000 people must make organics
service available to all households with curbside recycling (single-family and dwellings up to 4 units) by January 1, 2022
• Cities can make organics recycling available by contracting for service citywide or require haulers to provide the service
upon request
• Cities with 10,000 people or less must provide a drop-off site by January 1, 2022, if curbside organics service is not made
available to residents
Support is available from the county
• Funding for organics pilot projects
• Funding for organics drop-off sites
• Educational materials and help getting the word out
• For more information email ben.knudson@hennepin.us
Conventional recycling
Multifamily building recycling requirements
• Provide adequate service for the collection of recyclables
• Provide education to residents
• Label waste containers
• Implement by January 1, 2020
Business food waste recycling
What is required? By January 1, 2020, businesses that generate large quantities of food waste must implement food waste recycling in back-of-house operations (kitchen, food preparation, dishwashing, and storage areas).
Who does this affect? The requirement applies to businesses in the covered sectors below that generate one ton of
trash or more per week or contract for weekly collection of eight or more cubic yards of trash. This threshold was selected
because large generators of organics are likely to break even or even save money when implementing food waste
recycling.
Sectors
o Restaurants o Nursing/residential care facilities
o Food manufacturers o Office buildings with dining services
o Food wholesalers/distributors o Farmers markets
o Grocery stores o Food shelves
o Hotels o Colleges and universities
o Hospitals o Shopping centers
o Sports venues o Airports
o Event centers o Golf and country clubs
o Caterers o Public/rentable commissaries/kitchens
How to comply
• Have food waste recycling service in place
• Provide food waste collection containers back-of-house
and properly label them
• Separate food waste from trash in back-of-house
operations
Hennepin County assistance
Free
• Assistance and training
• Labels, signs, and educational materials
Business grants
• Up to $50,000
• Start or improve organics recycling
• Bin and equipment purchases
• Initial hauling costs and bags for new organics programs
• Improvements to loading docks and waste container
enclosures (fenced in areas)
For more information visit www.hennepin.us/businessrecycling or email businessrecycling@hennepin.us.
Conventional recycling
Business recycling requirements
• Meet state recycling requirements – collect at least three types of materials for recycling
• Provide adequate service levels for the collection of recyclables
• Label waste containers
• Implement by January 1, 2020
Pros Cons Implementation costs and staffing
needs
Other
considerations
(legal, policy,
funding/grant, etc)
What cities
are doing
this?
Organics
ordinance
only
Less of a change for
many residents
(those who don’t
opt in)
Less city planning
needed
Residents would
keep one hauler for
all services
Lower participation = less
SCORE funding to the city
Haulers will be more
reluctant to pick up
individual organics
participants
Adding several more trucks
to the alleys/road
Rollout and education isn’t
the same citywide (haulers
could have different
collection requirements,
making it harder)
More expensive than
organized organics
collection where everyone
pays in
Less publication of any
program and less
communication to
residents (without FTE)
Costs for the city would be
minimal
Staff time to draft ordinance
Costs to residents participating
would be higher than a
program where everybody
pays, and then you opt in to
participate
A FTE/recycling coordinator
would be needed to coordinate
with haulers, act as a point of
contact/receive information
they’re required by the county
to report, fulfill annual
education and resident
outreach requirements detailed
in Hennepin County’s
Ordinance 13
There would be more
information to compile and
report since every hauler
would be providing
residential organics pick-up
Unknown if any
legal action
would be
needed apart
from city
ordinance
/licensing rules
revisions
None yet
Pros Cons Implementation costs
and staffing needs
Other considerations
(legal, policy,
funding/grant, etc)
What cities are
doing this?
Organized
organics
and
recycling
Fewer trucks on alleys/roads
would necessitate less repair
over time
Increased safety on streets
(slower speeds because of
frequent stops)
Consistent education rollout
initially and with updates
over time to ensure
participation and resident
knowledge
Higher participation due to
ease of access and adoption
Increased SCORE funding
would allow for additional
designated staff to help the
City through this process and
support other sustainability
efforts
Indicator to current and
future residents of obvious
city engagement with and
promotion of environmental
issues/resources
If billed through the
city, costs would
appear on a bigger
utility bill (but
residents wouldn’t
pay a hauler bill for
these charges)
Potential for having
more than one
hauler per household
(not uncommon in
other cities)
Less hauler choice
(just for
recycling/organics)
Specific costs are
unknown; Edina pays
$5.50/month per
household for
organics collection
Opportunity to
decrease trash
costs (container
size, pick-up rate)
A FTE/recycling
coordinator would be
needed to ensure
hauler compliance,
support the RFP and
implementation
process, report data
to the county,
execute resident
education, be the
point of contact
between residents
and haulers,
undertake future
projects (organics
recycling in schools,
other sustainability
initiatives), etc
Would not have to
go through the
state
statute/procedure
for adopting
organized hauling
(per city attorney
and following
examples of other
cities)
Edina (open
trash
hauling)
Organized
all 3:
Minneapolis
St. Louis
Park
Medina
Wayzata
Maple Plain
St.
Bonifacius
Osseo
Loretto
Medicine
Lake
Robbinsdale
General benefits of curbside:
Additional organics education and exposure to a larger population
Less landfilling (reduction in methane) and other environmental benefits of organics recycling
Change norms, attitudes, culture of waste management/disposal – residents interact with composting at home, Richfield farmers market,
Wood Lake Nature Center, possibly at school and/or work as well -> becomes common practice
Increased accessibility to organics recycling with increased convenience, less planning/effort needed to drop off organics
Waste to energy facilities in MN are filling up or closing (HERC, Great River) so more material will be going to landfills
o bad environmentally but there is also potential for residential trash bills to increase as tipping fees increase and landfill space
decreases faster
at HERC, trash tip fee has risen $24/ton over the past 13 years, changing every year or two; organics tip fee has increased
once over the past 13 years
This experience would help Richfield develop municipal sustainability leadership by helping residents and improving the city’s resources and
services, as well as learning from and working with other cities
Organics Recycling
Work Session
May 28, 2019
Annual
recycling
rates in
Hennepin
County
Hennepin County disposal projections
Organics are the most
common material in the trash
Taskforce background
•Est. 2018, meets monthly
•Convened to, “be advisory to the City Council
on matters relating to establishing accessible
(community-wide) organics collection to the
city of Richfield.”
•Chose sites for the drop-offs
•Educated residents at Farmers markets,
Lakewinds, Penn Fest
Organics
recycling
drop-off
program
Registration comments
Survey responses
Community outreach
Options for next steps
Ordinance only Organizing recycling and organics
Pros •Less of a change for
residents
•Less city planning
•Higher program participation,
funding
•Fewer trucks on roads, better safety
Cons •Lower participation = less
funding for the city
•More trucks on roads
•More expensive for residents
•Potential to have more than one
hauler for all services
•If billed through the city, costs would
appear on a bigger utility bill (but
residents wouldn’t pay a hauler bill)
Costs/staffing •Costs: Lower for the city,
higher for residents
•FTE/recycling coordinator
would be needed
•Specific costs are currently unknown
•FTE/recycling coordinator would be
needed
Legal •Currently unknown if
anything would be needed
besides a city ordinance
•Would not have to go through state
statute procedure to organize hauling
(for recycling & organics)
Other cities? •None yet •Edina (open trash)
Taskforce recommendation
•Pursue organizing curbside organics recycling and
single-sort recycling for residents in the City
•Initiate planning and outreach efforts immediately
and ensure adequate ongoing staff support
•Continue to fund the two organics recycling drop-
off sites
•City works with County and resident volunteers to
provide education and outreach to residents and
haulers before, during, and after transition to
curbside organics and recycling collection
Staff recommendation
•Fully support all four taskforce recommendations
•Offer organized hauling of recycling and organics with a subscription based program for the organics portion vs. mandatory participation (recycling is mandated by the county)
•Explore the need for a future Sustainability Commission
•Fund a Sustainability Coordinator position
through the Recycling SCORE grant and
other existing funds
How Score Funding works:
Solid Waste Tax State of Minnesota Score Funding Grants
Recycling Organics
Municipalities
Recent Score Funding Recycling Grants to the City of Richfield:
2016: $93,251 2017: $85,101 2018: $72,350
10% goes to the city and 90% has gone back to residents in the form of a credit on
their utility bill ($2.10/household/quarter). If we start organized hauling of recyclables
100% of grant money comes back to the city.
Staff recommendation
Staff recommendation
•Refund participants up to $25/year through Organics SCORE funds, helping offset overall expenses
The Organics portion of SCORE
funding is not available to fund
administrative costs, but Recycling
SCORE funds are. This grant money
that the city would receive if we
offered organized hauling of
organics is based on participation
and can be utilized for: discounts for
customers, referral incentives,
contract costs, education and
outreach, compostable bags,
kitchen containers, and carts.
Richfield Households
•Residents can opt-in to having curbside organics pick-up, they will all
have recycling aligning with county mandate
•Residents will have 2 organics drop-off locations to utilize
•Residents will have less trucks on their roads
•The average monthly cost of organized recycling is $3.45/household in
Hennepin County
•The average monthly cost of organized organics is $5.50/household in
Hennepin County
• *Total average bill is approximately $9/month
• *Participants will get a annual credit, it is capped at $25/household,
most municipalities that have organized hauling receive a credit of $25
Discussion/Questions