SR-510-003 (3)
---
.
10-8
JUl 2 8 1992
California
.
5/ CJ- 06) 3
GS:SES:TD:RG:srre
Council Meeting: July 28, 1992
Santa Monica,
~UG
4 'i992
To:
Mayor and city council
~ CJ ./ -.J
From: city staff
subject: Recommendation to Hold Final Public Hearing and Formally
Adopt the city of Santa Monica's Source Reduction and
Recycling Element and Household Hazardous Waste Element
and To support The California Materials Exchange (CALMAX)
program
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends the holding of a final public hearing and
that City council formally adopt the City's Source Reduction and
Recycling Element (SRRE) and Household Hazardous Waste Element
(HHWE) which are required to be submitted to the California
Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) under the purview of
Assembly Bill 939.
A preliminary public hearing on the draft
documents was held on November 12, 1991.
These elements have been designed to continue the city's commitment
to enhancing the environment by meeting the state-mandated
diversion goals of AB 939 with a fully integrated solid waste
management program.
The final SRRE and HHWE documents were distributed for public
review in advance of this public hearing as required.
Review
copies have been available to members of the public at Santa Monica
libraries and at offices in city Hall.
1
I~-B
JUL
) .... "t'''''I....,,^
~ 3 i,,~i
AUG 4 1992
.
.
In addition, it is recommended that the Council adopt a Resolution
in support of the California Materials Exchange (CALMAX) program.
specific information on this item is discussed at the end of this
report.
BACKGROUND
In 1989, the state Assembly passed legislation, AB 939, to address
various problems associated with the collection and disposal of
solid waste (AB 939 has been subsequently clarified and
strengthened by AB 1820, AB 888, and AB 2707). The solid waste
"crisis" which this legislation is intended to address stems from
a decreasing amount of available landfill space in the state,
environmental concerns related to the conservation and preservation
of natural resources, and the presence of hazardous household
products in the waste stream.
AB 939 stipulates that every jurisdiction in California is
responsible for all the solid waste which is generated within its
boundaries. The legislation mandates that 25 percent of this solid
waste must be diverted from landfills by 1995 (short term) and that
50 percent must be diverted by the year 2000 (medium term). Any
juriSdiction which does not meet these diversion requirements may
be subject to a fine of $10,000 for each day of non-compliance,
i.e., for each day that the 25 percent or 50 percent diversion
requirement is not met.
2
.
.
The first milestone which has been established by the state towards
compliance with AB 939 and the accompanying legislation is the
completion of two separate documents: the Source Reduction and
Recycling Element (SRRE) and the Household Hazardous Waste Element
(HHWE). The SRRE explains in detail how much farther the City of
Santa Monica must go to achieve its waste diversion goals and what
programs/policies will be implemented to ensure that the goals are
reached. The HHWE describes the household hazardous waste problem
in Santa Monica and proposes an action plan for reducing the
magnitude of the problem between now and the year 2000. Unlike the
city's regular solid waste, state legislation does not mandate a
specific percentage reduction in the volume of household hazardous
waste which is landfilled, although the primary purpose of the HHWE
is to identify programs and policies which can achieve both source
reduction and diversion of household hazardous waste.
AB 939 created a new state agency, the California Integrated Waste
Management Board (CIWMB), which is responsible for the review and
approval of all SRRE and HHWE documents. The City of Santa
Monica's submission of both documents has also been coordinated
within the L.A County Integrated Waste Management Task Force's
Master Plan schedule which is the local jurisdictional entity
responsible for formal submission of these documents to the CIWMB.
Following Council review and approval of the plans and acceptance
by the CIWMB, the city will be required to submit an annual report
3
.
.
which summarizes progress toward implementation of the adopted plan
and achievement of the diversion requirements.
PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT
Extensive notification and dissemination of information, complying
with the extensive public review and comment process which is
required by the legislation, has been accomplished throughout the
preparation of these documents. As noted, the final elements have
been disseminated in advance of this hearing and notice given.
Also, in advance of the preliminary public hearing on the draft
documents in November / 1991, over fifty copies of the draft
documents were distributed to the City Council, members of the Task
Force on the Environment I state and County agencies, numerous
cities in the region, City Departments, the Neighborhood Support
Center and the Chamber of Commerce. Further, City staff held a
community meeting on October 28/ 1991 at the Ken Edwards Center.
This meeting was advertised in the Outlook and through flyers
posted at several locations in the City. Comments that were
received during the preliminary draft review process of these
elements were addressed and incorporated into the documents as
deemed appropriate.
These documents were also provided to the Los Angeles County Solid
Waste Management Committee, as required. They congratulated the
city for its timely preparation of the SRRE document and provided
comments limited to issues of regional concern such as cooperation
4
.
.
with other jurisdictions, disposal capacity, diverted materials,
and funding.
The Solid Waste Management Committee did not review or comment on
the HHWE since they were of the opinion that adequate specific
guidelines do not exist for review. After review, the California
Integrated Waste Management Board found the HHWE to be "adequate
and well presented" and, other than requesting that the appropriate
CEQA documents be circulated through the state Clearinghouse for
Agency review, had no additional comments.
DISCUSSION
Source Reduction and Recvcling Element
The city of Santa Monica currently generates approximately 129,000
tons of solid waste per year. Commercial and industrial waste
comprise 68 percent (88,000 tons) of this total and residential
waste comprises 32 percent (41,OOO tons). The draft SRRE indicates
that about 22,000 tons of total municipal solid waste are diverted
from landfills each year through various City-sponsored and private
source reduction and recycling efforts. This amount does not
include the very significant amounts of concrete and asphalt that
are ground up and recycled by the City/Blue Diamond partnership.
Of the remaining 107,000 tons which end up in landfills, City crews
collect about 70,000 tons and several private refuse haulers who
operate in the City collect the balance of 37,000 tons. Since some
5
.
.
of these private haulers (pay a fee) dump their loads at the City's
refuse transfer station, 84,000 tons are transported by the city
each year from the transfer station to three major landfills in Los
Angeles County. The remaining 23,000 tons are transported to
various landfills in the area by the private refuse haulers. City
transfer trailer trucks currently make approximately fifteen daily
trips to the landfills from the City's refuse transfer station,
with each round trip averaging sixty miles.
Through a combination of City-sponsored recycling programs, private
recycling programs and source reduction activities, approximately
17 percent of the City's total waste stream (22,000 tons per year)
is presently diverted from landfills. Of this total, 10,445 tons
are diverted from commercial and industrial establishments and
11,192 tons are diverted from residential occupancies. Santa
Monica residents are therefore currently achieving a 27 percent
diversion of the residential wastestream. The main emphasis for
future recycling and source reduction efforts, as outlined in the
SRRE, is therefore directed at the commercial/industrial sector.
The draft SRRE contains the following major sections:
Goals and Objectives
solid Waste Generation Analysis
Source Reduction Component
Recycling Component
composting Component
6
.
.
special Waste Component
Education and Public Information Component
Disposal Facility Capacity Component
Funding Component
Integration Component
Each one of these required sections presents a substantial amount
of baseline data on present city efforts and comprehensively
details the steps which may be taken by the City to move from the
present status to achievement of a 25 percent and 50 percent solid
waste diversion. To achieve results in the commercial/industrial
sector, it will be necessary to require detailed information from
each of the 14 or more private refuse collection firms, concerning
their baseline data and their plans for achieving the 1995 and 2000
goals.
Literally hundreds of possible actions are listed in the SRRE, not
all of which can receive the same priority focus by the city due to
logistical and financial resource limitations. As the internal and
external environment which affects the ability of the City to
implement programs continues to change over the next few years, it
is important that the entire range of policy options available to
the City be considered. An essential function of the SRRE is to
comprehensively delineate this menu of options, even though some of
them may not be ultimately implemented. Based on present
conditions, the following specific programs are believed to present
7
.
.
the most promise for aChieving the required solid waste diversion.
Many will require planning and actions by each of the private
haulers in addition to the city. The following programs have been
or are proposed to be implemented by 1995:
Source Reduction
o Implement a fee-for-volume refuse billing system to provide
monetary incentives for reducing the volume of solid waste to
all categories of city customers
o Provide technical assistance to businesses on alternative
production techniques or revised purchasing policies which can
achieve a significant reduction in the amount of solid waste
Recycling
o Increase the categories of materials which are collected by
the city's recycling program
o Increase City recycling services to the commercial sector
o Increase recycling services to the mUlti-family sector
o Require private refuse haulers to provide recycling services
and document achievement of required diversion rates
o Construct a materials recovery facility (MRF)
composting
o Promote backyard composting
o Establish a green waste drop-off center
o provide separate green waste collection for residential
customers
8
.
.
Household Hazardous Waste Element
The problem of hazardous household waste (HHW) is increasingly
recognized as a troubling component of the municipal waste stream.
In Santa Monica, it is estimated that approximately 1,400 tons of
HHW is generated each year by the City's residents. This averages
about 61 pounds per year per household or four percent of the total
residential solid waste stream and slightly more than one percent
of the City's total municipal solid waste.
Santa Monica's commitment to HHW management is demonstrated by its
current permanent HHW collection facility located at the City Yard,
one of the few such facilities in the United states. Approximately
120 tons are collected at the HIDi facility each year, or eight
percent of the total HHW in the city's waste stream. Approximately
65-70% of all materials collected are paint and much of this is
being recycled and used by a variety of groups. Al though this
collection figure appears low, it actually represents a very
significant diversion rate when compared to the limited or non-
existent programs in other jurisdictions, and also represents a
substantial on-going financial investment by the city. The
ultimate success of the City's HHW programs, however, is not
proposed to be measured by the amount of materials which are
diverted but rather by an overall reduction in the total amount of
hazardous materials which are purchased and used by households in
the City. The Household Hazardous Waste Element therefore presents
the following hierarchy for the City'S program efforts:
9
.
.
o
Through pUblic education and information,
to promote the use of safer substitutes,
management of hazardous materials and
generation of household hazardous waste
including programs
improve household
reduce the total
o Eliminate, to the maximum extent possible, the illegal dumping
of HEW which endangers public health and safety, threatens the
City's water supplies and causes ecological damage to Santa
Monica Bay
o continue to reduce or eliminate entry of HHW into the solid
waste stream to protect the integrity of landfills and reduce
potential hazards to the environment, the general pUblic and
City waste collection personnel
o Continue efforts to recycle and reuse most of the materials
recovered through the City's HHW collection programs
o Through operation of the city's HHW facility and other
diversion programs, continue to increase the amount of city
HHW diverted by 1995
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
A Final Initial study and a proposed Negative Declaration have been
prepared for the project. The Initial study examined the impacts
of the proposed project on the environment and determined that a
Negative Declaration should be approved for the project.
SUPPORT OF CALIFORNIA MATERIALS EXCHANGE (CALMAX) PROGRAM
This staff report also recommends that Council adopt a resolution
supporting participation in the California Materials Exchange
(CALMAX) Program. This new program is sponsored by the California
Integrated Waste Management Board and is designed to help
communities
increase materials reuse and foster economic
10
.
.
development. CALMAX publishes a bi-monthly Materials Listing
catalog which allows businesses and agencies to advertise unneeded
materials as well as materials that they require. Advertising is
free and catalogs are distributed free. Exchanges of materials are
worked out between the interested businesses which helps them to
avoid disposal costs and find new and inexpensive sources for
materials. CALMAX offers Santa Monica the opportunity to encourage
active resource conservation and AB 939 compliance efforts among
businesses in Santa Monica.
BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT
There are no budget or fiscal impacts associated with the adoption
of the report recommendation.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council hold a public hearing on
the final Source Reduction and Recycling Element and the final
Household Hazardous Waste Element, hear any public comments, and
adopt the Negative Declaration determination and the final
documents as per the attached Resolution. In addition, it is
recommended that the city Council adopt the attached resolution
supporting the California Materials Exchange (CALMAX) program.
11
.
.
Attachments:
A. Source Reduction and Recycling Element
B. Household Hazardous Waste Element
C. Resolution Adopting SRRE and HHWE
D. Resolution Establishing A Materials Reuse and Business
Outreach Program In Support of the CALMAX Program
Prepared by:
stan scholl, Director of General services
Jim Buell, Maintenance Manager
Craig Perkins, Environmental Programs Manager
Tom Dever, Solid Waste Superintendent
Brian Johnson, Environmental Programs Coordinator
Jon Root, Waste Reduction Coordinator
Richard Gonzalez, Sr. Administrative Analyst
12
.
.
.
~/O-~03
RESOLUTION NO. 8451 (CCS)
city of Santa Monica
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA MONICA ADOPTING THE SOURCE REDUCTION AND
RECYCLING ELEMENT AND THE HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS
WASTE ELEMENT IN COMPLIANCE WITH AB 939 AND
RELATED LEGISLATION
WHEREAS, the California State Assembly passed AB 939 and
related legislation to address various problems associated with the
collection and disposal of solid waste including the decreasing
amount of available landfill space in the state, environmental
concerns related to the conservation and preservation of natural
resources, and the presence of hazardous household products in the
waste stream; and,
WHEREAS, AB 939 stipulates that every jurisdiction in
California is responsible for all the solid waste which is
generated within its boundaries; and,
WHEREAS, AB 939 mandates that 25 percent of this solid
waste must be diverted from landfills by 1995 and that 50 percent
must be diverted by the year 2000, and further specifies that any
jurisdiction which does not neet these diversion requirements nay
be subject to a fine of $10,000 for each day of non-compliance;
and,
WHEREAS, the legislation has required the preparation and
completion of two separate documents:
the Source Reduction and
Recycling Element (SRRE) and the Household Hazardous Waste Element
(HHWE); and,
.
.
WHEREAS, the City of santa Monica prepared a draft SRRE
and a draft HHWE in 1991 in compliance with the legislative
mandates, circulated copies to numerous interested parties
including members of the City Council, members of the City's Task
Force On The Environment, state and County agencies, numerous
cities in the region, City departments, the Neighborhood Support
Center and the Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce; and,
WHEREAS, as part of the extensive public review and
comment process, a community meeting was held on October 28, 1991
at a local community center and a preliminary public hearing was
held by the City Council on November 12, 1991; and,
WHEREAS, Santa Monica's Source Reduction and Recycling
and Household Hazardous Waste elements have been designed to
continue the City's commitment to the environment by meeting the
state-mandated diversion goals of AB 939 with a fully integrated
solid waste management program; and,
WHEREAS, the SRRE explains in detail how much farther the
city of Santa Monica must go to achieve its waste diversion goals
and what programs/policies will be implemented to ensure that the
goals are reached, and the HmvE describes the household hazardous
waste problem in Santa Monica and proposes an action plan for
reducing the magnitude of the problem between now and the year
2000; and,
WHEREAS, a Final Initial Study was prepared for the SRRE
and HHWE proj ect which examined the potential impacts of the
proposed project on the environment and determined that a Negative
Declaration be approved for the project; and,
.
.
~mEREAS, the Initial study was circulated through the
state Clearinghouse for agency review in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and,
WHEREAS, a final public hearing was held on July 28, 1992
on the final versions of the Elements, at which time public
testimony was invited and received.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA
MONICA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
section 1. The city council of the City of Santa Monica
does hereby adopt the Final Source Reduction and Recycling Element
and the Final Household Hazardous Waste Element in compliance with
AB 939 and related legislation.
Section 2. The city council certifies that the SRRE and
the HHWE project was reviewed in accordance with state and city
CEQA regulations and guidelines and adopts a Negative Declaration
finding no significant environmental impacts associated with the
project.
section 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption
of this Resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall
be in full force and effect.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
'"\ . ..j. L........ . -?r,,~-~""!""'~~
~l.~r~~\ fT~' .'
" .,. ., f 1
\ ~
ROBERT M. MYERS ~
city Attorney
ab939.rso
.
.
Adopted and approved this 4th day of August, 1992.
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 845l(CCS)
was duly adopted by the city council of the City of Santa Monica
at a meeting thereof held on August 4, 1992 by the following
Council vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers: Abdo I Genser, Holbrook, Katz,
Olsen, Vazquez, Zane
Noes: Councilmembers: None
Abstain: Councilmembers: None
Absent: Councilmembers: None
ATTEST:
/~ r" i:
t-t:2lh/ b it7~
--- -..:.- Ci ty Clerk /
f
.
.
5/0-0cD3
RESOLUTION NO. 8452(CCS)
(CITY COUNCIL SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA TO ESTABLISH
A MATERIALS REUSE AND BUSINESS
OUTREACH POLICY
WHEREAS, the volume of material disposed of at the region's
landfills has been increasing each year, and
WHEREAS, much of the material that enters the waste stream
can be reused, recycled, or incorporated into the manufacture of
new products, and
WHEREAS, City of Santa Monica's participation in and
promotion of materials reuse programs can significantly reduce
the volume of material entering the waste stream thereby
extending the life expectancy of landfills and reducing expenses,
and
WHEREAS, California State Law requires cities and counties to
reduce the volume of material entering landfills by 25% by 1995
and 50% by the year 2000, and
WHEREAS, reuse of materials represents an efficient and
energy saving technique for reducing the volumes of materials
going to the landfill, and
WHEREAS, by reusing materials previously discarded or making
such material available for reuse, businesses can save money
through avoided disposal costs and help stimulate markets for
excess materials, and
WHEREAS, CALMAX, the California Materials Exchange, is a free
statewide service designed to increase reuse of materials, save
landfill space, and help businesses find markets for excess or
surplus materials.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City council of the City of Santa Monica will
cooperate to the greatest extent feasible with businesses in the
community to develop strategies for increasing the reuse of
materials at all levels of business and local government
activity.
Section 2. The City
businesses in the community
participating in a material
to these businesses.
of Santa Monica will identify the
which hold the greatest potential for
reuse program and will promote CALMAX
;
.
.
Section 3. All appropriate city departments shall work
cooperatively to further the purpose of this resolution and that
the city shall incorporate the goals of CALMAX into its economic
development process to help stimulate the market for excess and
surplus mater~als.
section 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of
this Resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be
in full force and effect.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
~t- ~ . "-- . -r::-
ROBERT M. MYERS U
City Attorney
resoref
,f
.
.
Adopted and approved this 4th day of August, 1992.
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 8452 (CCS)
was duly adopted by the City council of the City of Santa Monica
at a meeting thereof held on August 4, 1992 by the following
Council vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers: Abdo, Genser, Holbrook, Katz I
Olsen, Vazquez, Zane
Noes: Councilmembers: None
Abstain: Councilmembers: None
Absent: Councilmembers: None
ATTEST:
h //1'LJ/
J~?~ ? )Jo/~
<-- city...... Clerk /
. .
5'"/O-CtOs
DATE
.
ITEM #
Wfef2
ELE tetr
FILED IN
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
. . 5>lO-o
03
DATE
,
ITEM # ..
50u rc~
FILED IN
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
't~
Mr
.
.
5/0-.00.3
Santa Monica, California JUL
9-c.
GS:SS:TD:JR:sm:alley:word,refuse
Council Meeting: July 7, 1992
,.. ~.n ~,......
i .~~f..
""
./
FROM:
Mayor and city council
City Staff
TO:
SUBJECT:
Collection Location for Recyclables
INTRODUCTION
This report presents information regarding the collection
location of recycling containers in the City of Santa Monica's
recycling program.
The conclusion reached by staff is that
greater benefits are realized by both residents and city crews
when keeping refuse and recycling collections together in the
same location.
BACKGROUND
In July 1991, the Solid Waste Management Division made several
fundamental changes in its refuse and recycling operations.
These changes included switching from twice weekly, manual refuse
collection to once weekly, semi-automated collection~ changing
from a flat fee billing rate to a variable fee billing rate in
order to encourage waste reduction ~
increasing recycling
collections from once every two weeks to once weekly; and
expanding
collection.
the
number
of
households
receiving
recycling
At the time of implementation, City Council directed staff to
consolidate recycling collections in the same location where
- I -
q-c-
_ _ _ _!~L___ _i~_IJ,?l
.
.
refuse is collected. This change meant that in some
neighborhoods recycling collections would remain at the front
curb, while in other neighborhoods with alleys, recyclables would
be collected from the alley. Under the previous collection
system all recyclables were placed at the front curb regardless
of where refuse was collected. Approximately 60% of all
households had their recycling location moved from the curb to
the alley under the new system.
DISCUSSION
The new collection system has been in effect for twelve months.
Analysis indicates that there are several benefits to the current
collection location for recycled goods. First, there is a
considerable convenience factor for residents to place their
refuse and recycling containers in the same area for collection.
Instead of taking some materials to the front and others to the
back, all materials can be set-out at the same location.
Second, collection efficiency on the part of the City is also
realized because crews do not have to carry multiple containers
around parked cars or across busy streets. Fewer incidents of
missed set-outs have been reported since moving many of the
collections to alleys.
Third, collector safety is enhanced by collecting the
recyclables in alleys. This is of particular concern along
certain streets in the city including Ocean Park Boulevard, pico
Boulevard and Montana Avenue. Curbside piCk-Up along these
heavily traveled streets is dangerous for collectors as well as
- 2 -
.
.
motorists who must stop behind the trucks. Collections in these
areas are considerably safer from the alley than from the street.
A survey of 8 cities was conducted to assess their policies
regarding collection point of recyclables (Alhambra, Burbank,
Carson, Claremont, Hermosa Beach, Pasadena, Torrance, Rancho
Palos Verdes). All cities contacted said that recyclables are
collected from the same location as refuse, regardless of whether
that is at the curb or in the alley.
The primary argument against the alley collection point is that
theft is more likely to occur in alleys because scavengers cannot
be seen as easily as they can from the street. While staff
acknowledges that scavenging is a problem in the recycling
program, we do not concur that the problem is the result of
locating collections in the alley. During the week of June
15-19, 1992, an analysis was conducted to determine if there is a
difference in the volume of recyclables collected from the
curbside and alley collection points. During this period,
virtually no difference was seen in what had been collected from
curbside set-outs and alley set-outs.
It should be noted that since the beginning of Santa Monica's
recycling program 12 years ago, scavenging has been a problem to
varying degrees. The rule of thumb is that as the value of
recyclables increases, so too does scavenging. When scrap values
deCline, scavenging also declines. In turn, the current
depressed economic situation has likely contributed to increased
scavenging. During the survey of local cities, most staff
- :3 -
.
.
members asserted that the problem of illegal scavenging in their
city is difficult to stop and that the location of materials
plays little role in deterring scavenging.
Despite the fact that scavenging is a problem, collection figures
from July 1991 through April 1992 I indicate that 4600 tons of
recycled materials were collected compared to 4200 tons during
the same period in the prior year. This indicates that a greater
amount of material is being recycled this year than in the past
due to increased participation and program expansion.
During the past twelve months, staff has not received any
complaints regarding inconvenience of the new system and has
received only six complaints from residents concerned about an
increase in illegal scavenging due to the relocation of some
recycling collections to the alleys.
To help deter scavenging, Recycling staff will continue to
respond to complaints from the public during the day by sending
the crew supervisor to the particular area where a scavenger has
been reported. If the scavenger is found, a warning will be
issued to that individual. Staff will also continue to send out
warning letters to scavengers when complaints received from the
public provide enough information to identify the scavenger.
staff is also in the process of installing anti-theft scoops on
the inside of the large recycling bins to prevent scavenging.
The state of California has recognized the need to prevent
illegal scavenging from municipal recycling programs in order to
achieve diversion compliance under AB 939. On January 1, 1992, a
- 4 -
.
.
new law took effect CAB 1707) which allows cities to recover
damages of up to $1000 per violation from illegal scavenging.
This new state law may present the City with an opportunity to
significantly diminish illegal scavenging.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS
There are no financial impacts as a result of this staff report,
unless changes in collection are directed which make costs
greater or increase worker safety costs.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that no modifications to the recycling
collection points be made at this time.
Prepared by: stan Scholl, Director of General Services
Tom Dever, Solid Waste Superintendent
Jon Root, Waste Reduction Coordinator
(alley)
- 5 -