Laserfiche WebLink
3. Dakota, Ramsey and Washington Counties; and <br />4. Carver and Scott Counties. <br />Source separation's low -capital investment requirements and generator -based <br />approach make it particularly suited for local governments to implement. <br />Source separation 's also very adaptable to subregional approach. Although <br />only a few Metropo,Lan Area communities are currently implementing comprehen- <br />sive programs, new financing mechanisms provided by the Waste Management Act <br />now make possible greater local involvement. Areas where cities and towns must <br />direct their efforts include 1) directly providing separation services or pro- <br />viding financial aid and other assistance to privately operated projects; 2) <br />increasing public education and awareness; and 3) monitoring pe•formance of the <br />activities. <br />Reaching maximum source separation levels, however, cannot be accomplis by <br />local efforts alone. Both the Council and counties will not only have to pro- <br />vide local assistance, but also deal with the broader issues that transcend <br />local jurisdictions. Four areas deserve particular attention: 1) expanding mar- <br />kets to take recyclables; 2) organizing waste collection services that facili- <br />tate separation; 3) developing intermediate processing facilities to take sepa- <br />rated materials (see discussion under high-technology approaches); and 4) com- <br />plementing local public education and awareness programs. State agency assist- <br />ance will also be necessary. <br />WASTE COLLE^TION SERVICES <br />The regional strategy depends on efficient solid waste collection services. <br />Most of the waste is collected in the Metropolitan Area under an "open arrange- <br />mer " where the collector contracts directly with tho,e who generate the <br />was. . This arrangement, however, has resulted in waste collection services <br />that in many areas of the region are inefficient. Frequently, for example, <br />there are several waste collectors collecting from homes along the same <br />s•reets, perhaps even on the same day. As a result, waste collectors have to <br />treater distances between stops, which increases their fuel and labor <br />.or the community, it means more truck traffic, street maintenance, <br />Ad vehicle emissions and safety problems. <br />Th., open arrangement has also been a hindrance to recycling and resource <br />recovery. Under the existing system, the waste collector, not the recycler or <br />resident, benefits from recycling. For each ton of material removed from the <br />waste stream, the waste collector is rewarded by collecting, transporting and <br />disposing of one less ton of waste. If the benefit of recovery, in this case <br />avoided costs, is not distributed equitably throughout the system, there is no <br />significant financial native to exnand existing recycling programs. <br />Under an organized system, the aitcrnative to the open arrangement, the local <br />government or residential association could negotiate with collectors for waste <br />hauling on behalf of households, businesses and other generators of waste. Con- <br />tracts with the collectors can establish efficient routing systems and provide <br />for local recycling and other recovery services. An example that works well is <br />the Minneapolis program. Working with a consortium of waste collectors, the <br />city has been able to provide efficient collection services and curb -side <br />recycling city-wide. <br />30 <br />