The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About0301_001MINUTES COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MARCH 2b, 1991 I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. Present at the meeting were: Mayor Gerald L Farley; Trustees Ralph Arthur, Mark Busse, Timothy Corcoran, Leo Floros, George Van Geem and Don Weibel. Also present at the meeting were: Village Manager John Fulton Dixon, Assistant Village Manager John Burg, Finance Director Dave Jepson, Assistant Finance Director Carol Widmer, Public Works Director Herb Weeks, Deputy Public Works Director Glen Andler, Inspection Services Director Chuck Bencic, Fire Chief Ed Cavello, Police Chief Ron Pavlock, Deputy Police Chief Tom Daley and Public Works Administrative Aide Lisa Angell; 28 persons in the audience and three members of the press. II. MINVTES The Minutes of the Committee of the Whole meeting of March 12, 1991 were accepted and filed. III.CITIZENS M BE HEARD Dick Button, a resident of Crystal Towers complimented Mel Both of the Public Works Department for assisting in the removal of debris which was blocking the creek. He said that Mr. Both called the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District and the debris was cleared from the creek the next day. Also, Public Works hauled away two truckloads of the debris. Mayor Farley requested that the discussion on the Refuse and Recycling Contract be deferred until April 9. He said this would allow more input by concerned citizens and would allow the press more time to publicize the issue. Mayor Farley asked the staff to answer various additional questions: 1. Which alternative has the least financial impact on residents? 2. What will the final impact be on multi -family housing specifically as it relates to the second pick-up? 3. How would brush, appliances and furniture be handled? 4. How would the Village prevent thievery of stickers? 5. What would the cost to the Village be for larger recycling containers for residents? Trustee Weibel asked what the median number of bags would be at each home. Trustee Floros asked why residents cannot bum any items. Village Manager Dixon said that State, County and Federal laws prevent this. Staff was asked to obtain information on regulations for burning. a I I Mayor Farley gave opening remarks regarding the wrap-up of the discussion of the Budget for all of the Village Departments. He said this budget reflects the state of the present economy. Every expenditure was carefully scrutinized and this budget projects an increase in expenditures of less than 4%. He said for the ninth year running, the Village has placed 19th in a survey of nearby communities, which means that the Village has the lowest per capita expenditures of any of these communities. M_Qunt P-rQspmt Library Badmt Bill Blaine handed out an information sheet to the Village Board. He said the Library just completed a survey, noting that 72.5% of eligible residents have a Library card and have used it in the last year. He said that only 50% nationwide have library cards. He praised the various volunteers of the Library, two of whom were in the audience. He also praised the Friends of the Library who just provided $3700 for new electronic equipment. He said there has been a large increase in the use of the Library with a 15% increase in circulation, 25% increase in reference referrals and a 42% increase in the children's department. He also noted that the Library budget anticipates an increase of only 3.5% in the Levy. Mr. Blaine said the budget is $2,823,655. The Levy, including loss and costs, will be $2,187,365 with a rate estimated at .2917. Trustee Weibel asked for a breakdown of this year's administration costs. Trustee Van Geem noted that historically the Board has approved the Library budget. However, he recalled that the Levy had been capped at $.23 and he asked for background information on this situation. Mr. Blaine then indicated that there was an Advisory Referendum in 1978 which asked the Library Board to cap expenditures at $.23. He indicated the applicable portion of the budget, which does not include pensions and a few other items, will require a Levy this year of 23.76 cents. Last year, the levy was $.23. N Trustee Arthur asked why this budget is not following the desires of the residents. Finance Director Dave Jepson indicated that in 1989, the rate was 22.27 cents, in 1990 it was 23 cents and in 1991, 23.76 cents. He said there was an agreement to level off this amount over a three-year period. Bmdggt OmA Village Manager John Dixon then gave a presentation outlining this year's budget. He noted that the expenditures by the Village will be $2.9 million less than the 18th ranked community in the survey of communities referred to by Mayor Farley. Budget Wrap-Up Mayor Farley suggested conducting the meeting by following the Revenues and Expenditures Budget Issue Report. The first item was the Hotel/Motel Tax. Trustee Weibel said he has heard some criticism about this Tax but Mount Prospect is one of only two communities in this area that does not have the Tax. Trustee Corcoran felt this 3% charge was very reasonable compared to the charge in other communities around the country. Trustee Corcoran asked how this money will be spent. He noted he would like to see the money spent on the Historical Society and suggested that the Village give a dollar to the Historical Society for each dollar that they raise. He also suggested increasing the funding for fireworks or the Parade. The Committee supported the Hotel/Motel Tax. The next item discussed was the Resident Ambulance Fee. Trustee Floros said he does not support this and he did not support the charge for the non-residents. Trustee Van Geem noted this was an attempt to keep the Property Taxes down as the Village residents have requested. He said an Ambulance Fee is usually covered by insurance. It is a user charge which affects only those who use the service. He feels the revenues derived would help bolster the very excellent Fire Department. He noted the charge is not as ridiculous as it sounds and he suggested discussing it in future years. Trustee Busse does not support the Ambulance Fee. He said the Village has always funded this service. He is concerned that some people will not call because they will be afraid they cannot afford the service. Trustee Arthur said it is part of the service already provided by Taxes. He does not support an Ambulance Fee. Trustee Corcoran said he does not support an Ambulance Fee and he never will. He said it should be part of the Property Taxes. -3- There was no support by the Committee for this Resident ,Ambulance Fee. Village Manager ,Dixon asked if we could request that residents voluntarily submit. such a bill to their insurance companies, Trustee Busse said he was not in favor of such a proposal. However, he suggested it could be discussed at a later date. The Committee then discussed an increase in Parking Fines from $10 to $20. The Committee supported this increase. The Committee discussed the transfer of $93,650 from the Parking Fund to reimburse the General Fund for the cost of widening Prospect Avenue. The Committee supported this. The Committee supported the use of the Foreign Fire Insurance Tax receipts in the General Fund. There was a discussion about increasing the Parkway Tree Cost.-Sbare Program contribution from $0 to $100. Village Manager Dixon said it is costing the Village ;$200-$225 and this fee has not been increased for a long time. He said this will not apply to this planting season but will come into play in the spring and summer of 1992. The Committee supported this. The Committee supported the accounting change related to the General Fund/ Cable Television Division. Finance Director Dave Jepson explained the various rate alternatives and recommended an Option for the Water and Sewer Rate Increase. He suggested that the Village go with a uniform rate and a customer charge. He felt the Village should consider a rate increase every year and with this Option, the Village could probably get by on a 5% or less increase over the next years. Trustee Arthur felt there should be a maintenance fee for those who do not use water. He supported the increase from $2.50 up to $2.62. Trustee Van Geem felt the Village should stay with the present methodology, in other words the uniform rate. He said he is not in favor of a fee for those who do not use it. Trustee Busse also wants to stay with the uniform rate. Trustee Floras agreed with the uniform rate. Trustee Weibel agreed with the uniform rate, noting there is a problem with the customer chane for customers of Citizens Utilities. Trustee Corcoran asked what plans there are for the billing system. Mr. Jepson said there is a software package in the budget. Trustee Corcoran said he agrees that a peak usage billing system is not workable now but the Village should review it in the future to encourage conservation. He also said he would like to see senior citizens insulated from large increases in the future if possible. -4- Trustee Arthur noted that some companies are hooked into the water system for fire protection only and they pay nothing. Trustee Corcoran agreed these customers should pay something. The Committee supported the continuation of the uniform rate the Village has been charging in the past with an increase from $2.50 to $2.62. On the Expenditure side, the Committee supported adding $5,200 to organizational memberships for participation in the NWMC Transportation Unit. The Committee also approved a reduction of the salary adjustments in the Manager's office from $10,000 to $5,000. In the Communications Division, the Committee agreed with the Manager's recommendation to use the money that had been suggested for upgrading the part- time secretary to a full-time position for Capital Expenditures for equipment replacement in the amount of $9700. The Committee also supported leaving the responsibility for the Village Newsletter in the Village Clerk's office. Trustee Floros asked about the Finance Commission's recommendation to disband the Cable Television Division. Trustee Van Geern said he is opposed to this idea. He said he attended the Finance Commission meeting and he felt the Commission really wanted to get a citizens' survey to determine ' what services this Division should be providing for the community. Mayor Farley also supported the Cable Division and agreed that a citizens' survey was in order. Trustee Weibel felt that a thorough survey should be done to determine how effective cable television is and how this Division can improve service to the residents. Trustee Weibel also strongly supported the Cable Television Division. Trustee Corcoran agreed that the Village should look at ways of increasing the Cable Television service to the community, noting that a survey would be desirable. Trustee Arthur said he will continue to be a loyal member of Channel 63. There was no support by the Committee to follow the recommendation of the Finance Commission regarding the Cable Television Division. With regard to the Police Department, the Committee supported the following provisions: Reduction of the gas line item from $94,800 to $79,000 and moving the squad conversions to the Motor Equipment Pool. With regard to the Fire Department, the Committee agreed to the following provisions: Increase Holiday Pay by $15,500 and HazMat Incentive by $12,000 on the basis of the new Employee Agreement and reduce the gas line item from $22,200 to $18,500. The Committee discussed the question regarding funding of social agencies in the Human Services Division. Mayor Farley felt the Board should reconsider and provide funding at least this year and next year per the recommendation of the Village Manager. Trustee Floros agreed that the social agencies should be funded 100% this year and 50% next year. -5- Trustee Busse said he supports funding of the agencies. He said he is afraid that other towns will look at Mount Prospect and cut these programs if the Village does. Trustee Arthur said he does not agrees the agencieswere not warranted. He said he prefers to donate to the charity of his choice rather than being forced to pay in taxes. Trustee Weibel said he re-evaluated his position and he agrees with the phase-out recommended by ;the Village Manager. However, he feels the Township should handle these programs. Trustee Corcoran said he relies on staff to make a recommendation and suggested this issue be studied at a future Committee of the Whole meeting. Trustee Van Geem said he supports the social agencies. He would not want to reduce the funding next year. He is thankful that the Board has reinstated the funding for this year but urged the future Board to consider 100% funding in the years to come. There was agreement by the Committee to continue 100% funding for the agencies this year. The Committee supported adding a line item concerning affordable housing in the amount of $2,500 in the Planning and Zoning Budget. The Committee discussed the Street Resurfacing Program. Mr. Jepson noted that the Lake Briarwood traffic light will not be completed this fiscal year and that $40,000 will have to be placed into the 1991/1992 Bridget. The Committee supported this. The Committee supported a reduction of the gas line item in the Street Division from $41,000 to $35,000. The Water Division budget also had a reduction in the gas line item from $31,200 to $28,000. There was a discussion about the ;Parking Lot Rehabilitation. Mayor barley supports the proposed work.. Trustees Arthur, Busse, 1*loros and Weibel also supported the Parking Leat Rehabilitation. Trustee Corcoran asked that this project be deferred and that the money be used for parking in the triangle redevelopment. However, the Committee agreed the project should go forward in the proposed budget. The Committee also supported` reduction of the land lease from $27,350 to $15,350 per the agreement with the Chicago and North Western. The Committee supported the reduction in the payment to the Solid Waste Agency from $97,000 to $65,880 per the latest Agency budget. Trustee Busse asked how the Flower Program will be cut back in Public Works. Mr. Weeks said that last year 31 locations had flowers but this year 9 or less will have flowers in the areas where there is the most visibility and traffic. Mr. Weeks said that the Village would have to pay full retail price if we were to add any flowers to the Program at this time. Trustee Busse said he was disappointed and he would like to see the Flower 'Program budget increased' if this would be economical. Mr. Weeks also noted that three seasonal employees who worked on this program were cut from the budget. -6- There was a discussion about the percentage of increase in the Tax Levy. Trustee Corcoran would like to leave the Street Budget at $1,250,000 and not transfer the $93,650 from the Parking Fund to the General Fund. He said this would keep the increase–to 4%. Trustee Van Geem was reluctant to defer Capital Improvements. He felt the Street Budget should be $1.5 million. Trustees Busse, Floros and Weibel also supported an expenditure of $1.5 million on streets this year. With the increase in the Street Budget, the projected Tax Levy increase would be 6.9%. Trustee Corcoran said he was not in favor of using the one- quarter percent Sales Tax surplus for abating Property Taxes for Capital Improvements such as the streets. He was concerned about this 6.9% Levy increase. Mayor Farley noted that the majority position is to use any surplus from the one-quarter percent Sales Tax for the reduction of Capital Debt items. Finance Director Jepson noted that possibly the Village will have no Levy for the Fire and Police Station in 1991 if there are additional funds available from the one-quarter percent Sales Tax. There was a five-minute intermission at 9:45 p.m. Mayor Farley then asked if there was any citizen input regarding the 1991/1992 Budget. There were no citizens who wished to speak about the Budget. kyj�� A 1,10 1121 — Trustee Weibel asked what response will be made to the comments concerning the boat trailer by Mr. Hendricks at a previous meeting. Trustee Weibel noted that he has received complaints about people who have trucks with plow blades parked in their driveways. Mayor Farley indicated that current Ordinances prohibit trucks with snow plow blades in driveways. He said it is a matter of notifying staff so they may inform the residents. Mayor Farley asked for a report by staff regarding whether these types of vehicles are covered by existing Ordinances. He noted that the Village Attorney's report regarding specific questions raised by Mr. Hendricks on boat trailers will be distributed in Friday's packet. Trustee Busse thanked the administration including the Village Manager, Dave Jepson, Carol Widmer, the Finance Commission and the Department Directors because they reacted to the pulse of the community and the economy and provided the residents with a realistic budget. He suggested that the Board sit down with Department Directors on a Saturday or at a Committee of the Whole meeting in the future to discuss informally the plans and needs for the future. Mayor Farley said he feels Trustee Busse has echoed the feelings of the entire Board. -7- The meeting _adjourned at 10:00 P -m. affm Respectfully submitted, JOHN P. BURG Assistant Village Manager -8- Village of Mount Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR GERALD L. FARLEY AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES FROM: VILLAGE MANAGER DATE: APRIL S, 1991 SUBJECT: REFUSE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL CONTRACTS Attached is an extensive memorandum from the Finance Director which is a compilation of Public Works, Finance and Manager's office discussions and reviews of the contracts over the last few weeks. I again state that no matter which of the proposals we accept, the Village is in a position to reduce our cost for refuse collection. The Village is in a position to significantly reduce costs if other alternatives other than the total pick-up for any and all items placed by the curb are considered. We have been doing an analysis of the amount of garbage that is placed at the curb over the last couple of weeks. It is interesting to note that 41% of the households in the Village have the equivalent of one container of refuse, 38% had the equivalent of two containers, 19% had three or four containers and 2% had five or more. When the Village originally determined to place the refuse collection as a responsibility of the municipality on the Tax Levy, it was to ensure that refuse from every household would be picked up and also to keep costs down. Very few communities have the luxury of pick-up collection system similar to ours where any and all items placed at the curb are picked up with no additional fees for bulk items. . I firmly believe that those households that are waste generators over and above what could be considered a reasonable amount per household should pay for that additional waste. Some of the reasons for additional waste is because of larger family households, some is because of the habits that those individuals have as far as the types of products and packaging of materials that they have in the household and quite frankly, some of it is because there are small contractors that use the curbside pick-up for their business purposes. In addition to standard waste that is generated in each of the households, staff went back and reviewed other waste generation from households to determine what other items should be included to give a comfort level to the residents. This led staff to suggest that all bulk items; appliances, refrigerators, etc., as well as furniture items should be included at Village cost. The percentage of these items that are placed out on a weekly basis is low and the Village picking up the cost for these items would ensure that these large items would not be fly -dumped in the Village. One way to determine the number of bags per week per household is to go back to each of the respective contracts and determine the estimated number of bags that were used. What is interesting t6 note on Schedule I of the attached memorandum from the Finance Director is that average is approximately one and one-third bags and our present contractor, who has been picking up refuse for the Village for over 30 years, BFI, has estimated the number of bags per week at 1.19. In addition, particularly in the spring and the fall, there are a number of people who are concerned about brush that is picked up from their yards. Presently, we are paying on a monthly basis for brush pick-up even though there are several months in the year in which there is very little, if any, brush that is generated. We looked at the amount of brush that is generated throughout the Village and felt the Village could also pick up this brush cost and still have significant savings in our Refuse Contract. It is important to understand that there will have to be an extensive education program throughout the Village in order to make a pay -per -bag program work correctly. There have been several comments or questions that have been raised by residents which have acceptable solutions. However, it is important to make sure that the education process is extensive enough so that most of those answers are known beforehand. It also would be helpful to have someone available to contact and meet with each and every one of the multi -family property owners as well as the groups of residents in each of the multi- family sections so that they understand the impact and reductions that they would see in their waste stream. I think it also would be important to have an education program in the commercial and industrial area for recycling purposes. While we do not pick up their refuse, I think it would be helpful for us to continue to work with the Chamber of Commerce and the Rotary Club on the recycling information for industrial and businesses so that we can reduce the waste stream in the entire Village. The Village is presented with an opportunity to control costs and have impact on many years to come in the Tax Levy. I encourage the Board to review the attached memorandum. I would recommend that the Village adopt the pay -by -bag program allowing two containers from August 1 until January 1, 1992 and then one container per household, unlimited recycling, bulk items to be paid for by the Village and brush pick- up to be paid for by the Village. In addition, there would be a spring and fall clean- up week, with an additional summer and winter 'bonus" week which would include two additional containers at no charge to the homeowner. This would allow the Village to gain a reduction in cost the first year of approximately $200,000 and approximately $600,000 in every year thereafter or approximately $.08 on the Tax Levy. JOHNFULTON DI5(ON JFD/rcw attachment Village of Mount Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: John Fulton Dixon, Village Manager FROM: David C. Jepson, Finance Director DATE: April 4, 1991 SUBJECT: Comparison of Fixed Monthly Unit Fees vs. Pay -By -Bag System for Refuse Collection and Disposal Costs The bid specifications for refuse collection and disposal services for the three year period of August 1, 1991 - July 31, 1994 were developed in a manner which gives the Village a considerable range of options in determining the best bid for the Village. The specifications included, unlimited residential service for a fixed monthly fee or residential service on a pay -by -bag basis; they included multi -family services for a fixed monthly fee per unit or for a fixed monthly fee based on the size of the refuse container; they included expanded recycling services for residential and multi- family properties; and they included a pay -by -bag service for yard waste. In addition, the specifications included other advantages to the Village such as transporting and disposal of leaves and the use of two refuse compactor trucks during the leaf season. The Village was fortunate in receiving four bids, three of which were very competitive. Bids were received from Laidlaw, Arc Disposal, Waste Management, and Browning Ferris Industries (BFI), BFI is the Village's current contractor, and although their services have been very good, their bid for the new contract is not as competitive as the other three bids. The other three bids were very favorable with the net cost to the Village for the next fiscal year some $350,000 less than had been anticipated. The annual amounts increase by approximately B%, but the three year total net cost to the Village is only about 3% higher than actual costs in 1990/91. The bid award will be based upon an all or nothing approach with one contractor receiving the contract for all components of the refuse collection and disposal program. However, each component can be evaluated separately; i.e. single-family residential service could be on either a fixed fee or a pay -by -bag system without having any effect on the method used for multi -family service. The results of this feature can be seen by comparing our initial evaluation of the bids with a second analysis. Following is a comparison of the three year totals of the four bids for the services paid directly by the Village (residential, lst weekly multi -family pick" up, and recycling). The first line represents fixed monthly fees based on the number of units for both single-family and multi -family and the second line represents a fixed monthly fee for single-family and a fee based upon the lower of a fixed unit fee or a fee based on the size and number of refuse containers for multi -family: John Fulton Dixon April 4, 1991 Comparison of Fixed Monthly Unit Fees vs. Pay -By -Bag System for Refuse Collection and Disposal Costs Waste _, d aw Arc Management BFI $5,955,180 $6,068,679 $6,160,812 $7,303,942 5,881,421 5,747,914 6,160,812 7,370,510 In the initial analysis of the three year totals, Laidlaw appeared to have the lowest net cost to the Village as indicated in line 1 above at $5,955,180. However, by using the option of a multi -family container fee as shown in line 2, the Arc bid at $5,747,914 is some $207,000 less than the Laidlaw bid. When the total value of the contract for the three year period is considered (the net cost to the Village plus the direct cost to residents for yard waste and to multi- family,complexes for the second weekly pick-up) the results of the four bids are as shown below. The first line is our initial analysis and the second line is the same basis as line 2 above: Waste .Laidlaw Arc Management BF -2 $8,257,747 $8,186,314 $8,096,381 $9,089,144 7,541,074 7,547,108 8,096,381 9,089,144 In the initial evaluation, the Waste Management bid at $8,096,381 appeared to be approximately $90,000 better than the Arc bid. The second evaluation shows Laidlaw at only $6,000 better than Arc, but some $555,000 better than the Waste Management bid in line 1. When we tried to rationalize the reasons for a $555,000 difference between the initial analysis and the second analysis of the total'value of the contract and a difference of over $200,000 in the net cost to the Village, the only reason we could think of was the fact that in the second analysis actual quantities were known to the bidders. Under an unlimited pick-up provision with a fee based upon the number of units, it is unknown how much waste will be generated. However, with a fee based upon the actual number of refuse containers the amount of refuse can be reasonably determined. If this is the reason for the difference in the amounts bid, it indicates a significant amount of "cushion" that was built into the fee per unit bid. During the process of analyzing the bids, two of the questions that surfaced were how much cushion was built into the unlimited single-family service bids and what incentive there would be for either the single-family or the multi -family residents to recycle under the unlimited service bids. Two of the goals of the Village's recycling program have been to reduce the volume of refuse going to the landfill and to encourage recycling in every way possible. To help accomplish these goals, John Fulton Dixon April 4, 1991 Comparison of Fixed Monthly Unit Fees vs. Pay -By -Bag System for Refuse Collection and Disposal Costs recycling will be expanded in the new contract with the Village's costs for recycling increasing from $156,000 in the current fiscal year to an estimated $265,000 during the first year of the new contract. As a possible solution to these concerns, a recommendation was made that the Village consider a pay -by -bag program. The proposed program included a basic service for single-family residential properties and a reduced contribution to the costs of multi- family properties. Any services above the basic service would be paid by the resident. A phase-in period of August 1, 1991 - December 31, 1991 was suggested to help implement the pay -by -bag program. The reasons for recommending this program are threefold: 1) It would provide an incentive for recycling and thus reduce the amount of refuse going to the landfill; 2) It would put a cap on the Village's refuse disposal costs; and 3) It is equitable. Following is a brief discussion of these reasons: Incentive for Recycling - Currently about 758 of the single-family residential properties recycle. Under the new contract, the Village will pay from $20 to $32 per year (depending on the contractor) for each single-family property for recycling whether the resident recycles or not. If the same ratio continues under the new contract, the annual cost to the Village for the 258 who do not recycle will be $60,000 at the $20 cost and $100,000 at the $32 cost. Also, recycling will be expanded to multi -family residences effective 8/1/91. If multi -family residents are not encouraged to participate through a financial incentive, the lost costs will be considerably higher. The lost cost is certainly important, but the reduction of refuse going to the landfill through recycling is even more important. In the cover story of the April issue of American City & County, titled "What Has Happened to Waste Reduction" (see attached) the statement is made that "Perhaps the most effective, single method for communities to reduce the sheer volume of waste is by charging residents a flat fee for every trash bag." The article goes on to say that an independent study for the City of Woodstock, Illinois showed a 388 reduction in the volume of refuse through a recycling and a pay -by -bag system. (Their charge is $1.83 for each bag.) A pay -by -bag system would provide a strong incentive to recycle. Cap Village's Refuse Disposal Costs - I pointed out in a memo dated December 26, 1990 that refuse disposal costs had increased from $1,463,908 in 1987/88 to an estimated $2,248,475 in 1990/91, an increase of 548 in 3 years. Even with the good bids for the next three years, our total costs (including the leaf pick-up program) will be in excess of $2 million per year. Refuse disposal costs represent 258 of the Village's property tax levy and even with the good bids will require an 88 per year increase in the property tax levy. John Fulton Dixon April 4, 1991 Comparison of Fixed Mopthly Unit Fees vs. Pay -By -Bag System for Refuse Collection and Disposal Costs A modified pay -by -bag system that provided a basic service for all residents and that was financed by property taxes would enable the Village to control future increases. As a starting point, the 1992 tax levy for refuse disposal under unlimited pick-up will be approximately $2,000,000, but under the modified pay -by -bag system it would be reduced to an estimated $1,400,000. Future increases under the modified pay -by -bag system would be much less than under the unlimited system, A Pay -By -The -Bag system is Equitable - User charges are an appropriate means of financing certain municipal services. Whenever a specific service is provided directly to a resident and the resident has control over the amount of service required, user charges are appropriate. In a recent survey distributed to the Village Board, nine out of twelve communities in the Mount Prospect vicinity charge a user fee for refuse disposal. A pay -by -the -bag system will cost some families more than others; however, I believe it is equitable. In a recent count by the Public Works Department of approximately 50% of the single-family homes in the Village, 42% of the residents had 1 container of refuse; 38% 2 containers; 18% 3-4 containers; and 28 had 5 plus containers. With an expanded recycling program to include newsprint, glass, plastics, aluminum, and other metal cans, the percentages with more than one container should be reduced significantly. A pay -by -the -bag system would not only be equitable to the users but also to the commercial and industrial properties in the Village. Currently, these properties pay property taxes for refuse disposal but do not receive any refuse disposal services from the Village. They are required to contract and pay for these services separately. I believe a strong case can be made for non- residential properties helping to pay for a basic service for all residents, but I believe there should be a limit to their tax liability for unlimited residential refuse disposal. The initial recommendation was to provide a basic refuse disposal service to all residents with a fee to be charged for all service above the basic service. That recommendation included the following elements: 1) Unlimited recycling for all residents (single-family and multi -family); 2) One container per week for single- family residents; 3) An unlimited Spring and Fall clean up whereby all refuse except certain building materials would be picked up at no additional cost; and 4) A five- month transition period during which two containers would be allowed. The multi- family plan would add unlimited recycling but reduce the Village's contribution to 50% of the first weekly pick-up cost. Based upon input from the Village Board, the Recycling Commission, the Finance Commission, residents and Village staff a revised system is being suggested. The 4 John Fulton Dixon April 4, 1991 Comparison of Fixed Monthly Unit Fees vs. Pay -By -Bag System for Refuse Collection and Disposal Costs multi -family program would remain the same as previously proposed but the single- family plan would include the following features: 1. Unlimited recycling. (An additional recycling bin would be provided to all residents) 2. One 32 gallon capacity bag or container per week per resident at no charge. Additional containers would cost an estimated $1.15 to $1.25 per container. 3. No charge for pick up of bulk items such as appliances and furniture. 4, Bundles of brush would be picked up at no cost to the resident. 5. Spring and Fall clean-up week during April and October which would include unlimited pick-up at no additional charge. 6, A Summer and Winter "bonus week" during July and January which would include two additional containers (total of three) at no extra charge. We believe the above program will provide a strong incentive to recycle, it will help to put a cap on Village costs, and that it is equitable. Mayor Farley asked that we provide information regarding the effect of a modified Pay - By -Bag System on a typical single-family resident and on the multi -family residents. Because we are dealing with a number of unknown factors, I have had to make a number of assumptions in developing this information. The basis for the information and the results are contained in four attached schedules: Schedule 1 - Single Family Residential Unit Costs and Revenues Schedule 2 Comparison of Unlimited Refuse Pick -Up vs. Pay -By -Bag Program Single -Family Residential and Selected Commercial Properties Schedule 3 Comparison of Multi -Family Refuse Pick Up Costs Monthly Unit Fee vs. Monthly Fee per Container Schedule 4 Analysis of Refuse Contract Bids Comparison of Monthly Fee vs. Pay -By -Bag System Following is an explanation of these schedules: Schedule 1 - Single -Family Residential Unit Costs and Revenues The purpose of this schedule is to try to estimate the average number of bags (or containers) per week. for Mount Prospect residents. To arrive at this 9 John Fulton Dixon April 4, 1991 Comparison of Fixed Monthly Unit Fees vs. Pay -By -Hag System for Refuse Collection and Disposal Costs amount, I took the monthly charge that was proposed by the four bidders and determined the weekly charge, or the revenue expected from each single-family (S/F) residential property per week. The next section then calculates the annual revenue expected from S/F properties. I then assumed that if I divided the annual revenue by the fee proposed by the bidders for the pay -by -bag option, and then converted the results to a weekly amount, it would tell us the estimated number of bags per week per resident. The results show that if the Village had the pay -by -bag system, Laidlaw would generate the same revenue from this method as the monthly fee method with 1.47 bags or containers per S/F property per week. It appears that Arc expected 1.9 bags per property. I think these two figures could be reasonable but I do not think the Waste Management and BFI bids are reasonable. This could be due to their lack of interest in a pay -by -bag program. I believe these results are verified by the Public Works Department count mentioned above. The weighted average for 6,593 S/F residential properties is 1.91 containers per resident, per week. Schedule 2 - Comparison of Unlimited Pick Up vs. Pay -By -Bag Program This schedule shows the equalized assessed valuation (EAV) for four S/F residential properties and three sample commercial properties and the refuse disposal tax rates and tax levies for 1991 and 1992 for the Unlimited Pick -Up (Monthly Fee) method. Next, the estimated tax rate and levy reductions are shown for a Pay -By -Bag method, and then, the net cost or credit for each property with this method. The refuse disposal tax rate for 1991 is estimated at $.245 and for 1992, the rate is expected to be $.267 for the monthly fee method. A typical S/F property with an EAV of $25,000 would be paying a tax of $61 in 1991 and $67 in 1992. Randhurst, the Village's largest taxpayer, would pay $141,837 in 1991 and $154,573 in 1992 at these rates. Under the pay -by -bag method, I have assumed that the 1992 tax levy would be reduced by $600,000 for a tax rate reduction of $.08. This would lower the estimated 1992 rate to $.187. ,The result would be reductions of $20 for the S/F properties and $46,314 for Randhurst. I then subtracted the additional cost of the refuse stickers for the pay -by -bag method from the revised tax levy for the four residential properties to arrive at the net cost or credit for the four properties. A S/F property that used 1 bag per week would realize an annual savings of $20. The net annual cost for an average of 1.5 bags per week is $9, for 2 bags it is $38, and for 2.5 bags it is $67. 6 John Fulton Dixon April 4, 1991 Comparison of Fixed Monthly Unit Fees vs. Pay -By -Bag System I for Refuse Collection and Disposal Costs Based on the Public Works count and with expanded recycling, it appears that about 608 of the S/F residents would realize an annual savings of $20 and 208 to 258 would fall in the 1 to 2 container category. Schedule 3 - Comparison of Multi -Family Refuse Pick Up Costs This schedule compares the current costs for an actual 54 unit apartment complex with the potential costs under a new contract that includes unlimited recycling. The amounts are listed for the Laidlaw, Arc and Waste Management bids but my comments will focus on the Arc figures. The first section of the schedule compares the current costs for this apartment complex with the new contract amounts on a monthly fee per unit basis. Currently the Village's share is $215, but under the new contract it would be $247 for refuse pick up and $67 for recycling for a total of $314 per month. The apartments' share of the current cost is $257 and the new cost would be $282 under the Arc bid. The second and third sections show the relative costs under the fee per container basis based on six (2 cu. yards) refuse containers that are currently being used. The first example assumes that one (2 cu. yard) refuse container is removed and three (1-1/2 cu. yd.) recycling containers are added. Under this example it is assumed that the Village would only pay 1/2 the first weekly pick up along with the recycling costs, and the apartment complex would pay 508 of the 1st pick up and 1008 of the 2nd pick up. The results show that the Village's costs would drop to $158 and the apartment share would rise to $296. The third section shows what would happen under a reasonably aggressive recycling program. In this example, there would be four (2 cu. yd.) refuse containers and four (1-1/2 cu. yd.) recycling containers with recycling picked up twice a week. The result shows the Village's share of the cost at $174 and the apartment complex's share at $236. This would be $41 less per month for the Village and $21 less per month for the apartment complex than they are paying under the current contract. I believe the third example is achievable. Schedule 4 - Monthly Fee vs. Pay -By -Bag System. This schedule compares the Village's total costs over the three year period of 8/1/91 - 7/31/94 and the Direct Costs paid by residents under the two payment methods. Option I - Monthly Fee is essentially the same system as currently in use with the exception of a monthly container fee for multi -family rather than a fee per unit. The Village's total costs (with the Arc contract) would be John Fulton Dixon April 4, 1991 Comparison of Fixed Monthly Unit Fees vs. Pay -By -Bag System for Refuse Collection and Disposal Costs $5,747,914 and the direct costs paid by residents would be $1,799,194 for a total of $7,547,108. Under Option 2 - Pay -By -Bag method, I assumed the typical S/F resident would average 1.5 bags of refuse per week. With this method the Village's total costs would be $3,723,404 and the residents' $3,344,515„ for an overall total of $7,067,919. The overall total as shown is $479,189, or approximately $160,000 per year, less than the amount under Option 1. The real effect of the difference between the two methods is a reduction of $2,025,000 over three years, or $675,000 per year in the Vil'lage's costs. Based on the assumptions used, which I believe are reasonable, the direct costs for S/F residents would be $338,000 more per year, direct costs to multi -family would be $177,000 more per year and revenue to the refuse contractor would be $160,000 less per year. When the expected property tax reductions under the pay -by -bag method are included, the net increase for S/F properties is $91,000, and the net increase for multi -family is an estimated $24,000. To implement a pay -by -bag system, it will take a concerted effort on the part of Village staff and the Recycling Commission to inform residents about the new program and the advantages of recycling. Additionally, considerable time will be needed to work with multi -family management and residents to determine the appropriate number of containers and to establish the recycling program. The article previously mentioned closes with the statement, "In the end, consumers have to do this thing. In facts educating the public may be the most important aspect of a waste -reduction program." I realize that there is a lot of information that has been presented, but I believe that this is the right time to consider a change. I believe that the modified basic service that would be provided by the Village would encourage recycling, reduce the volume of refuse, and would put a cap on costs. DCJ/sm Enclosures VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT Single -Family Residential Unit Costs and Revenues Refuse Contract Bids Schedule 1 Annual Revenue - Unlimited Pickup: Annual Charge $93.96 $104.52 $99,36 $119.16 (x Number of Units) x 12.360 x 12J60 x x 12.360 Annual Revenue $1,161,346 $1.291,867 $1,228,090 $1,472,818 Pay -By -Bag System - Estimated Number of Bags to Egual &n_lWal Revenue Waste Laidlaw Arc Management RFI Cost -per -Unit - Unlimited Pickup: $1,291,867 $1,228,090 $1,472,818 Monthly Charge (3 Year Average) $7.83 $8.71 $8.28 $9.93 x 12 x 12 x 12 x 12 Annual Charge $93.96 $104.52 $99.36 $119.16 12,360 52 –, 52 + 52 + 52 Weekly Charge 1" $2.01 Ii—Al JZ.29 Annual Revenue - Unlimited Pickup: Annual Charge $93.96 $104.52 $99,36 $119.16 (x Number of Units) x 12.360 x 12J60 x x 12.360 Annual Revenue $1,161,346 $1.291,867 $1,228,090 $1,472,818 Pay -By -Bag System - Estimated Number of Bags to Egual &n_lWal Revenue Annual Revenue $1,161,346 $1,291,867 $1,228,090 $1,472,818 + 52 -- 52 -.:- 52 + 52 Weekly Revenue $22,334 $24,844 $23,617 $28,323 (-,- Number of Units) 12,360 12,360 12,360 12,360 Weekly Revenue per Unit $1.81 $2.01 $1.91 $2.29 Per Bag Fee (3 Yr Average) + 1.23 + 1,06 + 2.30 + 1.93 Estimated Number of Bags Per Week 1.47 1.90 .83 11.19 Schedule 2 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT Comparison of Unlimited Refuse Pick -Up vs. Pay -By -Bag Program Single -Family Residential and Selected Commercial Properties (1) The tax rate reduction is based upon an estimated $600,000 reduction in taxes and estimated EAV of $750,000,000. (2) Additional fees are based on 2nd year average costs of $1.11 per bag. (3) Total additional fees would be dependent upon the number of additional stickers sold. If the Village average is 1.5 bags per residence, the total additional cost would be $356,710. (4) The Net Cost of <Credit> is the sum of the 1992 Tax Levy Reduction and Additional Refuse Bag Fees. (5) Total Net Cost or <Credit> is dependent on the additional number of stickers sold. ----------Typical Single -Family Residence---------- Mt. Prospect Western Rouse 1 Bag 1.5 Bags 2 Bags 2.5 Bags Auto Parts Develop. Co. Co. Village Per Wk Per Wk Per Wk Per Wk 201 W Central M. P. Plaza Randhurst Totals Unlimited Pick Up - Annual Costs Equalized Assessed Valuation $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $251,500 $8,612,700 $57,892,500 $749,854,000 1991 Tax Rate (Est) $.245 $.245 $.245 $.245 $.245 $.245 $.245 $.245 1991 Tax Levy $61 $61 $61 $61 $616 $21,101 $141,837 $1,838,550 1992 Tax Rate (Est) $.267 $.267 $.267 $.267 $.267 $•267 $.267 $.267 1992 Tax Levy $67 $67 $67 $67 $672 $22,996 $154,573 $2,000,000 Pay -By -Bag Program - Annual Costs 1992 Tax Rate Reduction (1) $<.08> $<.08> $<.08> $<.08> $<.08> $<.08> $<.08> $<.08> 1992 Revised Tax Rate $.187 $.187 $.187 $.187 $.187 $.187 $.187 $.187 1992 Revised Tax Levy $47 $47 $47 $47 $470 $16,105 $105,259 $1,400,000 1992 Tax Levy Reduction $<20> $<20> $<20> $<20> $<202> $<6,891> $<46,314> $<600,000> Additional Refuse Bag Fees (2) $- 29 58 87 $ (3)__ Net Cost or <Credit> (4) <20>L 9 38 67 <202> 1-6,891> 1<46,314> 5 (1) The tax rate reduction is based upon an estimated $600,000 reduction in taxes and estimated EAV of $750,000,000. (2) Additional fees are based on 2nd year average costs of $1.11 per bag. (3) Total additional fees would be dependent upon the number of additional stickers sold. If the Village average is 1.5 bags per residence, the total additional cost would be $356,710. (4) The Net Cost of <Credit> is the sum of the 1992 Tax Levy Reduction and Additional Refuse Bag Fees. (5) Total Net Cost or <Credit> is dependent on the additional number of stickers sold. Schedule 3 , VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT Comparison of Multi -Family Refuse Pick -Up Casts Monthly Unit Fee vs. Monthly Fee Per Container -- Current Contract --- ------ Laidlaw Bid ------------- Arc Bid ------- ---- Waste Mgmt Bid ---- Village Multi -Family Village Multi -Family Village Multi -Family Village Multi -Family Share Share Share Share Share Share Share Share Monthly Fee per Apartment Unit (1) $205 $194 282 - 369 (54 Unit Apartment C lexl 68 — 282 273 194 Refuse Pick Up247 $215 $ $205 $300 $ 1st Pick Up - 257 _ 2nd Pick Up Recycling (3 - 1 112 Cu Yd Containers) 65 67 1 Pick Up per Week — _ — Total 215 257 1270 300 314 Monthly Fee per Container (2) (6 - 2 Cu Yd Containers) Refuse Pick Up (5 - 2 Cu Yd Containers)$ $ $ 91 $ 90 $ 91 1st Pick Up _ - 171 - 2nd Pick Up Recycling (3 - 1 112 Cu Yd Containers) 65 - 67 1 Pick Up per Week - —_ — Total (3) 215 257 156 261 LL58 Monthly Fee per Container (2) (6 - 2 Cu Yd Containers Refuse Pick Up (4 - 2 Cu Yd Containers) $ $ 73 $ 72 $ 73 1st Pick Up $ _ - 137 - 2nd Pick Up Recycling (4 - 1 112 Cu Yd Containers) 144 101 2 Pick Ups per Week — Total (3) 215 257 217 209 174 (1) All Monthly fees except the current contract are three-year averages. (2) Total container capacity equals a minimum of 24 cubic yards per week. The Village would be responsible the for 2nd up. recycling and 112 the 1st pick up. The Multi -Family Share would be 112 the lst pick up and all of pick (3) Current Year totals are for comparison purposes only. $ - $205 $194 282 - 369 — 68 — 282 273 194 $ 90 $125 $124 206 - 369 — 68 — 296 193 493 $ 72 $100 $ 99 164 - 295 — 171 - 236 271 395 Schedule 4 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT Analysis of Refuse Contract Bids Monthly Fee vs. Pay -By -Bag System August 1, 1991 - July 31, 1994 Waste Laidlaw Arc Management BFI Option 1 - Monthly Fee Village Costs: Single -Family -Monthly Fee $3,486,292 $3,839,329 $ 3,836,554 $ 4,397,730 Multi -Family -Monthly Fee - - 1,143,724 1,602,275 Container Fee 1,072,986 1,060,705 - - Recycling 1,322,143 847,880 1,180,535 1,370,505 Total Village Costs $5,881,421 $5,747,914 $ 6,160,813 $ 7,370,510 Direct Costs: Yard Bag Fees (175,000) $ 644,000 $ 583,852 $ 852,250 $ 710,430 Multi -Family - 2nd Pick Up Monthly Fee - - 1,083,318 1,008,204 Container Fee 1,015,653 1,215,342 - - Total Direct Costs $1,659,653 $1,799,194 $ 1,935,568 $ 1,718,634 Total Value of Contract $7,541,074 $7,547.I08 2 8,096,381 9,089 1_44 Option 2 - Pay-By-BAg Village Costs: Single -Family 1 Bag per A $2,366,740 $2,045,172 $ 4,437,638 $ 3,730,189' Addl. Svc. 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 Multi -Family 1/2 1st Pick Up 536,493 530,352 571,862 801,138 Recycling x,322J43 847,880e 1,180,535 1,370,505 Total Village Costs $4,525.3761 $3,723,404 $ 6,490.035 2 6,201,832 Direct Costs: Single -Family 1/2 Bag per Wk $1,263,762 $1,070,821 $ 2,267,054 $ 1,947,094 Multi -Family 1/2 1st Pick Up 536,493 530,352 571,862 801,138 2nd Pick Up 1,015,653 1,215,342 1,083,318 1,008,204 Yard Bags (150,000) 589500 528,000 753,000 686,250 Total Direct Costs $3,405,408 $3,344,515 $ 4,675,234 $ 4,442,686 Total Value of Contract $7,93M84 $7,067.919 $11,165,269 $10, 644 „ 5L8 Cover Story While recycling has captured the public's imagination, reducing the amount of waste reaching municipal landfills still holds bright promise for solving the solid -waste crisis. Recycling is the rage today, but whatever happened to waste re- duction? U,S. Environmental Protection Agency guidelines are aim- ing for 25 -percent recycling and waste reduction by 1992. "It is a slippery concept," says Carl Woestendiek, waste reduction planner in Seattle. "It's really a conservation program involving shopping practices and reuse strategies." Waste reduction, also known as source reduction, is an activity that pre- vents waste by reusing materials, lengthening a product's life, or precy- cling (changing buyer or consumer hab- its). For local governments, this means financial incentives or bans, reduction efforts in municipal offices and work- places, and aggressive public education. Many locations such as Seattle employ a broader definition which includes mu- nicipal or backyard composting and re- designing products to lessen toxicity. Analysts say the best way to complete this task is to "divide and conquer" all the little details which make up a suc- cessful program. Ellen Harrison, asso- ciate director of the Cornell Waste Management Institute, says each com- munity's solid -waste plan should in- clude a variety of trash -prevention schemes. "People want a quick and easy path to reduce waste, but there is no quick fix," she says. By Anne Magnuson Perhaps the most effective, single method is for communities to reduce the sheer volume of waste by charging resi- dents a flat fee for every trash bag. For example, recycling is voluntary in Woodstock, Ill. A 32 -gallon bag for the remaining refuse costs $1.83 at curbside with a weight limit of 50 pounds per bag. David Danielson, assistant city manager, says an independent study tallied source reduction at 38 percent. in some towns, this personal, money tary incentive to reduce trash works best if a mandatory recycling law also is in place. Charging for bags did not lessen the volume of trash noticeably in Ilion, N.Y., until the village mandated the re- cycling of glass, newsprint and corru- gated cardboard. Then the volume of waste fell by one-third, says Debra Greig of the Ilion department of public works. The price for 30 -gallon bags in Ilion is $2 and 20 -gallon bags cost $1.75. The Ilion police department issues warnings followed by $250 fines if residents re- fuse to use the village bags. "Most peo- ple have been very cooperative," says Greig. "There have been only 10 viola- tions in three years." A box of 20 32 -gallon bags costs $15.50 in Duluth, Ga. Carlisle, Pa.'s, 18,300 residents pay $2.10 per 30 -gallon bags. The variable bag rate became mandatory last July, and the manda- tory recycling law took effect in Sep- tember. Carlisle supplies everyone with containers to collect glass, cans, plas- tics, newspapers and corrugated card- board. Allen Loomis, Carlisle's borough manager, says that quantifying volume reduction is difficult because the com- munity went from numerous haulers to one hauler when it initiated mandatory recycling. The hauling contractor esti- mates the waste stream has been re- duced from 100 tons per week to 70 tons per week. "Pricing the bags helps, but the mandatory recycling law was the motivator," Loomis says. Beyond charging a fee per bag, mu- nicipalities labor toward other waste -re - 30 American City & County/April 1991 duction practices which take more time and effort. For most communities, re- duction starts in municipal offices and private business establishments. Con- sultant Pam Winthrop Lauer of Apple Valley, Minn., says her favorite way of encouraging waste reduction is to start a program first in government offices and garages. Then the municipality asks business and industry to join the pro- gram while advertising the values of re- duction and reuse to the community. "You go through the steps in your own courthouse and then you go one step further, to help others in the com- munity do the same," she says. "Keep the message in peoples' sights con- stantly, or else it will be forgotten." Minnesota reduction guidelines, which Lauer helped formulate, suggest a multitude of reuse strategies for busi- ness and municipal offices, many of which save money. In addition, the Minnesota Office of Waste Mange- ment's reduction checklist recommends offering incentives to employees for One of the most effective source - reduction methods is to charge residents a flat fee for every trash ba -g. thinking of new ideas to reduce waste. In Itasca County, Minn., the county courthouse and 16 road and bridge de- partment garages reduced the amount of trash generated last year by about 10 percent. With a landfill tipping fee of $55/ton, the county saved $4,780 in purchasing costs and $104 in disposal costs by weight. The language of resource recovery is filled with technical and confusing terminology. The following is a brief list- ing of some of the most common terms used when discuss- ing the issue of turning waste into power. Air classifier — an air -pollution control process in which mixed material is injected into a forced stream and sepa- rated according to the size, density and aerodynamics of the particles. Ash pit — a pit or hopper under a furnace where bottom ash is collected and removed. Avoided cost — the cost a utility avoids by purchasing power from an independent producer rather than construct- ing new plants. Avoided energy costs — the cost of fueling, operating and maintaining utility power plants. Ragbouse — an air -pollution control device that traps airborne particles in large filters at the back end of the in- cineration process. Bottom ask — part of the combustion residue that is not airborne and falls to the bottom of the incinerator. Capability — the maximum load a generating unit, sta- tion or other electrical apparatus can produce or carry un- der specified conditions over a given time frame without ex- ceeding temperature or stress limits. Capability margin — the difference between a utility's net system capability and its maximum load requirement. Cullet — broken or refuse glass used in manufacturing new glass. Densifled refuse derived fuel — refuse -derived fuel that has been compressed or compacted by pelletizing, briquet - ting or extrusion to alter its handling or burning character- istics. Electrostatic precipitator — a system for collecting and removing airborne particles from a gas stream by forcing the particles through an electrostatic field and charging them electrically, then gathering them on a collecting plate or electrode. Fluff refuse -derived fuel — refuse -derived fuel processed to reduce particle sizes. lo achieve this reduction success, Itasca County zeroed in on a number of particular savings. It cleaned and re- used the 60 stainless-steel air filters in the furnaces and air -filtration systems in the 16 garages and courthouse, and re- placed disposable drinking cups with reuseable ones. Junk mail was reduced by employees sending pre-printed postcards to the generators asking to be removed from mailing lists. Mailing 1,000 postcards representing 20 people costs $173. In the Itasca County zoning office and human resources office, the junk mail dropped from eight pounds per week in Febru- ary 1990 to 1.5 pounds per week in May. The county also photocopied on both sides of the paper and bound scratch pads from papers already used on one side. Finally, using cloth roll towels in- stead of paper towels in the courthouse restrooms avoided 30.24 cubic yards at the landfill for a savings of $971. A team spirit approach in Itasca Fly ash — airborne combustion residue carried in the gas stream of an incineration system. Grains per cubic foot — a measure of airborne particu- lates of dust expressed in weight per unit of gas. Hammermill — a crusher that breaks waste materials into smaller pieces with rotating and flailing hammers. Intermediate processor — a company that purchases source -separated waste materials for recycling from munic- ipalities and private sanitation services. Load — the amount of electric power delivered to or re- quired by any point in a power system. Magnetic separator — equipment that uses a permanent magnet or electro -magnet to attract and remove magnetic materials from other matter. Megawatt — one megawatt equals one million watts. Packaging materials — paper, cardboard, metals, wood, paperboard and plastics used in containers for food, house- hold and industrial products. Pyrollysis systems — a broad term describing a variety of processes in which waste is decomposed by heat action in an oxygen -deficient atmosphere. Refractory material — lining material for incinerators that resists high temperatures, corrosion, abrasion, pressure and rapid temperature changes. Secondary material — material handled by a dealer or broker which has fulfilled its intended use and cannot be used further in its present location. Sod, dally cover — soil used to cover the working face of a landfill at the end of each day. Soil, final cover — soil placed over completed lifts at a landfill in preparation for revegetation, Sod, intermediate cover — still placed over complete lifts where there is an intention to add another fift within one year. ❑ This article was taken from information from Solid Waste & Power magazine. 32 American City & County/April 1991 County helped maintain motivation for the source -reduction project, says Lauer. Employees shared the workload and Lauer points out that the facility's workers knew best what prevention methods would be most appropriate. The project's facilitator at the Office of Waste Management had never heard of washable, reuseable air filters. Quantifying savings and source re- duction is difficult for in-house pro- jects, but it is even more so for com- munities at large. To estimate the amount of waste reduced, Itasca County compared procurement and dis- posal weights and volumes. These fig- ures are more precise than measure- ments of source reduction for entire communities which must estimate the difference in volume of trash discarded by residents, government and com- merce. Small communities can judge at drop-off centers or ask haulers whether the amount of trash has lessened. 'People wont o quick and eosy path to reduce waste, but there is no quick fix.' Ellen Harrison Seattle traces waste reduction results with an annual 400 -household survey initiated last April. "It is not hard numbers but a way for us to track trends in source reduction," says Woes- tendiek. Although the main purpose of the survey is to compare citizen partici- pation in source reduction yearly, Seat- orth American consumption of newsprint is projected to in- crease from 15 million tons in 1988 to 18.9 million tons by the year 2000. According to the National Solid Wastes Management Association (NSWMA), the potential supply of old newspaper far exceeds the de- mand and this oversupply is ex- pected to continue into the near fu- ture. But a New Jersey -based company has been commercially producing newsprint using recycled newspaper as its only raw material for 30 years. Garden State Paper Co., founded in 1961, was the first paper company in the world to employ the technology, and now has formed Garden State Paper Technologies Group, a con- sulting division of the parent com- pany aimed at sharing the technol- ogy. Currently, more than one million tons of newsprint are made in North America by Garden State Paper's Elmwood, N.J., mill, along with af- filiates in California, Georgia, Illi- nois and Mexico. The New Jersey mill alone recycles more than 260,000 tons of old newspaper each year. The usual method of recovering newsprint involves the flotation sys- tem, in which newspapers, maga- zines and other paper products are placed into a vat, allowing the ink to float to the top. Under the comp- any's washing/deinking technology, ink from newspaper fibers is washed and the fibers are separated from the raw material. 34 More than $25 million worth of improvements have been imple- mented at the Garfield mill recently. These include a twin -wire formation on both paper machines, an im- provement to the basic deinking chemistry, a new fiber cleaning and screening system, new basis weight and moisture control systems, and several basic process changes in the fiber preparation area. According to NSWMA, the United States in 1988 consumed about 80 million tons of paper products, in- cluding newsprint. Newspapers ac- counted for 17 percent of that fig- ure, or about 14 million tons. The amount of newsprint recovered for reuse equalled 4.5 million tons, or 33 percent of the total consumed, while 9.2 million tons (67 percent) were disposed. The North American newsprint production in 1988 was 17.1 million tons, of which the United States consumed 13.7 million tons, or 80 percent. NSWMA says the major obstacle to recycling more old newsprint has not been the inability to segregate and collect the material, but the lack of additionalmill capacity to de -ink and use newsprint. The recent glut of newsprint has resulted from several large municipalities mandating sepa- ration of newsprint and the inability of papermills to recycle the col- lected material. ❑ —Tim Darnell tle promotes reduction and education at the same time. More than 50 percent of the 400 peo- ple surveyed already reduce their trash to some degree, according to a report by Karen Brattesani of Research Innova- tions, Seattle. They reuse bags, buy goods with recyclable packaging, reuse boxes and packaging materials, and re- pair small applicances at home. One in four Seattle residents compost yard or food waste in their backyards because of the successful composting program the city launched in 1985. But only 23 percent of those surveyed could define or give an example of waste reduction. In fact, 56 percent identified recycling as a form of waste reduction. The most popular methods for reduction were buying long-lasting goods, repairing rather than replacing small appliances, and buying products with recyclable packaging. The activi- ties least acceptable were renting toots or appliances, reusing bags for produce or bulk goods, buying used clothing, and buying used appliances or furni- ture. To further inspire the public, Seattle issues pamphlets such as "Precycling," which gives tips on buying in bulk, avoiding disposable products, and shopping for durability. Other educa- tional pamphlets encourage "Cutting Down on Garbage," give "Other Ideas for Reducing Garbage," describe "Re- cycling Household Items," and list "Diapering Choices." Seattle's King County Nurses Associ- ation compares methods of treating di- apers in its pamphlet, "Diapering Baby: What's the Bottom Line?" Home laun- dry or employing a diaper service is less expensive than buying disposable dia- pers which make up 2 percent of the waste stream. The association distrib- utes its fact sheet to young mothers and pediatricians. Also, 60 of the 64 hospi- tals in the Seattle region now use cloth rather than disposables on maternity and pediatric wards. Composting has become another popular method that cities and counties are using to reduce the amount of land- filled waste. Brenda Platt of the Insti- tute for Local Self -Reliance in Wash- ington, D.C., recommends local gov- ernments distribute backyard composters in the community since yard waste is 15 to 35 percent of the residen- tial waste stream. Platt, director of ma- terials recovery, says training sessions to use the composter are vital to the pro- gram's success. West Linn, Ore., has distributed individual composters and holds a symposium, "How to Compost at Home," four times a year. Some prevention programs, such as the war on packaging, are perhaps best handled by large municipalities or states. According to industry sources, packaging costs for manufacturers Arnerlaan city i County/Apru 1991 climbed from $32 billion in 1980 to $60 billion in 1987. Packaging (one-third of the waste stream) can be reduced by statewide taxing or granting tax credits to manufacturers that cut back on boxes and plastic bubbles. Denise Lord, director of planning for the Maine Waste Management Agency, says the result of the new law is that more beverages now are available in glass, metal and plastic. Yet some com- panies have switched to odd plastic res- ins which are more difficult to recycle, she says. Portland, Ore., limits polystyrene food containers used by restaurants or other food vendors. For example, pre- pared foods such as deli sandwiches and take-out salads no longer can be wrapped in polystyrene according to a Portland ordinance which took effect in January 1990. Compliance at the 2,200 restaurants and grocery stores is more than 99 percent, says Catherine Fitch, policy analyst for the city's bureau of environmental services. Some of the restaurants have turned to permanent ware which is the preferred option, she says. Others use plastic and paper prod- ucts which still go to the landfill. Fitch says 100,000 tons of plastic in- cluding 9,000 tons of polystyrene are landfilled in Portland yearly. "It is dif- ficult to assess how much waste reduce tion we have achieved by the new law, but we are studying it," she says. Berkeley, Calif., has enacted a simi- lar law banning polystyrene clam shells, cups, etc., for prepared take-out foods. The ordinance, which also took effect January 1990, is enforced through rou- tine inspections by the environmental health department. Offenders are fined $500. "We have very high compli- ance," says Atha Goode, assistant manager analyst for Berkeley's recy- cling division. Another form of waste reduction which is difficult to achieve locally is preventing toxins from entering the waste stream. The Coalition of North- eastern Governors has a source reduc- tion council working on an array of is- sues including recent legislation to ban lead, cadmium, mercury and hexavalent chromium in packaging. Lead is found in the solder of cans, tin and wine and liquor bottle caps, and cadmium and chromium in ink pigments on labels or other parts of a wrapper or box. A package, according to the law, includes the label, binding, shipping pallet and secondary or tertiary boxes. Chip Foley, project director for the council, reports that last spring the new law passed in eight states — Connecti- cut, New York, Maine, New Hamp- shire, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wiscon- sin and Iowa. The council also has formed a toxics committee to develop a protocol for identifying other toxins in packaging. Dual Problem Of Landfill, Recycling Solved In 1988, the town landfill serving Granby, Conn., became filled, and the state mandated disposal at a re- gional incinerator about 20 miles away. Town managers not only were forced to examine new solid -waste disposal alternatives but also tell lo- cal residents the new disposal site would not allow their vehicles on it nor their refuse to be separately ac- cepted. Granby's board of selectmen ap- pointed a study committee of five citizens experienced in service on ad- visory boards, plus the public works director and the town manager to look at disposal alternatives. The committee recommended that the town require fully automated refuse and manual recycling pickups and that it hire out both refuse and recy- cling collection and disposal. On this basis, bids for solid waste services were solicited. The success- ful contractor would have to pur- chase and furnish one cart per household, with the town purchasing and furnishing one recycling basket per household. Sanitary Services received the con- tract. The company had an extensive fleet of Lodal front loaders and re - "There are years of data for lead, cad- mium, chromium and mercury," says Foley, "but when you deal with these other things — benzene, arsenic, chlo- rine, hundreds of things — we don't have the data." So the committee will form a chart or grid to check off negative and positive attributes for humans, animals and plant fife and to address how the chem- icals affect landfills and incinerators. Nomew" Manual Nm Available At a time when many urban offi- cials believe public interest in home- lessness is waning, a new book has been published entitled "Under The Safety Net: The Health And Welfare Of The Homeless In The United States.' Edited by Philip Brickner and his colleagues at St. Vincent's Hospital and Medical Center in New York City, the book describes various di- mensions of homelessness and out- lines community -wide strategies for addressing the health-care needs of the homeless. The book is available from W.W. Norton & Co., 500 Fifth Ave., New York, N.Y. 10110, (MM 233-4830.0 Recycling bins, set out next to the carts, are collected separately. cycling vehicles, and the town soon implemented a recycling and pickup schedule through a public informa- tion campaign. With recycling par- ticipation made mandatory, between 90 and 95 percent of the town's resi- dents put something out for collec- tion on a regular basis. The total town budget for recy- cling and solid -waste handling is $657,284, or $196.20 per household. 13 This article was written by William Smith, town manager far Granby, Conn. Federally, the government has not enacted legislation to foster source re- duction. EPA regards itself as an "in- formation exchange," says Paul Kald- jian, source reduction coordinator in EPA's Office of Solid Waste. EPA of- fers a 44 -page booklet, "The Environ- mental Consumer's Handbook," which summarizes waste reduction and offers a bibliography of EPA sources. Kaldjian suggests local officials also subscribe to "Reuseable News," a quarterly newsletter put out by EPA's Office of Solid Waste's municipal and industrial solid waste division. In addition, EPA helps finance pack- aging and product life assessment (PLAs) studies. Kaldjian says these life- cycle analyses will determine the envi- ronmental impacts of different prod- ucts or packages not only during dis- posal but also during the manufacture and use phases. This would include risk calculations for na.ural resources and energy, emissions during manufacture and disposal characteristics. "The issue of PLAs is a long way from being resolved," says Susan Moo- ney of Chicago's EPA office. "Envi- ronmental impact assessment is a big, black box, and we don't know what's in it and we don't know its borders. The hope is PLAs would provide a system- atic way to compare or look at a prod- uct or material." 36 American City i County/A13111 I"l " Mooney says grocery shoppers now notice paper and plastic bags, consider where they come from and their biode- gradability. Life -cycle analyses for these bags will calculate the whole gamut of environmental effects. "In the end we'll have all the information laid out," she says. A long time may be needed before these assessments are of practical, eve- ryday use to the public and localities. But the advantage of PLAs from a waste -reduction point of view is to im- prove product labeling programs. This would encourage consumer "smart - shopping." There are numerous proposed laws regarding waste reduction before state legislatures across the nation which would affect local waste -prevention programs. For example, the waste re- duction and packaging law ("the wrap act")to be proposed in New York, would require all packaging to be 50 - percent recycled and have a statewide recyclability rate of 60 percent. An exception would be if the package could be refilled a minimum of five times. The sale in disposable wraps of food to be eaten on the premises would be prohibited, says the bill's author, Judith Enck of the New York Public Interest Research Group. There would be a charge of five cents for each paper or plastic bag used in retail transac- tions. With legislation in the wings, Ibcali- ties and residents still want a quick and easy path toward waste prevention. But American cities and counties should re- sist passing the waste -reduction buck back to the state and federal level, Har- rison says. She adds that a tendency ex- ists for local governments to wait for higher action and for the federal gov- ernment to pass it down. "In the end, consumers have to do this thing," she says. "In fact, educat- ing the public may be the most impor- tant aspect of a waste -reduction program." O Anne Magnuson is a correspondent for American City & County based in Clifton Park, N. Y. Anwican City ! County/April 1991 Mount Prospect Public Works Department INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Village Manager FROM: Deputy Director of Public Works DATE: April 5, 1991 SUBJ: Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Response to Village Board Questions At the March 26, 1991, Committee of the Whole meeting the Mayor and Board of Trustees requested additional information on the proposed new solid waste collection and disposal program. Below is a response to each of the questions raised: 1. How will the different alternatives impact the single fami- ly, as well as the multifamily complexes financially? The Director of Finance, Dave Jepson, under a separate memo, has compiled financial comparisons of the different alternatives requested in the Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Bid packet. Mr. Jepson's report addresses both single family residents and multifamily complexes. 2. Under the proposed Pay -by -the -Bag Program can provisions be made for brush and bulk pickup? Attached to this memo is a revised summary of the proposed Pay -by -the -Bag Program and all services that will be includ- ed in that basic package. This revised program as present- ed, addresses both bulk and brush pickup which will be included at no additional charge to the residents. 3. How will the Village guard against sticker removal? Attached to this memo, Public Works Administrative Aide, Lisa Angell, explains how this has been handled in the communities where they currently are utilizing stickers for various programs. 4. What would be the cost to supply all residents with an additional, larger recycling bin? I have solicited quotes from two sources, Lewis Containers out of Wisconsin and Rehrig Pacific of Gurnee, Illinois, who supplied our original 14 gallon recycling bins. Rehrig had the lowest price for an 18.2 gallon container at $4.43 per bin for a total cost, based on 13,000 bins, of $57,590. This bin is 4.2 gallons larger than the original bin yet is 30 cents less than what we paid in June, 1989, for the 14 -gallon bin ($4.73). 5. How many containers and/or bags are Mount Prospect resi- dents currently placing at the curb? Attached to this report is a summary of a survey we conduct- ed on the past two garbage collection days (Friday, March 29 and Tuesday, April 2). Three Village employees utiliz- ing a 32 gallon garbage can as a guide counted the number of bags placed but at the curb and then converted them to a 32 gallon container equivalent. As the survey total indi- cates 42% of the residents counted had one 32 gallon can equivalent, or less, out at the curb and 38% had two 32 gallon can equivalents. Along with that you will note that of those residents that had two cans or less, an average of only 57% of them also had a recycling bin. I truly believe that with the proposed Pay -by -the -Bag sys- tem and expanded recycling program those residents that had the two can equivalents would be able to reduce their waste stream down to one container. What are the current Village or State regulations regarding open burning of" refuse or yard material? Attached are copies of our local ordinance and State regula- tions outlining the restrictions of open burning. '6len R. �Andl r GRA/eh Attachments SWCOLDIS.P 4/5/91 PROPOSED VOLUME BASED COLLECTION SERVICE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT The Village of Mount Prospect will provide the following basic service for solid waste collection and disposal to all single and multifamily units. SINGLE FAMILY Refuse/Garbage Residents would be allowed one 32 gallon container or one 33 gallon plastic liner full of refuse or garbage per week. Any additional containers, bags, bundles of construction debris, large tree limbs or any other non -identified bulk items would require the prepaid sticker. Each single family household currently has a 14 gallon bin and will be issued an additional 18.2 gallon bin at no charge. Residents would be allowed to fill these bins to their maximum volume for placement out at the curb. In addition, any recycla- ble not fitting in the bins can be placed on top of, or along side the bin, all of which will be removed at no cost to the residents. In addition residents seeking a replacement bin due to their bin being lost, stolen or damaged, will be given one replacement bin at no charge. Any additional bins beyond the one replacement limit will be will be at the amount set by the Village Manager which is currently $6.00 per bin. Bulk Items A set list of bulk items will be identified and collected at no extra charge to the residents. This list of bulk items will include such things as furniture, appliances, refrigerators, washers, dryers, hot water tanks, etc. There will be no limit to the number of items the residents may put out as long as they appear on the list. Any construction debris and/or large diame- ter tree limbs 611 or larger would have to be bundled properly, i.e. 51 lengths, not weighing in excess of 50 pounds, and all other items not.classified as bulk, would require the prepaid sticker. Brush Residents will be allowed to put out unlimited amounts of brush as long as they are prepared in the required 51 bundles weighing not more than of 50 pounds per bundle. Yard Materials All yard material.is required to be in either a generic 30 gal- lon biodegradable paper bag or standard 32 gallon garbage con- tainer and must have a prepaid sticker attached to each. Spring/Fall - Clean Up Week Residents would be given one pickup in the Fall and one in the Spring when they would be allowed to place out an unlimited amount of material. All items placed out at the curb for pickup however would have to be prepared according to normal specifica- tions and certain items such as construction material and large tree limbs in excess of 611 would be limited to 1 cubic yard of material each. Summer/Winter - Bonus Week During the month of July and either the end of December of 1st of January residents would be allowed two more additional con- tainers (total of 3) at no extra charge. MULTIFAMILY Refuse/Garbage Collection of refuse and garbage would remain at the same level of service that the complexes are currently receiving. Payment for this service would be changed to the Village paying for 1/2 of the first pickup and the complexes paying for the other 1/2 of the first pickup, as well as the entire fee for the second pickup per week. Initially the size and number of containers per complex will remain the same. Recycling The Village will provide unlimited recycling to all multifamily complexes. Specially marked containers will be provided and residents will commingle their recyclables into these contain- ers. Initially the number of containers placed at any given complex will be limited. However, should the complex actively participate, additional recycling containers will be added and the number of their standard refuse containers would be reduced proportionately, which could result in a savings to the complex. Bulk Items Pickup of bulk items will be provided at no additional cost to the complexes. -Bulk items small enough to fit within the con- tainers would be placed there. Larger items would be put along side the container and all items would be removed at no addition- al charge. Brush Brush pickup would be offered the same as single family, however because they are not part of the normal pickup route once the complex had properly prepared their bundles they would have to call the scavenger to arrange for pickup. This would also be no extra cost to the complex. Yard Materials Like single family, multifamily would be subject to the condi- tions and extra charges (prepaid tags or possibly special con- tainer fees) outlined for disposal of yard materials. The com- plex would have to make special arrangements with the scavenger to pickup their materials. Spring/Fall and Summer/Winter Bonus Pickups These two services would not be applicable to the multifamily complexes mainly because there are no restrictions on the volume of refuse and garbage they can place in their containers. VOLCOLSE.RV Mountrospect Public Works Department 1W INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TM CM, S4 TO: VILLAGE MANAGER FROM: ADMINISTRATIVE AIDE DATE: MARCH 22, 1991 RE: Solid Waste/Yard Material Sticker Program Solid Waste Reduction - Junk Mail The Public Works Director has asked that I respond to your question as to how we may minimize the occurence of sticker theft if the proposed pay by bag system is implemented. First, I am pleased to inform you that based on a November 1990 survey of 10 Illinois communities utilizing the sticker program, sticker theft was not identified as a problem. In addition, the Recycling Coordinators from Downers Grove and Des Plaines state sticker theft has not been a major concern, with only a few incidents reported in either community. (Downers Grove uses stickers for refuse and yard material; Des Plaines uses the stickers for yard bags/containers.) However, it is recommended we implement measures as deterrents to such behavior. 1) Amend the existing ordinance for the theft of recycling bins and recyclables to include the theft of stickers. 2) Only use stickers of a durable material and adherence so if someone attempts to remove the sticker it will not come off or will be so marred it can not be reused. (Apparently adherence quality is also critical so the sticker will stay in place during the winter months.) 3) Instruct the scavenger's drivers not to pick up any bags/ containers with stickers applied with —tape. I am also including the address you requested for having names removed from advertiser's mailings, "junk mail". The address could be published in the Newsletter, per your direction. If published,an explanation should be provided so residents are aware they will still continue to receive junk mail but less of it. By contacting this address you are able to have your name removed from future mailing lists, but not from lists already published and distributed. Mail Preference Service Department Direct Marketing Association 11 West 42nd Street Box 3861 New York, NY 10163 or call (212) 689-4977 should you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me. c: Director of Public Works Deputy Director of Public Works GARBAGE/RECYCLING COUNTS 53% of all single family homes were recently surveyed in a garbage and recycling count conducted by the Department of Public Works. The counts were done on each of the Village's two (2) collection days. The objectives of the survey were to: 1) Assess the number of garbage containers/bags set out weekly by residents - per home 2) Obtain data on the number homes setting out recycling bins; corresponding to the number of garbage containers/bags set out All garbage counts were standardized; the volume set out was equated to the number of 32 gallon containers needed. Based on these counts approximately 1.9 garbage bags = (1) 32 gallon container. * <1, 1, 2, 3-4 and 5+ represent the number of 32 gallon garbage containers or its equivalent. RB - Recycling Bins FRIDAY COLLECTION (MARCH 29, 1991) < 1 1 RB 2 RB 3-4 RB 5+ RB Bulk 21 405 163 391 179 176 67 13 5 36 40 796 416 420 221 138 94 12 7 47 40 350 168 389 246 225 137 36 22 26 101 1,551 747 1,200 646 539 298 61 34 109 TOTAL HOMES COUNTED TOTAL HOMES WITH BINS TOTAL HOMES IN AREA 3,452 1,725 6,454 50% of all garbage set outs had recycling bins 3% of all garbage set outs had bulk items Percent of residents with: < 1 Can 2 Cans 3-4 Cans 5+ Cans 48% 35% 15% 2% Corresponding percent with recycling bins: 45% 54% 55% 56% TUESDAY COLLECTION (APRIL 2, 1991) < 1 1 RB 2 RB 3-4 RB 5+ RB Bulk 26 337 223 443 236 305 181 32 14 48 18 382 353 441 314 215 154 19 11 87 33 374 197 360 227 166 114 30 12 29 77 1,053 773 1,244 777 686 449 81 37 164 TOTAL HOMES COUNTED TOTAL HOMES WITH BINS TOTAL HOMES IN AREA 3,141 2,036 5,906 65% of all garbage set outs had recycling bins 5% of all garbage set outs had bulk items Percent of residents with: < 1 Can 2 Cans 3-4 Cans 5+ Cans 36% 40% 21% 3% Corresponding percent with recycling bins: 68% 62% 65% 47% COMBINED TOTALS OF TWO DAY GARBAGE/RECYCLING COUNTS March 29 and April 3, 1991 TOTAL HOMES COUNTED TOTAL HOMES WITH BINS TOTAL HOMES IN VILLAGE 6,593 3,761 12,360 57% of all garbage set outs had recycling bins 4% of all garbage set outs had bulk items Percent of residents with: 1 Can 2 Cans 3-4 Cans 5+ Cans 42% 38% 18% 2% Corresponding percent with recycling bins: 57% 58% 60% 52% FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL REGULATIONS Open Burning of Refuse/Yard Material Local Ordinances - Direct and indirect regulations affecting open burning of residential refuse/yard materials. VILLAGE CODES 1) Section 9.111.D Prohibited Acts Burning leaves and rubbish. It shall be unlawful for any person to burn any leaves, paper, rubbish or other substances upon any of the public streets, sidewalks or alleys in the Village. 2) Section 19.204. Accumulation of Garbage (in part reads) It shall be unlawful for any person to burn garbage, other than in incinerators approved by the Environmental Protection Agency of,the State of Illinois; 3) Section 19.309. Prohibited Acts It shall be unlawful to commit or do any act which endangers the public health or results in annoyance or discomfort to the public. (Apparently the Lung Association is a watchdog in this area and conducts extensive community awareness in any municipality permitting open burning. STATE REGULATIONS (See Attached letter and Environmental Protection Act) The Illinois Environmental Protection Act, Section 9c explicitly prohibits the open burning of refuse in Illinois unless done in a specifically designed chamber approved by the State. FEDERAL REGULATIONS (See Attached letter referencing The Federal open Dump Criteria, closing paragraph.) Sources: Brooke Beal - Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County Lonnie Jackson- Mount Prospect Deputy Fire Chief Ken Westlkake - Federal Environmental Protection Agency "'0574, er UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 6 230 SOUTH DEARBORN ST. e+144 moll/ CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604 April 2, 1991 ivLs. Lisa Angell REPLY TO ATrENnON OF: Administrative Aide Mount prospect Department of Public Works 1700 W. central Road Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 rear Lisa: I have enclosed copies of the relevant State and Federal citations concerning ti -e open burning of refuse. As we discussed, this practice was common 30-40 years ago, but was abandoned due to the noxious air pollution problems it created. The Illinois Environmental Protection Act, Section 9c explicitly prohibits the cTien burning of refuse in Illinois unless done in a specifically designed chamber approved by the State. Emergency open burning can be done under rare ciro=tances with the expressed permission of the Illinois Environmental protection Agency director; this provision was invoked -to allow the burning of tornado debris in Will County last year. In my discussions with Mr. Sy Levine of TEPA's Air Pollution field office in Maywood, I learned of case law governing the open burning of landscape waste. Because of a court decision in a case brought against the State by the City of Lake Forest, there is no State prohibition against the open burning of landscape waste on the property where it is generated. It is also permissible under State law for municipalities to burn landscape waste in a central location if municipally supervised. As you municipal ordinances can impose stricter limitations than those established under State law. Hence, most municipalities have enacted ordinances that prohibit open burning altogether, filling the loopholes established in the Lake Forest case. bwip Criter' , embodied in 'fitle. 40 Code of Fe6end- ,C."'f"lations Part 257, establish that the open burning of refuse is one of the factors that define a solid waste operation as an "open dump." Open dumping is prohibited under Federal regulations, but these rules are not enforceable by the Federal government, only by the States. Sincerely yours, Ken t%7estlake State Relations Manager Office of the Regional Administrator Enclosures Printed on Recyded Paper 2200 Chur )Road January 1987 znvironmental Springfielo,'inois 62706 I& -Protection Agency to esta, suppi to restore, protect (4 and to "4 8jFzae program phi a -e dies f the environment, Cirsef c s upon the ,and borne by Hazardous Substances Registry Act. Expenses incurred in the copying and transmittal of files, records and data requested pursuant to this subsection (g) shall be the responsibility of the Department of Public Health. Section 7.1 8 All articles representing a trade secret reported to or otherwise obtained by the Agency, the Board or the Department in connection with any examination, inspection or proceeding under this Act, shall be considered confidential and shall not be disclosed, except that such articles may be disclosed confidentially to other officers or employees concerned with carrying out this Act or when relevant to any proceeding under this Act. In any such proceeding, the Agency, the Board, the Department or the court shall issue such orders as may be appropriate, including the impoundment of files or portions of files, to protect the confidentiality of trade secrets. b. The Board shall adopt regulations under Title VII of this Act which prescribe: (1) procedures for determining whether articles represent a trade secret; and (2) procedures to protect the confidentiality of such articles. All such regulations shall be considered substantive regulations for purposes of Section 28 of this Act. c. As used in this Section: 1. "article" means any object, material, device or substance, or whole or partial copy thereof, including any writing, record, document, recording, drawing, sample, specimen, prototype, model, photograph, culture, microorganism, blueprint or map; 2. "representing" means describing, depicting, containing, constituting, reflecting or recording; and 3. "copy" means any facsimile, replica, photograph, or other reproduction of an article, and any note, drawing or sketch made of or from an article. TITLE II: AIR POLLUTION Section 8 The General Assembly finds that pollution of the air of this State constitutes a menace to public health and welfare, creates public nuisances, adds to cleaning costs, accelerates the deterioration of materials, adversely affects agriculture, business, industry, recreation, climate, and visibility, depresses property values, and offends the senses. It is the purpose of this Title to restore, maintain, and enhance the purity of the air of this State in order to protect health, welfare, property, and the quality of life and to assure that no air contaminants are discharged into the atmosphere without being given the degree of treatment or control necessary to prevent pollution. Section 9 No person shall: a. Cause or threaten or allow the discharge or emission of any contaminant into the environment in any State so as to cause or tend to cause air pollution in Illinois, either alone or in combination with contaminants from other sources, or so as to violate regulations or standards adopted by the Board under this Act; b. Construct, install, or operate any equipment, facility, vehicle, vessel, or aircraft capable of causing or contributing to air pollution or designed to prevent air pollution, of any type designated by Board regulations, without a permit granted by the Agency, or in violation of any conditions imposed by such permit; Cause or allow the open burning of refuse, conduct any salvage operation by open burning, or cause or allow the burning of any refuse in any chamber not specifically designed for the purpose and approved by the Agency pursuant to regulations adopted by the Board under this Act; except that the Board may adopt regulations permitting open burning of refuse in certain cases upon a finding that no harm will result from such burning, or that any alternative method of disposing of such refuse would create a safety hazard so extreme as to justify the pollution that would result from such burning; d. Sell, offer, or use any fuel or other article in any areas in which the Board may by regulation forbid its sale, offer, or use for reasons of air -pollution control; e. Use, cause or allow the spraying of loose asbestos for the purpose of fireproofing or insulating any building or building materials or other constructions, or otherwise use asbestos in such unconfined manner as to permit asbestos fibers or particles to pollute the air; f. Commencing July 1, 1985, sell any used oil for burning or incineration in any incinerator, boiler, furnace, burner or other equipment unless such oil meets standards based on virgin fuel oil or re -refined oil, as defined in ASTM D-396 or specifications under VV -F-8150 promulgated pursuant to the federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act, and meets the manufacturer's and current NFDA code standards for which such incinerator, boiler, furnace, burner or other equipment was approved, except that this prohibition does not apply to a sale to a permitted used oil re -refining or reprocessing facility or sale to a facility permitted by the Agency to burn or incinerate such oil. Nothing herein shall limit the effect of any section of this Title with respect to any form of asbestos, or the spraying of any form of asbestos, or limit the power of the Board under this Title to adopt additional and further regulations with respect to any form of asbestos, or the spraying of any form of asbestos. This Section shall not limit the burning of landscape waste upon the premises where it is produced or at sites provided and supervised by any unit of local government, except within any county having a population of more than 400,000. Section 9.1 a. The General Assembly finds that the federal Clean Air Act, as amended, and regulations adopted pursuant thereto establish complex and detailed provisions for State -federal cooperation in the field of air pollution control, provide for a Prevention of Significant Deterioration program to regulate the issuance of preconstruction permits to insure that economic growth will occur in a manner consistent with the preservation of existing clean air resources, and also provide for plan requirements for nonattainment areas to regulate the construction, modification and operation of sources of air pollution to insure that economic growth will occur in a manner consistent with the goal of achieving the national ambient air quality standards, and that the General Assembly cannot conveniently or advantageously set forth in this Act all the requirements of such federal Act or all regulations which may be established thereunder. It is the purpose of this Section to avoid the existence of duplicative, overlapping or conflicting State and federal regulatory systems. b. The provisions of Section 111 of the federal Clean Air Act (42 USC 7411) relating to standards of performance for new .62 ng shall be held if the planning :y determines there Is sufficient !st. The State shall comply with the rements of Office of Manage - and Budget Circular No. A-95. Copies of the final work program be placed In the State Informa- depositories maintained under 60(a)(2). 52 Requirements for public partici- stion in State regulatory development. The State shall conduct public rigs (and public meetings where State determines there is suffi- Interest) on State legislation and iations, in accord with the State nistrative procedures act. to sofic- tetions and recommendations. Fol - q; the public hearings, a respon- less summary shall be prepared made available to the Public in rd with Oil CPR 25.8. =In advance of the hearings and Angs required by paragraph (a) of section, the State shall prepare a sheet on proposed regulations or lation, mail the fact sheet tO ligen- organizations and Individuals on list maintained under 3.60(a)(1) and place the fact sheet he state information depositories stained under 1256.60(a)(2). i.63 Requirements for public partici- pation in the permitting of facilities. ) Before approving a permit aPPIi- on (or renewal of a permit) for a rurce recovery or solid waste dls- ill facility the State shall hold a lic hearing to solicit public reac- t and recommendations on the pro - ed permit application If the State ermines there is a significant ree of public Interest in the pro - ed permit. I) This hearing shall be held In Ord with 40 CPR. 25.5. 40 CFR Ch. 1 (7-1-88 Edition) other State administrative procedures which provide equivalent public par- ticipation. (b) The State may satisfy the re- quiremenL of §256,64(a) by providing written notice of the availability of the results of Its classifications to all parties on the list required under § 256.60(a)(1) at least 30 days before initial submission of these classifica- tions to the Federal Government. For those parties on the list required under 1256.60(a)(1) who are owners or operators of facilities classified as open dumps, such notice shall indicate that the facility has been so classified. 146 FR 47052, Sept. 23, 19811 § 256.65 Recommendations for public par- ticipation. (a) State and substate planning agencies should establish an advisory group, or utilize an existing group. W provide recommendations on major policy and program decisions. The ad- visory group's membership should re- flect a balanced viewpoint In accord with 40 CPR 253(e). (b) State and substate planning agencies should develop public educa- tion programs designed to encourage informed public participation in the development and implementation of solid waste management Plans. 144 and amamended at 46 PR 47052, Sept 31981R 45079, July 31. 1979- 1 PART 257 --CRITERIA FOR CLASSIFI- CATION OF SOLID WASTE DISPOS- AL, FACILITIES AND PRACTICES 4.64 Requirements for public partici- pation in the open dump inventory. a) The State shall provide an oppor- IILy for public participation prior to )mission of any classification of a :Iiity as an open dump to the Feder* Government. The State shall ac- uplish this by providing notice as :rifledin § 256.64(b) or by using Sec. 257.1 Scope and purpose - 257.2 Definitions. 257.3 Criteria for classification of solid waste disposal facilities and practices. 257.31 FloodPlalns. 257.32 Endangered spceles. 257.3-3 Surface water. 257.3-4 Ground water - 257.3 -5 Application to land used for the production of food -chain crops (interim final). ease. 3- A 57.3-6 Safety. 2578 Effective date. APPENDIX I APPPENDIX II 362 Environmental Protection Agency A(F2nttRITY: Secs, 1001f(a)o) and 4004(x). pub- L, 94--580. 90 Slat, 2803 and 2815 (42 Pu , L. 95-211 91 Slat (1606 aM s(33 ll C- 1345(4)). SouseE; 44 FR 53460, Scpt, 13, 1979' unless otherwise noted. 251.1 (6) The criteria do not apply to in- dustrial discharges which are point sources subject to Permits under sec- tion 402 of the Clean Water Act, as amended. (7) The criteria do not apply to source. special nuclear or byproduct Atomic - match as defined d (68i�t t, 923Y 6 257.1 scope and purpose. criteria are for use tinder Energy Act. as amend€ _ t (a) The criteria do not appiy to hick which (a) These the Resource Conservation and Recov ardour waste disposal favi and under Soil, cry Act (the Act) in determining disposal facilities are subject to regulation title C of the Act, solid waste and practices pose a reasonable pi•oba- (9) The criteria do apply to dis- Ilunderground by bility of adverse effects on health or Unless otherwise poral of solid waste injection subject to the rcgula- the environment, these criteria are adopted well tions (40 CPR Dart 146) fortthe a(finder- Control Program provided, for Purp)(3) and 400oses of both sections 1008(a4(a) of the Act, ground injection (i1iC;1 ) tinder the Safe Drinking 42 U.S.C. 3001 (1) Facilities failing to satisfy crite- Water Act, as amcndcd, adopted for purposes Of section ct seq. ria 112 be Considered open dumPs 13 1979. as amended at 4004(x) IN for Purposes of State solid waste man- 4 agement planning under the Act, (2) Practices falling to satisfy crite- ria adopted for purposes of section !3 f006(a)(3) constitute open dumping, which Is prohibited under section 4005 of the Act. (b) Thew criteria also provide guide- lines for sludge utilisation and MSPos- a2 under Section,oullamended. fTthe O comply Water Act, with $cellon 405(e) the owner Or oper- ator of any publicly owned treatment works must not violate these criteria in the disposal of sludge on t land - (c) These criteria at Ply solid waste disposal facilities and Practices with the following exceptions: (1) The criteria do not apply to agri- cultural wastes, including manures and crop residues, returned to the soil as fertilizers or soil conditioner (2) The criteria do not apply to over- burden ati ns intended for return to the mine Site. (3) The criteria do not apply to the land application of domestic sewage or treated domestic sewage. The criteria do apply to disposal of sludges gener- ated by treatment of domestic Sewage the (4) The criteria do not apply location and operation of septic tanks. The criteria do, however, apply to the disposalof septic tank pumping$, (5) The criteria do not apply to solid or dissolved materials in irrigation return flows. 44 FR 53460. Set. . 6 Fit 47052. Sept. 23, 1981) 257.'1 Definitions. The definitions set forth in section 1004 of the Act apply to this Part. Spe- ciaf definitlorls Of general concern to this part are provided below. and dell- nitions especially pertinent to particu- lar sections of this part are provided In those sections. ".Disposal„ means the discha P Ming. posit. injection, ing. solid waste leaking. or placing Of an or hazardous waste into or on any land or water so that such solid waste or ituent thereof may enter the rdous waste or any the environment or be emitted into s� includine air or glscgro and arged into any wate waters- Land and all, „FFdcilityt means any purtenances thereto used for the dis- posal of solid wastes. -1,enchate" means liquid that has passed through or emerged from solid waste and contains soluble. suspended or miscible materials removed from such wastes. ..Operx dump 1.means a facility for the disposal of solid waste which does not comply with this Part. -Practice" means the act of disposal of solid waste. "S€rnitsry lan(Uitf" means a facility for the disposal of solid waste which complies with this part. 363 6257.3-5 Application to land used for the greater whenever food -chain crops are production of food -chain crops (inter- grown. im final). (a) Cadmium. A facility or practice concerning application of solid waste to within one meter (three feet) of the surface of land used for the produc- tion of food -chain crops shall not exist or occur, unless in compliance with all requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) <ll through (iii) of this section or all re- quirements of paragraphs (a)(2) (i) through (tv) of this section. (1)(f) The pH of the solid waste and soil mixture is 6.5 or greater at the time of each solid waste application, except for solid waste containing cad- mium at concentrations of 2 mg/kg (dry weight) or less. (if) The annual application of cadmi- um from solid waste does not exceed 0.5 kilograms per hectare (kg/ha) on land used for production of tobacco, leafy vegetables or root crops grown for human consumption. For other food -chain crops, the annual cadmium application rate does not exceed: Annual Cd Time period �8 aog ha) Present to Juhe 30. 1061 _.._.......-__._...._..__._.._ 2.0 My 1, 1966 to December 31, 1886.......____.....__ 1.25 Bepirawy Jarawrp 1, 1987._.._..__ ............... ..___. QS (lit) The cumulative application of cadmium from solid waste does not exceed the levels in either paragraph (a)(1)(141)(A) or (B) of this section. (A) Maximum cumulaf application (kg/ha) Soil caibn exchange capacity Back - Beck (meq/toog) ground 1 ground boil pM fess pH more than 6.5 than 6S Leas than 5 .._ 5 5 510 15 .., ,,. .. 5 to mon, than 15.. .. 5 20 (B) For soils with a background pH of less than 6.5, the cumulative cadmi- um application rate does not exceed the levels below: Provided, That the PH of the solid waste and soil mixture is adjusted to and maintained at 6.5 or W.1 - Soil cation a change capacity (meq/1008) c tiaa abet i 9/ha) lava than 5.._ ........ ....... „ , ,..._ .,..,. 5 5 to 15 ... .... ._.... .__ 10 Mwe than 15 ._.....,.. .._ 20 (2)(D The only food -chain crop pro- duced is animal feed. (it) The pH of the solid waste and soil mixture is 6.5 or greater at the time of solid waste application or at the time the crop is planted, whichev- er occurs later, and this pH level is maintained whenever food -chain crops are grown. (iii) There is a facility operating plan which demonstrates how the animal feed will be distributed to pre- clude ingestion by humans. The facili- ty operating plan describes the meas- ures to be taken to safeguard against possible health hazards from cadmium entering the food chain, which may result from alternative land uses. Uv) Future property owners are noti- fied by a stipulation in the land record or property deed which states that the property has received solid waste at high cadmium application rates and that food -chain crops should not be grown, due to a possible health hazard. (b) PoIychtorinated Biphenyls (PCBs). Solid waste containing concen- trations of PCBs equal to or greater than 10 mg/kg (dry weight) is incorpo- rated into the soil when applied to land used for producing animal feed, including pasture crops for animals raised for milk. Incorporation of the solid waste into the soil is not required If it is assured that the PCB content is less than 0.2 mg/kg (actual weight) in animal feed or less than 1.5 mg/kg ((at basis) in milk. (c) As used in this section: (1) "Animal feed" means any crop grown for consumption by animals, such as pasture crops, forage, and grain. (2) "Background soil pH" means the PH of the soil prior to the addition of orfi substances that alter the hydrogen ion concentration. (3) "Cation exchange capacity" means the sum of exchangeable ca- tions a soil can absorb expressed in milli -equivalents per 100 grams of soil as determined by sampling the soil to the depth of cultivation or solid waste placement, whichever is greater, and analyzing by the summation method for distinctly acid soils or the sodium acetate method for neutral, calcareous or saline soils ("Methods of Soil Anal- ysis, Agronomy Monograph No. 9." C, A. Black, ed., American Society of Agronomy, Madison, Wisconsin. pp 891-901,1965). (4) "Food -chain crops" means tobac- co, crops grown for human consump- tion, and animal feed for animals whose products are consumed by humans. (5) "Incorporated Into the soil" means the injection of solid waste be- neath the surface of the soil or the mixing of solid waste with the surface soil. (6) "Pasture crops" means crops such as legumes, grasses. grain stubble and stover which are consumed by ani- mals while grazing. (7) "pH" means the logarithm of the reciprocal of hydrogen ion concentra- tion. (g) "Root crops" means plants whose edible parts are grown below the sur- face of the soll. (9) ,Soil PH" Is the value obtained by sampling the soil to the depth of cultivation or solid waste placement, whichever is greater, and analyzing by the electrometric method. ("Methods of Soil Analysis, Agronomy Mono- graph No. 9,`" C.A. Black, ed., Ameri- can Society of Agronomy. Madlson, Wisconsin, pp. 914-926, 1965.) 144 FR 53460, Sept. 13, 1979: 44 FR 54708 Sept. 21, 19791 or prat tic, n11"OIV111i sewage sludge or septic tank puinpiigs shall not exist or occur unless in com- pliance with paragraphs (b) (1), t2) or (3) of this section. (1) Sewage sludge that is applied to the land surface or is incorporated into the soil is treated by a Process to Significantly Reduce Pathogens prior to application or incorporation. Public access to the facility is controlled for at least 12 months, and grazing by ani- mals whose products are consumed by humans is prevented for at least one month. Processes to Significantly Reduce Pathogens are listed in Appen- dix If, Section A. (These provisions do not apply to sewage sludge disposed of by a trenching or burial operation.) (2) Septic tank pumpings that are applied to the land surface or incorpq- rated into the soil are treated by Process to Significantly Reduct Pathogens (as listed in Appendix It, Section A), prior to application or in- corporation, unless public aceess to the facility is controlled for at least 12 months and unless grazing by animals whose products are consumed by humans is prevented for at least one month. (These provisions do not apply to septic tank pumpings disposed of by a trenching or burial operation.) (3) Sewage sludge or septic tank pumpings that are applied to the land surface or are incorporated into the soil are treated by a Process to Fur- ther Reduce Pathogens. prior to appli- cation or incorporation, if crops for direct human consumption are grown within 18 months subsequent to app11- cation or Incorporation. Such treat- ment is not required if there Is no cc' tact between the solid waste and edible portion .of the crop; however, z.. this case the solid waste is treated by a Process to Significantly Reduce Pathogens, prior to application; public 6257.3-6 Disease. access to the facility is controlled for (a) Dincase Vectors. The facility or at least 12 months, and grazing by ant - practice shall not exist or occur unless hmals umans Isepr oducts are ci for at leastconsumed one the on-site population of disease vec- tors 4s minimized through the periodic month. if crops for direct human con - application of cover material or other sumptlon are not grown within 18 techniques as appropriate so as to pro on. application ofparagraphs rhs tett public health. tion apply. (b) Sewage sludge and septic tank (b) (1) and (2) of this se pumpings (interim Final). A facility Processes to Further Reduce Patho- 367 gens are listed in Appendix II, Section B. (c) As used in this section: (1) "Crops for direct human con- sumption" means crops that are con- sumed by humans without processing to minimize pathogens prior to distri- bution to the consumer. (2) "Disease vector" means rodents. flies, and mosquitoes capable of trans. mitting disease to humans. (3) "Incorporated into the soil" means the injection of solid waste be- neath the surface of the soil or the mixing of solid waste with the surface soil. (4) "Periodic application of cover material" means the application and compaction of soil or other suitable material over disposed solid waste at the end of each operating day or at such frequencies and in such a manner as to reduce the risk of fire and to Impede vectors access to the waste. (5) "Trenching or burial operation" means the placement of sewage sludge or septic tank pumpings in a trench or other natural or man-made depression and the covering with soil or other suitable material at the end of each operating day such that the wastes do not migrate to the surface. t44 FR 53460. Sept. 13, f979; 44 PR 54708, Sept.e. 21, 1979) (10257-3r-7 Air. ta) a facility or practice shall not engage in open burning of residential, commercial, institutional or industrial solid waste. This requirement does not apply to Infrequent burning of agricul- tural wastes in the field, siivicultural wastes for forest management pur- , land -clearing debris, diseased Greer. debris from emergency clears -up operations, and ordnance. (b) For purposes of section 4004(x) of the Act, the facility shall not vio- late applicable requirements developed under a State Implementation Plan (SIP) approved or promulgated by the Administrator pursuant to section 110 of the Clean Air Act, as amended. (c) As used in this section "open burning" means the combustion of solid waste without (1) control of com- bustion air to maintain adequate tem. perature for efficient combustion, (2) containment of the combustion reae- ,v —n s .. 1 it -a -uU Lathan) tion In an enclosed device to provide sufficient residence time and mixing for complete combustion. and (3) con- trol of the emission of the combustion products. 144 Fit 53460. Sept. 13, 1979; 44 FR 54708, Sept. 21, 197% as amended at 46 FR 47052, Sept. 23. 19811 § 257.3-8 Safety. (a) Explosive gases. The concentra. tion of explosive gases generated by the facility or practice shall not exceed: (1) Twenty-five percent (25) of the lower explosive limit for the gases in facility structures (excluding gas con- trol or recovery system components); and (2) The lower explosive limit for the gases at the property boundary. (b) Fires. A facility or practice shall not pose a hazard to the safety of per- sons or property from fires. This may be accomplished through compliance with 1257.3-7 and through the period- ic application of cover material or other techniques as appropriate. (c) Bird hazards to aircraft. A facili- ty or practice disposing of putrescible wastes that may attract birds and which occurs within 10,000 feet (3,048 meters) of any airport runway used by turbojet aircraft or within 5,000 feet (1,524 meters) of any airport runway used by only piston -type aircraft shall not pose a bird hazard to aircraft. (d) Access. A facility or practice shall not allow uncontrolled public access so as to expose the public to potential health and safety hazards at the dis- posal site. (e) As used in this section: (1) "Airport" means public -use air- port open to the public without prior permission and without restrictions within the physical capacities of avail- able facilities. (2) "Bird hazard" means an increase In the likelihood of bird/aircraft colli- sions that may cause damage to the aircraft or injury to its occupants. (3) "Explosive gas" means methane (CH.). (4) "Facility structures" means any buildings and sheds or utility or drain- age lines on the facility. 368 Lnvo- —t,,.,, . (5) -Lower explosive Iimit" mcans the lowest percent by volume of a mix- ture of explosive gases which twill propagate a flame in air at 25'C and atmospheric pressure. (5) *'Periodic application of cover material" means the application and compaction of soil or other suitable material over disposed :.olid waste at the end of each operating day or at such frequencies and it, :such a manner as to reduce the risk of fire and to impede disease vectors' access to the waste. (7) "Putrescible wastes" means solid waste which contains organic matter capable of being decomposed by micro- organisms and of such a character and proportion as to be capable of attract - Ing or providing food for birds. § 257.4 Effective date. These criteria become effective Oc- tober 15, 1979. APPENDIX I The maximum contaminant levels promul- gated herein are for use In determining whether soliwith the s grounste d -wider as tivities comply criteria (§ 257.3-4). Analytical methods for these contaminants may be Found In 40 CFR Part 141 which should be consulted in its entire- ty. !, tif¢rtmum contaminant tcvets for tnor- ganie chemicals. The following are the max- imum levels of inorganic chemicals other than fluoride:. Levet Contaminant {miNigratos P. Iden ' A -al average of the maximum daily apt ie,%wahott 8. M-11nu7n colatonunst#t le"cls for or- Q"nic chemicals- `rhe following are the max- imum ? 11tlnumant levels for organic chemi- cals: Arsarac _,. _. 005 1 1 Leve! 1empara1u ......i L)"- Celvus (mi8�grams Fahrennert ..., ...... 005 par 41er) 5114 to 639 _.... 1 14 7 to 176 _.... 20 is 63 9 to 70 6 17 7 to 21 4--.. 16 107 to 792 121510262 _.. ... 1.4 793 to 905 - ..4263 to325 Toxaphene (C,.H,.G.-Tacta»cat cMorina10 The maximum contaminant levels promul- gated herein are for use In determining whether soliwith the s grounste d -wider as tivities comply criteria (§ 257.3-4). Analytical methods for these contaminants may be Found In 40 CFR Part 141 which should be consulted in its entire- ty. !, tif¢rtmum contaminant tcvets for tnor- ganie chemicals. The following are the max- imum levels of inorganic chemicals other than fluoride:. Levet Contaminant {miNigratos P. Iden ' A -al average of the maximum daily apt ie,%wahott 8. M-11nu7n colatonunst#t le"cls for or- Q"nic chemicals- `rhe following are the max- imum ? 11tlnumant levels for organic chemi- cals: Arsarac _,. _. 005 1 0010 -- -- 0.05 Gu ,_,. ..., ...... 005 Leve 0.002 M.,c V._.. ,...... ._.. 10 PNing. (as N) - ��_ 0.01 ._�. _. .. 005 The maximum contaminant levels for Ito- oride are: Laves Temper 1o"', 0ollT,1 Dew— Celsars Irtal�pams FetxenW pat p#at} 53.7 and below -and #ta#m+' 24 538to583_..,..__.1 to 14.6 _.. 2.2 3. Itfoaimum microbiological contaminant tenets. The maximum contaminant level (01 conform bacteria from any one well is as lot' lows: (a) using the membrane filter technique: (1) Four coliform bacteria per 100 millili- ters if one sample is taken, or (2) Four coliform bacteria per 100 millili- ters In more than one sample of all the sam- pies analyzed in one month. Probable (b) using the five tube most pro number procedure, (the fermentation tube method) In accordance with the analytical recommendations set forth In "Standard Methods for Examination of Nater Waste Water". American Public Health soclation. 13th Ed. pp. 662-688• and ustna a Standard sample, each portion being one fifth of the sample: (1) 11 the standard portion is 10 milliliters. coliform in any five consceutive samples from a well shall not be present in three or more of the 25 portions. or (2) If the standard portion is too mulill- ters, coliform to any five consecutive Sam' pies from a well shalt not be present In five portions In any of five samples or in more than fifteen of the 25 portions. 4. r4for(mum contaminant fev€ta for radium -ZZs, radium -228, and gross alpha particle radioactivity. Tile following are the Maximum contaminant levels for radium' 369 L -el Imdltgtams P. iter} ta) CtAW taloo tr7d#—bns. 1 E1&- (1.2.3.4.#0,10dtoaac#*hxnb-7 eT. xy- 14.4a-s.6.7.8.8at.=#OesOoed..1 - 00ooz -5a.g et" nape#hasene) Lerda (a 2345.BNoaas#'dc: o+Ycto- 0£ hexene. gamma 15ouref Methox ,N, it # i Tnchloro 2,2 Ms (p- 0 # methoxrphe y')athanet-- Toxaphene (C,.H,.G.-Tacta»cat cMorina10 camphene, 67 to 69 percent chlorirre}.-. 0005 (b) CNot2phe-"1 -acoNe aid# 2.4.£1 12.4.CAeh1W.pheno:Y ... 0 1 2.4,5 -TP &t.- 12 d 5-Tr+G#d€x0p# oxY- propto,,W aw).- _,._._... _....._ _. __.. 001 The maximum contaminant levels for Ito- oride are: Laves Temper 1o"', 0ollT,1 Dew— Celsars Irtal�pams FetxenW pat p#at} 53.7 and below -and #ta#m+' 24 538to583_..,..__.1 to 14.6 _.. 2.2 3. Itfoaimum microbiological contaminant tenets. The maximum contaminant level (01 conform bacteria from any one well is as lot' lows: (a) using the membrane filter technique: (1) Four coliform bacteria per 100 millili- ters if one sample is taken, or (2) Four coliform bacteria per 100 millili- ters In more than one sample of all the sam- pies analyzed in one month. Probable (b) using the five tube most pro number procedure, (the fermentation tube method) In accordance with the analytical recommendations set forth In "Standard Methods for Examination of Nater Waste Water". American Public Health soclation. 13th Ed. pp. 662-688• and ustna a Standard sample, each portion being one fifth of the sample: (1) 11 the standard portion is 10 milliliters. coliform in any five consceutive samples from a well shall not be present in three or more of the 25 portions. or (2) If the standard portion is too mulill- ters, coliform to any five consecutive Sam' pies from a well shalt not be present In five portions In any of five samples or in more than fifteen of the 25 portions. 4. r4for(mum contaminant fev€ta for radium -ZZs, radium -228, and gross alpha particle radioactivity. Tile following are the Maximum contaminant levels for radium' 369 Village of Mount Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR GERALD L. FARLEY AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES FROM: VILLAGE MANAGER DATE: APRIL 5, 1991 SUBJECT: AUTOMATED WATER METER READING SYSTEM Attached is a recommendation from Public Works suggesting that the Village enter into an Automatic Water Meter Reading Program. This has been reviewed and dollar amounts have been placed in the budget for the last two years. At this point in time, staff feels that we have found a system that operates effectively and efficiently and could be well utilized by this community. We have placed in the budget $25,000 for adoption of an Automated Water Meter Reading System. We are recommending that we be authorized to spend these funds with the intention of converting our larger accounts, primarily commercial, industrial and some multi -family accounts to an automatic system. These accounts are approximately 20% of the total water consumption in the Village. It is our intention to be able to receive information on a monthly basis in a timely fashion without concerns for access to the property, which in some cases has been a problem, as well as to help determine whether or not there may be leakage and/or tampering of the meters taking place. The base for the system is slightly under $20,000, however, it has the capability of being expanded to include any and all meters in the Village now or in the future. Public Works has been looking at a system Village -wide. I feel at this point in time that the larger accounts only are warranted to be in the automatic system and that the significant costs for.individual single-family meter changes are not warranted at this time. I believe over the next two years, a change out of meters in the commercial/industrial areas can take place within budgeted amounts of normal meter change -over and that at the end of this two-year period of time, we will be able to determine what kind of impact an automatic system would have for residential and then do an analysis to determine whether we wish to change all meters throughout the Village. At this time, I am fecommending that we adopt the Badger Meter Automatic Water Meter Reading System for commercial, industrial and multi -family residential meters utilizing the amounts that are in the existing budget at a cost of $19,165. Purchase from Comark Computers at a cost of $5,821 a PS/2 monitor, printer, two modem's and other equipment. Further, I am recommending that the current contract with Badger Meter be amended to include the AMR water meter modules. All purchases will be within the budget amounts as set in the budget. JOHN FULTON DIXON JFD/rcw attachment Mount Prospect Public Works Department INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Village.Manager c: Herb Weeks Dave Jepson FROM: Deputy Director of Public Works Jerry McIntosh DATE: April 2, 1991 SUBJECT: Automated Water Meter Reading Included in the 1990/91 budget are funds to purchase an automat- ed meter reading (AMR) system. Over the past year, I have evalu- ated a number of different types of systems; but before I out- line the system I feel would best serve the Village's needs now and in the future, I will briefly describe our current meter reading procedures. The Village's water distribution system currently contains 11,605 water meters. These meters range in size from 5/8", which is the standard residential water meter, to 811 for large commercial/industrial facilities and for multifamily buildings. The 11,605 water meters are divided into two basic categories: residential, 10,674; and commercial/industrial, 931. The water meter reading system that is now in place was imple- mented back in 1984, the same time the Village restructured its water billing procedures. For meter reading purposes, the me- ters are divided into two groups, residential (all meters less than 111) and commercial/industrial (all meters I" and larger). A brief description of these systems follows. Residential Meter Reading The Village's residential customers are billed on a bimonth- ly cycle and are divided into four districts. one district is billed on the 15th of the month and one an the last day of the month in each month of the two-month cycle. When residents receive their water bill, they are asked to write the water meter reading on the stub portion of their bills. This stub is mailed back to the Village with their payment, and the reading is used to calculate their average daily use and to adjust their next bill accordingly. Using the average daily use, the estimated use from the date of the last recorded meter reading to the next bill is calcu- lated. The resident's bill includes actual use up to the date the meter was read and estimated use from the read date to the billing date. In order to assure the Village is getting accurate read- ings, water meters are read on an annual basis using Public Works seasonal help during the summer months. However, because of limited manpower and hours, only one of the four districts is targeted for the meter readers to try and get in the home and take a reading direct from the water me- ter. In the majority of cases, this requires two attempts and/or leaving notices requesting the resident to call in for an appointment to have the water meter read. In the other three districts, meter readers obtain either an in- side (actual) meter reading if someone is home, a reading from the outside meter reading device, or no reading at all; only one attempt is made. This system has served the Village well and, when it was implemented, did in fact reduce costs and confusion over the previous reading/billing system. It also improved accuracy when reconciling water pumped with water billed. An AMR system would further these cost reductions and, most importantly, provide the Village with up-to-date, actual meter readings at all times, something the Village auditors would surely prefer over the residents' providing their own readings. Commercial/Industrial Meter Reading The Village's commercial/industrial customers are billed on a monthly cycle and are divided into two districts. Both districts are billed on the 15th of each month. The procedures for commercial/industrial meter reading is some- what different from the steps outlined for the residential readings. These meters are read by Public Works employees every other month (one district the first month, and the other the second month). For the month when a reading has not been obtained, water usage is estimated by the average daily method, as described under Residential Meter Reading. Again, this system has worked relatively well, but because of meter locations, accessibility, vandalism, and inconsis- tencies in lengths of periods between readings, it has not been without complaints. Public Works has an ongoing problem with accessibility to the water meters and the inability to get actual readings. In fact, some apartment building water meters have to be read on a sched- uled basis so that our meter reader can be accompanied thru their buildings by someone opening up appropriate doors. In many of the retail establishments and multifamily units, our outside registers and meter heads are continually tampered with. Another major drawback to the present meter reading system is our inability to read the meters the same day each month. our employees' services are needed for other functions; i.e., snow plowing, water main breaks, etc. Thus, we are not always able to read the meters the same day each month. Reading periods can fluctuate by as much as one to two weeks. Thus, commer- cial/industrial customers get a variety of different bills, which results in numerous calls to the billing clerk inquiring why the difference in the bills. An AMR system would definitely eliminate these problems and provide us with total control over obtaining meter readings, while reducing our costs and improving our service level to our commercial/industrial customers. What is automated meter reading (AMR)? Automated meter reading is the technology that gives water utili- ties reliable and accurate data (readings), on demand, utilizing standard telephone lines. Why should the Village consider AMR? Misreads by meter readers Estimated bills due to access problems Reduced manpower acquiring readings Remote pulse display (outside register) not the same as the inside meter register Accessing inside meters - commercial/industrial, multifamily (no one on site with keys) - residential (both adults work, overly protective dogs) Final meter readings - frequent occupancy changes Customer billing and service complaints Reduction of clerical time needed to key readings into the billing system Potential for cost savings through improved service Mandate for water conservation. AMR aids in tracking unac- counted-for water and potentia -1 leaks in the system. Ability to increase meter reading frequency without propor- tionate cost increases. Accurate meter readings on demand. Ability to track water system usage for distribution and water rate planning. Control over unauthorized water usage - tampering. What Different Systems Were Evaluated? Three systems were involved in the evaluation process: Neptune Meters ARB Touch Tone System and their CMR - Central Meter Reading System; Rockwell's Tele -Tape Touch Tone System; and Badger Meter's Access Plus - Automated Meter Reading. All these systems had one thing in common in that they were all direct reads to the meter register and not the pulser type systems we currently have with our outside registers. These outside regis- ters do not consistently match the inside, actual meter readings (see illustration #1 attached). Neptune's ARB and Rockwell's Tele -Tape systems are basically the same. They both include an encoder device on the meter, which is wired to a receptacle on the outside of the building. A meter reader then plugs his meter reading device/recorder into the outside receptacle, and the reading is automatically stored in the recorder. This recorder, with all its readings, is later downloaded into the billing system (see illustration #2 at- tached). This procedure does, in fact, address some of the justifications for installing an AMR system. However, it falls short of many of the major ones; i.e., readings on demand (final reads), re- duced manpower, and tamper monitoring. Neptune's Central Meter Reading System (CMR) and Badger's Access Plus are both fully automated reading systems, utilizing telephone lines for readings. However, there is a major differ- ence between them. CMR is a telephone dial "outbound system," whereas Access Plus is a telephone dial "inbound system." With an outbound system, the utility "dials" out to the customer, which requires the telephone company's participation. This type of system drives the cost up substantially over an inbound sys- tem. only if other utilities (i.e., gas, electric) participate, does it become a cost-effective system. With an inbound system, the meter "dials" into the utility, requiring no telephone company or customer participation. This is all accomplished electronically between the AMR headquarters system and the water meter. In most cases, the system is set up to request readings during the middle of the night when the customer is least likely to be using his/her phone. Also, by providing an 800 watts line number, we completely eliminate charges to the customer for use of his/her phone line. When the AMR headquarters system requests a meter reading, the customer is never interrupted. If the the customer happens to be on the phone at the time the meter attempts to call the utili- ty, Access Plus will call later with the meter data. There is absolutely no voice communication through the system or the ability to hear the customer. If the customer is using the phone, the AMR system gets a busy signal - the same as if some- one were trying to telephone the customer. Inbound systems also offer more data, can accomplish data trans- fer based upon a predetermined time (billing cycle) or event, tampering and leak detection, and on large commercial (high flow) customers, can provide readings monthly, weekly, daily or even hourly. Which AMR System Fulfills the Village's Needs? It is my recommendation that the Village purchase Badger Meter's Access Plus. As a means to support this recommendation, since February of 1990, we have had 20 test meters installed, which are being read by Badger Meter's headquarters system at their home office in Milwaukee, Wis. See attached sample readings (illustrations #3 and #4). Eight (8) meters were installed in residential homes and twelve (12) were installed in the Mansard Apartments. Mansard's is one of the complexes where access and tampering have been a problem in the past. Perfor- mance over the past year has been virtually problem -free. In fact, we have detected leaking toilets and bathtub faucets and evidence of tampering or disconnecting of the meter reading device. See illustrations #5 through #10 attached. Who Has Badger's Access Plus Installed? I have been in contact with a number of users of the Access Plus system (see illustration #11 attached.), and have personally visited the Quincy, Illinois installation where they currently have 700 meters installed and are averaging 40 new insta.11s, per week as of March 5, 1991. once their installations are complet- ed, they will have 15,000 meters being read by Access Plus. Also, since the time I compiled the users list, the cities of Romeoville and Elgin have purchased Access Plus. How Will the AMR System be Implemented? Commercial/industrial customers will be the first priority. They account for 200 of the total water billed, but include most of our biggest individual users. They are also the source of the greatest potential for unbilled water usage, complaints, and irregular meter readings. With 931 commercial/industrial water meters and in keeping within the current budget con- straints, it would take approximately two (2) years to complete these installations. This is the primary area where Access Plus will benefit the Village the most. Once Access Plus is fully installed and reading the commercial/ industrial water meters, we will evaluate the merits of further expansion to include all residential water meters. We will, however, immediately add those residential customers where we have experienced ongoing problems with inaccurate reads, tamper- ing, or nonpayment of water bills. The headquarters system and software will accommodate up to 45,000 customers. How will the AMR System be Configured and at What cost? The AMR System is driven by a P.C.-based headquarters system that would be located at the Public works Department. Access to the headquarter's system is required during installation of the special meter -reading modules that will be installed on the meters and, therefore, it is best located at Public Works. The water meter reading modules will be either the full -featured module for all 1" and larger meters (commercial/industrial) or the basic module for residential meters (less than 1"). See illustrations #12 through #14. communications would include installation of a special 800 Watts line, at an estimated cost of $400 to $500 per year. This line would accept the meters calling in their readings. The readings then, via a communication system already in place on the Vil- lage's billing computer, would be downloaded into the water billing system. The cost of the headquarters system, including all hardware and software from Badger Meter Co., is $25,855.00. However, if we purchase the IBM hardware from our local suppliers, we can save $869.00, for a total headquarters system cost of $24,986.00, a one-time expense. What are the Potential Cost Savings versus.Fxpenses. with AMR? Below is an estimate of expenses versus savings with Badger Meter's AMR system, using today's purchase cost for the initial 931 commercial/industrial water meters and with the AMR system fully installed. Expenses: Cost of headquarters system (one-time charge) $ 24,986 Additional cost of $107 per meter for the AMR meter module for the 931 commercial/ industrial water meters $ 99,617 (Expected life of module - 20 years) The AMR meter module cost would be in addition to the nor- mal cost of the water meter, which is replaced every 10 to 15 years. If a water meter has been replaced recently, we will incur only the cost of the new AMR module. Amortizing these expenses over a twenty-year period,, the cost per meter per year is $6.70, or $134 per commercial/ industrial account. Savings: Part-time commercial meter reader $ 11,700/yr. Water Billing data entry $ 1,000/yr. Once the AMR system is fully installed (estimated two-year period), an annual savings of $12,700, or $13.65 per commer- cial/industrial meter, will be realized. This means that the cost of $134 per meter will be paid for in ten years. In addition to the savings identified above, there is the potential for reducing, by as much as 1%, our unaccounted- for water purchased from JAWA versus water billed. This could result in an additional annual savings of $16,510. Our current unaccounted-for flows is at 8.1%. 6 Request for Waiver of Bid and Award I therefore request that the Village Board waive the bidding process and approve the following purchases: 1) Badger Meter - $19,165 for the headquarters system, includ- ing all software, set-up, training, and installation. 2) Comark computers - $5,821 for the PS/2, monitor, printer, two modems, and other miscellaneous equipment required to drive the headquarters system. Comparison prices were received from IBM ($6,691) and from Computerland of Mount Prospect ($6,763), Funding for these two purchases can be found on page 182, ac- count no. 41-072-07-8002 of the 1990/91 budget, where there is $25,000 allocated. I also request that the Village Board authorize an amendment to Badger Meter's current contract for the purchase of all our water meters to include the AMR water meter modules. All pur- chases would be within the limits of the approved budget amounts set by the Village Board. Currently, we purchase approximately 1000 water meters per year. But, in order to stay within the budget limitations, we will purchase less meters each year to compensate for the additional module cost. Current funds will come from the new meter account, page 181, account no. 41-072-07-7385 of the 1990/91 budget, where there is currently a balance of $50,000 out of the original $75,000 and the upcoming new meter account in the 1991/92 budget, where $75,000 has again been appropriated. In closing, Badger Meter's automated meter reading system will assure the Village the most accurate, cost-effective and prudent means of obtaining water meter readings now and in the future. With the need to raise water rates annually to cover the expens- es associated with providing water, accurate meter readings and accountability is a'must. en . Anlr I concur with this recommendation, RA/td(AUTOMETR.RDR/FILES/WATER) attach. ..PRINCIPLE OF' QPERATION ` A 'self-contained generator is mounted on 4„ ".water meter and connected to the Read the <. .;y o- aticroutdoor register by low-cost <tw � ori uc)or wire. The flow of water starts°the systems operating by causirg the meter,, dsQpindle to rotate. This motion is trans' erTed-io a spring -biased, six -Dole magnet n tte generator by means of a reductioa t: ra n n .ah escape gear. a" a e` escape gear is released as rings return the magnet to.h"s na on. This action produces a owTyp,- o a e ulse in coils located nea, he a e se (approximately 8 volts) s epi over the wire to a solenoid In e Dor agister. The Read-o-Maticrregistern „r5` vancses;one digit for every pulse recerved .: READ-O-MATIC GENERATOR ON RECORDALLMETER U.S. 7a;en!a 31!8005 anC 3725 bag DESCRIPTION The three units of the Neptune APB 11 System in- stalled in the home are the ErKxKjar-Register. the 3 -Wire Cable, and the Reading Receptacle (See figure 1). ENCODER-REGISTER—This factory sealed unit is installed on the meter. Remote reading of the meter is accomplished thrvugh electrical contacts on the numeral wheels and a scanner module. CABLE—The readily available 3 -wire cable is the connecting Fink between the meter with its encoder - register and the remote receptacle. RECEPTACLE—This unit is mounted in a remote location convenient to the meter reader. Provision is made for installing a six digit customer identifica- tion, or "electronic address" in the receptacle, This ruirnbar is rsouired if readings are to be taken using �' L 1. k,_S-Y-Aj--r / 0 ACS.-SSplus - Automatic Meter R—ding Copyright 19'89 Badger Meter, Inc. ---�-� Utility Division 12-06-1990 13:43:81 * Search Customer Accounts Report a.oe v ------------ --------- Account Number- ----- 137 -.�----. Customer Pre` ioLIC Readiro --.- Billing #: Reading: 105968 Name: Wintercorr7, Roberta Date: 11-06-90 Address: 130o Mallard Lame Time: 02:07:09 CitV. State: Mount. Prospect 1L Present Reading —1G Code: 60056-3220 Reading; 113906 Pho,.r_. 13124377738 Consumption: ,.S_ _.. Meter _ _ Date-: 12-06-90 1'1To L Mc:;dei . 9 RCDL I`?25 3/4 Ih; Time: 03:07:07 Pull_,' C: 10 Sal. 1nt/HRT __ Time -a7 -dray Readings - _ 28312626 Period 1. 199` —_ (-CC2SSp l us Module --- Period 2: 2524 Mc;dule Type: FF -Module Period 3: 2413 Module Serial #: 8908002386 Remaining: 100? 2ansry Pact: Code: 270&669 - Peak -Rates Per Period - Ca.11-Iri Phone #: 18003659468 Period 1: 3.6 ;min Call-in Attempts: 1 Period 2: 3.2 /min ACC -IL Tit Status: On Period 3: 4.0 /min C811 --in Status: On Schedule Alarms - ________._ I-sGUe!7Wy: Nor'rtli!y Late: 01-01-1991 Time; 03:07:00 L Lf f=+&CESSpIus - AUto-atic Meter 1-; dinq Copyright 1959 Badges- Meter, Inc. Utility Division 11-06-1990 10:15:55 * Search Customer Accounts Report Page Account Number ----- 137 Customer Billing #: Aflame: Wintercorn, Roberta ;address: 1300 Mallard Lane City, State: Mount Prospect iL Zip Code: 0556-3220 Phone: 1312 .3 7738 — Metes Mfg & Model: B RCDL tE5 3/4 IN Pulse/TC: 10 tial. Int/HRT Metes' Serial #: 58312626 -- ACCESSplus Module — t°9odUle Type: FF -Module Module Serial #: 8503002386 Battery Pact; Cade: 8706006a Call -In Phone #: 18003659468 Call -In Attempts: i Account Status: Cn Call. -In Status: On Schedule Call -Back: requency: t otnthhIy f a t e: 12-06-1990 Time: 03:07:00 -- Previous Reading -- Reading: 97673 Date: 10-06-90 Time: 03:07:10 "i esent Reading, Reading: 105968 Consumption: 9295 Date: 11-06-3C; Time: 02 _07WE -- Time -of -Lay Readings - Period 1: 1428 Period 2: 2743 Period 3: 2742 Remaining: 1382 - Pear; -Rates Per Period - Period 1: 2.8 /mil Period 2: 3.8 /miss Period 3: 4.0 /min Alarms ~� I�' r c A- t_ Antonatio Meter Re 0003A,UQW7vW*T,cW AN5C L, L: vm, �u� on p co 1 2 FEE TE E Isslow a= WE= am as Was TERE A as, �ZEB -7 E F F--� H F:T =H F- a. s :EH 0 MMMM Customer 51 alLrj w" t F'� -tsmact 7L 11125571i— fccEasolus Owuly .-- S,-", T -i a Fot I Oal: Dols- vi�s� ---- PreSEMt Reading peyrirD2 Date; 10 -11 -BI? jime.02:05:35 - TimE-of-Day Readings O&izn par � : -." R 65 j 3 1 52D Romp in; 7g R 7 - k, R':.k t --, S, F' ,- r- P2 10 d Feri 06 1: 1.4 Wn Der Wd R : 1.4 /Min Period 3; 5.2 Wn --- A2arnE� Pptential Leak TO 3-4 A4 0w O a Sp C- e--, 'L E-+AG4"Ove- , A44 X a, I T- A T,-�.- 4S L I A -rH"R- Pc '-t4- ll?S9 Baducr ret_�-r, I -i -c. 14:04:1= Evid I -le..- C., Z E, a ,.'e - I a ITI Ca ,._uc. a, ,-i- - Eewbo� P_ 2T i o d t a i% Per 1 od 2 t i P e -c i c- d 3- 0 Rerna i n i ng - cj u 1 e -11 I ;:'2C- ' — Period I . u . f.) 11 m i n c'eriQd P: 0.2 Irvin 5 61-3 11 1 t 'S' t a t u? s t t e r Modult- TarnpF�r C) h d -.4 7� Evid r-- 5 1 I -le..- C., Z E, a ,.'e - 7 'n 'T T t g S 2T i o d t a i% Per 1 od 2 t i P e -c i c- d 3- 0 Rerna i n i ng - f I — Paafi:.—Rataz PC -T ;:'2C- ' — Period I . u . f.) 11 m i n c'eriQd P: 0.2 Irvin PEriod 3: o /,-n i n t e r Modult- TarnpF�r r-- 5 1 XcI.—+sem-770-1 -02 WutO!ff!c:tic Meter rcpyright ikrBB Badger- deter, Inc. utili`v D.,visic,n ?=Y Search rC u,stC, l -r Pica. comb Report '?.'?" f -"a C,e F-1C i:r !_!1"!': YN l.r.T F", -r _. __._._- f,a i:' -DeLUCa, F --Modu2w ;`ncan F: 1w's:'wWu746 , A ter;sp,ts t atus: C1rn t"o tniy m Date: 6-9C ......._..___ - _ e .. aCi 1 j, - ._......__..._ %P 6/ Do. t z�i a.. T i7Tfe'_-c-F...Da Readings «- Period 1: 956 Period .2.: 3365 Period 3: 1IF25 Re,^.ia i i'n i ng : ...ter] — F"eak—=gates Per Period Period 1: 4.0 /mien Per:ud 2-. 4.6 /mlra Period 3: 4.Q /:ti n --,_ A la r m, s ESSplus - Automatic Meter adingtl.�.�rry^w.�q.T�vN __�opyright 1986 Badger Meter, Inc. Utility Products Division $ 11-22-1989 13:48:34 Alarm Report Account Number ----- 120 - Customer - Billing #: Name: Both, Melvyn L. Address: 1735 Verde Drive Cit' State: :'cunt Pros.cect IL ZZO Code. =")C.,56-322 none: .31243ci5d72 Period 2: Meter 111fg & Model: S RCDL M25 3/4 IN Pulse/TC: io Gal. Int/HRT Serial #: 85506432 — ACCESSplus Module — ACCESSplus Serial #: 8908002379 Battery Pact: Code: 87060044 Utility Phone #: 18003659468 Call In Attempts: 2 :account Status: On Call -Back Frequency. Weekly Date: 11-28-89 Time: 03:00:00 Previous Reading _ Reading: 10139 Date: 11-07-89 Time: 03:00:20 Present Reading Reading_: nl�a Date: 11-22-89 Time: 13:48:32 - Time -of -Day Readings Period 1: 39 Period 2: 480 Period 3: 234 Remaining: 114 ._ Peak -Fates Per Period - Period'l: 1.0 /min Period 2: 5.0 /min Period 3: 4.4 /min. A 1 ar ms ---- �} Meter Module Tamper Copyright 1989 Badger Meter, Inc. .4-r:CDa: Utility Products Divis` 17 11-07-1989 15:56:53 * Search Customer Accounts Report ** Account Number ----- 130 — ACCESSplus Module — ACCESSplus Serial: 8908002379 Battery Pack Code: 87060043 Utility Phone #: 18003659468 Call In Attempts: 1 Account Status: On Call -Back Frequency: Weekly Date: 11-14-1989 Time: 03:00:00 Previous Reading --- Reading: 9163 Date: 10-31-89 Time: 03:00:38 Present Reading Reading: 10139 Date: 11-07-89 Time: 03:00:20 Customer Billing #: Period Name, .. Both, Melvyn L. Address: 1735 Verde Drive City, State: Mount Prospect IL Zip Cade: 60056-3220 Phone: 13124395372 �"eier Mfg & Model: Pcdl M25 3/4 Pulse/TC: 10 Gal. Serial #: 85506432 — ACCESSplus Module — ACCESSplus Serial: 8908002379 Battery Pack Code: 87060043 Utility Phone #: 18003659468 Call In Attempts: 1 Account Status: On Call -Back Frequency: Weekly Date: 11-14-1989 Time: 03:00:00 Previous Reading --- Reading: 9163 Date: 10-31-89 Time: 03:00:38 Present Reading Reading: 10139 Date: 11-07-89 Time: 03:00:20 Alarms - Time -of -Day Readings _ Period 1: 76 Period 2: 492 Period 3: 249 Remaining: 159 - Peak -Rates Per Period - Period 1: 1.8 /min Period 2: 4.8 /min Period 3: 4.0 /min Alarms -CCcScolus - Automatic Nett Read g '`�Ks'r►t.�+r+u.a Copyright 1939 Padger Utility Products Division /O •:19-27-156-9 09:30:20 search Customer Accounts Report ---------------------- ACCOLO-It NIUd:tcr —•---- 1.46 a tame: ace:., _ ;;pt. 116 Address.: 1717 W. Mansard Lane 1 1:Ltla_iT.J. s_ ial Ca=; l .—Bszd _,aI"v Date• Previous Rec-ding -- Read 13-:g 16EEE Data: 0 -25-89 Ti... 15. 16: c9 Present Readin,: — Read i ng : 17340 Date. 09-27-89 Time: 03:16:31 lilt/HRT - 1 ime-caf-Day Readings — NCCESSDlUs tlodule — CCEa�pl_.� Serial arc: 3=r.`BCIt.'2410 LBatter .r'aCi:: Code: 6-7060011 Utilit C*]-;::,;-.e #: _SC'03659468 Cal. In At1.aim Dts - Peak: -Fates Per Period - Ca=; l .—Bszd _,aI"v Date• Previous Rec-ding -- Read 13-:g 16EEE Data: 0 -25-89 Ti... 15. 16: c9 Present Readin,: — Read i ng : 17340 Date. 09-27-89 Time: 03:16:31 lilt/HRT - 1 ime-caf-Day Readings Period 1: 3'19 Period 2: 19? Period 3: 347% Remail-1inD: 1 0 - Peak: -Fates Per Period - Period 1: 6.B /min Period 2: 2.6 /min -`vep,14 i Percd 3: 4.6 /min — Alarms -' _ PO a±dA.,l�Leak 1 cui ity Alarm /7 j "rt if. L.'O 1 R..G -r,+- C-- P� ,�„� r: 4-, . BADGER METER, INC. L.I S'T OF CLTST0MEi2S Candlewood Shores Tax District 55 Longview Drive Brookfield, CT 06804 (203) 775-1172 Contact: Don Springmeyer, Manager Purchased Complete System Charles Town Water Department 101 East Washington Street P.O. Box 359 Charles Town, WV 25414-0359 (304) 725-2311 Contact: Robert Cain, Manager Purchased Complete System Inside Settings Residential/ Production Wells Integral Services: 450 Installed 7/89 Inside/Pit Settings Residential/Commercial Industrial Integral/Remote/HRT Population: 7,500 Installed 1/90 Concord Water Department Inside Settings 16 Penacook Street Residential/Commercial Concord, NH 03301-5054 Industrial (603) 225-8695 Integral/RemoteHRT/CIH Contact: Norman Demers, Assistant Director * Services: 10,000 Purchased Complete System Installed 12/89 Elizabethtok-n Water Company Faults 1341 North Avenue Who Iesale Plainfield, NJ 07062 Remote/HRT (201) 654-1234 Installed 2/89 Contact: Rich Sadowski, Superintendent of hells Purchased Complete System City of Frederick Inside Settings City Hall Residential 101 North Court Street Integral Frederick, MD 21701 Installed 9/88 (301) 694-1396 Contact: Jonathan Angel, Data Processing Manager Purchased Complete System K LIST OF ACCESSplus CUSTOMERS PACE 2 Geauga County Sanitary Engineering Department 237 Main Street Chardon, OH 44024-1291 (216) 285-2222 Contact: Gus Saikely, Adninistrator Purchased Complete System Kansas City Water Department City Hall 414 East 12th Street Kansas City, NO 39137 (816) 274-2404 Contact: Jean-Pol Mahieu Renting Pilot System Kentucky -American 'Water Company 2300 Richmond Road Lexington, KY 40502 (606) 268-6371 Contact: Bill Buckner, Asst Superintendent Renting Pilot System Inside Settings Residential Integral New Water Utility Services: 600 Installed 4/90 Pits/Vaults Wholesale Remote/CIM Services: 140,000 Installed 1/89 Inside/Pits/Vaults Residential/Commercial/ Industrial Wholesale Integral/Remote'/HRT Services: 70,000 Installed 4/88 Mass Installation Inside/Pit Settings 916 Pleasant Street Residential./Commercial Norwood, MA Integral/Remote/GIM (617) 762-1360 Installation Company Contact: Wayne Travis, President East Coast Contact: John Tetreault, Manager of Operatioas Installed 3/90 Purchased Complete System City of Milwaukee _ 402 Municipal Building 1901 S. Kinnickinnic Avenue Milwaukee, WI 53202 (414) 278-2803 Renting Pilot System Inside Settings Residential Integral Services: 162,000 Installed 11/89 LIST OF ACC" -"plus CUSTOMERS PACE 3 City of New -York'' Inside Settings 2403 Municipal Building Commercial/Industrial 1 Centre Street Residential New York, NY 10007 Remoie/Integral/GI,4 (212) 669-8630 Installed 10/89 Contact: Richard Martell, Manager P-archased Complete System -Pilot Test Philadelphia Suburban Water Authority Inside Settings 762 Lancaster Ave. Residential Bryn Mavr, PA 19010 Integral (215) 527-8500 Services: 200,000 Contact: David Shank Installed 8/89 Purchased Complete System Quincy Water Department Pit/Inside Settings 1020 Vermont Residential/Commercial Quincy, IL 62301 rntegral/Remote/HRT/Cjll (217) 228-4587 Services: 15,000 Contact: Mark Kasphaus, Meter Shop Superintendent * Installed 1/90 Purchased Complete System Rainbow Municipal Water District Pit Settings 4555 Hwy 76 Residential Fallbrook, CA 92028 Remote/HRT (619) 728-1178 Services: 5,000 Contact: John Perry, General Manager Installed 3/89 Purchased Complete System Washington Airport Authority Inside Settings Washington National Airport Remote/Integral/HRT MA -121 Services: 150 Washington, DC 20001 Installed 9/89 (703) 685-8096 Contact: Dwight Sullivan, Managing Engineer Purchased Complete System 1/4 ACCESS010,109 Each watercalls"` . am — I•loapall"Wnt Call Rads s CaT sa 1 = Retry ScMd,.le BW d Search From say Say M Catine, 13C To d. Rerneat Cost-- ontasr ... Oata— — Cail 4tl — emrier Ilse Mideast 7lee bete Tine 43,665 Bill Kidd- 4545 V. Bram seer 9 3559876 Mr19-19% 86:23:48R 61.712 hdrick a. Pad,at 917 V. Jueen laeen 2S7SM 6-12-1986 ■:es:di 7S,® C. V. Milaao 13S V. Velli Street 4441253 W25-2906 0:0:0 5,21-196 15:59:23 MMT aa. aax,a Plan Md, Rate Itrye Scan To Desired Line. Rest Evil- Ta Fd it, Esc T. Bd. — Naas Flow h— too a straw — Sts b haired Lim. from late b Llt, be b and Start b n n aq 596 Ibbea4s TW 30a0= buttes Cole MMM ostler accost Nulls — 2.163 Wines ie.....? ala A. Jove accost stats....? b Stop Tire:.......... 15:88 ha at alt: • • • •? 27619 = Prid Tw ---- Start Tim:..........; 73:88 Lip Cain%.. ...... ? S37b, jStop Tim:..........? 13:88 at hw Ilea alas:.? WZ1-e6 = Peiod Three --- Start Tire:.....„13:88 Tyle Mint a Sin.? Rn. 2S M a 7 la Is Pa_ Ilea abs:.? 2/410:111 Stop Tim:....,..,...? 28:88 Mbar aero a....? 7919x76! ¢ Interna: CS fliutes P - 68 flinutesl:....,1 68 _ Vasa Period ZZ%.? Data la terwic...? at-” Maw t+ww o:..? _ Al.. i State:...? • 0119 Change To Tine periods Vida Affect Ti: r( Day lire Peia2s. -21-l96 16:52:59 had, Min.........? are — Naas Flow h— too a straw — Sts b haired Lim. from late b Llt, be b and Start b n n aq 596 Ibbea4s TW 30a0= buttes Cole MMM ostler accost Nulls — 2.163 Wines ie.....? ala A. Jove accost stats....? b When...........? 7IR a. by Birt 1W ha at alt: • • • •? 27619 City a State ...... 7 Ililawie. al has atr aft: .... ? 291542 Lip Cain%.. ...... ? S37b, at hos lea ady:.? w a46 Cat P1a< saiw? MGM at hw Ilea alas:.? WZ1-e6 acts We.........? labor MAW. In. b has Ilt WAS%? 670:0 Tyle Mint a Sin.? Rn. 2S M a 7 la Is Pa_ Ilea abs:.? 2/410:111 Cusipasth✓C:.? 1a Calton a6r.Md. Pte a4 say 6..e.? Orr Mbar aero a....? 7919x76! Mys aww 21%.? kan - Sela1 1:? sla _ Vasa Period ZZ%.? Data la terwic...? at-” Maw t+ww o:..? _ Al.. i State:...? GLalald ease..? lad, Flims: ---7 had, Min.........? are Call L lttewfs:.? bb awtd N:...? Call t he4eaay.-? Aeuly _ Mte Period 82%. s Call isY Rat:...? Rrrn-M _ Rata lwid 1.i:...? — Call Sid The:...? 21:111:711 05r11-1916 vista? .Sean Mar - ala sass Pias Printer Raise Ceeeretar ••• Press pry Key To Scan For Desired Lire, Press ESC or Retwn. M Pieter Report (-,—at- +„ all Cusuiner Recwnts San Key Fields - Cus'weer Ac -.s Sort Key Fields - Custanrr acca:nts CdII Back Date 6 1iae fl—ger, Call Back Date s Tine M—g --nt Scrt Delirgcent Call Backs Al— i Status d Leak Idirats Utility Telepnae flur6er Tine of Day s Peak Mtn Es p, ;s; i.. T Mae of 6ay Iisage Peak Rate 11"" is Menu •_ Peturn % pain Men' Meter P adiny Systea Kant— CRT Beport 6eneratcr Prcgran Utilities r arceas Plas lata a Teas tYrymt Past at fad Press Ear Ta Ed. 2 Phos Lima Daily a Vwkly 30.246 Tie Stet 4,67? llxd Sadat' soday Tuesday adasday Tiorsday Friday Saturday ...................................................................... 6T.8& 43.886 6.8& ZZ.M Wffla 4S.W. 89.98< 2 Pine Lives ITMAMMI r—Uly a Quarterly 128.9F8 Tine Slot 231453 !tri ,,........,.......... sari 1f no Ibdl .................. 1 2 3 45 6 7 1 9 is 11 12 13 14 i9 16 17 18 19 28 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 .................................,.,............ ........ U.WA 66.WA W.Ra 73.0d W.MZ s.Re 49.61 45.iU 11.82 95.111d ?a.WA S3.4b 97.MZ 32MU %.9b 93.M 53.x12 WOW 67.x11 711Mt 74.@r 67.1Std 6.66 X&A 16.6e 73.111ld 54.eed O.eec arzi-1.96 15:91,80 • Scan Ibde 2 � it ,4 316 il a" n 3F ._; .ding Z ''i 2, -"M !,-1 4 1 '4 j i,.-. E'l I WH HNA ls. w MAN hi e 14 7 L.7 I i D 1 C 7'!v p 5�5 1 6 1 C F �PPIS 4 "T A 4 Si 4RP� 52 i -Id I- E �', 5 1 'Ill, 3 1-1 'f IS AL "M U EUHNG MUR 0- '+I. H0917K -6- ly 45Y 6413 ,� ....,.a -FT I F'" EC"Im"', Hi TWO THOO ,,2 D. L, v. K-, 7 1 154 7 7Ea78,1 'NIF,6 M�8. I Z", j IN` C E w` LL E GE I'llE FA"Rv"S ;4-,2 Ll '11�i t BFW, lAr �41 0 34100 152100 2500 57 R 161210 ASSO IVE490 4 o 0 too 131, VIM 35MIG E .a i D 1 C 7'!v 1 w %. "WO 01310 TWO THOO AM& 111040 Mow 3 2005 & I E 23 0 34100 152100 2500 57 161210 ASSO IVE490 4 o 0 too 131, VIM 35MIG E .a 1420KO E4000 137 .3, 0 cv -