LEE S SUMMIT SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Transcription

1 LEE S SUMMIT SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN Submitted to: City of Lee s Summit, Missouri 220 SE Green Lee s Summit, MO (816) Submitted by: SCS Engineers El Monte Overland Park, Kansas (913) August 30, 2006 May 2, 2006

2 CONTENTS Section Page Executive Summary...ES-1 Disposal of Municipal Solid Waste...ES-1 Transfer Alternatives...ES-2 Collection of Municipal Solid Waste...ES-2 Waste Reduction and Recycling Programs...ES-2 Environmental Programs...ES-5 1 Introduction Solid Waste Management Task Force Goals and Objectives for the Solid Waste Management Plan Relationship to Other Plans, Studies, Reports, and Regulations Missouri State Solid Waste Management Plan Mid-America Regional Council Solid Waste Management District Comprehensive Land Use Plan Resource Recovery Park Master Plan Kansas State Solid Waste Management Plan and Johnson County Kansas Solid Waste Management Plan Solid Waste Survey Curbside Trash Collection Lee s Summit Landfill Recycling Services Public Information Potential Program Areas Background and Waste Stream Information Demographics Land Use Waste Stream Generation and Composition Available Studies State of Missouri Mid-America Regional Council U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Lee s Summit Waste Generation Current Recycling Rate Waste Composition Waste Generation Projections i

3 CONTENTS (Continued) Section Page 4 Disposal Alternatives Landfill History Current Operations Landfill Alternatives Landfill Size General Landfill Costs Pre-Development Costs Site Capital Costs Construction Costs Operational Costs Closure Costs Post-Closure Costs Program Costs Summary of Capital Costs Annualized Costs Ownership Options Landfill Siting Considerations Landfill Permitting Considerations Solid Waste Management Task Force Recommendations Transfer Alternatives Direct Haul Transfer Station General Transfer Station Costs Capital Costs Operating Costs Annualized Costs Hauling Costs Total Transfer Costs Costs for Environmental Programs Flow Control Issues Cost Comparison of Transfer Station with a New Landfill Solid Waste Management Task Force Recommendation ii

4 CONTENTS (Continued) Section Page 6 Alternatives for the Collection of Municipal Solid Waste Collection Alternatives Automated Collection Semi-Automated Collection Fully Automated Collection Organized Collection System Contract System Franchise System Solid Waste Management Task Force Recommendation Waste Reduction and Recycling Alternatives City Programs for Waste Reduction and Recycling Existing City Programs Options Evaluated Expand the City s Internal Recycling Program Recycling at Community-Sponsored Events Procurement of Recycled Products Environmentally Preferable Purchasing City Waste Reduction Policies Programs to Encourage Residential Waste Reduction and Recycling Existing City Programs Outreach and Education Drop-Off Recycling Facility Curbside Recycling Online Material Exchange Options Evaluated Public Education and Outreach Waste Reduction Programs Expanded Recycling Drop-Off Center Program Increase Curbside Participation Rewards Program for Residential Recyclers Bundle Recycling Costs with Yard Waste and Trash Collection Mandatory Pay/Voluntary Curbside Participation City Contract for Collection of Recyclables Unit-Based Pricing Commercial Waste Reduction and Recycling Programs Existing City Programs Options Evaluated Recognition for Commercial Waste Reduction and Recycling Successes Business Education Commercial Waste Audit Assistance Financial Assistance for Private Waste Reduction and Recycling Efforts Food Waste Management iii

5 CONTENTS (Continued) Section Page Use Economic Development to Attract Recycling Businesses Missouri Market Development Program Recycling Market Development Zone Programs for Construction and Demolition Debris C&D Waste Characterization Existing City Programs Options Evaluated Education Programs C&D Diversion Specifications for City Projects Green Building Specifications for City Projects C&D Diversion Ordinance Solid Waste Management Task Force Recommendation Environmental Programs Exhibits Household Hazardous Waste Collection Program Options Expanded HHW Collection Events Permanent Electronics Recycling Program Federal and State Initiatives State of Missouri Initiatives Non-Residential Hazardous Waste Collection Program Legal Background Program Application City Partnership Materials Accepted State of Missouri Initiatives Solid Waste Management Task Force Recommendation ES-1 Status of Waste Reduction and Recycling Programs 1-1 Membership of the Lee s Summit Solid Waste Management Task Force 3-1 Projected Population Growth for Lee s Summit 3-2 Lee s Summit Existing Land Use Distribution 3-3 Missouri Municipal Solid Waste Composition 3-4 Missouri Waste Composition Estimates for Construction and Demolition Wastes 3-5 Kansas City Metropolitan Region Waste Composition 3-6 MARC Estimated Composition C&D Debris 3-7 National Solid Waste Composition Solid Waste Composition for Lee s Summit 3-9 Construction and Demolition Debris Composition 3-10 Projections of Future Solid Waste Generation (tons per year) 4-1 Estimated Landfill Capital Costs iv

6 CONTENTS (Continued) Exhibits (Continued) 4-2 Estimated Landfill Tipping Fees 5-1 Location of Alternative Landfills and Transfer Station 5-2 Alternative Solid Waste Disposal Facilities 5-3 Direct Haul Costs 5-4 Single Hopper Transfer Station 5-5 Transfer Truck Hauling Costs 5-6 Transfer Costs 5-7 Transfer and Disposal Costs 7-1 Federal Procurement Guidelines 7-2 Lee s Summit Recycling Ordinance 7-3 Materials and Tonnages Collected by Recycling Centers 7-3 Unit-Based Pricing: Benefits and Barriers 7-4 Lee s Summit NAICS Codes 7-5 Construction and Demolition Debris Composition 8-1 Typical Hazardous Waste Generated By Businesses Appendices A B C D E F G H I J K L M Solid Waste Management Task Force Meeting Minutes Solid Waste Survey and Results Landfill Cost Estimates Transfer Station Costs Recycled Products Directory, Missouri Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Model Policy Mandatory Pay/Voluntary Curbside Participation Ordinance Ordinance for City-Contracted Collection of Recyclables and Compostables Pay-as-You-Throw Ordinances Sample C&D Diversion Specifications Sample Specifications with Environmental Considerations C&D Diversion Ordinance California Model C&D Diversion Ordinance v

7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The solid waste management plan development process began with a survey of City residents and businesses to explore behaviors about waste disposal and recycling and to solicit opinions about future management of solid waste within the City. The results of this survey are provided in Section 2 of this document. The Solid Waste Management Task Force (SWMTF) was established to serve as a means for citizens, industry or other bodies and individuals to participate in solid waste planning. There were several Solid Waste Management Task Force (SWMTF) meetings held to educate members on solid waste management issues, provide information on current programs and facilities, and to identify and discuss potential policies and practices. The SWMTF then developed a set of recommendations based on the goals and objectives that are presented in Section 1 of this document. These recommendations are presented below. DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE (SECTION 4) The Lee s Summit landfill is scheduled to close in The SWMTF believes that Lee s Summit should continue to operate a landfill in the future and has developed two recommendations: 1. The City should immediately initiate a study to identify a potential location for a landfill capable of managing the amount of waste generated by Lee s Summit for a 30-year period. The size of the landfill should be balanced with the potential reduction of the waste stream achieved by expanded recycling programs. 2. The City should explore the feasibility of a regional landfill in partnership with Jackson or Cass counties, in which case the study should identify a location that is suitably sized for a landfill capable of managing the amount of waste generated within the partnering region for a 30-year period taking regional recycling programs into account. The SWMTF further recommends that the City explore different public/private options for ownership and operation of the landfill. These recommendations are based on the following: The solid waste survey indicated that residents desire a landfill (50 percent of respondents indicated that the City should site a new landfill). Therefore, siting a new landfill would be responsive to citizens wishes. Furthermore, the SWMTF believes that the City has a responsibility to provide for proper management of wastes generated by its residents and businesses. Experience of other municipalities has shown that it is difficult to regain the waste flows needed to make a landfill financially viable once a municipality ceases to provide solid ES-1

8 waste landfill services. With closure anticipated in 2014 and a 60-month planning process required, the effort to site a new landfill should not be delayed. After closure of the landfill, citizens could face potential rate increases as haulers are required to drive farther distances to alternative landfills. Currently, many of the alternative landfills also have limited life expectancies; many are expected to close within 20 years. Providing a new landfill can help control future cost increases as distances to landfills increase and the number of operating landfills declines. The current landfill provides an economic benefit to Lee s Summit. Not only does it provide jobs, but revenues generated from tipping fees fund, or subsidize, the City s programs for yard waste/brush composting; household hazardous waste collection; recycling programs for tires, lead-acid batteries, appliances, and clean wood; and the recycling drop-off center. For these programs to continue after closure of the landfill, the City will be required to find alternate funding sources. TRANSFER ALTERNATIVES (SECTION 5) The SWMTF considered development of a transfer station and long haul of wastes to an alternative landfill. However, development of a new landfill will negate the need for a transfer station. Should it be determined that a new landfill is not feasible for the City, the SWMTF then recommends that the City consider constructing a transfer station at the current landfill location, if at that time the economics are favorable. COLLECTION OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE (SECTION 6) The survey of citizens opinions indicated a strong preference that the City should not be responsible for providing trash collection services. The SWMTF concurs with the survey findings that the City should not be responsible for providing trash collection services. WASTE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING PROGRAMS (SECTION 7) As discussed in Section 3, a per capita waste generation estimate and a recycling estimate were developed for Lee s Summit using the quarterly reports submitted by haulers. Based on the information provided in these reports, it is estimated that Lee s Summit residents and businesses recycle approximately 20 percent (which includes yard waste composting) of what they throw away. This is below the national recovery rate (including composting) of just over 30 percent. 1 The SWMTF believes it important and desirable to increase recycling. Numerous options for increasing waste reduction and recycling were presented in Section 7. Exhibit ES-1 provides a summary of the current status of the City s waste reduction and recycling programs related to these options. 2 1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 2003, April Prepared by the Environmental Coordinator for the City of Lee s Summit, June 6, ES-2

9 EXHIBIT ES-1. STATUS OF WASTE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING PROGRAMS City Programs for Waste Reduction & Recycling Option Status City Recycling Policies Established: Informal System for collecting paper and cans in some departments. Implementation: More bins, more departments. Tracking weight begins Summer New bins and labels were purchased for New City Hall; Environmental Coordinator is working with maintenance to track and improve recycling collection. Recycling at Community- Not established Sponsored Events Procurement of Recycled Established (informal - mostly for paper/business cards ) Products Environmentally Preferable Not established Purchasing City Waste Reduction Policies Not established Programs to Encourage Residential Waste Reduction & Recycling Option Status Public Education Established: Information is available online on the city s website. Information is also available on Channel 2 specifically info about HHW, yard waste, compost and the drop-off recycling centers. Information is also included quarterly in the city s newsletter the City Scope. Several environmental programs have been been offered to the R-7 School District through the Curriculum Department. Implementation: In June of 2006 the City was awarded a $15,000 grant to market recycling services Lee s Summit Recycling 101 for printing and postage of a brochure to be sent to all residents. Rewards Programs for Recyclers Not established Waste Reduction Programs Established: 1.) Online Material Exchange: Lee's Summit, Freecycle Network is open to all who want to "freecycle" something rather than throw it away. 2.) ReUse Shops: Lee s Summit has a good relationship with the regions #1 reuse shop surplus exchange. Not Established: Swap Shop, We do not allow residents to pick up paint and other household hazardous waste from our facility. Expanded Recycling Drop-Off Not established: Need to do a Needs Assessment. Currently we are Center Program open M-S 8-4 and take all recycling that Deffenbaugh will take. We have not started taking electronics, and other items that need to be sorted as currently the center is unmanned. Bundle Recycling Costs Mandatory/Voluntary Curbside Participation City Contract for Collection of Recyclables Unit-Based Pricing Not established Not established: It is mandatory that Haulers provide recycling, but there are no restrictions on what they charge and no requirements that residents participate. Not established Not established ES-3

10 Exhibit ES-1 (continued) Commercial Waste Reduction and Recycling Programs Option Status Recognition for Commercial Not established: (only informally through Bridging the Gap) Waste Reduction and Recycling Successes Business Education Not established: (Past Environmental Coordinators have sent out informational brochures with info of environmental education programs available) Commercial Waste Audit Not established Assistance Financial Assistance for Not established Commercial Waste Reduction and Recycling Efforts Food Waste Management Not established Use Economic Development to Not established Attract Recycling Businesses Programs for Construction and Demolition Debris Option Status Education Programs Established: (informal) Currently included in online advertising and will be included in Lee s Summit Recycling 101 Brochures. C&D Diversion Specifications for Not Established City Projects Green Building Specifications for Not Established City Projects C&D Diversion Ordinance Not Established With respect to waste reduction and recycling, the SWMTF developed two recommendations. Each recommendation is discussed below. 1. Increase the City s recycling rate to be equal to the national average. It is the opinion of the SWMTF that the recycling rate experienced in Lee s Summit be at least equal to the national rate as reported by the Environmental Protection Agency, which is currently 30 percent. The SWMTF recognizes that Missouri, by law, has a goal of 40 percent recycling in the State. However, the SWMTF does not believe it is necessary for Lee s Summit to have the same goal. Increasing recycling within the City will contribute to the State s efforts of meeting its own 40 percent goal. The estimated state-wide recycling rate for 2005 was 46 percent. 3 To increase the recycling rate, the SWMTF would like to see City recycling programs expanded, including education and outreach programs, composting, and recycling drop-off centers. In particular, the SWMTF recommends: 3 Press release dated May Available at: ES-4

11 The City place a recycling drop-off center on the north side of Lee s Summit. A second center will provide additional recycling opportunities for residents living in that area of the City. Use outreach and education opportunities to increase the curbside recycling participation rate. Based on information presented in the quarterly reports submitted by haulers, 11 percent of the City s households currently subscribe to curbside recycling services offered by haulers. If curbside participation rates (i.e., the number of households using curbside recycling services) could be increased, the City s overall recycling rate will increase. For example, if the curbside participation rate could be increased from 11 to 20 percent, the City s overall recycling rate could increase to 22 percent. If the curbside participation rate could be increased to 40 percent or 50 percent, the City s overall recycling rate could increase to 25 percent or 26 percent, respectively. Investigate the feasibility of unit-based pricing in a non-franchised, competitive trash collection market. Haulers servicing Lee s Summit households currently charge a fixed monthly fee for trash collection. The fee remains the same, regardless of how much trash is placed at the curb on collection day. Unit-based pricing is where customers pay for trash collection services on a per unit of waste collected, rather than through a fixed fee. The result is that households that generate more waste pay more for collection. Unit-based pricing offers residents an incentive to reduce the amount of waste they generate and dispose. The SWMTF believes that unit-based pricing will encourage more recycling by Lee s Summit homeowners. 2. Implement options for internal City programs and policies for waste reduction and recycling. The SWMTF believes the City of Lee s Summit should lead by example and actively implement all five of the identified options for addressing internal City programs and policies for waste reduction and recycling that were presented in Section 6. These options included City recycling policies, recycling at community-sponsored events, procurement of recycled products, environmentally preferable purchasing, and City waste reduction policies. ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS (SECTION 8) Historically, the household hazardous waste facility took appointments for the first Saturday of the month (from April to November) from 7 am to 12 pm. The third Wednesday of the month the facility accepts used latex- and oil-based paints. Recently, hours for the facility were expanded on Wednesdays to start at 2:00 (instead of 4:00) until 6:30 pm. The SWMTF recognizes the popularity of this program and understands that potential users often have difficulty arranging for appointments. The SWMTF would like the City to monitor usage of this program and evaluate alternatives to accommodate more users. Since the two buildings used for storage of collected materials typically reach capacity during collection events, the City should be prepared to add additional storage facilities when warranted. ES-5

12 SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this Solid Waste Management Plan is to provide Lee s Summit decision-makers with a current set of goals and policies for implementing, evaluating, and modifying existing and future solid waste management programs. The policies and practices have been reviewed and approved by the Solid Waste Management Task Force. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE The Solid Waste Management Task Force (SWMTF) was established by Resolution to serve as a means for Lee s Summit citizens and community leaders to participate in solid waste planning. The SWMTF has actively participated in the preparation of this plan. Their time and input in developing the plan is greatly appreciated. The SWMTF currently consists of nine members who are identified in Exhibit 1.1. EXHIBIT 1-1. MEMBERSHIP OF THE LEE S SUMMIT SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE Member Resident Background Mr. Dusty Dahmer - Chair Construction Industry Ms. Colene Carter - Co-Chair American Public Works Association Mr. Jim Hallam Lee s Summit City Council Liaison Mr. Brett Belmore City Scrap Metal Mr. Jim Cosman Smurfit-Stone Recycling Mr. Mark Dickey Lee s Summit Chamber of Commerce Mr. Jim Foil Burns and McDonnell Engineering Mr. Bill Upman Waste Management of Missouri Mr. Kevin Van DeKamp Summit Disposal Mr. Greg Foss* Homeowners Association *Relinquished position There were several SWMTF meetings held to educate members on solid waste management issues, provide information on current programs and facilities, and to identify and discuss potential policies and practices. The SWMTF then developed a set of recommendations based on the goals and objectives that are discussed later in this section. The following is a brief summary of the SWMTF meetings that were held: November 2005: Introduction, history of the Lee s Summit landfill, and presentation of environmental programs operated by the City. 1-1

13 December 2005: Introduction of the consultant and discussion of national and regional solid waste management trends. January 2006: Discussion of landfill permitting requirements and development of transfer stations. The draft survey document was presented. February 2006: Regional perspective on solid waste management presented by Mid- America Regional Council (MARC). March 2006: Presentation of preliminary survey results. April 2006: Discussion on hauling and disposal of trash in Lee s Summit. May 2006: Presentation of construction and demolition debris survey and preliminary findings for transfer station and landfill economics. June 2006: Status of current environmental programs and formulation of SWMTF recommendations. July 2006: Development of final SWMTF recommendations. Transcribed meeting minutes for each of the SWMTF meetings can be found in Appendix A. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR THE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN The intent of this solid waste management plan is to provide a foundation for the management of solid waste in the City of Lee s Summit, both now and in the future. The plan incorporates the following goals and objectives: Provide balance among public convenience, public expenses, public health, and the environment by: - Exploring financial impacts of closure of the City s landfill to citizens, businesses, and City departments. - Exploring economically viable and environmentally responsible options for future solid waste management programs. - Evaluating long-term viability of currently operating solid waste management programs including programs for managing household hazardous waste (HHW), recyclables, yardwaste, brush, and clean wood. Demonstrate a commitment to waste prevention and recycling by: - Providing for quality environmental education on current and future solid waste issues. 1-2

14 - Encouraging waste prevention and recycling by citizens, businesses, and City departments. Encourage cooperative efforts among local governments, citizens, and the private sector for managing solid wastes by: - Determining solid waste needs through community surveys. - Allowing for community input and feedback. - Monitoring regional solid waste management trends. While this plan supports these long-term goals, it also recognizes the need to provide decision makers with the flexibility to allow for changing circumstances. Implementation of this plan should be monitored and the plan should be reviewed periodically and be revised according to community feedback, regional trends, and public participation and effectiveness of implemented alternatives. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLANS, STUDIES, REPORTS, AND REGULATIONS The following plans and reports that are already in effect or are being developed separately may interact with the contents of this plan. The following summarizes the more significant of these and their connection with this plan. Missouri State Solid Waste Management Plan In 1989, Missouri established an integrated solid waste management hierarchy with the highest priority on waste reduction, recycling, reuse, and composting. The Missouri Solid Waste Management Act was amended in 1990 in order to implement this policy. This legislation set a goal of reducing the amount of solid waste disposed in landfills by 40 percent by This legislation also allowed counties to form regional solid waste management districts to promote waste reduction and recycling. The State of Missouri, through the Department of Natural Resources, has developed a plan for the management of solid wastes. 1 The purpose of the Missouri Solid Waste Management Plan is to contribute to the health, well being and quality of life for all Missourians by guiding the development of solid waste management systems which are environmentally and economically sustainable, efficient and effective. 1 Missouri Solid Waste Management Plan, Missouri Department of Natural Resources, November

15 The goals and policies expressed in the state plan establish the framework upon which solid waste systems are administered and implemented throughout the State. Local plans should be consistent with these goals and policies. The plan outlines core activities that stakeholders involved in development of the plan believe are necessary for effective and efficient solid waste management in Missouri. Implementation of these core activities will reflect the resources available and the most critical issues. The core activities in the Missouri solid waste management plan can be summarized as follows: Ensuring that the permit process for solid waste disposal and processing facilities is protective of the environment and public health, provides public participation and provides flexibility, where possible, for the regulated community. Providing technical guidance and assistance for the development of markets for recovered materials. Providing consistent, fair and thoughtful enforcement of solid waste laws and regulations. Eliminating illegal dumping to the greatest extent possible. Missouri Waste Management Hierarchy First, Reduce Efforts to prevent the creation of waste should precede other waste management options that deal with the waste after it is generated, as in recycling. The underlying thought is that solid waste that is not produced does not require management. Second, Reuse, Recycle, Compost The next level includes reuse, recycling and composting. These techniques have the potential to divert large amounts of waste from disposal and turn them into valuable products. Through these techniques, waste materials can potentially go through several cycles of use, conserving raw materials and energy in the process. Third, Energy Recovery This level of the hierarchy also uses waste as a resource, but essentially the material can only be used once. The highest use becomes energy production. Fourth, Disposal After the first three levels of the hierarchy are maximized, there may be residual solid waste left to manage. This material must be disposed of in an environmentally safe manner, through incineration or landfilling at a permitted facility. Providing education at all levels to ensure that citizens of Missouri make sound solid waste management choices. Ensuring that older facilities do not cause pollution, create a public nuisance or adversely affect the public health, and that corrective action is taken when they do. Permitting, enforcement and market development activities to ensure that waste tires are managed in a way that protects public health and the environment, as well as conserving a valuable resource. Providing financial and technical assistance to increase the reduction, reuse, recycling, composting, and energy recovery of solid waste. 1-4

16 Mid-America Regional Council Solid Waste Management District The Mid-America Regional Council Solid Waste Management District (MARC) serves as a regional planning agency for the local governments in Cass, Clay, Jackson, Platte, and Ray counties on the Missouri side of the Kansas City metropolitan area. The City of Lee's Summit participates and takes an active role within MARC's regional planning efforts. Within MARC is a Solid Waste Management District (SWMD) that serves as a regional solid waste planning agency. The SWMD encourages the development of local and regional waste reduction, reuse, and recycling programs. 2 The SWMD commissioned a solid waste status report to guide future solid waste planning and decision making and to lay the foundation for regionally integrated solid waste management plans. 3 The report recommends four focus areas: 4 Regional Cooperation: work together as a region on solid waste issues. Landfill Capacity: new disposal facilities will be needed in the very near future. Waste Minimization: increase the amount of waste recovered for reuse, recycling, and composting. Local government action: advance programs and policies to promote the sound recovery and disposal of solid waste. Comprehensive Land Use Plan The City of Lee s Summit Comprehensive Land Use Plan establishes a framework for how the City s land should be used in the future and for providing associated infrastructure and public service. 5 The plan was updated in 2005 and indicates areas designated for urban development and areas identified and designated for rural and natural resource preservation. This plan could affect the location of future solid waste management facilities. Resource Recovery Park Master Plan In 2005, the City completed a master plan for the Resource Recovery Park (RRP). The plan serves as an advisory tool for relocation of existing on-site facilities and construction of the currently off-site facilities as they relate to the total site development of the RRP. The intent of the plan is also to eliminate the need for duplicating the movement of the existing and proposed Strategic Directions and Policy Recommendations for Solid Waste Management in the Bistate Kansas City Metropolitan Region, Franklin and Associates, October Solid Waste Policy Discussion Guide, Mid-America Regional Council Solid Waste Management District. 5 Lee s Summit Comprehensive Plan, City of Lee s Summit, Missouri, Planning and Development,

17 facilities and provide an appropriate long-term location. Included in the plan are permanent locations for the yard waste composting facility, recycling center, household hazardous waste collection center, and a transfer station. 6 Kansas State Solid Waste Management Plan and Johnson County Kansas Solid Waste Management Plan The State of Kansas recently updated its solid waste management plan. While the goals and policies established by this plan do not apply to the City of Lee s Summit, the plan recognizes waste flows originating from Missouri and discusses declining landfill capacity on the eastern part of the state. 7 Policies established for increasing capacity could affect long-term disposal options for the City. Johnson County, Kansas recently revised its solid waste management plan and intends to complete a comprehensive update by Again, from a regional perspective, goals and policies established by Johnson County, primarily those for securing long-term disposal capacity, could affect programs developed by the City of Lee s Summit. 6 Burns & McDonnell Engineering Co., Inc., Resource Recovery Park Master Plan for City of Lee s Summit, Missouri, April State Solid Waste Management Plan, Kansas Department of Health and Environment, Bureau of Waste Management, Solid Waste Management Plan, Johnson County, Kansas, Environmental Department,

18 SECTION 2 SOLID WASTE SURVEY To explore behaviors about waste disposal and recycling among residents and businesses, the City of Lee s Summit commissioned a mail survey. The survey was conducted between January 18 and February 15, The survey focused on five major areas of investigation: Curbside Trash Collection: This section examined the use of and satisfaction with curbside trash collection. The Lee s Summit Landfill: This section analyzed familiarity with and use of the landfill. Recycling Services: This section examined participation in both curbside and drop-off center recycling programs. Public Information: This section assessed the number of residents who have had contact with Lee s Summit staff regarding solid waste issues and examined use of the City s website, particularly to obtain information about waste disposal or recycling. Potential Program Areas: This section assessed the number of stored, unused television sets and computers and identified methods that residents would use to dispose or recycle these items. To obtain information on these major areas, the Solid Waste Management Task Force, SCS Engineers, and Lee s Summit staff, developed a survey questionnaire which was mailed to 3,000 randomly selected addresses within the City. The final number of surveys returned was 764, which gives a confidence level of 95 percent with a precision of +/- 3.6 percent. A copy of the survey is provided in Appendix B. Of the surveys returned, 92 percent were from single-family residences, four percent were from multi-family residences, and the remaining four percent were from businesses. Based on location, 17 percent of the survey respondents were located north of Colbern Road, 44 percent were located between Colbern Road and Highway 50, and 39 percent were located south of Highway 50. This Section presents the results obtained from the survey. CURBSIDE TRASH COLLECTION When asked about trash collection; 98 percent of the respondents indicated that they use a trash collection service, one percent indicated that they do not use a trash collection service, and one percent did not know if they used a trash collection service. 2-1

19 In general, the average monthly cost paid for trash collection service is between $10 and $15 per month (46 percent of respondents). Eighteen percent of respondents paid between $15 and $20 per month. The remaining 36 percent of respondents paid less than $10 per month (six percent), $20-$25 per month (seven percent), more than $25 per month (nine percent), or did not know how much they paid or it was included in their home owner s association dues or rent (14 percent). When asked about satisfaction with their trash collection service, 46 percent of respondents indicated that they were very satisfied and 39 percent indicated that they were satisfied. Just over three percent were dissatisfied (by giving a rating of 5, 6, or 7 on a scale of 1 to 7). The survey also asked who should be responsible for arranging for trash collection services. The majority of the respondents (53 percent) indicated that the Responsibility for Trash Collection by percentage of respondents responsibility for arranging for trash collection should remain with Not sure individual users or a homeowner s 11% association/neighborhood (17 HOA percent). The remaining 17% Individual Users respondents indicated that the City 53% of Lee s Summit should arrange City 19% for trash collection (19 percent) or were not sure who should be responsible (11 percent). LEE S SUMMIT LANDFILL The majority of respondents were aware that Lee s Summit operated a landfill (86 percent), although most respondents had not used the landfill within the last year (51 percent). Approximately 39 percent of the respondents had used the landfill occasionally (1 to 4 times during the year). The remainder of the respondents used the landfill 5 to 8 times (eight percent), 9 to 12 times (one percent), or more than 12 times (two percent) during the past year. When asked why they used the landfill, most respondents indicated that they had bulky items or a large volume of waste requiring disposal. Times Used Landfill by percentage of respondents >12 Usage When asked if the City of Lee s Summit should have a role in trash disposal after closure of its existing landfill, 50 percent of the respondents indicated that the City should site a new landfill or that the City should operate a drop-off facility for use by residents (20 percent). Sixteen 2-2

20 percent indicated that the City should do nothing, that is, allow the private haulers to be responsible for finding disposal for the waste they collect. The remaining 14 percent indicated that the City should build a transfer station where individual haulers could bring waste for consolidation into larger trailers for transport to a disposal facility. City's Role in Trash Disposal by percentage of respondents Drop Off 20% Landfill 50% None 16% Transfer Station 14% RECYCLING SERVICES The majority of respondents (77 percent) do not subscribe to curbside recycling services offered by haulers. Nineteen percent of respondents reported subscribing to curbside recycling, while three percent did not know if they subscribed and the remaining one percent did not know if they subscribed but thought those services might be included in their rent or homeowner s association dues. Those subscribing to curbside recycling services were asked to rate their satisfaction with those services. On a scale of 1 to 7 (with 1 being very satisfied ), 80 percent of respondents (out of 141) rated their satisfaction a 1, 2, or 3. Less than 15 percent were dissatisfied with their service, rating it at a 5, 6, or 7. When asked why they were dissatisfied, most respondents remarked that the recycling services were too limited in the types of materials accepted. Respondents also were asked if they used a recycling drop-off center. More than 54 percent did not indicate using such a center. When asked if they were aware that the City of Lee s Summit operated a drop-off recycling center, over 60 percent of respondents indicated that they were aware of the center, although most respondents had not used the center within the last year (67 percent). Approximately 17 percent of the respondents had used the center occasionally (1 to 4 times during the year). The remainder of the respondents used the center 5 to 8 times (seven percent), 9 to 12 times (4 percent), or more than 12 times (five percent) during the past year. When asked why they used a drop-off center, most respondents indicated that they did so because they did not have curbside service, No Yes Recycling by percentage of respondents Recycling Center Only Recycling Center and Curbside Curbside Only that it saved them money, or that they were taking materials to the center that curbside service did not collect. Most respondents indicated that they are primarily taking newspaper and magazines to drop-off centers

21 The City of Lee s Summit currently operates collection or recycling programs for household hazardous waste, lead-acid batteries, appliances, tires, clean wood, and brush/yard waste. When asked about which programs they currently use or plan to use, most respondents indicated that they use the programs for household hazardous waste, and brush/yard waste. Given that these programs currently are subsidized by revenues generated from the landfill, respondents were asked if they would be willing to pay a fee to maintain these services. Thirty-six percent of respondents were willing to pay a fee, 36 percent were not willing to pay a fee, and the remaining 28 percent were not sure. City Programs Used by percentage of respondents (excludes blanks) Those willing to pay a fee were asked if they preferred the fees come from taxes or fees be paid at the time of use. Of the 257 respondents, 82.5 percent indicated they preferred a user fee. The remaining 17.5 percent preferred to pay the fee through taxes. HHW Lead-Acid Batteries Appliances Tires Clean Wood Brush Yard Waste 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Yes No Not Sure Willing to Pay Fee to Maintain City Services by percentage of respondents Not Sure 28% Yes 36% No 36% PUBLIC INFORMATION Survey recipients were asked if they had ever sought information from the City of Lee s Summit staff pertaining to trash disposal or recycling either on the phone, at a special event, or at the landfill. Thirty-three percent of the respondents had sought information. Of those, approximately 83 percent were satisfied with the information they had received. When asked if they had used the City s website to gain information about solid waste or recycling issues, only eight percent of respondents indicated that they had. POTENTIAL PROGRAM AREAS Survey recipients were asked if they had any computers or television sets at home that they were no longer using and were currently storing. Fifty-four percent of respondents were not storing this equipment, while 20 percent were storing 1 unit (computer or television set), 18 percent were storing 2 units, 5 percent were storing 3 units, and 3 percent were storing more than 3 units. Assuming that the City of Lee s Summit has more than 32,000 dwelling units, more than 26,600 unused computers and television sets currently are being stored. 2-4

22 When asked how they would get rid of an unwanted computer or television set, most respondents indicated they would donate it, give it away to friends or family, sell it, or put it in the trash/take it to the landfill. Disposal Options more than one response possible TV Computer Trash Landfill Store Sell Donate Give Away Recycle Don't Know Other 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2-5

23 SECTION 3 BACKGROUND AND WASTE STREAM INFORMATION This chapter provides the City of Lee s Summit background demographic characteristics and municipal solid waste stream information to facilitate solid waste management planning. DEMOGRAPHICS From 1960 to 2000 the City s population increased from approximately 8,267 to 70,700 residents, an increase of about 755 percent. Population estimates for the years 2000 to 2004 indicate an additional 16.7 percent growth to 82,528 people. The projected buildout population for the city is 175,000 which is expected to be reached around the year , which is shown in Exhibit 3-1. Using this projected growth curve, the city s population is expected to be 102,200 for the year 2014, the expected year of closure for the landfill. According to the City s comprehensive plan, population has been concentrated along the central band between Colbern Road and Longview Road and US 50. Subdivisions have been built around several local lakes to the north (Blue Springs Lake and Lee s Summit Lake) and south (Raintree Lake). Over the past several years most of the growth has been experienced in the eastern edges of the city. 2 EXHIBIT 3-1. PROJECTED POPULATION GROWTH FOR LEE S SUMMIT Total Year Population , , , , , , , , , , ,000 1 Lee s Summit Comprehensive Plan, City of Lee s Summit, Missouri, Planning and Development, ibid 3-1

24 LAND USE Land use in Lee s Summit is grouped into 7 major categories: agricultural (rural residential), low density residential, medium/high density residential, park/golf course/green/open space, public/semipublic, commercial/service/office, industrial and mixed use (John Knox Village). Exhibit 3-2 shows the percentage distribution of different land use types (excluding agricultural and undeveloped areas) as of August EXHIBIT 3-2. LEE S SUMMIT EXISTING LAND USE DISTRIBUTION Land Use Type Percentage Low/Rural Residential Medium/High Residential 4.51 Commercial 5.75 Industrial 5.63 Public/Semipublic Total 100 Commercial, service and office uses are clustered along major transportation corridors. Industrial uses are concentrated around the airport and adjacent to the two railroad lines. Singlefamily residential development shows three major clusters the largest cluster along the eastwest band across the center of town between Colbern Road and Scherer Road, the cluster at the north end of the City that includes Lakewood communities and neighboring subdivisions, and the cluster around Raintree Lake area at the south end of the City. Multi-family residential has a higher concentration around the City s central core and relatively evenly distributed in other areas. Rural residential and limited farming is concentrated in the south end. 3 WASTE STREAM GENERATION AND COMPOSITION A general understanding of the quantity and composition of the waste stream is essential for making decisions regarding future waste management. Two important aspects are: Quantity: the amount of waste generated in the City, either as tons per year or pounds per person per day. Composition: refers to the relative amounts of different waste stream components. Because Lee s Summit has not completed an analysis of the waste stream, it will be necessary to use other available data to characterize the waste stream. 3 ibid 3-2

25 Available Studies State of Missouri-- The Missouri Solid Waste Diversion and Recycling Status Report, prepared by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), documents the progress made in diverting municipal solid waste from disposal. In a 2006 press release, the state estimated that Missouri generated 12.1 million tons of solid waste in Using the estimate that 59.6 percent of this waste is municipal solid waste (a figure derived from the state waste composition study), approximately 7,211,600 tons is municipal solid waste. The annual per capita municipal solid waste generation rate is estimated to be 1.24 tons per person (6.81 lbs/person/day). 4 Construction and demolition (C&D) debris is estimated to be 18.5 percent of the waste stream, which is equivalent to a generation rate of 2.11 pounds per person per day. The state further estimates that 46 percent of all solid waste was diverted from disposal. In 1999, the state conducted a state-wide waste composition study in which the individual components of the waste stream were sampled, sorted, and weighed. 5 The study categorized waste components for five waste streams: municipal solid waste, construction, demolition, industrial, and other. The study findings for the composition of municipal solid waste, as disposed, are presented in Exhibit 3-3. The composition of the C&D waste stream is presented in Exhibit 3-4. The State currently is in the process of updating this study. EXHIBIT 3-3. MISSOURI MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE COMPOSITION Inorganics 5% Organics 31% Paper 37% Plastic 14% Metals 7% Glass 6% 4 Missouri Department of Natural Resources, 2005 Waste Diversion Press Release combined with Missouri 2005 population estimate available at: 5 Midwest Assistance Program, The Missouri Solid Waste Composition Study,

26 EXHIBIT 3-4. MISSOURI WASTE COMPOSITION ESTIMATES FOR CONSTRUCTION AND DEMILITION WASTES Construction Waste Plastic 4% Other 5% Masonry 14% Metal 1% Wood 45% Drywall 23% Cardboard 8% Demolition Waste Masonry 24% Other 5% Wood 33% Carpet 4% Roofing 24% Metal 3% Drywall 7% 3-4

27 Mid-America Regional Council-- In 2003, the Mid-America Regional Council (MARC) commissioned a solid waste management report to provide data analysis and recommendations to be used by MARC in developing an updated regional solid waste management plan. One of the goals of this report was to develop generation and composition estimates for municipal solid waste and C&D debris for the region. The estimated generation rate for municipal solid waste, for suburban areas, is 5.16 pounds per person per day and 2.80 pounds per person per day for C&D debris. 6 The composition estimates for both waste streams, as generated, are presented in Exhibits 3-5 and 3-6. EXHIBIT 3-5. KANSAS CITY METROPOLITAN REGION WASTE COMPOSITION Other 25% Paper 39% Ferrous 5% Non-Ferrous 2% Yardwaste 14% Glass 5% Plastic 10% 6 Franklin Associates, Strategic Directions and Policy Recommendations for Solid Waste Management in the BiState Kansas City Metropolitan Region, October

28 EXHIBIT 3-6. MARC ESTIMATED COMPOSITION C&D DEBRIS Construction Waste Wood 30% Dry Wall 18% Metal 2% Plastic 4% Other 47% 100% Demolition Waste Wood 29% Dry Wall 15% Roofing 10% Metal 8% Other 38% 100% U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-- The Environmental Protection Agency periodically estimates the national generation rate and composition of municipal solid waste using a material flows methodology. The material flows methodology is based on production data (by weight) for the materials and products in the waste stream. Adjustments are made for imports and exports and for diversions from municipal solid waste (e.g., for building materials made of plastic and paperboard). Adjustments are also made for the lifetimes of products. Finally, food wastes and yard trimmings and a small amount of miscellaneous inorganic wastes are accounted for by compiling data from a variety of waste sampling studies. One problem with the material flows methodology is that product residues associated with other items in municipal solid waste (usually containers) are not accounted for. These residues could include, for example, food left in a jar, detergent left in a box or bottle, or dried paint in a can. This methodology also does not account for moisture that can accumulate in waste, primarily through rain, during collection. Figures published for 2003 estimate that the national waste generation rate is 4.5 pounds per person per day. Of this amount, just over one pound per person per day is recycled for a national recovery rate (including composting) of just over 30 percent. 7 The composition of the waste stream is provided in Exhibit U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 2003, April

29 EXHIBIT 3-7. NATIONAL SOLID WASTE COMPOSITION 2003 Food Waste 12% Yard Debris 12% Wood 6% Rubber, Leather, Textiles 7% Plastic 11% Other 3% Metals 8% Paper 36% Glass 5% The estimated per capita generation rate for building-related debris in 1996 was 2.8 pounds per person per day. 8 EPA estimates for composition of construction and demolition debris includes: 9 Concrete and mixed rubble: 40-50% Wood: 20-30% Drywall: 5-15% Asphalt roofing: 1-10% Metals: 1-5% Bricks: 1-5% Plastics: 1-5% Lee s Summit The following presents the estimated waste generation and composition developed for Lee s Summit. This section concludes with a projection of waste quantities expected to be generated in the future. Waste Generation-- A per capita waste generation estimate was developed for Lee s Summit using the quarterly reports submitted by haulers. Based on the information provided in these reports, Lee s Summit 8 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Characterization of Building-Related Construction and Demolition Debris in the United States, June U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, information available at: 3-7

30 residents and businesses generated approximately 118,350 tons of municipal solid waste in 2005, including yard waste, resulting in a per capita generation rate of 7.54 pounds per person per day. Using the per capita generation figures developed for the Mid-America Regional Council (2.55 pounds/person/day), more than 40,000 tons of construction and demolition debris is generated annually in Lee s Summit and requires disposal. Current Recycling Rate-- Based on the quarterly hauler s reports and monthly tonnages collected at the Lee s Summit drop-off center, approximately 24,130 tons of materials were recycled in This is equal to a recycling rate of 20 percent (which includes yard waste composting). When reviewing the hauler reports, a discrepancy was identified between the survey results presented in Section 2 and the number of residential recycling accounts identified by haulers. According the survey, 19 percent of respondents reported subscribing to curbside recycling services offered by haulers. However, the haulers reports indicate that fewer than 11 percent of Lee s Summit households are subscribing to curbside recycling. For purposes of developing recommendations as part of this plan, the number of curbside accounts reported by haulers was used. Waste Composition-- In the absence of a waste composition study for Lee s Summit, the suburban waste composition developed by MARC will be used for this plan. This waste composition estimate is provided in Exhibit 3-8. EXHIBIT 3-8. SOLID WASTE COMPOSITION FOR LEE S SUMMIT Other Materials 25.1% Ferrous 5.2% Paper 36.0% Non-Ferrous 2.0% Glass 5.1% Yard Waste 16.7% 3-8

31 The composition of the construction and demolition debris received at the Lee s Summit landfill was characterized by SCS Engineers. Fifty loads of C&D debris were visually sorted into several material categories. The percentage by weight of each material type was calculated using industry averages. The results of this sort are provided in Exhibit 3-9. EXHIBIT 3-9. CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS COMPOSITION Material Type Total Weight Composition by (tons) Weight Total Wood % Recyclable Wood % Non-Recyclable Wood % Glass % Metals % Mineral Aggregates % Composition Shingles % Tarpaper/Felt % New Gypsum Scrap % Paper % Plastic & Laminates % Other Materials % Dirt % Gravel % Textiles % Yard Waste/Brush % Bagged Waste % TOTAL % 3-9

32 Waste Generation Projections-- The projection of how much waste will be generated in the City in the future is based on three key variables: the assumed population growth rate, the assumed generation rate, and the assumed recycling or diversion rate. For purposes of this plan, the population growth projections discussed earlier will be used. Also, for purposes of this plan, the per capita waste generation rate will remain at 7.54 pounds per person per day. Factors that may affect this rate, such as societal trends, changes in packaging and distribution technology, or overall economic growth, are too variable to predict within the scope of this study. Presently, approximately 20 percent of the City s waste stream is diverted through existing recycling and composting programs. It was assumed that programs developed by the City to increase recycling could result in a 30 percent rate (equal to the national recycling rate) by the time of landfill closure in 2014; the rate would remain constant after that time. The projections of solid waste generation are provided in Exhibit EXHIBIT PROJECTIONS OF FUTURE SOLID WASTE GENERATION (TONS PER YEAR) Annual Waste Generation (tons) Daily Disposal Year Population Generated Diverted Disposed (tons) , ,340 28,248 90, , ,973 33,593 94, , ,797 43, , , ,622 47, , , ,758 52, , , ,895 56, , , ,279 60, , , ,664 64, , , ,920 66, , , ,176 69, , , ,993 70, , , ,809 72, ,

33 SECTION 4 DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES LANDFILL HISTORY Prior to 1982, most of the City s solid waste was collected by the Constable Family Trash Hauling and the Pollard Dump (located on Strother Road). The City began pursuing development of a municipal landfill in 1978 when a $750,000 bond was approved by voters. In 1981, 160 acres of land were purchased and the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) issued an operating permit for 80 acres of the landfill. Soon thereafter, Jackson County contributed $250,000 toward development of the landfill in return for granting residents of unincorporated areas and 6 small communities access to the landfill. In 1982, the landfill opened to Lee s Summit residents and residents of the obligated areas of Jackson County. In 1984, low disposal volumes (averaging 60 tons per day) required that the landfill be opened to all potential users so as to meet debt service payments. As a result, the landfill volume increased to 350 tons per day. It was estimated in 1986, that at that current rate of fill, landfill space would be depleted by To address this issue, in 1989 access was once again limited to Lee s Summit residents and residents of the obligated areas of Jackson County. As a result, volume dropped to 251 tons per day. In 1989, a landfill expansion was approved by the City s Board of Alderman. In 1991, a acre landfill expansion was completed providing an estimated 20 years of capacity based on an average of 351 tons per day. At the current rate of fill, it is anticipated that the landfill will reach capacity by the year CURRENT OPERATIONS The landfill currently is located on Hamblen Road, 1.5 miles south of U.S. Highway 50. In addition to landfill operations, the following facilities are located on the property: A public drop-off area, which provides a location for citizens to bring their wastes and place it in designated roll-off containers instead of unloading at the active face of the landfill. The area includes five containers, three for waste and two for white goods. The roll-off containers are emptied daily at the working face of the landfill by landfill personnel. A recycling center, which is currently located to the north of the existing landfill. The recycling center is composed of various drop-off containers for the general public to drive up, separate, and place recyclable goods. The recycling center operates the same hours as the sanitary landfill and accepts the following materials: paperboard, corrugated 4-1

34 cardboard, plastic containers (#1 and #2), office paper, news papers and magazines, steel/tin and aluminum cans, and glass containers (clear, green, brown/blue). A household hazardous waste facility, which is located next to the existing recycling center, north of the landfill scale house. The facility accepts residential HHW only and is open the first Saturday of the month from April to November. Use of the facility is free of charge to Lee s Summit residents and MARC district residents. The third Wednesday of the month the facility accepts used latex- and oil-based paints. The facility consists of two storage buildings. A composting facility that accepts brush (up to 4 inches in diameter), grass, and leaves from both Lee s Summit residents and non-residents for processing and composting onsite. Yard waste drop-off hours are concurrent with the sanitary landfill hours. The City produces both bulk and bagged compost. The City s clean wood waste operations, which include grinding, staining, and bagging the wood waste for resale as mulch to the public. The facility accepts only untreated wood. Unstained mulch is given away. The program only accepts wood that meets the following: - Free from paint, varnishes, and adhesives. - Untreated (no CCA, pentachlorophenol or creosote). - Not paneling or plywood. - Pre-separated from other trash (separation at the landfill is not allowed). The Lee s Summit Maintenance Facility is located on the northern part of the property. Completed in 2003, it consists of the main office (48,000 square foot building with parking) and maintenance building, two 7,000 square-foot covered storage areas for construction equipment and other materials used by the Public Works Department, a salt storage dome, and storage yard. LANDFILL ALTERNATIVES The solid waste survey included questions intended to examine familiarity with and use of the Lee s Summit landfill. As discussed more in Section 2, the majority of respondents were aware that Lee s Summit operated a landfill and approximately 50 percent of the respondents had used the landfill at least once during the previous year. When asked why they used the landfill, most respondents indicated that they had bulky items or a large volume of waste requiring disposal. When asked if the City of Lee s Summit should have a role in trash disposal after closure of its existing landfill, 50 percent of the respondents indicated that the City should site a new landfill or that the City should operate a drop-off facility for use by residents (20 percent). Sixteen percent indicated that the City should do nothing, that is, allow the private haulers to be responsible for finding disposal for the waste they collect. The remaining 14 percent indicated that the City should build a transfer station where individual haulers could bring waste for consolidation into larger trailers for transport to a disposal facility. 4-2

35 Given current technology, landfills are and will remain a necessary and important component of waste management for the residents and businesses in Lee s Summit. With this in mind, along with the desires of Lee s Summit residents to have a landfill in the City, landfill alternatives were evaluated. Landfill Size It is important that a facility be sited, designed, permitted, and constructed to provide Lee s Summit with sufficient disposal capacity. Taking into account the projected population increases and potential increases in recycling programs, it is anticipated that at a minimum the landfill should be capable of accepting 280 tons per day. Therefore, costs were developed for a 300 ton per day landfill. In the event that Lee s Summit should decide to pursue a regional landfill, costs were also developed for 500 and 700 ton per day facilities. General Landfill Costs For this analysis, the landfill will need to meet the requirements of and be permitted by MDNR. These requirements include, but are not limited to: The establishment of a groundwater monitoring system to determine if leachate has been released from the landfill. The construction of a composite bottom liner (i.e., 2 feet of recompacted soil and a flexible membrane liner) to protect groundwater and underlying soil from leachate releases. The establishment of a gas monitoring system. The construction of stormwater control, retention, and discharge structures. The construction of a leachate control system to maintain less than 12 inches of liquids on the liner system and to remove leachate from the landfill for treatment and disposal. The establishment of operating practices which include compacting and covering waste frequently with several inches of soil to help reduce odor and control litter, insects, and rodents. There are five phases associated with the life of a landfill as follows: Pre-development. Site Capital Costs. Construction. Closure. Post-closure. 4-3

36 The costs of these phases are used to determine the tipping fee at the landfill and are discussed in more detail below. Detailed cost estimates for each facility size option are presented in Appendix C. Pre-Development Costs-- Pre-Development costs are those associated with expenses required prior to the construction of the landfill. The cost items include: Site assessment. Legal services. Financial services. Community/government relations. Land purchase. Surveying. Hydrologeologic characterization. Preliminary engineering. End use planning. Solid waste permits. Other permits. For this analysis, it was assumed that the landfill would be operational for a 30-year period and that the City would be required to purchase land: 75 acres for a 300 ton per day facility. 110 acres for a 500 ton per day facility. 150 acres for a 700 ton per day facility. For each facility, the pre-development costs are highly dependent on the purchase price of the required land. For purposes of this report, land acquisition costs are expected to range from a low of $10,000 to a high of $40,000 per acre. Pre-development (and other) costs for the three sizes of landfills and high and low acquisition costs are developed in detail in Appendices C-1 through C-6. Total pre-development costs are expected to range from: $1,660,357 to $3,968,426 for a 300 ton per day facility, $2,291,359 to $5,700,435 for a 500 ton per day facility, and $2,653,964 to $7,150,855 for a 700 ton per day facility. Site Capital Costs-- Initial site capital costs include the following: Clearing and grubbing. Leachate pumping, transfer, and storage equipment. Surface water controls. 4-4

37 Roads and structures. Scales. Gates and fences. Equipment. Engineering design. Some of the equipment may be transferred from the City s existing landfill operation. If it cannot be transferred, new equipment will need to be purchased or leased. The site capital costs are estimated to be approximately; $3,612,250 for a 300 ton per day facility, $4,212,732 for a 500 ton per day facility, and $5,057,537 for a 700 ton per day facility. Construction Costs-- Construction costs are based on the final design developed for the landfill. However, general construction items include: Clearing and grubbing. Excavation and stockpiling. Liner/leachate collection system installation. Liner installation. Seeding, fertilizing, and mulching. Groundwater monitoring well installation. Gas monitoring probe installation. Construction management/engineering. Construction quality assurance. Landfill construction costs will be incurred annually in the initial years but not throughout the 30 year life of the landfill. Costs are initially estimated to be approximately: $533,934 the first year, averaging $452,437 per year, for a 300 ton per day facility; $918,256 the first year, averaging $778,097 per year, for a 500 ton per day facility; and $1,273,678 the first year, averaging $1,079,269 per year, for a 700 ton per day facility. Operational Costs-- The day-to-day operation of a landfill requires accounting for numerous items. Operational cost items will include, but not be limited to, the following: Equipment operation and maintenance. Personnel (manager, equipment operators, scale operator, general laborers, mechanic). Leachate management and treatment. Groundwater sampling and analysis. 4-5

38 Contract services. Community relations. Permit fees. The operational costs are estimated to be approximately: $940,261 the first year, and a net present value cost of $1,314,694 per year, for a 300 ton per day facility; $999,749 the first year, and a net present value cost of $1,397,872 per year, for a 500 ton per day facility; and $1,115,555 the first year, and a net present value cost of $1,559,794 per year, for a 700 ton per day facility. Closure Costs-- Closure costs include those costs associated with final closure of the landfill. These costs typically occur throughout the life of the facility in that monies are set aside on a regular basis to cover these costs when the landfill is actually closed. Closure cost items include: Final cover/cap. Surface water controls. Seed, fertilizer, mulch. Construction management/engineering. Construction quality assurance. Closure costs are projected to be incurred annually and are estimated to be approximately: $174,534 the first year, and a present value cost of $244,038 per year, for a 300 ton per day facility; $244,446 the first year, and a present value cost of $341,789 per year, for a 500 ton per day facility; and $333,424 the first year, and a present value cost of $466,201 per year, for a 700 ton per day facility. Post-Closure Costs-- Post-closure costs are those costs associated with the maintenance of the landfill for a 30-year period after closure. As a general rule, these costs are also set aside throughout the life of the facility and expensed beginning the year after closure. Post-closure care items include: Leachate management and treatment. 4-6

39 Groundwater sampling and analysis. Gas monitoring. Contract services. Inspections. Maintenance (cap, fencing, stormwater controls). Post-closure costs are estimated to be approximately: $288,892 in the first year of post-closure, and a net present value cost of $70,329 per year, for a 300 ton per day facility; $364,202 in the first year of post-closure, and a net present value cost of $88,663 per year, for a 500 ton per day facility; and $460,051 in the first year of post-closure, and a net present value cost of $111,997 per year, for a 700 ton per day facility. Program Costs-- These costs include programs that are funded by the tip fees generated by the landfill. They include costs to operate the yard waste composting facility, the recycling drop-off center, the household hazardous waste collection facility, and associated administration costs. These annual costs are estimated to be $1,201,794 per year. Summary of Capital Costs-- Development of a landfill requires significant upfront capital costs as well as ongoing capital commitments. Exhibit 4-1 summarizes the capital costs developed in Appendices C-1 through C-6 and discussed above. EXHIBIT 4-1. ESTIMATED LANDFILL CAPITAL COSTS 300 tons per day 500 tons per day 700 tons per day Description of Capital Costs High Low High Low High Low Acquisition Acquisition Acquisition Acquisition Acquisition Acquisition Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Pre-Development Cost $3,968,426 $1,660,357 $5,700,435 $2,291,359 $7,150,855 $2,653,964 Site Capital Cost $3,612,250 $3,612,250 $4,212,732 $4,212,732 $5,057,737 $5,057,737 Annual Construction Cost $533,934 $533,934 $918,256 $918,256 $1,273,678 $1,273,678 Annual Closure Cost $174,534 $174,534 $999,749 $999,749 $333,424 $333,

40 Annualized Costs-- Capital costs presented above were annualized over the 30 year life of the site and these annualized costs were combined with annual Operation and Maintenance, Closure, Post-Closure and Administrative costs. The resulting Total Annual Costs can be allocated on a per ton basis to develop a tipping fee as shown in Exhibit 4-2. EXHIBIT 4-2. ESTIMATED LANDFILL TIPPING FEES 300 tons per day 500 tons per day 700 tons per day Description of Annualized High Low High Low High Low Costs Acquisition Acquisition Acquisition Acquisition Acquisition Acquisition Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Pre-Development Cost $288,302 $120,623 $414,130 $166,465 $519,502 $192,808 Site Capital Cost $262,426 $262,426 $306,050 $306,050 $367,425 $367,425 Construction Cost $452,437 $452,437 $778,097 $778,097 $1,079,269 $1,079,269 Operating & Maintenance $1,314,694 $1,314,694 $1,397,872 $1,397,872 $1,559,794 $1,559,794 Cost Closure Cost $244,038 $244,038 $341,789 $341,789 $466,201 $466,201 Post-Closure Cost $70,329 $70,329 $88,663 $88,663 $111,997 $111,997 Total Landfill Cost $2,632,225 $2,464,547 $3,326,602 $3,078,936 $4,104,187 $3,777,493 Program Costs Administration Yard waste Recycling Household Hazardous Waste $801, ,410 67,267 96,781 $1,201,794 $801, ,410 67,267 96,781 $1,201,794 $801, ,410 67,267 96,781 $1,201,794 $801, ,410 67,267 96,781 $1,201,794 $801, ,410 67,267 96,781 $1,201,794 $801, ,410 67,267 96,781 $1,201,794 Total Annual Costs $3,834,019 $3,666,341 $4,528,396 $4,280,730 $5,305,981 $4,979,287 Tons of Waste Managed 93,600 93, , , , ,400 Annually Cost in Dollars Per Ton $40.96 $39.17 $31.76 $27.44 $24.29 $22.80 MDNR Fee $2.11 $2.11 $2.11 $2.11 $2.11 $2.11 Total Tipping Fee $43.07 $41.28 $31.14 $29.55 $26.40 $24.91 For each facility, the costs are presented on the basis of land acquisition costs, which are expected to range from a low of $10,000 to a high of $40,000 per acre. Based on the costs discussed above, the anticipated tipping fee for a 300 ton per day facility is expected to be between $43.07 and $41.28 per ton of waste received. The anticipated tipping fee for a 500 ton per day facility is expected to be between $31.14 and $29.55 per ton of waste received. The anticipated tipping fee for a 700 ton per day facility is expected to be between $26.40 and $24.91 per ton of waste received. The current tipping fee charged at the landfill is $31.11 per ton. Ownership Options There are many arguments for and against, who should own and manage a landfill: public or private entities. The pros for public ownership and management focus around control of day-today operations. The pros for private ownership and management center on flexibility, efficiency, 4-8

41 and potential returns to citizens. Three basic structures for ownership and operation of a landfill are presented below: Public Ownership with Public Operation: Public ownership and operation of a new landfill would require Lee s Summit to design and build the landfill, procure equipment, provide financing, and operate and maintain the landfill using City employees. Public ownership and operation would provide Lee s Summit with the greatest amount of control and flexibility and would provide the City with the revenue generated from tip fees. Disadvantages of this approach include the need for the City to provide capital financing and the length of time necessary to process capital expenditures. Public Ownership with Private Operation: Under this ownership approach, Lee s Summit would contract with a private firm to design, build, operate, and maintain the landfill through a long-term service contract. Lee s Summit would be responsible for capital costs. An advantage of private operation can be increased efficiency, however, operating costs can increase to support profit requirements. Depending on contractual arrangements, Lee s Summit may be able to retain control of rates. Private Ownership with Private Operation: Under this arrangement, Lee s Summit would contract with a private company who would design, build, finance, operate, and maintain the landfill under a long-term agreement. This arrangement would not allow Lee s Summit to retain as much control over day-to-day operations. Again, depending on contractual arrangements, Lee s Summit may be able to maintain control of rates. Many communities are turning to a regional approach to landfilling, which offers a number of potential advantages. The regional approach allows communities to achieve economies of scale through better utilization of capital and more efficient management. It also allows communities to centralize waste disposal. In order for Lee s Summit to participate in a regional system, it will be necessary to establish a structure that will facilitate joint decisions with the partnering communities. Landfill Siting Considerations According State of Missouri regulations, landfill development is restricted in areas including wetlands, unstable soils such as Karst terrain or poor foundation conditions, fault areas, seismic impact zones, land in the 100 year floodplain, or in proximity to an airport. Except for fault zones, landfills are not prohibited from these areas, but they would be subject to special siting restrictions and/or performance standards. Landfill Permitting Considerations To begin the process of building a new landfill, the City must first begin with a comprehensive siting study to identify suitable locations. Once a site has been identified, the City should plan on the permitting process lasting a minimum of 60 months. This estimate used by MDNR includes 15 months to complete a detailed site investigation and 12 months for site construction. 4-9

42 In addition to the MDNR solid waste facility permit, the landfill will require zoning permits, and MDNR air permit, and a NPDES discharge permit. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS The Lee s Summit landfill is scheduled to close in The SWMTF believes that Lee s Summit should continue to operate a landfill in the future and has developed two recommendations: 1. The City should immediately initiate a study to identify a potential location for a landfill capable of managing the amount of waste generated by Lee s Summit for a 30-year period. The size of the landfill should be balanced with the potential reduction of the waste stream achieved by expanded recycling programs. 2. The City should explore the feasibility of a regional landfill in partnership with Jackson or Cass counties, in which case the study should identify a location that is suitably sized for a landfill capable of managing the amount of waste generated within the partnering region for a 30-year period taking regional recycling programs into account. The SWMTF further recommends that the City explore different public/private options for ownership and operation of the landfill. These recommendations are based on the following: The solid waste survey indicated that residents desire a landfill (50 percent of respondents indicated that the City should site a new landfill). Therefore, siting a new landfill would be responsive to citizens wishes. Furthermore, the SWMTF believes that the City has a responsibility to provide for proper management of wastes generated by its residents and businesses. Experience of other municipalities has shown that it is difficult to regain the waste flows needed to make a landfill financially viable once a municipality ceases to provide solid waste landfill services. With closure anticipated in 2014 and a minimum 60-month permitting process required, the effort to site a new landfill should not be delayed. After closure of the landfill, citizens could face potential rate increases as haulers are required to drive farther distances to alternative landfills. Currently, many of the alternative landfills also have limited life expectancies; many are expected to close within 20 years. Providing a new landfill can control future cost increases as distances to landfills increase and the number of operating landfills declines. The current landfill provides an economic benefit to Lee s Summit. Not only does it provide jobs, but revenues generated from tipping fees fund, or subsidize, the City s programs for yard waste/brush composting; household hazardous waste collection; recycling programs for tires, appliances, and clean wood; and the recycling drop-off center. For these programs to continue after closure of the landfill, the City will be required to find alternate funding sources. 4-10

43 SECTION 5 TRANSFER ALTERNATIVES The Lee s Summit landfill is scheduled to close in Several existing landfills in Missouri and Kansas have the capacity to handle the City s waste. The locations of these landfills in and around the metropolitan area, along with the current tip fee and life expectancy, are shown in Exhibit 5-1. The locations of two transfer stations also are shown in Exhibit 5-1. Additional information on the landfills is provided in Exhibit 5-2. The purpose of this section is to compare two alternatives for transferring waste to these alternative disposal facilities. The two alternatives examined are: 1) direct hauling using existing collection vehicles and 2) constructing a transfer station and transferring waste to largercapacity over-the-road hauling vehicles. Each alternative has specific costs, merits, and disadvantages. EXHIBIT 5-1. LOCATION OF ALTERNATIVE LANDFILLS AND TRANSFER STATIONS St. Joseph Sanitary Landfill $30.00/Ton 2028 Forest View Landfill $43.00/Ton 2009 Courtney Ridge Landfill $48.11/Ton 2026 Hamm Quarry Landfill $29.00/Ton 2141 Material Recovery Transfer Station $35.00/Ton Johnson County Landfill $44.00/Ton 2027 Show Me Landfill $41.00/Ton 2043 Cass County Transfer Station $38.96/Ton 5-1

44 EXHIBIT 5-2. ALTERNATIVE SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES Facility Name Location Type of Ownership Remaining Life 2 (years) Current Tipping Fee 1 ($/ton) Estimated Distance 3 (one-way miles) Courtney Ridge Sugar Creek, Missouri Private 20 $ Show Me Warrensburg, Missouri Private 37 $ St. Joseph St. Joseph, Missouri Public 22 $ Forest View Kansas City, Kansas Private 3 $ Hamm Quarry Lawrence, Kansas Private 135 $ Johnson County Shawnee, Kansas Private 21 $ Based on reported gate rates; lower rates are likely to be available depending on contract terms, waste quantities, and the relationship between the hauler and the owner of the facility. 2 Source: Mid-America Regional Council, Strategic Directions and Policy Recommendations for Solid Waste Management in the BiState Kansas City Metropolitan Region, Distance from Lee s Summit City Hall. DIRECT HAUL Direct hauling will require that the existing collection vehicles used by private haulers be driven directly to one of the above landfills. Anticipated costs associated with direct haul to these facilities are provided in Exhibit 5-3. In addition to these costs, the haulers will be required to replace trucks more frequently due to increased mileage. Facility Name EXHIBIT 5-3. DIRECT HAUL COSTS Estimated One-Way Travel Time 1 (minutes) Cost per Truck per Trip 2 Cost per Ton 3 Tip Fee Difference 4 (per ton) Cost per Ton Difference Courtney Ridge 23 $ $10.03 $17.00 $27.03 Show Me 61 $ $27.15 $9.89 $37.04 St. Joseph 107 $ $47.22 $(1.11) $46.11 Forest View 40 $ $17.71 $11.89 $29.60 Hamm Quarry 87 $ $38.37 $(2.11) $36.26 Johnson County 44 $ $19.48 $12.89 $ Assumes 45 miles per hour and estimated distance from Lee s Summit City Hall. 2 Assumes truck operating cost of $85.00 per hour. (Source: Summit Disposal) 3 Assumes 25 cy packer; 85% full; 600 lbs per cy, 6.37 tons per load. 4 Assumes Lee s Summit tip fee of $ Generally, as distance to the chosen landfill increases, the costs associated with transporting the waste from the collection route to the landfill increase. The added distance the haulers must travel, combined with the difference in tipping fees, will likely result in higher disposal costs for the citizens and businesses of Lee s Summit. For example, if haulers use Courtney Ridge Landfill, the potential increase to Lee s Summit homeowners could be approximately $43.00 per 5-2

45 year (based on current hauling costs and tip fees; also assuming each residence disposes of 1.57 tons of trash per year). TRANSFER STATION Transfer stations are an alternative for controlling these rising costs. A transfer station is a centralized facility where waste is unloaded from several small collection vehicles and consolidated into a larger vehicle for hauling. The consolidation tends to increase the efficiency of the system, as collection vehicles and crews remain closer to routes, while larger vehicles, designed for transfer, make the trip the landfill. For example, a packer truck may haul eight tons of waste 40 miles to the landfill, while a transfer vehicle would haul 20 tons of waste for basically the same operating cost. While it is not within the scope of this plan to develop a conceptual design for a transfer station, there are primary features of transfer stations that can provide a basis for the development of capital, operating, and hauling costs. A transfer station typically requires a building with a concrete tipping area. Waste is dumped on the tipping floor and then pushed into an open-top trailer with a rubber tired front end loader. The trailer is located in a recessed area below the tipping floor. The trailer can either be backed into the recessed area or the facility can be designed with pull through capabilities. A 100 cubic yard transfer trailer will typically haul a 20 ton load. General Transfer Station Costs The costs associated with a transfer station include capital costs, operating costs, and the costs to haul the waste to a landfill and pay for disposal. These costs, as they pertain to a transfer station for Lee s Summit, are discussed below. Capital Costs-- Capital costs associated with the construction of a transfer station generally include: Building Equipment Land acquisition Sitework Engineering design (mechanical, electrical, civil) Construction management Permits Equipment and rolling stock Lee s Summit already has land available on which to site a transfer station. The landfill master plan includes space for a transfer station potentially located in the area where the landfill scales and recycling center currently are located. 5-3

46 A transfer station serving the needs of Lee s Summit should have a minimum daily throughput capacity of 300 tons. A single hopper, direct dump transfer station, such as that pictured in Exhibit 5-4, would provide that capacity. However in order to provide some redundancy and future capacity, a cost estimate for a similar but larger, two hopper, direct dump transfer station was developed for planning purposes. This facility could process up to 700 tons per day, with adjustments in staffing and operations. EXHIBIT 5-4. SINGLE HOPPER TRANSFER STATION Without the benefit of a true conceptual design, SCS developed rough costs for such a transfer station based on an annual throughput of 85,800 tons. These costs are presented in Appendix D and are summarized as follows. Operating Costs-- Sitework $ 520,500 Transfer Building $1,230,000 Mobile Equipment $ 315,000 Engineering, Permitting and Construction Oversight $ 407,400 Contingency (20%) $ 413,100 Transfer Station Cost $2,886,000 Amortized Capital Cost $ 297,151 Projected operating costs for transfer stations include utilities, labor, insurance, parts, and supplies, and equipment repair and replacement and operating costs. These costs are estimated to be $358,156 annually as developed in Appendix D. 5-4

47 Annualized Costs-- The capital costs, presented above, were annualized over a 15-year period and combined with the annual operating costs for a total annual cost of $655,307. The anticipated tip fee, based on an annual throughput of 85,800 tons, is expected to be $7.64 per ton. This anticipated tip fee does not include funding for the City s environmental programs, as discussed later in this section. Hauling Costs-- Costs associated with hauling waste in 100 cubic yard transfer trailers include labor, fuel, and vehicle maintenance. Anticipated costs associated with hauling consolidated waste to area landfills are provided in Exhibit 5-5. The complete development of these costs can be found in Appendix D. EXHIBIT 5-5. TRANSFER TRUCK HAULING COSTS Facility Name One-Way Travel (Miles) Trips Per Day 1 Transport Cost per Ton Courtney Ridge 17 6 $ 5.96 Show Me 46 3 $13.62 St. Joseph 80 2 $22.10 Forest View 30 4 $ 9.54 Hamm Quarry 65 2 $19.63 Johnson County 33 3 $ Assumes 45 miles per hour and estimated distance from Lee s Summit landfill, 15 minute load at transfer station and 20 minute unload at landfill. Total Transfer Costs The costs for hauling waste to the landfill were combined with the anticipated transfer station tip fee and are presented in Exhibit 5-6. For comparison, the costs calculated for direct hauling of waste also are provided. When total transfer costs are compared against the direct haul costs, it appears a transfer station at Lee s Summit is: Not economical to serve Courtney Ridge Landfill because the direct haul cost of $10.03 per ton is less than the projected transfer cost of $13.60 per ton. Marginally economical to serve Johnson County or Forest View Landfills. Economical to serve Hamm, St. Joseph, or Show-Me Landfills because the transfer costs are significantly less than direct haul costs. 5-5

48 Facility Name EXHIBIT 5-6. TRANSFER COSTS Transfer Station Fee per Ton 1 Transport Cost per Ton 2 Transfer Total Cost per Ton Direct Haul Cost per Ton 3 Courtney Ridge $7.64 $ 5.96 $13.60 $10.03 Show Me $7.64 $13.62 $21.26 $27.15 St. Joseph $7.64 $22.10 $29.74 $47.22 Forest View $7.64 $ 9.54 $17.18 $17.71 Hamm Quarry $7.64 $19.63 $27.27 $38.37 Johnson County $7.64 $10.04 $17.68 $ Based on annualized capital costs, annual costs, and annual throughput of 85,800 tons. 2 From Exhibit From Exhibit 5-2. Costs for Environmental Programs The costs presented above for transfer (i.e., the transfer station tipping fee and the transport cost) do not include fees necessary for funding the City s programs for yard waste/brush composting; household hazardous waste collection; recycling programs for tires, appliances, and clean wood; and the recycling drop-off center. Funding for these programs currently is included in the landfill tipping fee. For these programs to continue after closure of the landfill, the City will be required to find alternate funding sources. The costs for these programs (excluding administrative costs) currently are $400,458 per year (see Exhibit 4-2). Funding these programs through the transfer station will require an additional fee of $4.67 per ton, based on an annual throughput of 85,800 tons. It will be difficult to collect revenue to support these programs through charges at the transfer station and to remain economically competitive with direct hauling. If haulers opt for direct hauling in the absence of a landfill, the funding source for the environmental programs may dissipate. Flow Control Issues A transfer station developed by Lee s Summit must be economical for local haulers to use. The City will not be able to require that local haulers use the facility. On May 16, 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a local flow control ordinance that required all solid wastes to be processed at a designated transfer station before being sent out of the municipality. In C&A Carbone, Inc. v. Town of Clarkstown, the Court found that the flow control ordinance violated the Commerce Clause of the Constitution because it deprived competitors, including out-of-state businesses, of access to the local waste processing market. This ruling affects Lee s Summit in that a high percentage of waste generated within the City is sent to Kansas for disposal therefore the facility is subject to these provisions of interstate commerce. 5-6

49 Cost Comparison of Transfer Station with a New Landfill The total costs for hauling and disposing of waste at an alternative landfill are provided in Exhibit 5-7. Facility Name EXHIBIT 5-7. TRANSFER AND DISPOSAL COSTS Transfer Total Cost per Ton 1 Current Landfill Tipping Fee 2 (per ton) Transfer and Disposal Cost per Ton Cost per Ton, Funding Environmental Programs 3 Courtney Ridge $13.60 $48.11 $61.67 $66.34 Show Me $21.26 $41.00 $62.26 $66.93 St. Joseph $29.74 $30.00 $59.74 $64.41 Forest View $17.18 $43.00 $60.18 $64.85 Hamm Quarry $27.27 $29.00 $56.27 $60.94 Johnson County $17.68 $44.00 $61.68 $ From Exhibit From Exhibit Assumes additional fee of $4.67 per ton. Based on the costs discussed in Section 4, the anticipated tipping fees for a new landfill (including the costs for the City s environmental programs) are: $41.28 $43.07 per ton for a 300 ton per day landfill, $29.55 $31.14 per ton for a 500 ton per day landfill, and $24.91 $26.40 per ton for a 700 ton per day landfill. The current tipping fee charged at the landfill is $31.11 per ton. Theses economics, and reported remaining life of these landfills as shown on Exhibit 5-1, should be considered in long-term decisions relative to a transfer station. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION As discussed in the previous section, the SWMTF has recommended that the City develop a new landfill, which would not require the City to build or operate a transfer station. However, should it be determined that a new landfill is not feasible for the City, the SWMTF then recommends that the City consider constructing a transfer station at the current landfill location, if at that time the economics are favorable. 5-7

50 SECTION 6 ALTERNATIVES FOR THE COLLECTION OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE Currently, there are four haulers licensed to provide residential trash and recycling collection in Lee s Summit. Private haulers compete to provide refuse collection service to residents; fees are set by the haulers. If a resident is dissatisfied with a particular hauler, he is free to choose another private company. As a result, more than one hauler may actually service one residential street. Alternatively, several neighborhood homeowners associations negotiate with a single hauler to provide services for that neighborhood; the homeowner pays for collection through association dues. The City of Lee s Summit is responsible for licensing haulers. To be granted a license, haulers are required to meet standards for collection of recyclables, collection frequency, and performance standards (e.g., spillage, noise, equipment, insurance). COLLECTION ALTERNATIVES The SWMTF examined two alternatives for the collection of solid waste: automated collection and organized collection systems. Each is discussed below. Automated Collection In general, two types of automated collection are available: semi- and fully-automated. Semi-Automated Collection-- This type of collection uses vehicles equipped with mechanical lifting devices which can minimize manual labor. Crews typically wheel 60- or 90-gallon carts to the vehicle, line the cart up with the lifting device, and activate the lifter. The lifting device can be mounted on rear-load or side-load vehicles. The lifting device raises and tips the cart, dumping the contents into the hopper of the collection vehicle. Fully Automated Collection-- This type of collection, the driver positions the collection vehicle beside the 60- or 90-gallon cart. Using controls inside the cab of the vehicle, the driver maneuvers a side-mounted arm to pick up the container and dump its contents into the hopper of the vehicle. The driver then uses the arm to place the container back onto the curb. Some of the advantages of automated collection include: Increased collection efficiency and volume collected per route. 6-1

51 Reduced crew requirements; only a driver is needed. Improved worker comfort. Lessened worker strain and injury which leads to fewer lost workdays and reduces workers compensation. Decreased litter on collection days because the cart is lidded and therefore, protected from wind. The primary disadvantage of automated collection is the initial costs of purchasing specialized vehicles and providing carts to homeowners. Additional disadvantages include: Automated vehicles require more maintenance than traditional rear loaders and require specialized mechanics. Automated trucks have added mileage because they can only pick up on one side of the street. Haulers also must educate homeowners on where to place bins and what kinds of trash can be collected. Bulky items usually require a separate collection. Automated collection also does not work well in densely populated areas with on-street parking. Additionally, automated collection can require significant capital expenses for haulers to purchase new equipment. Organized Collection System The following discussion presents options that were discussed for an alternative, organized collection system that could be implemented in Lee s Summit. An organized collection system often is used by cities to minimize overlapping service areas of private haulers. Typically, the jurisdiction establishes collection areas or districts which are then awarded or assigned, through a competitive process, to private haulers who provide all collection services necessary for waste/recyclables collection and disposal either through contracts or franchises. This type of system eliminates overlapping competition between companies and essentially assigns residences to particular haulers. The jurisdiction then has the responsibility for monitoring the private haulers and the quality of services provided. There are two primary mechanisms used to achieve organized collection: contract and franchise. Contract System-- Under a contract system, refuse collection is administered by the jurisdiction who is responsible for billing customers and providing customer service. However, the jurisdiction contracts 6-2

52 directly with refuse haulers to provide collection services using their own trucks and personnel in designated areas for a pre-determined fee paid by the jurisdiction. Such contracts usually result from a public bidding process. Franchise System-- Under the franchise system, the jurisdiction is divided into collection districts. Private haulers are granted a franchise based on competitive bidding. The haulers are responsible for billing customers and providing customer service. The jurisdiction, however, would regulate the hauler s rates and set performance standards, in essence acting as a representative of the customers. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION Based on the survey results that were presented in Section 2, approximately 93 percent of respondents are very satisfied, satisfied, or somewhat satisfied with their trash collection. When asked the question about who should be responsible for arranging trash collection service, the majority of respondents thought the responsibility should remain with the individual user (53 percent) or the neighborhood or homeowner s association (17 percent). Only 19 percent of the respondents indicated that the City of Lee s Summit should be responsible for arranging for trash collection. The remaining 11 percent were not sure who should have responsibility. The survey of citizens opinions indicated a strong preference that the City should not be responsible for providing trash collection services. The SWMTF concurs with the survey findings that the City should not be responsible for providing trash collection services and no organized collection mechanism is being recommended by the SWMTF at this time. The SWMTF further believes that implementation of automated collection systems should remain a business-related decision of the haulers. 6-3

53 SECTION 7 WASTE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING ALTERNATIVES This section presents policies and programs designed to reduce the amount of wastes requiring disposal by Lee s Summit. Potential programs are presented within the following categories: City programs for waste reduction and recycling (page 7-1). Programs to encourage residential waste reduction and recycling (page 7-9). Commercial waste reduction and recycling programs (page 7-21). Programs for Construction and Demolition Debris (page 7-27). This section closes with the recommendations of the Solid Waste Management Task Force (page 7-32). CITY PROGRAMS FOR WASTE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING Existing City Programs Currently, the City has an informal system for collecting paper and cans in some departments. As of June 2006 new bins and labels have been purchased for the new City Hall building and the Environmental Coordinator is working with maintenance to track and improve recycling collection. Options Evaluated To promote effective solid waste management in the community, Lee s Summit should be prepared to lead by example. Following are programs that address internal City programs and policies for waste reduction and recycling: Expand the City s internal recycling program. Establish policies for recycling (encourage use of recyclable materials and collect recyclables) at City events. Establish policies and procedures for the procurement of recycled products. Establish policies and procedures for environmentally preferable purchasing. Establish waste reduction policies (e.g., double-sided printing, energy saving settings on computers). Each of these options is discussed below. 7-1

54 Expand the City s Internal Recycling Program-- Lee s Summit can declare its commitment to reducing its waste by providing all employees the opportunity to recycle. Lee s Summit will need to design a system to collect the recyclable materials, identify key staff to make decisions and resolve problems, notify employees regarding the recycling program, and train staff. For informational purposes, the general steps involved in setting up a recycling program include: Designate a "Recycling Coordinator": Select someone to oversee the recycling program. The recycling coordinator will be responsible for arranging collection of recyclables, encouraging employees to recycle and overall monitoring of the recycling program. The City s Environmental Coordinator currently is fulfilling this role; however, it may be advantageous to have a recycling coordinator designated for each department. Arrange for Collection: There are several options to consider for collection. The first place to start is the City s current waste hauler. Get Recycling Bins: Buy new bins for multiple locations in city offices, or transform some existing trash cans into recycling. Location: To generate maximum participation, recycling bins should be placed at each workstation or office (desk side), as well as in central areas such as lunchrooms, lounges and office machine rooms. Label the Bins: Clearly label every recycling bin to indicate what items go in the bin. Kick-Off the Recycling Program: Announce the office-recycling program through an event or a series of internal s. Keep Up the Enthusiasm: Create employee recycling incentive programs to keep the momentum going. Recycling at Community-Sponsored Events-- In addition to the recyclables generated during normal city activities, there are a number of special events scheduled in Lee s Summit throughout the year, at which recycling opportunities could be provided. These special events present a different kind of recycling challenge: Substantial amounts of waste are generated in a short period of time. There is a need to coordinate with vendors, event organizers, and others involved with a given event. 7-2

55 Education and monitoring is important, because contamination is a problem at most special events. Generally, such events generate significant volumes of corrugated cardboard from vendors. Generation of steel, aluminum, glass and plastic containers may vary depending on what food/drink vendors are offering. Because it is difficult to anticipate volumes and exact types of materials, it is probably best to collect all recyclable containers commingled in public areas, and provide separate containers for cardboard generated by vendors in areas not open to the public. It may be possible to have some control over the types of recyclable containers generated by placing guidelines on what vendors can offer, though this may be difficult to enforce and may result in loss of vendors who are not able to meet the guidelines. Another option is simply to provide guidelines that encourage vendors to reduce waste and encourage recycling through use of recyclable/refillable containers, minimal packaging, and bulk condiments in containers (rather than single serve packages). The number and types of collection containers and how they are serviced will need to vary somewhat based on the size, area, and nature of the event. Even with specially designed containers, however, contamination will probably still be a problem. To reduce this problem, volunteers from organizations could act as monitors at recycling points to greet and educate the public about recycling educate participants and raise recycling awareness. Procurement of Recycled Products-- Local, state, and federal government can and do use their tremendous purchasing power to influence the products that manufacturers bring to the marketplace. In the last decade or so, most efforts have focused on encouraging procurement of products made from recycled content. The goal of these procurement programs is to create viable, long-term markets for recovered materials. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has developed a list of designated products and associated recycled-content recommendations for federal agencies to use when making purchases. These are known as Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines. 1 To date, EPA has developed more than 60 comprehensive procurement guidelines that fall into the general categories of construction products, landscaping products, nonpaper office products, paper and paper products, park and recreation products, transportation products, vehicular products, and miscellaneous products. For example, federal agencies are instructed to buy printing or writing paper that contains at least 30% post-consumer recycled content. EPA has already designated or is proposing to designate the products listed in Exhibit 7-1 and has developed recycled-content recommendations. Currently, the City has an informal program for purchasing recycled paper and business cards. Lee s Summit could draw upon the extensive work completed by EPA and include its guidelines in purchasing policies for a wider range of items. Another tool available to Lee s Summit is the Missouri Market Development Program s Recycled Products Directory. The directory can help Lee s Summit staff locate vendors of recycled-content products that are being manufactured and distributed in Missouri. Sample pages from this directory are provided in Appendix E, the entire 1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines. Available at 7-3

56 EXHIBIT 7-1. FEDERAL PROCUREMENT GUIDELINES Building insulation products Carpet (polyester) Carpet cushion Cement and concrete containing: Coal fly ash Ground granulated blast furnace slag Cenospheres Silica fume Consolidated and reprocessed latex paint Floor tiles Compost made from yard trimmings or food waste Garden and soaker hoses Hydraulic mulch Lawn and garden edging Plastic lumber landscaping timbers and posts Binders, clipboards, file folders, clip portfolios, and presentation folders Office furniture Office recycling containers Office waste receptacles DESIGNATED Commercial/industrial sanitary tissue products Miscellaneous papers Newsprint Paperboard and packaging products Printing and writing papers Park benches and picnic tables Plastic fencing Playground equipment Channelizers Delineators Flexible delineators Engine coolants Rebuilt vehicular parts Awards and plaques Bike racks Blasting grit Industrial drums Manual-grade strapping CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTS DESIGNATED Flowable fill Laminated paperboard Modular threshold ramps Nonpressure pipe Patio blocks Railroad grade crossing surfaces Roofing materials Shower and restroom dividers/partitions Structural fiberboard LANDSCAPING PRODUCTS DESIGNATED PROPOSED Nylon carpet and nylon carpet backing PROPOSED Compost made from manure or biosolids (Revision) Fertilizers made from recovered organic materials NONPAPER OFFICE PRODUCTS DESIGNATED PROPOSED Plastic desktop accessories None at this time. Plastic envelopes Plastic trash bags Printer ribbons Toner cartridges PAPER AND PAPER PRODUCTS PROPOSED None at this time. PARK AND RECREATION PRODUCTS DESIGNATED PROPOSED Playground surfaces None at this time. Running tracks TRANSPORTATION PRODUCTS DESIGNATED PROPOSED Parking stops None at this time. Traffic barricades Traffic cones VEHICULAR PRODUCTS DESIGNATED Re-refined lubricating oils Retread tires MISCELLANEOUS PRODUCTS DESIGNATED Mats Pallets Signage Sorbents PROPOSED None at this time. PROPOSED None at this time. 7-4

57 directory is available on line at: Advantages: Without consumer support, markets for recyclables, and products made from them, will not reach their full potential. Procurement programs create viable, long-term markets for recovered materials and provide more efficient use of valuable resources. Research is necessary to determine the types of recycled content products that are available, their specifications, performance, and cost. Much of this research is available to purchasing agents, however, through documents such as Missouri s Recycled Products Directory and through published results available through other municipalities such as King County, Washington ( Disadvantages: Government purchasing agents often have concerns about the quality and price of recycled-content products. Careful testing and selection of recycled content products can minimize concerns about product quality. Certain recycled-content products may have a higher initial purchase cost, but may require less maintenance or long-term costs over the life of the product. Cost concerns can be addressed by considering short-term and long-term costs (life cycle costs) in comparing product alternatives. Environmentally Preferable Purchasing-- More recently, efforts have expanded beyond buy-recycled programs and policies (discussed above) to Environmentally Preferable Purchasing (EPP). In fact, the federal government has been directed by Executive Order to identify and give preference to the purchase of products and services that pose fewer environmental burdens. Environmentally preferable products typically are defined as products that have a lesser or reduced effect on human health and the environment when compared with competing products that serve the same purpose. They include products that have recycled content, reduce waste, use less energy, are less toxic, and are more durable. Some of the benefits of EPP include: Improved ability to meet existing environmental goals. Improved worker safety and health. Reduced liabilities. Reduced health and disposal costs. Federal agencies are now encouraged to consider a broad range of environmental factors in purchasing decisions. Lee s Summit could follow this lead and incorporate this philosophy in purchasing decisions. Lee s Summit can incorporate these five guiding principles adopted by the federal government: 2 Environment + Price + Performance = EPP: Include environmental considerations as part of the normal purchasing process. 2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. More information available at 7-5

58 Pollution Prevention: Emphasize pollution prevention early in the purchasing process. Life Cycle Perspective/Multiple Attributes: Examine multiple environmental attributes throughout a product s or service s life cycle. Comparison of Environmental Impacts: Compare relevant environmental impacts when selecting products or services. Environmental Performance Information: Collect accurate and meaningful information about environmental performance and use it to make purchasing decisions. Given the number of products that local governments typically purchase, it can be challenging to determine which products to substitute for safer ones. Computer products can be a good candidate for Lee s Summit to consider for EPP because of the potential environmental impacts associated with the manufacture, use, and end-of-life management of computers. Electronic waste is often identified as one of the most significant waste problem with respect to management costs and potential environmental impacts. Furthermore, electronic waste has become a primary concern as a result of the increase of new electronic products combined with their rapid obsolescence, low recycling rate and their potential to contain hazardous materials. Lee s Summit could develop environmentally preferable purchasing criteria for computers and electronics (such as CPUs, monitors, keyboards, printers, fax machines, and copiers) which could include: Compliance with federal Energy Star Guidelines Reduced toxic constituents Reduced toxic materials used in manufacturing process Recycled content plastic housing Pre-installed software and on-line manuals Designed for recycling/reuse Upgradeable/long life Reduced packaging Manufacturer provides product take-back service Manufacturer demonstrates corporate environmental responsibility Advantages: Adoption of EPP practices allows government agencies to reduce the harmful environmental impacts of their activities as well as promote the development of products that have improved environmental performance. Specifically, implementing an EPP program for computers can result in the purchase of computers with lower operating costs, extended useful lives and reduced disposal costs. Disadvantages: Requires staff to review products they are currently purchasing. Staff may be comfortable with the products they are using and familiar with application procedures and performance expectations. Additional guidance on implementing an environmentally preferable purchasing policy, developed by Alameda County, California, is provided in Appendix F. 7-6

59 City Waste Reduction Policies-- In addition to educating consumers and businesses, it is important for local governments to practice what they preach. Through numerous, small choices employees make each day, large amounts of waste can be prevented. Employees should be encouraged to learn more about waste reduction practices and work toward implementing and promoting such practices. Such practices by Lee s Summit employees should be implemented whenever practicable and cost-effective. Examples include: Electronic communication instead of printed, double-sided photocopying and printing. Using copiers and printers capable of duplexing. Allowing residents to submit electronic rather than paper forms and applications. Washable and reusable dishes and utensils. Rechargeable batteries. Streamlining and computerizing forms. On-demand printing of documents and reports as they are needed. Leasing long-life products when service agreements support maintenance and repair rather than new purchases, such as carpets. Sharing equipment and occasional use items. Choosing durable products rather than disposable. Reducing product weight or thickness when effectiveness is not jeopardized in products such as, but not limited to, paper and plastic liner bags. Buying in bulk, when storage and operations exist to support it. Reusing products such as, but not limited to, file folders, storage boxes, office supplies, and furnishings. Mulching pruned material from parks and using on site. The City s employees are most knowledgeable about ways that waste can be reduced or even eliminated and their ideas are essential. Adopted policies should be reinforced through employee incentives for outstanding performance. Advantages: Certain workplace practices can help prevent waste before it is created. Many practices can reduce local government costs through avoided disposal fees and can also save 7-7

60 natural resources. By implementing waste reduction programs in their own offices and facilities, local governments not only reduce their own waste but also show their commitment to such programs. They can use their own waste reduction experiences to illustrate the benefits of source reduction when developing similar programs in the commercial and residential sectors of their communities. Disadvantages: Other factors to consider in changing workplace practices are energy, water, disposal and labor costs as well as toxicity, safety and training changes. For example: Energy requirements of different products can result in measurable cost changes for the organization. Energy for lighting, heating water and running appliances can vary between products. Water usage may also change with different procedures or products. Labor costs may also change with product or procedure changes. Safety and training are two other factors that come into play with product or procedure changes. The alternative product must be at least as safe as the old one. Sometimes, additional staff training is required to implement the reduction action. 7-8

61 PROGRAMS TO ENCOURAGE RESIDENTIAL WASTE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING Existing City Programs The following are programs currently used by the City to encourage waste reduction and recycling. Outreach and Education-- The City of Lee s Summit has information about programs available on the City s website, on Channel 2, and included in the City s Newsletter: the City Scope. In June of 2006, the City was awarded a $15,000 grant to market recycling services Lee s Summit Recycling 101 for printing and postage of a brochure to be sent to all residents. Drop-Off Recycling Facility-- Lee s Summit has one drop-off recycling center located at the City s Resource Recovery Park on the south side of town. The facility is open 8:00 am to 4:00 pm, Monday through Saturday, and currently accepts all the recyclables that the City s recycling contractor, Deffenbaugh Industries, will take. The City does not accept electronics, or other materials that require sorting, as the drop-off center is unmanned. Curbside Recycling-- Lee s Summit does require that all trash haulers provide curbside recycling to their customers (see Exhibit 7-2). The City ordinance does not require trash haulers to advertise this service. Unlike yard waste, recycling is not included in the price of trash service and haulers typically charge between $2.50 and $12.00 per month. While the City ordinance requires haulers to offer recycling services to customers, it does not require residents to subscribe to services. As indicated by the Solid Waste Survey results, only 19 percent of the survey respondents subscribe to curbside recycling services. As discussed earlier in Section 3, however, the quarterly reports submitted by the haulers indicate that only 11 percent of their customers subscribe to curbside recycling services. The SWMTF reviewed the City s ordinance and does not believe it necessary to recommend changes at this time. 7-9

62 EXHIBIT 7-2. LEE S SUMMIT RECYCLING ORDINANCE Section of the Lee s Summit Code of Ordinances requires the following: A. All persons engaged in the business of collecting, transporting, processing or disposing of solid waste, yard waste, or recyclables within the city shall be required to offer, to customers located within the city, curbside recycling of the following items: 1. Metal cans, including aluminum and tin cans and lids. 2. Rigid plastic containers marked with the recycling code Rigid plastic containers marked with the recycling code Newsprint. B. In addition to the required items listed in subsection A above, all persons engaged in the business of collecting, transporting, processing or disposing of solid waste, yard waste, or recyclables shall be required to offer, to customers within the city, curbside recycling of one or more of the following items: 1. Clear, green, and brown glass containers 2. Magazines 3. Mixed/office paper 4. Corrugated cardboard 5. Chipboard 6. Any other recyclable item approved by the director C. Nothing in this article shall be construed to prohibit offering recycling of items in addition to those listed in subsection A or B. Online Material Exchange-- Lee s Summit participates in the Freecycle Network ( which is an online material exchange. The Freecycle Network provides individuals and non-profit organizations an electronic forum to "recycle" unwanted items. Participating individuals are allowed to advertise items that are being given away. Each local group is moderated by a local volunteer. Options Evaluated Alternatives evaluated to increase residential waste reduction and recycling include: Continue and improve outreach and education for waste reduction and recycling. Expand City-sponsored waste reduction programs. 7-10

63 Expand the City s drop-off recycling program by adding a new center or accepting additional materials. Increase participation in curbside recycling by: rewarding residential recyclers, bundling recycling costs with yard waste and trash collection, require mandatory subscription with voluntary participation in curbside recycling, establish a City contract for recycling services, and Unit-based pricing. Each of these options is discussed below. Public Education and Outreach-- While the City has existing education and outreach programs, the City should consider budgeting for expanded public education efforts for waste reduction and recycling. For example, residents need regular reminders about the hows and whys of recycling. Examples of methods that can be used to educate residents about these two topics include: Brochures: Brochures should explain waste reduction and recycling options. A brochure focusing on recycling should include information on which materials are accepted for recycling, how to prepare the items for collection, and where and when to recycle, but also explain why it is important to recycle and the benefits of recycling. Brochures can be directly mailed to homes and businesses, however the cost of postage can be prohibitive. Other options include hand delivering, perhaps with the help of a local scout group or similar youth organization. Brochures also can be made available at city offices, schools, libraries and at special events. Brochures are most effective when they are printed in more than one color and have pictures or drawings to emphasize the message. Newsletters: Many homeowners associations distribute newsletters to residents. Waste reduction and recycling information, provided by the City, should be included when possible. Article topics should vary and could include general waste reduction and recycling information, as well as proper disposal information for household hazardous waste, special waste (e.g., tires, batteries, appliances, used motor oil, electronics), and yard waste. Website: More and more people look for community information on the Internet. It is recommended that more detailed solid waste, waste reduction, recycling, and special waste disposal information be included on the City s website. However, the Solid Waste Survey indicated that few respondents visited the City s website so additional educational material may need to be developed to encourage use of the website. Television: Lee s Summit should be able to air public information, such as recycling information, on the local public access television channel. Some municipalities have created videos tailored to their communities programs, which can be an effective way to broadcast information to residents. Promotional Items: Promotional items, such as pens, magnets, and rulers, are an inexpensive way to get environmental messages out to residents in a way that has the potential to be seen 7-11

64 over and over again. Care should be taken, however, not to inundate residents with promotional items, or they may quickly become part of the waste stream. When designing public education brochures and information pieces, the City should consider using a consistent look in all pieces (i.e., use the same font, colors, logo, mascot). Residents will eventually recognize these as waste reduction and recycling (or illegal dumping) information pieces and will hopefully save them and reference them when needed. The City needs to be aware that public information should never stop. It functions to tell new residents, new community leaders, and successive generations about waste reduction and recycling programs while reinforcing the message for those who are already familiar with it. Waste Reduction Programs-- Residents can be provided the opportunity to reduce waste by making reusable items available to others. Example programs used by other communities, which could be adopted by Lee s Summit, include: ReUse Shops: Some communities allow a limited dump and pick operation at landfills and transfer stations. After passing over the scales, customers can voluntarily set items that are deemed in usable condition in a designated area. Other residents can pick up the item at no charge after signing a hold harmless waiver. Swap Shops: Reuseable materials, including paints, garden chemicals, auto products, and other materials brought to household hazardous waste collection events are set aside for residents to take. Online material exchanges: Washington State offers a statewide, online materials exchange, for municipalities. This website provides a free, online bulletin board for residents to sell or give away used, but useable items, instead of sending them to the landfill. There is a private company that administers this type of website, charging municipalities a monthly fee. While the City participates in the Freecycle Network, in which materials must be available for free, the 2good2toss exchange allows individuals to sell items. Expanded Recycling Drop-Off Center Program-- Lee s Summit currently operates a recycling drop-off at the Resource Recovery Park. Materials accepted at the center include: Paperboard (Including phone books, paper grocery bags & paper egg cartons) Corrugated cardboard boxes (Flattened) Plastic containers Nos. 1 & 2 Office paper (Including junk mail & envelopes) Newspaper and Magazines Steel/Tin & Aluminum cans Glass containers sorted into clear, green & brown/blue 7-12

65 Exhibit 7-3 provides an overview of materials accepted for recycling and tonnages collected at other recycling centers operated within the region. Most of the recycling centers accept aluminum cans, tin cans, newspaper, corrugated cardboard, paperboard, and glass bottles. A few offer additional materials including Styrofoam peanuts, toner cartridges, and household batteries. Some facilities collect additional materials that are not identified on the exhibit including: clothing, cell phones, pagers, athletic shoes, some computer and electronic media, and small usable appliances. Most facilities have limited hours of operation. For comparison, the annual tonnages identified in the exhibit include paper, aluminum cans, tin cans, and glass. The tonnages do not include: foil or pie pans, toner cartridges, household batteries, Styrofoam peanuts, or scrap metal. Several of the drop-off centers in the region collect more tons of materials and operate fewer hours than the Lee s Summit facility, including the recently closed Adair Park location in Independence and three sites in Kansas City (Metro North, Bannister, and UMKC). In 2005, approximately 446 tons of materials were collected for recycling through the Lee s Summit drop-off center. Most residents and businesses using such centers indicated in the Solid Waste Survey that they do so because opportunities for certain materials are not provided through curbside collection or it saved them money. Lee s Summit could consider expanding its current drop-off center program by either adding additional materials for collection or add an additional site located elsewhere in the city (on city-owned property). At a minimum, Lee s Summit should periodically evaluate the range of recyclables accepted at the current drop-off center and determine whether new materials should be added. Additional materials should be considered by Lee s Summit on a case-by-case basis and should be based on several factors such as market stability and collection and processing costs. The following are specific factors that could be considered for adding new materials: Local markets and/or brokers expand their list of acceptable items based on new uses for materials or technologies that increase demand. New local or regional processing or demand for a given material occurs. Sufficient quantity of the material is available in the waste stream. The material can be collected efficiently and has minimal processing requirements. The following are specific factors that could be considered for removing materials from the dropoff center: The market price becomes so low that it is not longer feasible to collect, process, and/or ship to markets. No market can be found for an existing recyclable material, causing the material to be stockpiled with no apparent solution in the near future. It is unlikely that any existing recyclables would be removed from the current collection program barring a sudden shift in market conditions. It is more likely that additional markets might become available for materials not currently collected for recycling. 7-13

66 EXHIBIT 7-3. MATERIALS AND TONNAGES COLLECTED BY RECYCLING CENTERS Materials Accepted 1 Community Drop-Off Center Aluminum Cans Tin Cans Newspaper Plastic #1/#2 Corrugated Cardboard Glass Bottles Magazines Foil, Pie Pans Telephone Books Paperboard Toner Cartridges Batteries, Household Styrofoam Peanuts Office Paper Scrap Metal Annual Tons Collected 2 Days/Hours of Operation 1 Independence, Adair Park (closed) Independence, Independence Square Kansas City, Metro North Kansas City, Bannister Kansas City, UMKC Kansas City, Deramus 802 A Fri 10-6 & Sat 8-4 Sun 8-4 & 405 A Mon ,060 B Wed-Fri 11-5:30 & Sat B Wed-Fri 11-5:30 & Sat B Wed-Fri 11-5:30 & Sat B Tues-Sun 8-4 Liberty 50 D Mon-Fri 7-4 & 3 rd Sat 8-12 Raytown 220 D 1 st & 3 rd Sat and Sun 8-4 Overland Park, Community Living Opportunities 1,126 D Sat 8-4 Mon-Fri 9-5 & Olathe 463 C 24 hours/7 days Wyandotte County, Park Drive 218 D Thurs & Sat 8-12:45 Fri & Sun 11-3:45 Lee s Summit 446 D Mon-Fri 8-4 & Sat Source: Mid-America Regional Council website: 2 Source: Mid-America Regional Council; personal communication, except for Lee s Summit tonnage A January - December 2005; based on available information. Adair Park location moved to Vista Drive in B Preliminary tonnages; Bannister location closed last 4-6 weeks of reporting period; April 2005 March C Estimate based on first 7 months, actual tonnages for fiber only; does not include aluminum cans, tin cans, or plastic. D January December

67 Increase Curbside Participation-- The following programs are designed to increase participation in curbside recycling programs. They include: rewarding residential recyclers, bundling recycling costs with yard waste and trash collection, require mandatory subscription/voluntary participation in curbside recycling, establish a City contract for recycling services, and Unit-based pricing Rewards Program for Residential Recyclers--One method to encourage residents to subscribe to curbside recycling is to reward those that do with cash prizes or gift certificates. Below is a description of a program used by one community to encourage recycling. 3 Lee s Summit could adopt a similar, but modified, program. Six Lucky Fontana Residents per Month Could Win Cash for Recycling Correctly! The City of Fontana and Burrtec Waste Industries want to reward Fontana residents who take the time to recycle correctly...with a CASH PRIZE of up to $100! Residents who recycle correctly keep rates lower for everyone and recycling everything possible lowers the amount of trash going to the landfill! We want to put Fontana at the Top of the Heap of cities that recycle - you can help by taking the Recycling Challenge. We encourage you to participate by entering the contest and recycling correctly...you could turn your BLUE and GREEN BINS into a win-win payoff for you and the environment! Six names will be drawn each month, see details below. How to Enter: Fill out the entry card inside and drop it in the mail or drop it off at the City of Fontana Public Works Center. If your entry is selected, we will take your BLUE (recyclables) bin and your GREEN (yard waste) bin on your regularly scheduled trash pickup day. We will analyze the contents of your bins and return them to you (emptied) within 24 hours. If the contents of BOTH of your bins meet the recyclable and yard waste guidelines (see list in this brochure), you win $100 in CASH! (If one bin is correct, you win 50!) Note: Your BLACK bin is for your regular trash and is not part of this Recycling Challenge. See complete rules below. 3 More information available at: