Laserfiche WebLink
Financial Incentives <br />Financial incentives include 1) rebates to participants, 2) penalties for non- <br />compliance, 3) charges per bag or per can of mixed solid waste charges, 4) ex- <br />tra charges for prohibited yard waste materials or recyclables, and 5) deposit, <br />on beer and soft drink containers. These options can be developed in various <br />combinations but cannot replace continous publicity or convenient and reliable <br />service. <br />Mandatory container deposit legislation could result in very high recovery <br />rates for the designated items. Deposits of this type would likely impact the <br />total waste stream by a minimum of three percent by weight. The increased <br />volume of material available for recycling can stimulate market development and <br />expanded or new processing capacity. The Council and metropolitan counties <br />should recommend that the Minnesota Legislature enact a state-wide container <br />deposit program. <br />Institutional Constraints and Other Issues <br />The savings of source separation due to avoided haul costs and landfill tipping <br />charges are most often not realized directly by the recovery program or the <br />residents. The savings are realized by the mixed -waste haulers not involved <br />with the source separation program who charge on a per stop basis. A source <br />separatiur. program will reduce the amount of mixed waste to pick up but not <br />eliminate the need for pickup sources for such waste. Therefore, mixed waste <br />haulers would receive the same amount of revenue but have less waste to pick <br />up, haul and unload at the landfill. Two institutional barriers that can <br />easily be identified include 1) the lack of organized collection and 2) the <br />lack of separate accounting for disposal savings. <br />Most haulers are reluctant to get involved with source separation because it is <br />not financially attractive enough. Economics are poor if the source separation <br />program is aimed at potential participants among the hauler's customers who are <br />spread out within a large area. Publicity effectiveness is diluted and collec- <br />tion efficiencies are lowered. Haulers cannot be expected to serve an entire <br />area for recyclables or yard waste collection if they do not serve the same <br />area for mixed waste collection because it would directly benefit their competi- <br />tion at their own expense. This situation exists because "open hauling" pre- <br />vails in about 80 percent of the region. Under open hauling arrangements, the <br />individual homeowner contracts for mixed municipal solid waste collection. One <br />alternative is to change to organized collection of mixed waste. <br />The Metropolitan Cnuncil is required by state law to study the feasibility of <br />and implementation mechanisms for organized collection. One of the key aspects <br />o° the Council's study will be research on the following issues: <br />1. Can municipalities organize solid waste collection services? if not, what <br />type of legislation is needed? <br />2. Can counties organize solid waste collection services directly or through <br />their municipalities? If not, what type of legislation is needed? <br />3. Can municipalities or counties guarantee haulers that they will be able to <br />maintain their existing number of accounts if collection is organized? <br />49 <br />