Peoria Recycling Citizen Advisory Committee October 16, 2006 Meeting Minutes Members Present Julia Babler Karen Black Fred Brill Sharon Fletcher Karen Garbe Cindy Hammel Laurene Hazen Jacque Hook Gregory Jones Kim Price Olsen Barry Spiegel Deborah Sapp Anne Whitney Jan Wilson (Alternate) Members Absent Bill Jansen Chris McClellan City Representatives Cathy Carlat, Councilmember Joan Evans, Councilmember Carl Swenson, Deputy City Manager Kelly Corsette, Manager of Communications and Public Affairs Jesse Duarte, Manager of Solid Waste Petra Zaleski, Council Assistant Becky Borquez, Program Support Assistant Consultants Meredith Flinn Marty Rozelle Guests Julie Bolls, ADEQ, Waste Division Michael Budrock, citizen panel member Sharon Manson, citizen panel member Bobbie Scaramella, citizen panel member Carl Smith, City of Phoenix Solid Waste Administrative Analyst 1. Approval of Minutes form October 11, 2006 Cathy Carlat called meeting of the Recycling Citizen’s Advisory Committee at 6:19 p.m. at Desert Harbor Elementary School, 15585 N. 91st Avenue. She asked the committee to review the draft minutes from the October 11th meeting. Fred Brill motioned to approve the minutes and it was seconded by Kim Price Olsen. The committee approved the minutes. The meeting minutes will be posted on the city’s website. Dr. Marty Rozelle asked members to introduce themselves. Members Deborah Sapp and Anne Whitney met with Marty, Jesse Duarte and Meredith Flinn at 5:00 p.m. to review the presentations and results from the October 11th, first meeting, which they missed. 2. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality Presentation Julie Bolls from the Waste Division of the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) discussed the recycling program from the state’s perspective. The state offers a one-time $200,000 Waste Reduction Assistance Grant to cities like Peoria to help them start a program. She indicated that Peoria has a good chance of receiving this grant since they are the only city in the state with a population of more than 50,000 without a curbside recycling program. Another grant of $60,000 is for education programs. It is called the Waste Reduction Initiative Through Education Grant. Education and re-education is a very large and important aspect of successful and smart curbside recycling. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has a nationwide goal of a 35% diversion rate. ADEQ has no mandate or specified goal. Julie distributed a flyer detailing the economic and environmental benefits of recycling. 3. Financial Analysis Jesse Duarte responded to the committee’s questions from last meeting with a detailed financial analysis. He explained the operational costs are divided into two categories: 1) one-time start-up costs, and 2) ongoing costs. One- time costs include purchase of 50,000 barrels and in-home containers and their assembly and distribution. Vehicles and an educational campaign are also one-time costs. Ongoing costs include the salary of a Recycling Coordinator, two Recycling Inspectors, and educational materials. The on- going costs are off set by three sources of revenue: 1) recycling sales; 2) reduced landfill fees; and 3) other operating savings. Total Implementation Costs (2007 – 2008 Fiscal Year) On-going cost One-time cost $ 240,490 $ 3,067,520 Projected Recycling Sales, plus landfill and operational savings $ (600,510) $ (360,320) $ 3,067,520 * *Net costs to be amortized over 10 years Assumes a diversion rate of 15% The estimated rate impact is less than 10 cents/month, which would likely be included in a future operating rate adjustment. Jesse also provided information on Peoria’s Residential Sanitation Enterprise Fund. Enterprise funds are designed to be self sustaining – rates charged to users of the service are set so that sufficient revenues will be collected to offset the cost of providing the service. These funds cannot be used to subsidize other city operations. Jesse clarified that currently Peoria has 46,000 eligible single family households in Peoria. The City will order 50,000 barrels to accommodate those who may move in between now and the start of the program. Afterwards, impact fees from future residents will pay for each new addition to the service. The committee asked that Jesse include all assumptions for the implementation costs. The scenario presented by Jesse is considered a “worst case scenario” since it relies on a 15% diversion rate. The Committee asked that he calculate a most likely scenario with a 20% diversion rate and the award of the ADEQ grants. The third scenario would be the optimal case of 25%/above diversion rate and the award of the ADEQ grants. 4. First-hand Experience Panel A panel of citizens who with recycling experience in other cities described their experience and answered questions from the panel. Sharon Manson moved to Peoria six years ago from Tucson, where she owned a town home with a single-car garage. Recycling was very easy since there was no need to separate recyclable items. She put her recyclables out more often than her trash. Bobbie Scaramella moved to Peoria in 2002. Prior to that she, her husband and three children lived one year in Phoenix and 11 years in Ventura, CA. In California, she had three barrels: trash, recyclables, and green (yard) waste. The recycling barrel was always full. Michael Budrock moved to Glendale ten years ago and receives his solid waste services from the City of Phoenix. He has three teenagers and at times does not have enough room for the family’s garbage. He and his family recycle carefully, but there are occasions (e.g. after large family gatherings or teenager sleep-overs) when the weekly trash pick-up is not enough. He emphasized the importance of being clear and consistent with regard to what is and is not recyclable. He cited an example on the City of Phoenix website where certain items were said to be recyclable in one department or section of the website and not recyclable in another section. Carl Smith, Solid Waste Administrative Analyst with the City of Phoenix, shared the way that Phoenix operates its recycling program. Phoenix will return for a second pick-up if a resident calls. They will also provide a second trash barrel. However, this extra service is reflected in the City’s rates. No one had concern about the issue of odor in the summer. Bobbie’s barrel is on the side of her house, while Michael and Sharon’s were in their garages. The Committee discussed items they would hope to see in their final report. * Documented benefits to the environment by credible source * Acknowledgement of the primary concerns of those who may oppose curbside recycling along with ways to address the concerns * Clarity about the importance of listing what is and is not recyclable. 5. Call to the Public No one from the public was present. 6. Next meeting The next meeting will be Wednesday, November 1 at 6:00 pm. The location will be changed from that which was previously listed. The Committee will be notified by email and the new location will be posted to the city’s website. Marty asked the group to think about what they have learned and heard in the past two meetings and come prepared to recommend whether the City should implement a curbside recycling program or not. Also she suggested that a small team of three people could serve as spokes people for the committee at the November 14 Council Study Session. 7. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned by Councilmember Carlat at 8:30 p.m. Signed by: Cathy Carlat City Councilmember, Mesquite District