Agenda - Council - 01/12/1982 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! SII)ES MANDATING DISPOSAL AT DESIGNATED RE- SOUl-ICE RECOVERY FACILITIES, Rednce or reJnove the dispom] fees at resource recovery plants. Under this plan the publ]c would agree to pay part or all of the operating costs lhat would otherwise be recovered through a dumping charge assessed to haulers who brought lheir tra~ lo thc facility. The objective would be to make resource recovery facilities competitive with landfills. R~i~ ft~e price of dnmping at landfills. To increase the cost of disposal at landfills, one suggestion was made to tax landfills. Another suggestion was to in- crease re£mlations to insure that dumping charges at landfills rcflec! all costs associated with landfiIling. The objective wonld be the same as lhat involved in ~educing or removing dumping charges al a resource recovery faci- lity, r~amely, to make resource recovery facilities competi- tive with the landfills. Contract with hm,lers for collection and delivery of waste to resource recovery facilities. Under this arrangement a public agency could contract with haulers for collection of waste within a specified -10- geographic area. The agreement would :~:i,:~l:~tc that haulers would dispose of lheir waste at the ~c~.,~mcc ~ccov. ery facility. Collection and disposal of waste in Minneapolis is handled under such an arrangement today. Presumably the contracting could be done through negolia- lions with a consortium of haulers, or an open bid basis with separate haulers. The 1980 Waste Management Act requires that, before the Metropolitan Council can reqnire use of a resource recovery plant, attempts must be made to contract with haulers to use the plant. Sign "put-or-pay" contracts with the facility operators. Under this plan the public would agree to pa2,' parl or all of the operating costs of the facility, should it fail to receive enough waste to generate sufficient income on its own. The public might also desioma a plan that combined any or all of these methods of mitigating the risk. For example, the public could decide to reduce the dump- ing charges at a resource recovery facility, but then require the facility operator to solicit contracts with haulers to bring their waste to the facility. '1