Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017_08_08 CC PKTCity Council City of Brookings Meeting Agenda Brookings City Council Brookings City & County Government Center 520 3rd St., Suite 230 Brookings, SD 57006 Phone: (605) 692-6281 Fax: (605) 692-6907 Vision Statement: "We are an inclusive, diverse, connected community that fuels the creative class, embraces sustainability and pursues a complete lifestyle. We are committed to building a bright future through dedication, generosity and authenticity. Bring your dreams!" Council Chambers6:00 PMTuesday, August 8, 2017 The City of Brookings is committed to providing a high quality of life for its citizens and fostering a diverse economic base through innovative thinking, strategic planning, and proactive, fiscally responsible municipal management. 6:00 PM REGULAR MEETING 1. Call to Order / Pledge of Allegiance. 2. Record of Council Attendance. 3. Consent Agenda: Action: Motion to Approve, Request Public Comment, Roll Call Matters appearing on the Consent Agenda are expected to be non-controversial and will be acted upon by the Council at one time, without discussion, unless a member of the Council or City Manager requests an opportunity to address any given item. Items removed from the Consent Agenda will be discussed at the beginning of the formal items. Approval by the Council of the Consent Agenda items means that the recommendation of the City Manager is approved along with the terms and conditions described in the agenda supporting documentation. 3.A. Action to approve the agenda. 3.B.ID 2017-0455 Action to approve the July 18, 2017 and July 25, 2017 City Council Minutes. 7/18/2017 Minutes 7/25/2017 Minutes Attachments: 3.C.ID 2017-0466 Action to cancel the September 19, 2017 and October 17, 2017 City Council Study Sessions, and the November 14, 2017 City Council Meeting. Page 1 City of Brookings August 8, 2017City Council Meeting Agenda 3.D.ID 2017-0470 Action on an appointment to the Sustainability Council. 4. Items removed from Consent Agenda. Action: Motion to Approve, Request Public Comment, Roll Call 5. Open Forum/Presentations/Reports: 5.A. Open Forum. At this time, any member of the public may request time on the agenda for an item not listed. Items are typically scheduled for the end of the meeting; however, very brief announcements or invitations will be allowed at this time. 5.B. SDSU Student Association Report. 5.C.ID 2017-0327 Mayor’s Annual State of the City Message. 5.D.ID 2017-0477 Curbside Composting Report from the Brookings Sustainability Council. Report 7/28/2017 Municipal Curbside Compostables Collection, What Works and Why The Recycling Partnership Attachments: 6. Contracts/Change Orders: 6.A.RES 17-074 Action on Resolution 17-074, a Resolution authorizing Real Estate Exchange Agreement between the City of Brookings and Brookings County. Resolution Real Estate Exchange Agreement Letter of Intent - signed 7/19/2017 Attachments: Action: Motion to Approve, Request Public Comment, Roll Call 6.B.ID 2017-0476 Action on a Joint Use Parking Easement and Agreement. AgreementAttachments: Action: Motion to Approve, Request Public Comment, Roll Call 7. Ordinance First Readings: No vote is taken on the first reading of an Ordinance. The title of the Ordinance is read and the date for the public hearing is announced. 8. Public Hearings and Second Readings: 8.A.ORD 17-016 Public Hearing and Action on Ordinance 17-016, an Ordinance pertaining to a Conditional Use Permit to establish a storage yard on the South 50’ of Lot 1, Block 2, Sheldens Subdivision of Outlot ‘P,’ and Page 2 City of Brookings August 8, 2017City Council Meeting Agenda North 40’ vacated street (703 Main Avenue South), and Lot 2, Block 1, Sheldens Subdivision of Outlot ‘P’ (709 Main Avenue South). Ordinance 07-11-2017 Planning Commission Minutes Notice Applicant Letter Site Plan Aerial Map Zoning Map Attachments: Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to Approve, Roll Call Legislative History 7/25/17 City Council read into the record 9. Other Business: 10. City Council member introduction of topics for future discussion. Any Council Member may request discussion of any issue at a future meeting only. Items cannot be added for action at this meeting. A motion and second is required stating the issue, requested outcome, and time. A majority vote is required. 11. Adjourn. Brookings City Council: Keith Corbett, Mayor, Mary Kidwiler, Deputy Mayor & Council Member Council Members Patty Bacon, Dan Hansen, Ope Niemeyer, Holly Tilton Byrne, and Nick Wendell Council Staff: Jeffrey W. Weldon, City Manager Steven Britzman, City Attorney Shari Thornes, City Clerk View the City Council Meeting Live on the City Government Access Channel 9. Rebroadcast Schedule: Wednesday 1:00pm/Thursday 7:00pm/Friday 9:00pm/Saturday 1:00pm The complete City Council agenda packet is available on the city website: www.cityofbrookings.org Assisted Listening Systems (ALS) are available upon request. Please contact Shari Thornes, Brookings City Clerk, at (605)692-6281 or sthornes@cityofbrookings.org. If you require additional assistance, alternative formats, and/or accessible locations consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act, please contact Shari Thornes, City ADA Coordinator, at (605)692-6281 at least three working days prior to the meeting. Page 3 City of Brookings City of Brookings Staff Report Brookings City & County Government Center, 520 Third Street Brookings, SD 57006 (605) 692-6281 phone (605) 692-6907 fax File #:ID 2017-0455,Version:1 Action to approve the July 18, 2017 and July 25, 2017 City Council Minutes. Attachments: 7/18/2017 Minutes 7/25/2017 Minutes City of Brookings Printed on 7/31/2017Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ Brookings City Council July 18, 2017 (unapproved) The Brookings City Council held a Budget Study Session on Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 5:00 p.m., at City Hall with the following City Council members present: Mayor Keith Corbett, Council Members Mary Kidwiler, Holly Tilton Byrne, Ope Niemeyer, Nick Wendell, and Patty Bacon. Council Member Dan Hansenwas absent. City Manager Jeffrey Weldon, City Attorney Steve Britzman, and City Clerk Shari Thornes were also present. 2018 Budget Workshop #1. City Staff reviewed the 2018 Proposed Budget, answered questions and provided time for discussion. Adjourn. A motion was made by Council Member Kidwiler, seconded by Council Member Wendell, to adjourn the meeting at 6:09 p.m. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. CITY OF BROOKINGS Keith W. Corbett, Mayor ATTEST: Shari Thornes, City Clerk Brookings City Council July 25, 2017 (unapproved) The Brookings City Council held a meeting on Tuesday, July 25, 2017 at 6:00 p.m., at City Hall with the following City Council members present: Mayor Keith Corbett, Council Members Mary Kidwiler, Dan Hansen, Ope Niemeyer, Patty Bacon, and Nick Wendell. City Council member Holly Tilton Byrne was absent. City Manager Jeff Weldon, City Attorney Steve Britzman, and City Clerk Shari Thornes were also present. Consent Agenda. A motion was made by Council Member Hansen, seconded by Council Member Wendell, to approve the Consent Agenda. The motion carried by the following vote: Yes: 6 - Corbett, Niemeyer, Hansen, Kidwiler, Bacon, and Wendell; Absent: 1 - Tilton Byrne. A. Action to approve the agenda. B. Action to approve the July 11, 2017 City Council Minutes. C. Action on appointment to the Brookings Committee for People who have Disabilities:appoint Taylor Wold as the student representative (term expires 5/1/2018); appoint Laura Crooks (term expires 1/1/2018). D. Action on appointment to the Planning Commission:appoint Eric Rasmussen (term expires 12/31/2020). E. Action on Resolution 17-071, a Resolution declaring items as surplus property. Resolution 17-071 - Resolution declaring items as surplus property; Miscellaneous Electronic Equipment Whereas, SDCL 6-13-1 requires a municipality owning personal property which is no longer necessary, useful, or suitable for municipal purposes shall, by resolution declare it surplus and may, by resolution, order the sale, trade, destruction or other disposal of said personal property. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the following personal property be declared no longer necessary, useful, or suitable for municipal purposes and said property shall be disposed of in accordance with SDCL 6-13-1: Apple iPhone 4S 8GB Serial #C8RLG3APFML7; Apple iPhone 4S 8GB Serial #C8RLG2BFFML7; Apple iPhone RS 8GB Serial #C8RLG2G2FML7; Apple iPhone 4S 8GB Serial #C8RLG29YFML7; Apple iPhone 4S 8GB Serial #C8RLG3GNFML7; Apple iPhone 4S 16GB Serial #C8WJ6TK6DTC1; Apple iPhone 4S 16GB Serial #C8PKC50RDTC1; Apple iPhone 4S 16GB Serial #C8PK9QYVDTC1; Apple iPhone 4S 16GB Serial #C8PK9QYVDTC1; Apple iPhone 4S 16GB Serial #C8PKC4AADTC1; Apple iPhone 4S 16GB Serial #C8PKC4JNDTC1; Apple iPhone 4S 16GB Serial #C8PKC4RZDTC1; Apple iPhone 4S 16GB Serial #C8PKC4S6DTC1; Apple iPhone 5 16GB Serial #DNPKF76ZF8GH; Apple iPhone 5 16GB Serial #DNPKF9KHF8GH; Apple iPhone 5 16GB Serial #DNPKF7VVF8GH; Samsung Google Nexus S Serial #3833462109E900EC; Samsung Galaxy S3 Serial #990002135024956; Samsung Galaxy S3 Serial #990002121684565; Samsung Galaxy S3 Serial #990002121684367; Samsung Galaxy S3 Serial #990002121684425; Samsung SPH-M400 Serial #268435462408146278; LG LS670 Serial #104KPFX1579755; Kyocera E4277 Serial #268435459912706241; Kyocera E4277 Serial #268435459915439391; Kyocera E4277 Serial #268435459915439063; Kyocera E4277 Serial #268435459911881849; Kyocera E4277 Serial #268435459912674368; Kyocera E4277 Serial #268435459912705802; Sharp Aqua Crystal Serial #990005272097677. The following are to be destroyed as have been determined to be unrepairable: Apple iPhone 6 (water damage); Samsung S4 (battery damage); Samsung flip phone (battery damage); Kyocera Dura Force (battery damage); Apple iPhone 4 (cracked screen); LG LS970 (cracked screen). F. Action on Resolution 17-072, a Resolution to declare a Police Vehicle as surplus property. Resolution 17-072 - Resolution for the Surplus of Police Vehicles Whereas, the city of Brookings is the owner of the following described equipment formerly used at the City of Brookings Police Department: #6-2S, 2014 Ford Explorer, Mileage: 125,117, VIN 1FM5K8AR2EGA70721. Whereas in the best financial interest, it is the desire of the City of Brookings to sell same as surplus property; and Whereas, the City Manager hereby authorized to sell said surplus property. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved by the governing body of the City of Brookings, SD, that this property be declared surplus property according to SDCL Chapter 6-13. Passed and approved this 25th day of July, 2017. G. Action on Resolution 17-073, a Resolution to declare Swiftel Center equipment as surplus property. Resolution 17-073 - Resolution for the Surplus of Swiftel Center equipment Whereas, the city of Brookings is the owner of the following described equipment formerly used at the Swiftel Center: 731 - 8” clear plates, 437 - 7” white plates, 208 - 10” white plastic plate covers, 460 – white ceramic coffee cups, 296 – 8 oz. clear glasses, 13 – Stainless chaffers, 4 – clear plastic storage containers, 1 – dump truck, 1 – New Holland Skid Steer, 4 – Pepsi menu boards (backlit, large), 4 – Pepsi menu boards (backlit, small), 2 – Pepsi menu boards (backlit, white), 2 – Pepsi menu boards (backlit, blue), 1 – Cash register, 1 – Office Chair, 1 – White board, 1 – Air Compressor (needs work), 27 – Plastic cup/glass racks, 1 – Microwave, 1 – Keg cooler, 2 – Pepsi Dry erase boards, 1 – Cushman, 1 – Flatbed trailer, 1 – 5-row aluminum bleacher (needs repaired), 1 – Metal housing, 1 – LG flat screen TV w/ wall mount, 1 – ilo TV, 1 – JVC TV, 1 – Quasar VCR, 1 – Apex DVD player, 4 – Cash drawers – metal, 2 – Towel Dispensers, and 1 – Dell LCD projector w/ case. Whereas in the best financial interest, it is the desire of the City of Brookings to sell same as surplus property; and Whereas, the City Manager hereby authorized to sell said surplus property. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved by the governing body of the City of Brookings, SD, that this property be declared surplus property according to SDCL Chapter 6-13. “Excellence in Conservation” Award. The City of Brookings was presented with an “Excellence in Conservation” Award from the South Dakota Natural Resources Conservation Service. FIRST READING – Ordinance 17-016. Introduction and First Reading was held on Ordinance 17-016, an Ordinance pertaining to a Conditional Use Permit to establish a storage yard on the South 50’ of Lot 1, Block 2, Sheldens Subdivision of Outlot ‘P,’ and North 40’ vacated street (703 Main Avenue South), and Lot 2, Block 1, Sheldens Subdivision of Outlot ‘P,’ (709 Main Avenue South). Public Hearing: August 8, 2017. Temporary Alcohol License. A public hearing was held on a Temporary Malt License and Wine License to operate within the City of Brookings, South Dakota for Whiskey Creek Wood Fire Grill for a private event on August 4 at the SDSU Research Park, 2301 Research Parkway. A motion was made by Council Member Kidwiler, seconded by Council Member Niemeyer, that the Temporary Alcohol Licenses be approved. The motion carried by the following vote: Yes: 6 - Corbett, Niemeyer, Hansen, Kidwiler, Bacon, and Wendell; Absent: 1 - Tilton Byrne. Resolution 17-075. A motion was made by Council Member Kidwiler, seconded by Council Member Hansen, that Resolution 17-075, a Resolution Authorizing the Formation of Brookings Health System Investment Authority, an Industrial Development Corporation Associated with the City of Brookings, D/B/A Brookings Health System, be approved. The motion carried by the following vote: Yes: 6 - Corbett, Niemeyer, Hansen, Kidwiler, Bacon, and Wendell; Absent: 1 - Tilton Byrne. Resolution 17-075 - Resolution Authorizing the Formation of Brookings Health System Investment Authority, an Industrial Development Corporation Associated with the City of Brookings, D/B/A Brookings Health System Whereas, the Mayor and Council of the City of Brookings (the "City"), have received and duly considered a request for permission to incorporate an industrial development corporation to be associated with the City to be known as the "BROOKINGS HEALTH SYSTEM INVESTMENT AUTHORITY” (the ''Corporation''); and Whereas, the purpose of the Corporation shall be to carry out the purposes of SDCL § 9-27-37, furthering the economic development of the City of Brookings and its environs, and with authority to promote and assist in the growth and development of small business concerns in the areas covered by its operation, to improve access to healthcare services, to reduce healthcare costs, to ensure supply of healthcare providers, and to promote and assure an improved standard of living and an increase in prosperity and health; and Whereas, the Mayor and Council of the City have determined that it is wise, expedient, advisable and in the public interest of the City that the request be approved and the persons making said request be authorized to proceed with the incorporation of the Corporation as prescribed by state law. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that permission to incorporate an industrial development corporation to be known as "Brookings Health System Investment Authority" be and it is hereby approved and that the persons making said request are authorized to proceed with the incorporation of said Corporation; and Be It Further Resolved that the form of Articles of Incorporation of the Corporation be filed with the Clerk of the City; and Be It Further Resolved that the purpose of the “Brookings Health System Investment Authority” shall not compete with the Brookings Economic Development Corporation and shall focus on improving access to healthcare services, reducing healthcare costs, ensuring supply of healthcare providers, and to promote and assure an improved standard of living and an increase in prosperity and health of small business. Preliminary Plat. A motion was made by Council Member Niemeyer, seconded by Council Member Wendell, that a Preliminary Plat for Lot 1, Block 1; Lots 1-8, Block 2; Lots 1-28, Block 3; Lots 1-19, Block 4; Lots 1-6, Block 5; Lots 1-6, Block 6; and Lots 1-4, Block 7; all in Arbor Hill Addition, be approved. The motion carried by the following vote: Yes: 6 - Corbett, Niemeyer, Hansen, Kidwiler, Bacon, and Wendell; Absent: 1 - Tilton Byrne. Tax Increment District #7. Discussion was held on Tax Increment District #7. 2018 Budget Workshop #2. City Staff reviewed the 2018 Proposed Budget, answered questions and provided time for discussion. Topics for future City Council discussion. Council Member Bacon requested discussion at a future Study Session regarding interns for the City Council. Adjourn. A motion was made by Council Member Hansen, seconded by Council Member Wendell, to adjourn the meeting at 6:46 p.m. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. CITY OF BROOKINGS Keith W. Corbett, Mayor ATTEST: Shari Thornes, City Clerk City of Brookings Staff Report Brookings City & County Government Center, 520 Third Street Brookings, SD 57006 (605) 692-6281 phone (605) 692-6907 fax File #:ID 2017-0466,Version:1 Action to cancel the September 19, 2017 and October 17, 2017 City Council Study Sessions, and the November 14, 2017 City Council Meeting. Summary: The September 19, 2017 and October 17, 2017 City Council Study Sessions, and the November 14, 2017 City Council Meeting are being cancelled. State Law requires official Council action to schedule or cancel a meeting. City of Brookings Printed on 7/31/2017Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ City of Brookings Staff Report Brookings City & County Government Center, 520 Third Street Brookings, SD 57006 (605) 692-6281 phone (605) 692-6907 fax File #:ID 2017-0470,Version:1 Action on an appointment to the Sustainability Council. Summary: Mayor Keith Corbett is recommending the appointment of Shelly Brandenburger. Sustainability Council Number of positions:1 Term Length:3 year Residency Requirement:City required for majority The purpose of the Sustainability Council is to investigate, propose, educate, communicate, and advocate investment strategies and policies that will improve our future quality of life while still meeting the needs of the present. City of Brookings Printed on 8/1/2017Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ City of Brookings Staff Report Brookings City & County Government Center, 520 Third Street Brookings, SD 57006 (605) 692-6281 phone (605) 692-6907 fax File #:ID 2017-0327,Version:1 Mayor’s Annual State of the City Message. Summary: Mayor Corbett will present the annual State of the City Message at the meeting. A copy of the report will be available after the meeting on the City of Brookings website:www.cityofbrookings.org <http://www.cityofbrookings.org> City of Brookings Printed on 7/31/2017Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ City of Brookings Staff Report Brookings City & County Government Center, 520 Third Street Brookings, SD 57006 (605) 692-6281 phone (605) 692-6907 fax File #:ID 2017-0477,Version:1 Curbside Composting Report from the Brookings Sustainability Council. Summary: The Brookings City Council will review a report regarding Curbside Composting in the City of Brookings. The report includes a summary of the current recycling efforts, elements of a successful curbside composting program, state and local regulations, comparisons to other cities and states, current barriers, potential opportunities, and recommendations. Background: On May 9, 2017, the City Council made a motion directing staff to research curbside compost bins or neighborhood compost collection areas. They requested this item be brought back for discussion within three months. A subcommittee of the Sustainability Council Urban Ag Committee and City staff researched the issue and prepared the attached report for City Council review. The members were Norma Nusz Chandler, Robert McGrath, Betty Beer, Jennifer McLaughlin, Holly Tilton Byrne, Todd Langland and Shari Thornes. Attachments: Curbside Composting Report, Dated July 28, 2017 Municipal Curbside Compostables Collections: What Works & Why? Department of Urban Studies and Planning, 2014 “The 2016 State of Curbside Report,” The Recycling Partnership City of Brookings Printed on 7/31/2017Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ 1 | P a g e Curbside Composting Report | Brookings, SD July 28, 2017 On May 9, 2017, the Brookings City Council made a motion directing staff to research curbside compost bins or neighborhood compost collection areas. They requested this item be brought back for discussion within three months. A subcommittee of the Sustainability Council Urban Ag Committee and City staff researched the issue and prepared the following report for City Council review. The members were Norma Nusz Chandler, Robert McGrath, Betty Beer, Jennifer McLaughlin, Holly Tilton Byrne, Shari Thornes, and Todd Langland. The report includes a summary of the current program, elements of a successful program, State and local regulations, comparisons to other cities, potential opportunities, and recommendations. SUCCESSFUL CURBSIDE COMPOSTING PROGRAMS The Department of Urban Studies and Planning, Massachusetts Institute of Technology analyzed curbside compostable collection in the United States in the attached “Municipal Curbside Compostables Collection: What Works and Why,” report. The report states that their “analysis yields several important insights about formulating, designing, and implementing an effective curbside compostables collection program-that is, one that achieves high participation and diversion rates with low levels of contamination. Effective curbside compostables collection programs tend to arise most readily in places where conditions are favorable in two respects. First, an ambitious waste diversion mandate at the state or county level and/or high or rising landfill costs create incentives for a municipality to divert its waste from landfills. And second, two factors enhance a municipality's ability to respond to those incentives: (1) a nearby processing facility that can handle the city's food waste and (2) preexisting infrastructure for collecting and processing yard waste. Without a strong incentive to divert organic waste and the capacity to do so, it is more difficult to establish a program; that said, even communities with relatively inhospitable initial conditions are finding creative ways to institute curbside compostables collection. In designing an effective curbside compostables collection program, municipalities must do two things. First, they must gain the cooperation of haulers, something that is easier for communities that directly provide collection service or contract with a single hauler. Gaining hauler cooperation involves recognizing that for haulers the efficiency of collection routes (maximizing the tonnage collected while minimizing distance traveled) is a paramount consideration. And second, municipalities must motivate waste generators to both participate at high rates and separate organic materials properly in order to minimize contamination. To these ends, municipalities can provide incentives that make it relatively cheap and convenient to separate organics, disseminate adequate and well-designed information that makes composting readily comprehensible, and-most effective of all-mandate participation.” Finally, in launching curbside compostables collection, municipalities with effective programs almost invariably begin with a pilot program that reveals which approaches are likely to work best in that particular place and demonstrates the program's viability to local skeptics. Whenever possible, program officials have pursued state or county grants to launch their pilot program(s). And several effective programs have worked with local nonprofits to get composting off the ground and then to enhance participation and set-out rates through education and incentive campaigns. 2 | P a g e The basic requirements for a curbside composting program are a convenient, safe collection system and a permitted composting site. However, to have a truly successful program an extensive public education program would be needed. The public education would have to concentrate on making sure the public understood what materials could be composted and what materials could not be composted. The public education would also be needed to expand participation rates to a reasonable level to make the program worthwhile. Therefore, public education is important enough to be almost considered a basic requirement. SOUTH DAKOTA REGULATIONS Regulations addressing composting operations are governed by the South Dakota Department of Agriculture and the South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources. The Department of Agriculture has regulations related to labeling of the finished compost, testing of the finished compost and payment of a fee per ton on the distributed compost. The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) has regulations on siting, design, and operations of all Solid Waste Facilities in the state. However, they do not have specific regulations for composting operations. The DENR follows Federal law, which at this time considers composing part of solid waste operations because by definition food scraps are classified as municipal solid waste (MSW). Therefore, subject to the same regulations as a solid waste landfill. The State of South Dakota does have “primacy” in regards to the EPA. Primacy means the EPA has reviewed the DENR regulations and the state’s ability to enforce the regulations and determined that the state DENR can issue permits, conduct inspections and handle enforcement without the EPA being directly involved. The state can also amend the Federal language as long as there is not any increased danger to the environment, although they do review any language changes. Other states throughout the nation have revised their regulations to reflect the different types of composting operations. A good example of South Dakota revising their regulations is the recent deleting of Chapter 74:27:18 Statewide Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. The Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan is discussed in the Federal regulations. CHAPTER 74:27:18 - STATEWIDE COMPREHENSIVE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN ((Deleted) At the request of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the Legislative Research Council deleted Chapter 74:27:18, Statewide Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan and Appendix A, effective April 15, 2013, pursuant to SDCL 1-26-8.1 and 1-26A-1. The authority to promulgate this rule was repealed by SL 2012, ch 215, § 31, thus the rule is deemed obsolete by operation of law. This plan was deleted because each regional landfill is required to submit a comprehensive solid waste management plan for their service area every five years prior to renewing their operating permit. Therefore, each region of the state has a plan unique to their local area. Each local area has different recycling markets, different waste streams, different programs, diversified haulers, and different resources available to manage solid waste. The Brookings region is fortunate to have industries and businesses that aggressively recycle their own waste such as 3M, Daktronics, Larson Manufacturing, Wal-Mart, and HyVee to name a few. Bowes Construction also recycles asphalt and GCC Ready Mix, Inc. accepts old concrete. There are also several businesses in the region that accept scrap iron and old autos. Cook’s Wastepaper and Recycling Inc. 3 | P a g e (Waste Connections), Engineering Services, Brookings Dumpster Service as well as the City of Brookings Collection Service are involved in collection and/or processing traditional recycling. There are also companies in the region that handle special wastes such as waste oil, light bulbs, etc. As a result, our service area has a very comprehensive solid waste management plan. Incidentally, the service area for the Brookings Landfill is all of Brookings County, all of Moody County, the eastern half of Kingsbury County, the southeastern corner of Hamlin County, the southern half of Deuel County and portions of Lake County CITY OF BROOKINGS REGIONAL LANDFILL - CURRENT CONDITION. The City of Brookings Regional Landfill serves 35 communities in a six county region. Last year, the City collected 4,740 tons from Brookings residence, which includes food scrap waste. The Brookings Landfill can currently compost yard waste but not municipal solid waste (MSW) or source separated organic material (SSOM). The yard waste program consists of collecting city yard waste bags, loose yard waste brought into the landfill primarily from landscapers and yard service companies, and yard waste brought in during Spring Cleanup and the Free Fall Leaf Drop-off. The sale of the bags, in excess of 67,000 bags or 752 tons, pays for the collection part of the program and contributes to paying for the operating costs of the composting activity at the landfill. LANDFILL CONSIDERATIONS. The South Dakota Department of Environmental and Natural Resources (Waste Management Department) has no regulations/guidelines set up for curbside composting. If the Brookings Regional Landfill and the Solid Waste Collection would start a curbside composting program the following is a list of items to consider. Regulations would be necessary in order to determine cost estimates for the following: 1) Land purchase/Location of Facility, 2) Building Structure, 3) Monitoring Wells 4) Leachate System/enclosed holding tank, 5) Monthly testing services, 6) Liner Costs, 7) Permit change, 8) Truck and containers, and 9) Operational costs including personnel. Another factor to consider is that there are some long-term benefits of methane production that are generated from food scraps in the landfill. This methane could be collected at a future time, but may not be feasible if composting is implemented. While composting also generates methane, it is more difficult to capture and utilize the methane gas. Methane gas, which is natural gas, when collected from the landfill is intended to be used as a heat source for the landfill buildings. Any excess gas could be sold. 4 | P a g e LOCAL FOOD SCRAP COLLECTION REGULATIONS Another option is for the City of Brookings to write its own regulations. According to the State, the cities can establish its own regulations for the collection and transportation of wastes. Cities can opt to be more stringent than what will be required in the State’s local permit requirements. No additional review or approval would be required by the EPA. 74:27:17:02. Local governments responsible for waste management. Standards and responsibilities for frequency of collection, specifications, and maintenance of transfer stations receiving less than 500 tons of solid waste per year, standards for collection vehicles, and transportation of wastes to permitted facilities shall be defined by the local or regional person responsible for waste management. Local governmental agencies shall ensure compliance with department rules by each solid waste facility under their jurisdiction. SOUTH DAKOTA COMPARISON The only composting operation permitted to compost municipal solid waste (MSW) in South Dakota is the Rapid City Regional Landfill. The Rapid City Regional Landfill was permitted as an existing facility when the rules were passed in 1991. The Rapid City Regional Landfill constructed a Material Recovery Facility (MRF) in the 1980’s. The purpose of the MRF when originally built was to separate traditional recycling and organic material from household solid waste (industrial waste and commercial waste went directly to the landfill). Today traditional recycling is collected in a cart system similar to our operation with drop off locations for cardboard and paper products. As a result now the MRF’s primary function is to separate organic materials from the garbage that is destined for the landfill. Rapid City receives a large volume of organic material directly from grocery stores, restaurants, etc. Once the organic material is separated, it goes through a process of being tumbled in large vats, and then moved to buildings where the temperature and moisture are controlled until the material is considered compost. At this point it is blended with conventional yard waste compost. The Rapid City Regional Landfill makes three compost products. Yard waste compost (their largest volume), 50% MSW compost/50% yard waste compost blended, and 50% bio-solids (from their waste water plant) /50% yard waste compost blended. The cost of this operation is one of the reasons that the tipping fee for Rapid City Regional Landfill is $59.00/ton the highest in South Dakota. As a comparison the Brookings Landfill is $44.00/ton. COMPARISON OF OTHER SOUTH DAKOTA SOLID WASTE/COMPOSTING OPERATIONS Below is a comparison table of other South Dakota Solid Waste/Composting Operations. The information in the table was gathered from the various locations’ websites. Location Landfill Tipping Fee Curbside Collection of Food Scraps for Composting Use a transfer station Reason for transfer station Charge for accepting Yard Waste at composting Facility/Landfill Price of Finished Compost Brookings $44.00/ton No No $44.00/ton except free for Spring Cleanup and Fall Leaf disposal Free Brown County / Aberdeen $38.00/ton No No $-0- Free Huron $43.00/ton (Pierre) No Yes Garbage baled and $81.09 one-time fee for cart for curbside collection $15.00/ton 5 | P a g e hauled to Pierre, SD Mitchell $39.00/ton No No $4.00/month for curbside collection fee Free Pierre $43.00/ton No Yes Garbage baled and hauled to the landfill a few miles out of town $-0- $15.00/ton Rapid City $59.00/ton Yes* No $-0- $20/ton, but discounted to $5 (was free prior to 10/16) Sioux Falls $36.00/ton No No $10.00/ton Free Vermillion $46.50/ton No No $10.00/ton Free Watertown $33.00/ton No No $22.00/ton First 2 tons free; $20.00/ton for additional material Yankton $46.50/ton (Vermillion) No Yes Garbage hauled to landfill at Vermillion $-0- Free The City of Rapid City collects municipal solid waste (MSW) and hauls it to the Material Recovery Facility (MRF) at the Rapid City Landfill where the organic compostables are separated from the rest of the waste. The organic compostables are blended with 50% yard waste compost to make a finished product of 50% organic food waste and 50% yard waste. Rapid City also makes a compost product that is 50% yard waste and 50% bio-solids from their waste water plant. This facility was originally designed and permitted in the 1980's to separate traditional recycling, organic food waste, and landfill waste. They now collect traditional recycling curbside; so now there is no need to separate their recycling. MINNESOTA COMPARISON As part of this report the Sustainability Council researched how composting was being handled in Minnesota. Minnesota did amend their solid waste regulations in 2015 and recognized three different types of composting operations. The amended regulations added a distinct new category of composting identified as Source Separated Organics (SSO). The permitting requirements for a SSO facility are between the minimal requirements for composting yard waste and the very stringent requirements for composting municipal solid waste (MSW) according to Municipal Curbside Compostables Collection: What Works and Why? Minnesota does have permitted SSO and MSW composting sites. Below is a list put out by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). Many communities are testing or implementing programs to divert the entire organic waste stream, not just yard waste for composting. The MPCA has permitted the following solid waste/food waste facilities:  Creekside Organic Material Processing: Hutchinson  Dodge County Transfer and MSW Compost Facility: Mantorville  Empire Processing Facility: Rosemount  Full Circle Organics: Good Thunder 6 | P a g e  Mdewakanton Sioux Community Organics Recycling Facility: Shakopee  Prairieland Solid Waste Management: Truman  Swift County Compost/ Recycling Facility: Benson  Tri-County Organics: St. Cloud  WLSSD Source Separated Compost Facility: Duluth Some of the facilities listed above are privately owned and operated and some are publicly owned and operated. However, most of the source-separated organic material sites are privately owned and operated. Creekside Organic Material Processing is owned by the City of Hutchison. It is hoped that the softening of the regulations will allow more new sites to be establis hed and allow existing operations to expand. Currently, there is limited composting capacity for source separated organic material sites and municipal solid waste sites in Minnesota. There have been curbside composting programs started in Hennepin County (Minneapolis). There are 45 communities in Hennepin County (population of 1,168,431) as of 2013 twelve communities were participating in curbside collection of organics. This represented 17,300 households out of an estimated 300,000 households that receive curbside trash collection. This is a 5.76% participation rate. The county estimated that the average annual per capita residential set out rate for participating households is 108 pounds/year. The staff of Hennepin County is concerned that the limited capacity of the permitted sites in their area will slow the expansion of the curbside composting program. The community of Burnsville, MN (population 60,828) started a pilot program in 2002. However, they had to discontinue the pilot program in 2010 when the number of participating households dropped to 30. Another contributing factor to why they were forced to quit the pilot program was the cost to haul the organics to a permitted facility that was 35 miles away. There are some lessons that can be learned from the Minnesota pilot programs. The first lesson is that a permitted composting facility must be relatively close by. Hauling costs for any distance will be an issue. The second lesson is the importance of having the regulations soften ed to recognize source separated organic material sites as a distinct category for composting. The third lesson is the importance of public education and possibly some financial incentive to increase participation. KEY FACTORS In order to develop a successful and sustainable curbside composting program, there are several key factors that would need to be addressed: 1. Establishment of state permitting regulations by State of South Dakota and or local regulations by the City of Brookings. 2. Evaluate permitted processing facility options: A. Create a local permitted processing facility, or B. Evaluate access to another permitted facility, or C. Other considerations: 1) Are the anaerobic digesters at the Waste Water Treatment Plant an option? 2) Does the Waste Water Treatment Plant have capacity to allow mixing in additional curbside organic waste and would their regulations allow it? 7 | P a g e 3. Other facility factors: A. Distance to facility B. Capacity to accept specific waste C. Cost of hauling D. Additional regulations E. Contamination mitigation F. Types of food waste to accept 4. Evaluate funding options for facilities and operations 5. Research funding options for pilot programs 6. Residential participation: A. Program options: 1) Curbside 2) Backyard B. Participation estimate C. Evaluate incentive options 7. Private hauler cooperation 8. Commercial, Multi-Unit Residential, and Institutional Participation A. Participation estimate B. Incentives C. How do we target Commercial, Institutional and Multi-Unit Residential participation (biggest potential volume all hauled by private haulers)? 9. Operational: A. Trucks B. Containers C. Personnel costs D. Collection frequency 1) Seasonal yard waste E. Collection fee 1) Impact Landfill collection fees 2) Impact on Landfill tipping fees F. Facility costs G. Participation estimates 10. Public outreach and education efforts OPPORTUNITIES & BENEFITS The City of Brookings has several advantages that can be turned into benefits related to a curbside composting program. 1. Brookings has a very high rate of participation in the collection of curbside recyclables (nearly 80%), so the idea of another curbside collection would be easy to explain. According to the “2016 State of Curbside Report” that analyzed 465 cities nationwide, average participation rate is 54 percent. 8 | P a g e 2. Most of the industries and businesses in Brookings do a fantastic job of recycling or diverting waste from the landfill. As a result, the public is exposed to environmental protection not only at home but work too. 3. Since Brookings has a high awareness of environmental protection, it would be easy to get the public enthusiastic about a curbside composting program with adequate public education. 4. Brookings is a smaller community than those in the Twin City Metro Area, where the pilot programs were conducted. We have fewer barriers such as traffic, private garbage haulers, and easier public outreach in a smaller community. 5. The City of Brookings does have trucks, carts and collection routes already established, so modifications should be less painful depending on how the state amends the regulations. 6. Grant funding is currently available for a City sponsored curbside composting pilot program. 7. A curbside composting program should qualify for grants and/or loans from the SDDENR. The grant program typically requires a match, but the City of Brookings could get some funding to start a curbside composting program. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS 1. It is recommended the City of Brookings work in concert with the South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources to develop regulations that will apply to composting food scraps. Since the landfill is a permitted solid waste facility, any regulations developed would apply to the City’s operation as well as any privately owned facility. If possible, it would be advantageous to encourage the regulations be administered by the state as permit conditions versus administrative rules. Permit conditions allow the state to handle each solid waste facility on a case-by-case basis versus one-rule fits all. The state does have primacy for the administration of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), but must stay within the confines of the definitions of solid waste, which includes food waste as Municipal Solid Waste (MSW). Therefore, helping the state with examples of how to reword certain definitions to allow less restrictive composting regulations from Region 5, which includes Minnesota or Region 7, which includes Iowa, would be a good strategy. 2. Once regulations are created, the City of Brookings should encourage private development of a Source Separated Organic Material Site and collection service. The City could also consider developing its own local regulations and providing the service itself. At that point, the key factors cited above would require in-depth analysis. 3. Most cities initiate composting programs with a pilot program. Since large businesses and institutions generate the highest volume of waste, the Committee recommends, after regulations are in place, the City seek funding for a pilot program for the large consumer composting. 4. Since Brookings has a high awareness of environmental protection, Brookings should develop a public education program to promote residential backyard composting and its benefits. 9 | P a g e REFERENCES/RESOURCES  Municipal Curbside Compostables Collections: What Works & Why?, Department of Urban Studies and Planning, 2014  “The 2016 State of Curbside Report,” The Recycling Partnership DEFINITIONS (SOUTH DAKOTA ADMINISTRATIVE RULES 74:27:07:01) Collection: The gathering of solid waste from public and private places for recycling or disposal; Commercial Solid Waste: Solid waste generated by stores, offices, restaurants, warehouses, printing shops, service stations, and other nonmanufacturing, non-household sources; Composting: The controlled biological decomposition of the organic portion of solid waste in a manner resulting in an innocuous final product that may be applied to land for the purposes of soil conditioning; Existing facility: Any facility receiving solid waste before October 9, 1991, that is in compliance with past design and operational regulations and practices; Household waste: Solid waste derived from households, including single and multiple residences , hotels and motels, bunkhouses, ranger stations, crew quarters, campgrounds, picnic grounds, and day use recreation areas, but not waste from commercial activities, that is generated, stored, or present in a household; Leachate collection system: Any combination of landfill base slopes, liners, permeable zones, pipes, sumps, pumps, or retention structures that are designed, constructed, operated, and maintained to monitor, collect, and remove leachate generated in a solid waste landfill; Liner: A continuous layer of natural or synthetic materials beneath and on the sides of a surface impoundment, landfill, or landfill unit, which prohibits the downward or lateral escape of wastes, waste constituents, or leachate; Municipal solid waste landfill facility – MSWLF: A facility that receives any household waste for land disposal; New facility: A facility constructed after October 8, 1991; Source-separated compostable materials: (1) are separated at the source by waste generators for the purpose of preparing them for use as compost; (2) are collected separately from mixed municipal solid waste, and are governed by the licensing provisions of section 115A.93; (3) are comprised of food wastes, fish and animal waste, plant materials, diapers, sanitary products, and paper that is not recyclable because the commissioner has determined that no other person is willing to accept the paper for recycling; (4) are delivered to a facility to undergo controlled microbial degradation to yield a humus -like product meeting the agency's class I or class II, or equivalent, compost standards and where process rejects do not exceed 15 percent by weight of the total material delivered to the facility; and (5) may be delivered to a transfer station, mixed municipal solid waste processing facility, or recycling facility only for the purposes of composting or transfer to a composting facility, unless the commissi oner determines that no other person is willing to accept the materials. (Minnesota Codified Law 115A.93) - “Source-separated organic material.” A. "Source-separated organic material" means: (1) source-separated compostable materials and yard waste, as defined under Minnesota Statutes, section 115A.03, except sanitary products and diapers; (2) vegetative wastes generated from industrial or manufacturing processes that prepare food for human consumption; and (3) compostable materials that meet the standards in ASTM D6400 and ASTM D6868, incorporated by reference under part 7035.0605.§ B. Unless specifically permitted by the commissioner under part 7001.0150, source-separated organic material does not include: (1) animal wastes such as manure or carcasses; (2) fish wastes generated from industrial or manufacturing processes; (3) meat by-products generated from industrial or manufacturing processes; (4) sanitary products; or (5) diapers. C. Source-separated organic material does not include: (1) septage; or (2) sewage sludge, as defined in part 7041.0100, subpart 49. (Minnesota Administrative Rules 7035.0300 Definitions) THE 2016 STATE OF CURBSIDE REPORT REVISED JANUARY 31, 2017 PREPARED BY THE RECYCLING PARTNERSHIP ©2016 THE 2016 STATE OF CURBSIDE REPORT | THE RECYCLING PARTNERSHIP 2 Prepared with grant support from EPA Regions 3, 4, and 5. Special thanks to grant managers EPA Region 4. Lead Researcher: Cody Marshall Contributing Researchers and Authors: Karen Bandhauer, Liz Bedard, Anne Blindt, Dylan de Thomas, Rachel Eckert, Justin Gast, Jason Hale, Keefe Harrison, Jennie Knowlton, Jeff Meyers, Elizabeth Schussler, Rob Taylor, Steve Thompson Revised: January 2017 THE 2016 STATE OF CURBSIDE REPORT | THE RECYCLING PARTNERSHIP 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS WHAT IS THE STATE OF CURBSIDE RECYCLING? 4 LET’S MAKE SURE WE’RE ALL SPEAKING THE SAME LANGUAGE 6 METHODOLOGY: PROFILING BROAD U.S. TRENDS BY ASSESSING 7 COMMUNITY SPECIFICS ESTABLISHING POUNDS PER HOUSEHOLD AS A KEY 9 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR ALL RECYCLING IS LOCAL: LOOKING AT RECYCLING COLLECTION 11 KEY DATA POINTS ON THE STATE OF CURBSIDE RECYCLING 12 INDICATORS OF SUCCESS ACROSS DISPARATE REGIONS 16 AREAS OF OPPORTUNITY: WHERE CAN CURBSIDE RECYCLING PICK UP? 19 CONCLUSION 22 APPENDIX A: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 23 APPENDIX B: 2016 STATE OF U.S. CURBSIDE RECYCLING 24 INFOGRAPHIC THE 2016 STATE OF CURBSIDE REPORT | THE RECYCLING PARTNERSHIP 4 WHAT IS THE STATE OF CURBSIDE RECYCLING? More than ever before, Americans associate recycling as a common, everyday activity. This positive trend is captured in reports such as the 2015 Massachusetts’ Statewide Recycling Participation Study1 citing that 94% of the Massachusetts population reports to “mostly” or “always” recycle. Or the 2015 Shelton Group Study2 noting that 78% of U.S. consumers say “recyclable” and “recycled” are their most-favored green terms. Recycling is increasingly becoming part of the American ethos. But other reports show that the U.S. recycling collection infrastructure doesn’t always match those consumer expectations. Per the 2016 Sustainable Packaging Coalition Centralized Study on Availability of Recycling3, only 53% of the U.S. population has recycling automatically provided at their home. And of those homes, only 44% are served by recycling carts, a collection mechanism long recognized as being fundamental to maximizing collection opportunity and efficiency, as well as protecting the safety of sanitation workers. What’s missing? Data to better understand best management practices. Information is needed to clearly assess the current state of curbside recycling in the U.S. Appropriate data and metrics provide the feedback and evaluation mechanism to create effective recycling programs. Clear evidence on how local governments currently serve their citizens, as well as accurate assessments on trends for better recycling systems, are needed to properly inform entities, both public and private, on how best to maximize the ability to recover more recyclables. This assessment does just that. What is the state of curbside recycling in 2016? It is stronger in some places than in others. It’s a dynamic community-level program. It has opportunities abound. This report will both analyze data from the 465 curbside recycling programs from around the country studied, and also draw upon the knowledge, experience and research from the staff of The Recycling Partnership. Unless otherwise noted, all charts, figures and maps in the report are drawn from the data gathered for the project. 1 John M. Cole and Jeana McNeil, “MassDEP Statewide Recycling Participation 2015 Research Results,” Isurus Market Research and Consulting for MassDEP, September 2015. 2 Shelton Group, “Eco Pulse 2015 Special Report: The Buzz on Buzzwords,” Shelton Communications Group, Inc., 2015. 3 Sustainable Packaging Coalition, “2015-16 Centralized Study on Availability of Recycling,” prepared by RRS and Moore Recycling Associates, Inc., 2016. THE 2016 STATE OF CURBSIDE REPORT | THE RECYCLING PARTNERSHIP 5 465 CITIES IN THIS STUDY 357 AVERAGE LBS/HH/YR 82% OF CURBSIDE-COLLECTED CITIES, WITH SINGLE- STREAM COLLECTION 54% OF CURBSIDE-COLLECTED CITIES, WITH WEEKLY COLLECTION $47 NATIONAL MSW TIP FEE AVERAGE SNAPSHOT: NATIONAL CURBSIDE RECYCLING FINDINGS 5 STUDYING CURBSIDE RECYCLING COLLECTION TODAY SO WE CAN SHAPE TOMORROW. Residential curbside recycling is the most convenient and effective way to capture bottles, cans, containers and paper from the home. This report seeks to take a snapshot of the present state of curbside recycling, today, in 2016. The goal of the report is to identify and highlight variables and attributes that pushed programs towards varying degrees of success or, conversely, have held programs back from recovering more of the recyclable materials that are available via this collection stream. What were some notable trends common across the U.S. curbside recycling system? First, curbside recycling success most often stems from strong community engagement wherein a public action influences recovery in the home. Second, there is a lack of consistency with how communities educate about curbside recycling programs, leading to confusion and frustration regarding understanding what is recyclable and where and how to find program information. Third, and perhaps most importantly, there is no silver bullet, no single characteristic that could be changed, that would allow a struggling program to suddenly transform into one that is best-in-class. From single-stream collection of recyclables, to making sure that recycling collection is as automatic for single-family homes as trash pick-up, to clear and concise communication about what materials belong in the recycling cart – there are many successful strategies to move recycling forward. Let’s look at some common characteristics that all successful programs have. Let’s also examine how to improve participation, recover more material per household to provide a cleaner stream of recyclable materials to the market that needs them. THE 2016 STATE OF CURBSIDE REPORT | THE RECYCLING PARTNERSHIP 6 LET’S MAKE SURE WE’RE ALL SPEAKING THE SAME LANGUAGE. FOR READERS OF THIS REPORT, IT WILL HELP TO EXPLAIN SOME COMMON TERMS. “Automatic collection” means that households in a given community are automatically included in a recycling program, much in the way that almost all communities will automatically provide a means for trash pick-up and hauling. “Curbside” refers to recycling programs that serve households by collecting recyclables in bags, bins, or carts. Typically, these programs do not include multi-family facilities above four units per building. This report focuses on trends and opportunities for the U.S. curbside recycling system. “Opt-in,” or “subscription service,” is for communities that require some level of household action or engagement in order to initiate curbside recycling pick-up, whether it be simply calling a city or waste hauler and requesting a cart or bin for recycling, or having to research and contract with a hauler in the area to set up and be charged for the service. “Public action” is a term that refers to a trigger or tool that a local government implements to influence curbside recycling collection. Examples of this include: licensing agreements or franchises that mandate recycling collection be provided with garbage collection; delivering a container to every home in the community and mandating automatic collection. “Private hauler” is a company that has been contracted by a city, municipality, or an individual, to provide curbside pick-up service for trash and recyclables. “Public hauler” are those that are owned and operated by a municipality. This typically means that a city or municipality own and operate the trucks that service a given community. “Single-stream” collection of recyclables is the practice of collecting commingled recyclable materials all in one container at the curbside. This varies from “dual-stream” or “multi-stream” collection, which aggregates fiber, such as newspaper and cardboard, and bottles, cans and other containers in two or more receptacles. There is ample and ongoing research about the comparative efficacy and financial and environmental benefits of each method of collection, but was outside the scope of this research. BIN CART THE 2016 STATE OF CURBSIDE REPORT | THE RECYCLING PARTNERSHIP 7 METHODOLOGY: PROFILING BROAD U.S. TRENDS BY ASSESSING COMMUNITY SPECIFICS. The curbside recycling analysis in this study represents 465 incorporated communities geographically dispersed throughout the U.S. The cities represented include: at least three incorporated areas in each state, other than Alaska and Hawaii; 250 of the largest cities in the country, by population; and each state capital. At least 20% of the homes eligible for curbside service (one to four units) are represented in each of the 10 EPA Regions. In all, this study represents 28% of the homes in the U.S. that could potentially receive curbside recycling service, and represents a selection of communities reflective of the diversity of curbside programmatic attributes. While the selection of communities presents a statistically significant grouping, it is not a picture of the curbside recycling industry in total. Because the report includes the 250 most-populous cities, as well as every state capital, there may be a slight overrepresentation in the states that have more of the highly- populated municipalities. Many of these populous areas have more developed programs, which may have lead to an increase of the amount of recyclables collected reported from each state. U.S. CITIES ASSESSED FOR THIS REPORT THE 2016 STATE OF CURBSIDE REPORT | THE RECYCLING PARTNERSHIP 8 When considering this sample of curbside recycling programs and the attributes that influence program performance, it is important to remember that all recycling programs are managed at the local level. There are approximately 20,000 incorporated communities4 in the U.S., each with their own governing bodies, each making unique solid waste and recycling decisions. The 465 curbside recycling programs in this study are not a representative sample of all the curbside programs in the U.S. Because there are numerous programmatic variables among cities and curbside recycling management systems this study provides a strong cross-section. The results are indicative of curbside recycling programs in the country and how certain attributes can affect performance. Much care was given to ensure the accuracy of the information. The curbside attributes for each community were first evaluated via each community’s website. Each community was then contacted to assess the accuracy of posted information and to dig deeper into programmatic specifics. Roughly 80% of the communities participated in these phone conversations. Four communities asked to be removed from the study and were. In some instances, conversations with materials recovery facility (MRF) operators and/ or regional EPA offices were conducted. A rigorous evaluation was undertaken by The Recycling Partnership staff and outside technical sources including the opportunity for each state recycling or solid waste office to review and comment on the data. 1 2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 9 10 10 WA OR ID CA NV UT CO WY MT SD ND AZ NM OK AR LA MS AL GA SC NC VA PA WV NY VT NH MA TN KY OHINIL WI MI KS NE IA MN MO FL DC MD DE NJ CT RI MA TX AK PR VI HI U.S. EPA REGIONS MAP 4 National League of Cities, “Number of Municipal Governments & Population Distribution” using U.S. Census Bureau data, 2007. THE 2016 STATE OF CURBSIDE REPORT | THE RECYCLING PARTNERSHIP 99 ESTABLISHING POUNDS PER HOUSEHOLD AS A KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR. One key metric used to identify curbside recycling performance is the evaluation of pounds of recyclable materials collected per household, per year (lbs/hh/yr). This metric is referred to throughout the document and calculated by taking the annual curbside tons, converting to pounds and dividing by the total number of homes in the community that are eligible for curbside service. For example, if a city that recycles 20,000 tons of material annually from their curbside program and has 100,000 homes, but only 40% of the homes are signed up for the service, the total lbs/hh/yr would be 400 because the calculation includes all 100,000 homes, not just those that are serviced or participating. Annual Curbside Recycling Tons x 2000 LBS Total Single-Family Homes in Community This metric is used to understand what communities are producing per home on average. This includes those homes that recycle everything possible as well as those homes that do not recycle. This is not to be confused with pounds per household served, or pounds per household participating, both of which measure the pounds of recyclables of the single-family households that use the service, as opposed to the entire curbside population of a given municipality. The average pounds per household metric provides consistency when comparing performance among communities and provides a budgeting figure for communities to use when expanding curbside recycling. If the city could not provide the number of single-family homes (classified as one to four units) in the community, or a city representative could not be reached, data from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey5 was used to establish the number of homes eligible for service. 5 U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2015 Data Release. THE 2016 STATE OF CURBSIDE REPORT | THE RECYCLING PARTNERSHIP 10 6 Scott Mouw and Rob Taylor, “Seeing the Peak,” Resource Recycling, May 2016 • The states that are shaded out did not have enough data points to show an average lbs/hh/yr at the state level. • This is a national average of the surveyed cities, not a true national average of all cities in the U.S. • When reporting residential curbside tonnage, there are always outliers due to the inability of communities to separate the curbside tonnage from other recycling program weights. In this case, outliers were removed by applying statistical methods including test methods. 541 483 507 24 394 486 316 31 250 44 444 233 364 321 207 239 263 337 329 183 541 360 280 238 345 34 229 225 356 381 369184 344 35 512 401 278 486387 48 329312 307 186 524 370 440 DC STATE RECOVERY OF SURVEYED CITIES NATIONAL AVERAGE: 357 LBS/HH/YR In some cases, communities provided recycling tonnage figures that may have included drop-off, multi-family, or commercial weights together with curbside tonnage throwing off the lbs/hh/yr figures. To minimize miscalculation, outliers were disregarded. WASTE CHARACTERIZATIONS AND RECOVERY RATE STUDIES HAVE SHOWN U.S. HOUSEHOLDS ANNUALLY GENERATE BETWEEN 800 AND 1,000 POUNDS OF RECYCLABLES THAT COULD BE PLACED IN A RECYCLING CONTAINER.6 THE 2016 STATE OF CURBSIDE REPORT | THE RECYCLING PARTNERSHIP 1111 ALL RECYCLING IS LOCAL LOOKING AT RECYCLING COLLECTION The responsibility of who collects the curbside recycling in the U.S. differs greatly depending on the part of the country is being studied. The only standard is that there is no standard. This is important because this has numerous effects on how local entities plan, measure and pay for recycling around the country and challenging to analyze varying programmatic attributes as they relate to performance. Further distinctions exist when considering state and regional perspectives. For instance, Florida, Indiana, Kentucky and Oregon are typically overseen at the county level, while Ohio, Virginia and parts of California have authorities that oversee multiple jurisdictions. In both the Southeast and Northeast, the most popular service has communities collecting recyclables automatically using municipal staffers and public-owned equipment or contracting with one private hauler to provide collection for an entire community. In the West, communities in Colorado find opt-in most preferable, either through franchise or an open- market approach, and communities in Oregon, Nevada, and Washington typically hold franchising or licensing agreements with specific haulers. And in most of those states and regions, there are outliers to what is “standard.” There appears to be no correlation to effective collection of recyclables and whether the material was collected by private or public entities. There is, however, a correlation between the amount of material recovered and how the systems are established and managed. THE 2016 STATE OF CURBSIDE REPORT | THE RECYCLING PARTNERSHIP 12 392 432 338 356 378 367 217 311 439 424 371 420 283 372 284 351 320 286 348 456 448 345 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Overall LB/HH/YR RECOVERED EPA REGION LB/HH RECOVERY BY HAULER TYPE PRIVATE HAULER PUBLIC HAULER CONTAINER TYPE BY REGION Curbside carts were found to be the predominant collection method in seven of the 10 Regions, being used in 61% of the overall surveyed cities. Bins were used in as many as 40% of the communities in Region 2 and as little as 3% in Region 8 and 15% overall. Bags were still being used in 4% of the surveyed communities. COLLECTION FREQUENCY Comparing the frequency of collection of curbside recycling, the difference between weekly and every-other-week (EOW) pick-up was small, with the average lbs/hh/ yr of recyclables collected reaching 366 weekly vs 362 EOW. PUBLIC VS. PRIVATE COLLECTION The difference in amount of recyclables collected by public or private entities whether contracted with the community or subscription based was not very large, with 371 lbs/hh/yr collected by private haulers on average against 345 lbs/ hh/yr collected by public haulers. 366 362 100 200 300 400 LBS/HH/YR EOW Collection Weekly Collection LB/HH Recovery By Recovery Frequency Nationwide KEY DATA POINTS ON THE STATE OF CURBSIDE RECYCLING % DISTRIBUTION OF CITIES BY CONTAINER TYPE LBS/HH/YR RECOVERY BY COLLECTION FREQUENCY NATIONWIDE LBS/HH/YR RECOVERY BY HAULER TYPE THE 2016 STATE OF CURBSIDE REPORT | THE RECYCLING PARTNERSHIP 13 AVERAGE LBS/HH/YR AND MSW TIP FEE BY REGION Along with data about curbside recycling efforts, information on the cost of disposal was also gathered. While there is some correlation between high tip fee and high recovery rates, as shown in the regional bar charts below, it was not a 1:1 correlation. For example, when the tip fee was over $40/ton, municipalities averaged 380 lbs/hh/yr. When it was below $40/ton, the average STATE RECOVERY AVERAGES LBS/HH/YR BY EPA REGIONS RECOVERY AVERAGES LBS/HH/YR MSW TIP FEE AVERAGES $/TE 100 200 300 400 LBS/HH/YR Tip Fee over $40/ton Tip Fee under $40/ton 380 340 LB/HH RECOVERY TIP FEE was 340 lbs/hh/yr, a spread that was smaller than expected. This was largely due to a number of municipalities in high-tip fee environments with low recovery rates, as well as municipalities in low tip fee environments having high recovery rates. More detailed research on this specific topic is needed to draw further conclusions. LB/HH/YR RECOVERY TIP FEE THE 2016 STATE OF CURBSIDE REPORT | THE RECYCLING PARTNERSHIP 14 101 85 49 33 26 31 34 41 37 44 61 36 47 32 34 36 27 22 59 31 33 36 29 40 34 31 38 35 32 6636 83 62 121 53 71 67 64 32 77 8543 563846 46 26 62 45 DC AVERAGE MSW TIP FEE BY STATE 101 85 49 33 26 31 34 41 37 44 61 36 47 32 34 36 27 22 59 31 33 36 29 40 34 31 38 35 32 66 36 83 62 121 53 71 67 64 32 77 8543 563846 46 26 62 45 DC THE 2016 STATE OF CURBSIDE REPORT | THE RECYCLING PARTNERSHIP 15 364 488 277 185 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 SINGLE STREAM SINGLE-STREAM + GLASS FIBER + CONTAINERS (DUAL-STREAM) OTHER LB/HH/YR RECOVERED LB/HH RECOVERY BY MATERIAL MIX SINGLE STREAM SINGLE STREAM + GLASS FIBER + CONTAINERS OTHER LBS/HH/YR ON AVERAGE One of the data points that had the greatest variance in the cities that we studied was material mix. Single- stream collection of curbside recyclables garnered a national average of 364 lbs/hh/yr, while fiber and containers collected separately (often known as dual-stream) garnered almost a hundred pounds less, with 277 lbs/hh/yr. Single-stream with glass collected in a separate container amassed 488 lbs/hh/yr. While this method, also known as single-stream plus glass, has been found to be effective in some communities, it should be noted that the high figure was weighted by other factors that influence greater resident participation. These include community and private hauler licensing agreements that trigger recycling collection when garbage pick-up is contracted, or making recycling collection an automatic service for every household. LBS/HH/YR RECOVERY BY MATERIAL MIX 379 258 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 OVERALL WITH GLASS OVERALL WITHOUT GLASS LB/HH/YR RECOVERED LB/HH RECOVERY WITH AND WITHOUT GLASS OVERALL WITH GLASS OVERALL WITHOUT GLASS LBS/HH/YR RECOVERY WITH AND WITHOUT GLASS CLARIFYING GLASS AND RECYCLING METRICS When measured by weight, glass makes up a substantial portion of the recycling stream, frequently ranging from 15 to 25% of single- stream collection. Unfortunately, some programs are unable to accept glass at the curb, which obviously influences the pounds of recyclables recovered by household. On average, programs that accept glass recover 379 lbs/hh/yr and programs that do not accept glass average 258 lbs/hh/yr. THE 2016 STATE OF CURBSIDE REPORT | THE RECYCLING PARTNERSHIP 16 INDICATORS OF SUCCESS ACROSS DISPARATE REGIONS To determine which best practices result in the most pounds per household recovered, we examined 20% of the top-performing communities (collecting 400 lbs/hh/yr and higher). As stated before, there was not one individual attribute that indicates success, but several that affect performance and trends became evident. The majority of the highest-performing programs collect material single-stream, collect curbside recycling automatically, use an automated cart-based system, and have public engagement that influences curbside recycling to occur in their community. LBS/HH/YR RECOVERY SINGLE-STREAM Of the top performing communities in the survey, 96% collected material single-stream. As noted before, the average lbs/hh/yr for the U.S. was 357, but there were communities that collected considerably more than that, some in excess of 500 lbs/hh/yr. Single-stream collection of recyclables does tend to get the most weight on average (364 lbs/hh/yr), when compared against other collection methods. AUTOMATIC COLLECTION Of the communities surveyed with over 400 lbs/hh/yr recovery averages, 93% provide service to their residents automatically, meaning each single-family residential unit located within a given 271 389 264 374 247 359 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 BIN CART OPT-IN AUTO NO PUBLIC ACTION PUBLIC ACTION LB/HH/YR RECOVERED THE 2016 STATE OF CURBSIDE REPORT | THE RECYCLING PARTNERSHIP 17 jurisdiction is provided a collection receptacle and is included in a regularly scheduled collection route without the need for the resident to take any action. The alternative is an “opt-in” style system where the resident must take action on their own to receive service. This type of system averages 264 lbs/hh/yr nationally. Opt-in programs can be successful with additional policy provisions, such as making recycling service mandatory when opting-into trash service, bundling garbage and recycling together with a cost structure that stays the same if recycling is refused, or changing to an “opt-out” method. Without those provisions, however, opt-in/subscription- style systems can create an undue burden on the average citizen of a community. CART-BASED COLLECTION 83% of the top-performing communities collect recyclables using wheeled carts with lids with the large majority being 95 gallons. These carts do not only provide more capacity for those residents that are currently recycling to recycle more, but convenience for those that do not recycle to start participating. PROFILE OF THE HIGHEST-PERFORMING CITIES SURVEYED (OVER 400 LBS/HH/YR) 96% SINGLE-STREAM COLLECTION 93% PROVIDE COLLECTION AUTOMATICALLY 83% COLLECT IN CARTS 100% PUBLIC ACTION WHEN THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ARE ENGAGED IN THE RECYCLING PROGRAM AND HAVE TRIGGERED AN “ACTION” TO INCENTIVIZE RECYCLING IS WHEN YOU SEE THE MOST SUCCESS. THE 2016 STATE OF CURBSIDE REPORT | THE RECYCLING PARTNERSHIP 18 bundles garbage and recycling or providing recycling service to every home automatically without a special “sign-up.” For example, consider two cities where both have “opt-in” style programs requiring residents to request trash and recycling service via a private hauler. City A has a local ordinance mandating that recycling is automatically offered with trash service. City B has no local ordinance to mandate that haulers offer recycling, thus leaving it completely open as to how service providers decide to offer recycling. While on the face, it appears that City A and B have the same type of program, City A will almost always have a more successful curbside program diverting more lbs/hh/yr. Some communities collect single-stream plus glass in a separate container. Those communities surveyed with this material mix averaged 488 lbs/hh/yr, exampling of how one attribute cannot impact success alone. While these programs show high performance, when digging deeper, there are other factors in place in the locales that use that style of collection. Often the communities using this method implement hauler licensing agreements that obligate haulers to offer recycling collection with garbage collection. PUBLIC ACTION The most successful programs are seen when local governments are engaged in the recycling program and have triggered an “action” to incentivize recycling. When evaluating the communities with over 400 lbs/ hh/yr, 100% of those communities implemented some type of action that influenced curbside collection to occur in their community. The community can influence recycling in a few different ways, such as creating a licensing agreement or franchise that 100 200 300 400 LBS/HH/YR No Public Action Public Action 247 359 LB/HH Recovery By Public Action Badge LBS/HH/YR RECOVERY PUBLIC ACTION THE 2016 STATE OF CURBSIDE REPORT | THE RECYCLING PARTNERSHIP 19 AREAS OF OPPORTUNITY WHERE CAN CURBSIDE RECYCLING PICK UP? While one conclusion of this report would be that there is no one solution to fix all ailing curbside recycling programs, another would be that not all regional assumptions are borne out. There are numerous areas where curbside recycling programs can be supported and grown around the U.S. In researching this report, as well as using experience of The Recycling Partnership staff, we identified plentiful aspects that could be improved with the following actions. YOU CAN’T MANAGE WHAT YOU DON’T MEASURE Data is imperative to program success and planning. In some communities, data tracking is embedded in programs, in others there is not an institutional knowledge or collection of information. At a minimum, communities should know and report to the state, the following information: • Number of households (single-family and multi-family) • Number of households serviced by curbside collection • Materials accepted in program • A breakdown of annual tonnage by program: • Curbside • Multi-family • Commercial • Drop-off Once that information is gathered, analysis of the types of investments needed in each region to improve program performance can be accomplished. For example, a municipality could identify the number of homes that may not have service and identify the capital and operational budgets needed to get these households service. AUTOMATIC SERVICE How can programs be sure they serve all the citizens in their care? By providing the same level of access to all. As shown in the data collected for this report, opt-in or subscription service underperforms in comparison to automatic collection, and pulled in almost 100 lbs/hh/yr less on an annual basis. Adopting automatic collection is one of the simplest strategies identified by this repor t to improve program performance. No matter which type of collection method a program is using, whether it be public or private, single-stream or dual-stream collection, bin or cart, moving to automatic collection should be the norm. And if a community does have opt-in service, it should be automatic -- if a resident signs up for garbage service, recycling collection is bundled with it. THE 2016 STATE OF CURBSIDE REPORT | THE RECYCLING PARTNERSHIP 20 CONSISTENT MESSAGING “What is recyclable?” is a central question among program participants and program coordinators and is one of the most widely varying answers in the survey. For example, we identified 13 different methods used to describe the types of fiber that is accepted in different curbside programs, 16 distinct ways plastic packaging was characterized, seven disparate manners that metallics were described, and seemingly endless combinations of describing the full material mix that is accepted. Harmonization of accepted program materials across communities and regions is essential to robust public participation without unnecessary and potentially damaging confusion. CONSISTENT INFORMATION Both from the research collected and in our experience, many communities and municipalities do not provide easy-to-access and easy-to-understand recycling-related information. The reasons behind this are as numerous as the communities identified in this study. From websites that need updating to a simple lack of staffing, to out-of-date or missing literature, many communities need to seek out and use available tools and resources to update the recycling-related information offered to the public. BINS TO CARTS Moving from bins to curbside rollcarts for the collection of recyclables is another key area that provides consistently higher weight of materials. Carts brought in over 100 lbs/hh/yr above the average weight from bins (389 lbs/hh/yr vs. 271 lbs/hh/yr, respectively) annually. In a community of 50,000 homes, that equates to almost 3,000 new tons each year. HUB & SPOKE In regions that are not well-served by MRF infrastructure, as well as in areas of the country that currently lack recycling collection to support MRFs, pooling and hauling of materials can help the economics behind curbside recycling service. This concept is called “hub-and-spoke” referring to the ability for smaller or more remote communities, or “spokes,” to connect to a larger community or city, which acts as a central pooling “hub.” This is a well-established concept for garbage collection and management. Not every community has a landfill, so they use transfer stations. This widely accepted practice should be mirrored for recycling collection and management. Communities should use existing transfer station infrastructure to add space and equipment for recycling transfer, and if it does not exist, funding should be made available for the development of spokes for recycling. In some parts of the U.S., for example Regions 6, 7, and 8, the hub-and- spoke model has started to gain traction and by adopting this strategy, communities in more rural areas can gain access to the efficiency benefits. THE 2016 STATE OF CURBSIDE REPORT | THE RECYCLING PARTNERSHIP 21 MRF-SHEDS The health of the recycling industry is inexorably connected to the MRFs that sort out all recyclables collected curbside throughout the U.S. These MRFs are often fed from multiple cities, with each managed independently. A MRF-shed is a way of framing regional systems of MRFs, allowing for consistency of language throughout a region’s programs, and allowing for consistency of how materials are promoted. While a MRF may have a set list of key marketable recyclable materials, it’s not uncommon for different cities to have differing acceptable material lists. This variability within a region can lead to consumer confusion as they travel between home, work and play, and it can equate to a contamination problem for these systems of MRFs. Just as a watershed can draw or collect water through a geographic region, so, too, can a MRF-shed draw recyclable materials to it. MRF-sheds can also consume different materials depending on the region, which, in turn, has influence on accepted materials in municipal curbside collection programs. Thinking about MRF infrastructure in this way can provide for markets the ability to plan for existing streams of feedstock. WAKING THE SLEEPING GIANT OF MULTI-FAMILY RECYCLING While this study focuses on curbside recycling, during the research it became clear that there is a great opportunity to understand and improve the other major form of residential recycling – multi- family collection. The 465 communities in this study have roughly 36 million residential units. Of that 36 million, only 25 million are eligible for curbside collection, leaving 30% of the homes in these communities out of this assessment. Multi-family homes do not have a consistent collection system in this country and are thus difficult to measure. While some local governments have strong multi-family collection programs, many more do not because they are often considered “commercial” properties. Furthermore, without regulations from the local entity, many are built with little room for collection containers or lack proper access to collection vehicles. Some states, such as California, have implemented strategies to ensure these homes are provided recycling service, but the large majority of the country still needs support in this area. Understanding the best management practices for multi-family collection is an essential step forward. This should be coupled with funding to support local governments in the operation of multi-family programs around the country. THE 2016 STATE OF CURBSIDE REPORT | THE RECYCLING PARTNERSHIP 22 CONCLUSION Residential curbside recycling is the most convenient way for a resident of any community to recycle and the most effective way to capture bottles, cans and paper from the home. However, local government solid waste and public works departments need more support, both financially and in regional strategic planning. Individual attributes like container type, tip fee, and service type cannot alone affect recovery. Rather, it is a mix of best management practices and tools which communities need to boost performance. Some of those practices include: • Public Action: Communities need proven strategies such as delivery of recycling carts to every household and ensure equal availability to recycling collection service as garbage. • Local-Level Information: Communities need access to techniques that provide better customer service to residents who need quick answers online or via phone. • Measurement and Data: Simple and consistent programmatic measurement protocols and reporting at the state level to truly understand the scope of work that is needed to grow recovery. • Supporting Broader Pockets of Collection: And we need to focus on MRF-sheds through hub-and-spoke infrastructure to ensure every region of the country has an efficient and effective pathway to deliver collected materials to a stable market. It is important to note that the key attributes highlighted in this research are the most straightforward program metrics to extrapolate. Continued research and stronger reporting is needed to understand attributes such as: how specific educational pieces influence recovery; how established programs affect success over time; the quality of material collected; cost benefit analysis of cer tain attributes; and how particular funding mechanisms or policy drivers may influence success. The recycling industry relies on these communities for good-quality supply of materials. At the same time, local governments have competing programmatic priorities with constrained budgets, and there is a lack of staffing to make these much-needed improvements. This research has identified the attributes that can and will drive recovery, but the attributes do not drive recovery alone. More strategy is needed to make system-wide improvements. To reach EPA’s 2017-2022 recovery goals and individual community goals, tools and resources must be provided at the state and local level. These tools and resources take time, funding, and partnership. States and Regions can target grants to support the key attributes highlighted in this research, but grants will go further and support recovery faster, when leveraged with other industry partners throughout the supply chain all while building better educational and operational tools, focused programmatic reporting mechanisms, and holistic system solutions to ensure curbside collection is an effective piece of every community’s sustainable materials management. 23 APPENDIX A: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The 2016 State of Curbside Report is a snapshot of the performance of curbside recycling programs in a number of key communities across the U.S. Over 400 cities were profiled to understand key recycling program attributes and to evaluate their performance in recovering household recyclables at the curb. This type of performance data is critical to build a national understanding of the recycling landscape, to create key learnings of why some programs perform better than others, and to create a future roadmap of strategic changes needed to help the system to reach its full potential in supporting the transition to a circular economy and a holistic sustainable materials management approach. Data collected about these geographically diverse programs included frequency of collection, container type, municipal solid waste tip fees, material mix, collection approach, and program ownership for the purposes of understanding program performance. The Partnership then used a pounds per household per year metric to consistently place all programs on a uniform footing for measuring their curbside recovery. Several key conclusions regarding data and program performance are presented in this report, which include: • Waste audits have shown that single-family homes generate between 800 and 1,000 pounds of recyclable packaging per year. The simple average from this research showed a recovery of 357 pounds per household per year, suggesting an average recovery of 35-45% of possible recyclables in the home for the profiled cities. The opportunity to recover more is clear. • There is no single program feature that drives program performance, but rather it is a combination of factors that build off one another. However, some key indicators of successful programs emerged, with almost all top-performing programs sharing the following four characteristics: • More optimization is possible to help underperforming communities build off the success of stronger programs. For example, hub-and-spoke models will grow in importance in moving forward to manage costs while increasing collection. Growing the recovery of packaging will take a strategic systems approach of expanding best practices through partnership. To accelerate this process, communities will continue to need dedicated technical support and resources from the NGO community, state offices, and other groups and teams to make step changes and drive program improvements. Through better data, the roadmap to grow packaging recovery rates across the country can be created. Simply put, what gets measured, gets managed. 35-45% POSSIBLE RECYCLABLES RECOVERED* THE 2016 STATE OF CURBSIDE REPORT | THE RECYCLING PARTNERSHIP DISCARDED RECOVERED CART-BASED COLLECTION AUTOMATIC SERVICE FOR ALL RESIDENTS SINGLE-STREAM COLLECTION COMMUNITY ACTIONS THAT RAISED THE PRIORITY OF RECYCLING 24 THE 2016 STATE OF CURBSIDE REPORT | THE RECYCLING PARTNERSHIP 271 389 264 374 247 359 BIN CART OPT-IN AUTO NO PUBLIC ACTION PUBLIC ACTION CONSISTENT MESSAGING Uniform communication of accepted program materials across communities and regions is essential to robust public participation without unnecessary and potentially damaging confusion. CONSISTENT INFORMATION Many communities need to seek out and use available tools and resources to update or include information to better tell the public what to recycle at the curb. MRF-SHEDS It’s not uncommon for different cities to have differing acceptable material lists. This can lead to consumer confusion as they travel between home, work and play, and it can equate to a contamination problem for these MRFs. COLLECTION IN CARTS Carts brought in over 100 lbs/hh/yr above the average weight from bins (389 lbs/hh/yr vs. 271 lbs/hh/yr, respectively) annually. HUB & SPOKE Pooling and hauling of materials can help the economics behind curbside recycling servie. Communities should use existing transfer station infrastructure to add space and equipment for recycling transfer. MULTI-FAMILY RECYCLING Multi-family collection is largely underserved with little consistency in collection methods. More research is needed to understand best management practices. METHODOLOGY and KEY FINDINGS This study evaluated 465 incorporated communities representing • At least 20% of the homes eligible for curbside service in each of the 10 EPA Regions. • 28% of the single family (1-4 units) homes in the U.S. that could potentially receive curbside recycling service. APPENDIX B: 2016 STATE OF CURBSIDE REPORT AREAS OF OPPORTUNITY - STEPS TO INCREASE RESIDENTIAL RECOVERY PUBLIC ACTION AUTOMATIC SERVICE Creating a licensing agreement that bundles garbage and recycling to every home automatically is one of the simplest strategies identified to improve program performance. MEASUREMENT AND DATA At a minimum, communities should know and report to the state, the following info: 1 - Number of households with curbside collection 2 - Materials accepted in program 3 - Breakdown of annual tonnage by program: • Curbside • Multi-family • Commercial • Drop-off LOCAL-LEVEL INFORMATION SUPPORTING BROADER POCKETS OF COLLECTION AN AVERAGE OF 357 LB/HH/YR RECYCLABLES ARE RECOVERED 35-45% OF POTENTIAL RECYCLABLES ARE COLLECTED SUGGESTING ONLY 94% Massachusetts residents report to “mostly” or “always” recycle1 78% report “recyclable” and “recycled” are their most-favored green terms2 Only 53% of US population have curbside recycling provided automatically3 Only 44% of the single-family population with curbside recycling have a cart3 94%78%53%44% 1 John M. Cole and Jeana McNeil, “MassDEP Statewide Recycling Participation 2015 Research Results,” Isurus Market Research and Consulting for MassDEP, September 2015. 2 Shelton Group, “Eco Pulse 2015 Special Report: The Buzz on Buzzwords,” Shelton Communications Group, Inc., 2015. 3 Sustainable Packaging Coalition, “2015-16 Centralized Study on Availability of Recycling,” prepared by RRS and Moore Recycling Associates, Inc., 2016. Recent studies have identified the need for continued growth and support of curbside recycling. CONSUMERS WANT TO RECYCLE CONSUMERS VALUE RECYCLING ACCESS IS LIMITED MOST PROGRAMS NEED SUPPORT THE 2016 STATE OF CURBSIDE REPORT | THE RECYCLING PARTNERSHIP 25 Published December, 2016. DISCLAIMER: The data, insights and conclusions in this document are based on primary research conducted by The Recycling Partnership. The conclusions and views expressed in this document do not necessarily reflect the views of our funding partners. To learn more, please contact us at info@recyclingpartnership.org. About The Recycling Partnership The Recycling Partnership (recyclingpartnership.org) is a national nonprofit transforming recycling in towns all across America. At The Recycling Partnership, we believe that recycling is fundamental to a healthy environment and economy. Every day, we work hand-in-hand with communities and companies, continuously innovating to improve recycling systems. Because when we do, jobs are created, our environment is protected, and communities thrive. Since 2003, we have been delivering solutions for measurable change through collaboration, assistance, and data. This important work is made possible through grants and support from these funders: City of Brookings Staff Report Brookings City & County Government Center, 520 Third Street Brookings, SD 57006 (605) 692-6281 phone (605) 692-6907 fax File #:RES 17-074,Version:1 Action on Resolution 17-074, a Resolution authorizing Real Estate Exchange Agreement between the City of Brookings and Brookings County. Summary: The agreement provides for the City deeding a portion of the Dakota Nature Park currently leased to the Outdoor Adventure Center (OAC), to Brookings County in exchange for the City acquiring the County Resource Center, with compensation of $500,000. This agreement is in accordance with the Letter of Intent for the Exchange of Real Property. Background: Brookings County will be assuming the property and operations of the Outdoor Adventure Center; and desires to also own the property that has been leased from the City to the OAC. The County intends to have 4-H operations primarily run from this facility. The City wishes to acquire the County Resource Center, owned by Brookings County, but attached to the Swiftel Center and on land owned by the City, as expansion opportunities for the Swiftel Center. Fiscal Impact: The agreement provides for a real estate exchange in addition to the City of Brookings providing compensation in the amount of $500,000 to Brookings County for the County Resource Center building. Payments will be made with equal installments of $100,000 over a five-year period beginning in 2017. Payments will be made from Fund 213, the Public Improvement Fund, and have been budgeted in the Capital Improvement Plan. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval. Attachments: Resolution Real Estate Exchange Agreement Letter of Intent for the Exchange of Real Property City of Brookings Printed on 8/1/2017Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ Resolution 17-074 Resolution Authorizing the Exchange of Real Estate Be It Resolved by the City Council of the City of Brookings, South Dakota as follows: Whereas, in accordance with SDCL 6-5-1, and for the purpose of acquisition of real property to expand its Swiftel Center facilities, the City desires to acquire from the County of Brookings ("County"), the following described property: Parcel "A" A portion of the northwest corner of Lot Five (5) in Wiese Addition to the City of Brookings, County of Brookings, State of South Dakota, located at 826- 32nd Avenue, Brookings, South Dakota, and referred to as the County Resource Building, and Whereas, the City of Brookings no longer requires the following described property referred to as Parcel "B" because Parcel "B" will no longer be subject to a long-term lease to the Brookings Outdoor Adventure Center. Accordingly, the City proposes to convey the following described property and pay additional monetary compensation of $500,000.00 to the County of Brookings in exchange for the above-described property. Parcel "B" is described as follows: Parcel "B" Tract 2, Nature Park Addition in the Southeast Quarter (SEV4) of Section One (1), Township One Hundred Nine (109) North, Range Fifty (50) West of the 5th P.M., to the City of Brookings, County of Brookings, State of South Dakota, and Whereas, the City of Brookings has determined the exchange of the above described properties and payment of additional monetary compensation over a five (5) year period in equal installments for the purposes set forth above is in the best interests of the City of Brookings. Now Therefore, It Is Hereby Resolved by the City Council of the City of Brookings, South Dakota, as follows: A. That the City of Brookings acquire title to Parcel A from the County for the purpose of expansion of the City's Swiftel Center facilities; and B. That the City of Brookings convey title to Parcel B to the County in exchange for Parcel A; and C. That as additional consideration for the above-described exchange, the City of Brookings shall pay to the County of Brookings the additional sum of Five Hundred Thousand and no/100 ($500,000.00) Dollars, payable in five (5) equal payments over a five (5) year period interest free, with the first payment due on January 2, 2018, and the remaining four (4) payments due by January 2nd each year for the next four ( 4) subsequent years. D. That the Mayor, City Manager, City Clerk and City Attorney are authorized to execute a Real Estate Exchange Agreement and other required documents in accordance with this Resolution. Passed and approved this 8th day of August, 2017. CITY OF BROOKINGS Keith W. Corbett, Mayor ATTEST: Shari Thomes, City Clerk City of Brookings Staff Report Brookings City & County Government Center, 520 Third Street Brookings, SD 57006 (605) 692-6281 phone (605) 692-6907 fax File #:ID 2017-0476,Version:1 Action on a Joint Use Parking Easement and Agreement. Summary: This is an intergovernmental agreement between the City of Brookings and Brookings County for the joint use of a city-owned parking lot located at the Southbrook Softball Complex. This provides for the terms and conditions of the County use of the lot. The County will need access to the parking lot for their activities associated with the previous Outdoor Adventure Center facility. Fiscal Impact: Negligible Recommendation: Staff recommends approval Attachments: Agreement City of Brookings Printed on 8/1/2017Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ City of Brookings Staff Report Brookings City & County Government Center, 520 Third Street Brookings, SD 57006 (605) 692-6281 phone (605) 692-6907 fax File #:ORD 17-016,Version:2 Public Hearing and Action on Ordinance 17-016, an Ordinance pertaining to a Conditional Use Permit to establish a storage yard on the South 50’ of Lot 1, Block 2, Sheldens Subdivision of Outlot ‘P,’ and North 40’ vacated street (703 Main Avenue South), and Lot 2, Block 1, Sheldens Subdivision of Outlot ‘P’ (709 Main Avenue South). Summary: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for a storage yard on two parcels of property in a B-3 District. Background: The property is located along Main Avenue South and is the site for Olson Masonry. The existing business is classified as a contractor’s shop, which is a permitted special use in the B-3 District. In order to have an outdoor storage yard in conjunction with a contractor’s shop, a conditional use permit is required. The ordinance provides the following requirements for a contractor’s shop and storage yard in a B-3 District: Such uses shall screen all outdoor storage from adjacent property. Service vehicles shall be localized in an area on the lot which will minimize the impact upon adjacent uses. Any lighting of the storage yard shall not cause a glare onto residential properties. The site plan shows a fence that could be installed on the south side of 709 Main Avenue South and a partial fence running north to south along 703 Main Avenue South, which is the vacant lot. There are existing trees along the east and north side of the property. The adjacent uses include a vacant commercial building to the south, a manufactured home park and storage building to the east, and an office to the north. Danny’s Lounge has a row of parking adjacent to the north wall of the building and utilizes the north lot for additional parking. The north lot parking area is a nonconforming use as there is a fifty (50’) landscape area requirement between an abutting residential district boundary line and any structure, access drive, parking lot, or other accessory use. The proposed contractors shop and storage yard is a new use on Lot 1 and is required to meet the regulations of the zoning district in which it is located. In addition, an eight (8’) planting strip is required along the Main Avenue right-of- way. In addition, City Ordinance 82-251 prohibits unsafe backing of vehicles. The applicant would need to comply with this provision and refrain from using Main Avenue South as a way to back vehicles into the site. A conditional use is defined as a use which, because of its unique or varying characteristics, cannot be properly classified as a permitted use in a particular district. After due consideration, as provided in this chapter, of the impacts of such use upon neighboring land and of the public need for the particular use at a particular location, such conditional use may or may not be granted. City of Brookings Printed on 7/31/2017Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™ File #:ORD 17-016,Version:2 Planning Commission Recommendation: The Planning Commission voted 7-1 to recommend approval of the conditional use on Lot 2, Block 1, Sheldens Subdivision of Outlot ‘P,’ (709 Main Avenue South) with the conditions shown in the ordinance and to recommend approval of a six (6) month conditional use on the South 50’ Lot 1, Block 2, Sheldens Subdivision of Outlot ‘P,’ and North 40’ vacated street (703 Main Avenue South) with the conditions shown in the ordinance. Attachments: Ordinance 07-11-2017 Planning Commission Minutes Notice Applicant Letter Site Plan Aerial Map Zoning Map City of Brookings Printed on 7/31/2017Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™ Ordinance 17-016 An ordinance pertaining to an application for a Conditional Use for Outdoor Storage in the Business B-3 Heavy District. Be It Ordained by the governing body of the City of Brookings, South Dakota that said Conditional Use shall be approved for Outdoor Storage on Lot 2, Block 1, Sheldens Subdivision of Outlot ‘P,’ 709 Main Avenue South with the following conditions: (1) Outdoor storage shall be screened from adjacent property (2) Service vehicles shall be localized in an area on the lot which will minimize the impact upon adjacent uses (3) Any lighting shall not cause a glare onto residential properties (4) The entire site shall be fenced with either a solid fence or a chain link fence with screening slats Be It Ordained by the governing body of the City of Brookings, South Dakota that said Conditional Use shall be approved for Outdoor Storage on the South 50’ of Lot 1, Block 2, Sheldens Subdivision of Outlot ‘P,’ and the North 40’ vacated street, 703 Main Avenue South, with the following conditions: (1) The conditional use permit is to expire 6 (six) months from the date of City Council approval. (2) Outdoor storage shall be screened from adjacent property (3) Service vehicles shall be localized in an area on the lot which will minimize the impact upon adjacent uses (4) Any lighting shall not cause a glare onto residential properties All sections and ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed. First Reading:July 25, 2017 Second Reading:August 8, 2017 Published:August 11, 2017 CITY OF BROOKINGS __________________________ Keith W. Corbett, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Shari Thornes, City Clerk Planning Commission Brookings, South Dakota July 11, 2017 OFFICIAL MINUTES Chairperson Al Heuton called the regular meeting of the City Planning Commission to order on Tuesday, July 11, 2017, at 5:30 PM in the Community Room #300 on the third floor of the City & County Government Center. Members present were Tanner Aiken, James Drew, Greg Fargen, Alan Gregg, Alan Johnson, Lee Ann Pierce, Kristi Tornquist and Heuton. Also present were City Planner Staci Bungard, Community Development Director Mike Struck, City Engineer Jackie Lanning, David Olson, David Jones, Rick Ribstein and others. Item #5a –David Olson submitted an application for a Conditional Use on the South 50’ of Lot 1, Block 2, Sheldens Subdivision of OL “P” and North 40’ vacated street, 703 Main Avenue South, and Lot 2, Block 1, Sheldens Subdivision of OL “P”, also known as 709 Main Avenue South. The request is to establish an outdoor storage yard as part of a contractors shop business. (Pierce/Drew) Motion to approve the Conditional Use application. (Drew/Gregg) Amendment to the motion to allow a temporary 6 month Conditional Use permit on 703 Main Ave S and allow the Conditional Use Permit on 709 Main Ave S under the condition that they fence according to city regulations. The motion as amended was voted on. All present voted aye. MOTION CARRIED. OFFICIAL SUMMARY Item #5a –David Olson has been storing equipment and supplies at 703 Main Ave S since 2001 and then purchased 709 Main Ave S in 2005. David explained that they have purchased some land outside of town that he plans to relocate the business to. However, in the meantime, they are going to need to store their material and equipment on this property until the move. They plan to move about 90% of the material and equipment. Johnson asked if they have a timeline as to when they will get their items moved. David stated they are planning to have this done this Fall, but they need to complete rezoning with the County before the move. Johnson asked if they would be able to have the rezone completed within the next year? David stated yes. Drew asked if they could fence the entire storage area. David stated they are willing to do whatever is requested of them, but they are planning to move in the Fall. Heuton asked what would be stored there after the move? David stated there would be some trailers and a few pallets of materials. Typically their material is delivered to the project site. He also stated that they would probably use the north side of 703 Main Ave for storing the trailers because it is easier to park the trailers there. Bungard explained that they are proposing the Conditional Use Permit for two lots in the B-2 district. Currently it is classified as a contractor shop which is allowed. However, outdoor storage is only allowed through a Conditional Use Permit. Tornquist thinks that since this is only being requested for a short period of time, then maybe the Commission should look at a temporary fix. Bungard stated that the Commission could put a deadline on what is granted. Tornquist asked if the landscaping strip and buffer would need to be completed even if the Planning Commission applies a short term fix. Bungard stated yes because this is a new request and they would need to comply with these rules. David noted that he has been trying to buy commercial land in Brookings for years and there isn’t anything available and this is the reason the 703 Main Ave has been used for storage. Pierce asked if trailers could be parked on 703 Main Ave S without a Conditional Use Permit. Struck explained that a contractor shop is required to have everything in storage. Fargen noted that the proposed fence on 709 Main Ave S doesn’t really separate the lot and storage from the neighbors. And he wondered if additional fencing would cause an issue for moving of equipment and materials. David stated that additionally fencing wouldn’t be the easiest, but he is willing to do whatever the commission requires. Lanning noted that if the Commission requires fencing, then the setbacks would need to be followed. Pierce asked if a Conditional Use on 709 and a temporary Conditional Use on 703 would be sufficient? Bungard explained that indoor storage would be required on both lots without the Conditional Use permit. David stated that he would then prefer to have a Conditional Use granted on both lots. Drew noted that there is contractor storage across the street that isn’t fenced and he wondered if there was a conditional use granted for that business? Bungard noted that there are some conditional uses granted in this area. If you require assistance, alternative formats and/or accessible locations consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act, please contact the City ADA Coordinator at 692-6281 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting. Published ______ time(s) at an approximate cost of $ _____________. NOTICE OF HEARING UPON APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT David Olson submitted an application for a Conditional Use on the following described real estate: South 50’ Lot 1, Block 2, Sheldens Subdivision of OL ‘P’ and North 40’ vacated street, vacant lot north of 703 Main Avenue South Lot 2, Block 1, Sheldens Subdivision of OL ‘P’, also known as 709 Main Avenue South The request is to establish an outdoor storage yard as part of a contractors shop business. NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that said request will be acted on by the City Planning Commission at 5:30 PM on Tuesday, July 11, 2017, in the Community Room on the third floor of the Brookings City and County Government Center at 520 Third Street, Brookings, South Dakota. Any action taken by the City Planning Commission is a recommendation to the City Council. Any person interested may appear and be heard in this matter. Dated this 23rd day of June, 2017. ____________________________ Staci Bungard City Planner Proposed Fence Contractos Storage Yard 703 & 709 Main Avenue - Contractor’s Shop & Storage Yard Leg end Fenc e Propert y R-3A AP B-3 B-3 B-3 B-3 AP AP B-3 B-3 R-3A AP I-1 B-3 B-3 B-3 B-2 AP B-3 B-3 B-3 B-3 B-3 B-3 B-3 R-3A R-3A R-3A R-3A R-3A R-3A R-3A R-3A R-3A R-3A ² 703 & 709 Main Avenue - Zoning Map Legend Conditional Use Property