Loading...
251652 1 ���, ea`_''`r�;.o• 'Y'' � �% I / %�"�. �',1^ � 4*" '�'�y �� � / �� / C..'� �•L' �. • �, � r +� ;` ^ _.� .� RICHARD A. SCHNARR C I T Y O i S/'�4I�T P/�"�i U L ROGER M. CONWAY Chief Engineer Deputy Commissioner Capitai of Minnesota DEPARYFAENTOF PU�3LIC !�lORKS 234 City Hall & Court House 55102 WILLIAM E. CARLSON Commissioner December 22, 1970 Honorable Tiayor and Commissioners: RE: DECEMBER 23RD COUNCTL HEARING ON LANDFILL FEES The present fee structure of 25¢ per cubic yard was approved under Council File ?10. 231958 on February 9, 1967, to become effective March 13, 1967. Unquestionably, this was a "red letter day" for St. Paul in the overall area of the handling of solid w�ste since the City finally had the inception � of a realistic method of financing the landfill aperations based on a user fee which would, in turn, allow the operational level of the landfills to be rai�ed from "unsightly burning, rodent-infested dumps" to the beginnings of Sanitary Landfills. St. Paul citizens, the business community, and haulers alike, especially those residents living in $ie Mounds Park area and along the bluffs east of the landfills have commented on the difference over the past few years; Pig's Eye and Fish Hatchery are no longer continuous burning � dumps, however they have never been, nor are they now, Sanitary Landfills ei ther. Briefly, we should discuss the beginnings of the fee system. During late 1966 and early 1967 the Department of Public Works did considerable study on the question of fees to be charged at the landfills. This was done with the consultation of the business community, the forerunner of the Sub- urban Reftizse Hauler's Association, and many other interested groups and citizens. The fee structure could have been based on two possible methods, �o either weight or volurie. The Public '�Jorks Department had recommended that the method be based on weight which is recognized throughout the industry as the most desirable method, however because of a feeling on the part of some that the cost of insta].ling truck scales at both Fish Hatchery and Pig's Eye would be a needless and costly e�ense, the Department of Public Works Went along with the approach of basing the fees on a volume measurement. Then the question came up _as to whether or not the fee should be based on a loose volume measurement, or on a compacted volume measurement, or should it be a combination of these two methods. Most of the commercial haulers, of course, have compactor vehicles. It was felt then for the reasons of simplicity of operation and charging of fees that the fee would be based on a volume measurement with no distinction being made between loose or cor�pacted. Next, the question came up as to what would be a reasonable fee. The Department of Public Works did considerable *�ork on this subject, considering such factors as types of equipment needed to operate the landfills, the need for haul�ng in large quantities of off-site fill material which is unique to Pig's Eye and Fish Hatchery since most landfill sites have material available, the personnel staffing of the two sites, and other factors, and recommended that the fee be 35¢ per cubic �ard. The haulers felt that it was unrealistic to go from nothing to a fee of 35¢ so it was agreed upon that a compromise figure of 25¢ per cubic yard would be used to be evaluated again within a year's time to decide if this was an adequate fee. The question of fees charged at the landfills has been studied, evaluated, and di�cussed almost continuously over the past three year s and it is not something that "just happened to pop up" at this moment. In 1968, 1969, and, of course, in 1970, the Departxnent of Public Works has �repared a budget for the landfill operations for each yeax, even though the landfills - 2 - are set up on a � revolving account basis. At the end of 1967 the cash balance was a minus �22,077. At the end of 1968 the cash balance was a minus �17,160; and at the end of 1969 for the first time, the cash balance was $20,903. This year, 1970, there is a cash balance of about $18,000 so we have slipped approxi- % mately �2,000 since last year. Now t•�e come to the point as to why the need for an increase in the fees if we have a cash balance of �$18,000. From the very beginning of the landfill operations we have just barely skimped by on the use of clean cover material. A sanitary landfill must be covered over with fill material at the end of each da;� to prevent uncontrolled fires, rodent infestations, and generally for good housekeeping reasons, and never have we been able to do this at either Fish Hatchery or Pig's Eye with the financing that we�ve had to work with. We have been able to "skimp" by never really doin� a very satisfactory job, A7.though Pig�s Eye is within the Flood Plain of the river and State Law prohibits landfills from being within the flood plain, it is our considered opinion that if we would have ra.ised the fees earlier to allow for better contro2 and covering of the two landfill sites, that we may have been able to prolong the life beyond July of 1972. Another important factor on the use of cover ma.terial is that when the refu�e has been brought up to the final grade, it's necessary under State Regulations to put a minimum of two feet of clean material over the whole site. Since Pig� s Eye is approximately 327 acres with approximately half of the 327 acres having the final lift and cover on it now, or is wet lowlands that is unusable for a landfill, we have estimated that final cover will have to be put over approximately half of that figure, or 160 acres. It can be noted that it will take considerable amount of material to finish off grading and completion of the site. That's why each yeax we have re- quested that a fee increase be considered so that some financing can be _ 3 _ accumulated to finish off the final sites. Each time the question of raising the fee was considered and discussed with the haulers and other people in the business, they, of course, would say that we�re "in the black" for the past year �o why raise the fees? That question has again been raised this j year as to why we are considering a fee increase of 8� when we still have a �urplus of $18,000 in the account. It seems that no matter how much this point is em�hasized, final cover and completion of the site just has not been realistically consi dered. Early in 1970, because of growing concern over the inadequacy of the operations at the landfills, and the ultimate future of both Fish Hatchery and Pig�s Eye with both State and Metropolitan Council regulations putting tighter restrictions on the operations, it was becoming more and more apparent that our operations as permitted by the 25¢ per cubic yard fee were far from satisfactory. We prepared a detailed budget for 1970 and submitted it on March 13, 1970. The budget covered both Pig's Eye and Fish Hatchery and went into considerable detail supporting each item. A capy of this report was submitted to the Suburban Refuse Hauler's Association at that time and they reviewed it and we had a series of ineetings with them to discuss the conclusions and recommended fee increase. We asked for the Suburban Refuse Hauler's Association's comments in ►ariting and in the form of recommendations, however nothing was receieed. It was our feeling that if we documented the needs that the adjustment in the fees from 25¢ per cubic yard to It5¢ per cubic yard would be recognized as being not only necessary, but desirable in order to prolong the life of Pig�s Eye. Attached is a copy of that report and the key points under "Conclusions and Recommendations" in front of the report still remain the same. If this report had been studied, it is our feeling tha t a better understanding would have resulted concerning the need for additional money to operate the landfills over the next year and a hal f. - 1t - . • Ir. conclusion, the Department of Public Works has prepared an dated budoet projection covering the 18 months period from January 1, 1971 to July 1, 1972 (see attached Budget Projection) when the landfills will be closed. We have tried to consider all factors including approxi- mately a 20� increase in volume due to the burning ban which will take effect March 5, 1970, the increased cost of cover material because borrow pits now must be used out in the County which result in minimum hauling distances of 8 to 10 miles, that no additional equipment (mechanical) will be purchased over the next year and a half, that Fish Hatchery will be phased out April 1, 1971, and a consolidation of the two landfills will be run at Pig� s Eye, hopefully which will result in a savings both from an equipment standpoint and a personnel standpoint, and providing a mini.mum or conservative amount of final. cover material o£ approximately 200,000 yards to cover the site when we are completed, and assuming that the hours of operation could be shortened somewhat, especially during the winter months from a 1!�-hour workday (6 days a week) to possibly a 10 or 12-hour workday, that with all of these factors weighed and considered, it is our recommendation that rather than compromise the entire landfill operation � on the basis of a 1t5¢ per cubic yard fee adjustment or nothing, that a cortpromise fee adjustment of 35¢ per cubic yard be adop ted. However, we respectfully recommend that if the Council adopts the lower figure of 35¢ p er cubic yard that it will be done with a firm under- standing that the fee will be reevaluated later in the year after we have a better understanding of the increased volumes resulting from the burning ban to become effective March 5, 1971, and even more importantly what our cost� will be for clean cover material for which we will be taking• bids right af ter the first of the year. - 5 - Finally, it should be noted that for a standaxd 30-gallon garba�e can, ba�ed on an uncomnacted volume of refuse, the present fee of 25¢ per cubic yard ariounts to a disposal cost to the hauler of G¢ per can, the recommended fee of 35¢, 5¢ per \can, and 1�5¢, approximately 7¢ Per can. j _._... _Y----—� ; �, � �-- �� . ic ard A. c � ar Chief Engineer - 6 - L"�'�dDFILL B�JDG:�i F02 ].8 i��0:•�l'i�S Pr.r�IOD Januar;; I, 1971 to July 1, 1972 EST`1�LLT�� Ii�,TCOI•� CASH ByLA?w��, AC�OUi�'S Rr,CENABLE, RECEIPTS, S.4LE OF E�UIPMENT: . Cash balance as of December 31, 1970 �p 18,000 � Accounts Receivable as of Decemoer 31, 1970 18,000 TOTAI, CARRYOVER r� 36���� / ESTINWTED REC�IPTS FOR 18 MOIdTHS PERIOD: Jan. 1, 1971 thru Mar. i�, 1971 (Before buz�ning ban) 258,333 Yds. � �0.35 $ 90,1�16 Mar. 5, 1971 thru Dec. 31, 1971 1,550,00o Yds a $0.35 51,2,500 Jan. 1, 1972 thru July 1, 1972 930,00o Yas. � �0.35 325s50o TOTAL FSTII�L4TED RECEIT��'S $ 958,1�16 CO:JDEMNATION 0� SALVAGE OF MEC:IANICAL EQUTPMENT, Depreciated to July l, 1972 $ 65,000 TOTAL SALVAGE VALUE 65,000 TOTAL ESTIriATED INCOME FOR 18 MOPITHS PERIOD `'�`j'i � ' �„'� ESTIMATED OPERATING EXPEPJSES Anticipated Adj. Projected WAGES & SAI�RIES: Jan. 1, 1971 to July 1, 1972 Salaries Supvr. of Refuse (1 Q $17,300) $ 17,300 $ 1,000 $ 18,300 Final Grading & Cleanup of Site for 2 Months period to Sep t. l, 1972 2,000 Tractor Operator (3 0 $17,597) 52,791 6,000 58,791 (1 0 �3,519) 3,519- 4� 3,919� Final Grading & Cleanup of Site for 2 Months period to Sep t. 1, 1972 6,600 Power Shovel Operator (1 � $18,19�) 18,190 2,000 20,190 Final Grading & Cleanup of Site for 2 Months period to Sept. 1, 1972 2,200 Landfill Caretakers (11 � �12,103) 133,133 11,000 llt1�,133 Final Grading & Cleanup of Site . (5 Men for 2 Months period to Sept. 1, 1972) 8,000 Overtime-Vacation (Lwnp) 22,500 Accountin� & Administration (Lump) 22,500 TOT�'LL WAG�,S & SALARIES $ 3�9,133 CO�I'IRACTU�AL S�RVIC�,S: Automobile �?lo�ance $ 1,6211 Buildin� P,epair (Office Equip. Repair) 139 Gas �C �lectricity 672 Mi�c. Cont.actural Services 10,228 ?�:isc. Aaes & i•ieetings 22 P�isc. .•faintenance & Reoair 1a,5�3 ?�ot,or Vehicle Rental 1,71lt Motor Vehicle Repair - Equipment 75,000 � Printing & Binding 267 Sanitary Services (Rat Control) 1,3�a Telephone 1,2t�s In suranc e 3!� Water & Sewer Rental 139 Land Rental (Taxes) 2,160 TOT�1L CONTR�'�CTUI�L SERVICES $ 99,160 COi�'fO�ITIES: Janitor Supplies $ 90 Heating Fuels 3,617 Misc. Supplies, Small Tools, Parts 69 Office Supplies 6!� Bottle Gas 6t�8 Fire Fighting Supplies 760 Landfill Cover Material Day to Day Cell Contr. & Coverin� $ 300,00 Final Cover (Grading & Seeding 2� final lift) 300,00 600,000 TOTAL COI�II�fODITI�S: $ 60l��1!�8 E?�?GI?1EERIr1G & SUPERVISIOIv': $ 22,500 � 22,500 CONTII�TGEPICY: 37,50� 37,500 TOTAL ESTIMATED OPFRATING EXPFATSES . o�.��n,�.�,� �51��2 ` CITY OF ST. PAUL �uNC�� NO � � OFHCE OF THE CITY CLERK � COUNCIL RESOLUTION—GEKIERAL FORM r�.OM�MIS�SION� Wi 11 taa� E. Car)son o�� December 23. 1970 RESOLVED, That the p�ior Reftoliution of this Council� Councll Fil• No. 2510�9, a�rov�d Novea�bsr 4. 1970� concerni�g the temporaryr fee scheduiss effective January 1, 1971.' for the Fish Hatchery and Pigs Eye Landitiis is hersby resclnded ai�d ca�celled� a�d be it FURTNER RESOLYED. pursuant to City Councii Ordinance Mc• 13356, Co�ncii Fite No. 23016� adopt�ed by the Counc�l on Septembar 30, '1966, the followi�g t�mporpry fae scheduiss are hereby establl�hed effective Ja�uary 1, �1971� for tha Fish Hatchery and Pigs Eye Landfilis: S�•35 per cubtc yard of capacity of e�t�ring vehtciss la�ge� than pickup trucks. $1.00 per ente�ing pickup truck or trail�� of a typ� attached to automobiles. $0.50 per ente�ing autaaoblle. These fe�s shall be in �ffect through June 30, 19?1. Said a+dditional 10� per yard t�o be lt�ept �parste ia a 21�d �ad to ba e�tnded, oa]y upon order by resolui�ioa� of the Oo�neil. DE�2 3 1970 COUNCILMEN Adqpted by the Co��cil 18.— Yeas Nays Bntier (�EC 2 3 1970 Carlson Appro� 18— : Levine i„ Favor Meredith Sprafka �r A gainst Tedesco Mr. President, AZcCarty �� ORIOINAL TO CITY CL[RK 2���a2 CITY OF ST. PAUL H�E N�� NO. OFFICE OF THE CITY CtERK COUNCIL SOLUTION ENERAL FORM PRESENTED BY W i i l i alll E. Ca�1 s f)ec�abe r 23� �9 70 COMMISSIONE - AT RESOLVED, That the prior R�solation of tMis Council , Council File !!lo. a5�o79, approved Noveiaber 4, 1970, concerning the tempora�y fee sched�+les effective January 1, 1971 , for the Fish k�atchery and Pigs Ere Landfills is hermby rescinded and cancelled� and be it FtIRTWER RESOLVED, pursuant to City Cowncil �rdtnance �• 13356, Couc�cil File No. 23016, adopted by tbe Cowncil ora S�ptea�ber 30, 1966, the follc�wing te�orary fee schedwles �re hereby established effective January l, 1971, for the Fisb Hatchery and Pigs Eye Landfiiis: $�.35 per cubic yard of capacity of eant�ring vehicles larger than pickup tr�cks. $1.00 per entering pickup trnck or trailer of a trpe attached to autonwbiles. $0.50 per eqteri�g sutv�cbile. These fees shall be in effect through June 30 , 1971. Said additional 10¢ per yard to be kept separate in a flxnd and to be expended only upon order by resolution of the Council. ��n��1 �F�'ROVED CC''r�F'Qf��T(O��U NSc"L pEC 2 3 1�70 COUNCILMEN Adopted by the Counci� 19— Yeas Nays '�Butler C�E� 2 3 1'7� �Carlson Approv 19— �I.evine �n Favor �1Vleredith �Sprafka � � �Tedesco A Sainst ` _. + Mr. President, McCarty "--`—v ���� �1V ��.971 �� � i �, ��1��2 � � � . � � � ��� ,, - - '' � a !9-�--- --- --------- — � — ; - -- --- - :; I , �; i - ; �, - ----- —� -- --- - - -- - - 'I, � � --- �; i, � � ' - - � - ;. . . �� . � � ; , � � ; ,; � �,, �� ' , �� - , �i ; j , , , i � ' CONTENTS ' CONCLUSIONS AND R�OI�'lNIENDATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . I ' LANDFII,L BUDGET FOR 1970 . . . . • • • • • • • • • • . .. . II EXPLANATION OF PROPOSED LANDFIId, BUDQrET F�t 1970 . . . . . 1 , � CONTRACTURAL SERVICES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lt , COMMODITIES. . . . . . . . e o o . o . . . . o • • o • o o � CAPITAL OU'I'LAY . . . . . . . . . . ._._�_.._.. . . . . . . . 7 , ENQINEERIN(3 & SUPERVISION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 . �� CONTINGENCY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 ' ANALYSIS OF FEES & INCOME. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 • , SALVAGE OR SCAVENGINC} O�PIItATIONS . e e o . . . o . . . . . 14 HOURS OF OPERATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 , , CONSOLIDATION OF LANDFILIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1? REMAINING LIFE OF LANDFIIS,S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 ' MECHANICAL E�UIPMIIJT e . o . . a o a o . o o � o � � o . 0 20 , LANDFILL FIELD PEftSONNII, IN 1969 a o 0 0 . .• o 0 0 0 0 • 0 21 � REFUSE DISPOSED OF AT THE LANDFILLS IN 1969. o . . . . • • 22 , TOTAL INCOME & VaI,UME OF REFUSE DISPOSED OF AT THE . LANDFII,LS IN 1969. . . . . . . . o . . . . .. . . : . 23 , SURVEY AT PIG�S EYE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 . SURVEY AT FISH HATCHERY. . . . . . . .. . • • • : • .• • • • 25 • ' - �' �26 FILL MATFRIAL FIJRNISHE� TO LANDFTLLS . . . . . . . . . . . ' LANDFILL F'EES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2? BALANCE SHEET LANDFILL, December 31, 1969. . . . . . . . . 28 , STATEMENT OF PROFIT OR LOSS, December 31, 1969 . . . . . . 29 ' DETAIL OF OPERATIN(� DISBURSEMENTS, December 31, 1969 . .� . 30 RECONCILIAT ION O F L A N D F I L L I N V E N P O R,Y, Decean ber 3 1,�1 9 6 9. . 3 1 , � DEN Mare 31,197( ' � COI�LUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ' 1. That first and foremost it be recognized that the general � public, citizen's groups, and the various regulatory agen- cies, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and the Metro- / politan Council, are demanding that all disposal sites be run as a sanitary landfill and not as "dumps". It no , longer is possible to dump the garbage and refuse in a pile, spread it around a bit, dump a few loads of dirt over it, and ex�aect to get by. Efforts ha.ve been made to ' operate Pig�s Eye and Fish Hatchery as true sanitary land- fills constructing the cells, dumping the reflxse into them9 and covering them over with the required amount of dirt �� ' fill material. Progress has been made, however there still is a long way to go in covering oner the refuse according to accepted landfill standards. This fact must - be kept in mind when considerin� the fee structure. ' 2. That an ad�ustment be made in the fee structure at Pig's Eye and Fish Hatchery landfills as soon as practically ' possible, the fee to be raised 20¢ per cubic yard from � $0.25 per cubic yard to $O.LtS per cubic yard. Individual automobiles will be charged $0.90 apiece and pickup trucks � and/or trailers Hill be cha.rged $1.80 apiece. , That all salva 'n or scavenging erations will cease as 3• � g aP of the same date that the new fee structure becomes effec- ' tive. S tate regulations strictly prohibit all salvaging on landfill sites. , 4. That the hours that the landfills are open be changed as � follows, and to become effective as of the same date that the new fee structure ta.kes effect: (April lst through September 30th each calendar yea.r, 7:00 A. M. to 7:00 P. H.) , and (January lst through March 31st, and October lst through December 31st, 7:� A. M. to 6:00 P. M.). This represents only a s11Rht modification of the houra and although there ' w�ll b� ob,jocti.ona, it is hoped thr�t With th� ".nkyrockAtinq" o!' wr��oo thnt thia omnll nd�uotm�nt in th� houra can bo accomplished. ' S. That the present restriction of the landfills to only refuse collected within the corporate limits of the City of St. Paul be revised to conform to the Metropolitan Council's ' Landfill Regulations about to be approved, stating that all landfills Within the seven (7) county metropolitan area must be cQen to all �ithin the area. , � , ' I . , CITY OF ST. PAUL DEPARTMENT OF PUH,IC W�tKS ' MAINTENANCE SFRVICFS I�PARTMENr LANDFII,L BUIX3ET F(�t 1970 ' . : , ESTIMATED INCOME � RECEIPTS: (PRFSENT FEE $0.25 PER CU. YD. for 3 Months, Jan., Feb., Mar.) - 300,000 cu. yds. � $0.25 $ ?5s�� ' RECIIPTSs PROPOSED FEE $O.bS PEft CU. YD. for 9 Months, April-Dec. - 1,000,000 cu. yds. � $0.45 �►5��� ' TVTAL FSTIMATED INCOME $ 525,�Q ' IESTIMATID OPIItATINt1r E7�ENSES - , WA(}ES AND SALARIFS: Supervisor of Refuse Disposal (1 � $10,21�4) _ $ 10,2b� Motor Equipment Operators, Tractor Operator II , ' , (3 � $9,bo1) 1/b + (3 � $9,401 a 1.15) 3/!� + (1 � $9,401 x 1.15) 3/lt a 39,LtBb Power Shovel Operator ($9,79?) �/�t + �1 � $9,797 x 1.15) , 3/4 = 10,899 Field Clerk I, (Fee Collectors or New Landfill Caretaker � Tit1e �� � �7�ZV9� ° 37f9'�+� ', ' Landfill Caretakera {6 � $?,189) = b3,134 Onertime and Vacation Replacements (Lump) 15,000 Accounting and Administration Per�onnel (Lw�) 1 114 ; ' TO'PAL wl�3ES & SALARIES $ 169,820�. ' ' CONTRACTURAL SERVICES: ; ' Automobile Allowance $ 1,5� Building Repair 5� , Duplicating Sarvices ' , 100 (�as & Electricity 6� Misc. Contractural Servicee 6'�� �i ' Misc. Dues, Meetings 38 , Misc. Maintenance & Repair 304 Motor Vehicle Rental 5� � Motor Vehicle Repair 329000 :, , Printing & Binding 3� Sanitary Services (Rat Control) 1,� Telephone 825 `� , Insurance , 2� Water & Sewer Aental � TOTAL CON'1'RACTURAL SERVICffi $ 4�,938 , . 1 � II ' Page 2 of 2 , LANDFILL HUDGET F�t 1970 (Continued) � COIrQ�IODITIFS: ' Janitor Supplies $ l� Heating Fuels 1,000 , Misc. Supplies, Small Tools, Parta 2� Office Supplies 1�� � Bottle aas 35� Fire Fighting Suppliea 3� ' Sand dc Salt 2��� Landfill Cover I�Iaterial 179,892 ' TOTAL COI�DITIFS $ 185 2 2 CAPITAL OUTLAY: � , Replace Allis-Chalmera Dozer No. 42� $ f�0,000 Purchase one (1) ne�+ Dozer - - ��,� ' Replace Pick-Up No. 11 3,� Repaire to Lorain Shovel 3,� TOTAL CAPITAL oUTLAY $ 86,000 , ! E1�3INEERINC} & SUPERVISIONs $ 1 000 r , � TOTAL El�(3INEERINC3 & SUPERYISION $ 1 000 CONTIN(}ENCYt � 2 � ITOTAL CONTIN(�ENCY $ 2 000 , TOTAL FST IlYIATED O�IItATII� EJ�ENSFS $525�,000 ' APPF�VALS: . ' ' Kent Schonberger Richard A. Schnarr Maintenance Services Eagineer Chief Engineer � ' James F. SchWartz Robert F. Peterson Aocountant Coa�aieaioner of Public T�brke ' ; ' � . � , ' ' DEN nI 2/25/7� . ' ' CITY OF ST. PAUL DEPARTMENT OF PU�,IC WURKS MAINTENANCE 5ERVICFS DEPARTMENT ' EXPLANATION OF PROPOSED LANDFII,L BUDaET FOR 1970 , _____ _ / Attached ia the proposed Landfill Budget for 1970. Please refer to it ' and the following e�lanation ia keyed to the main headinga in the outline ot the budget. ' . LANDFII,L PERSONNEL: ' ' Please refer to the attached praposed Landfill Budget for 1970 under the first paragraph, Wages aad Salariea. . ' There is no conunent under Supervisor of Refuse Dispoeal except ' that his salary has been pro�ected for 1970. t Under Motor Equipment Operators, Tractor Operator II, the 1970 , Budget includes $39,b8l�.00. This includes one additional Motor Equip- ment Operator and the salary increases for 1970. For manq years, ' possibly from the very beginning of the Pig�s Eye and Fish Hatcherq i ' Landfills, three Equipment Operators have al�ays been used; one at . the Fish Hatchery site and tao at Pig�s Eye. The Doaer Operator at , the Fish Hatcherq site has Worked an 8-hour shift from 8:30 to 5:00 aad one of the tWO cperators at Pig'a Eye hae worked an 8-hour shift , from 7:00 to 3:30, and the second aperator at Pigos Eye has Worked the shiPt from 9:00 to 5s30. Since both landfills have been apen until ' 8s00 P. M., this has left a very critical period of time each da�y, from ' about 5s30 to the 8:00 P. N!. closing, without a dozer on either of the sites �.o handle the incoming refuse and cover it overo One of the key � points in a sanitary landfill is that all of the refuse must be covered , at the end of each work day o Thus, in effect, we have ne�ver f,o t.his point aperated a true sanitary landfill because tbere aever� has been a ' � � - 1 - � . ' ' time when all of the refuse, garbage, paper, etc. has been covered at ' the end of the Work day. Many of the complaints received about the unsightliness of the , landfills stems from,the fact that We are not covering the refl�ise each j day. Paper has a tendency to b1oW around, the chanc es of fires ia in- ' creased, rodent activity is considerably more, and the Nhole landfill � begets an appearance of inefficiency and poor control �+hen the refuse and garbage is not covered each da�q. The Pollution Control Agency, �� , the Metrapolitan Council, and others have been after us contir�ually .to improve the appearance of the tWO landfills and to aperate them as ' true sanitary landfills. Therefore s�e have conaluded that ar� addi- tional dozer and operator should be added to the landfill operation 1 ' to cover the shift from 1:00 P. M. to 9:0� P• M. so that all incoming ' reflise is covered at the end of the work day. Moreover there are strong indications that the volume of refuse ' disposed of at Pi��s Eye and Fish Hatcherq will continue to increase. Since 1967 when the present laadfill operation was started three dozers , ' aere adequate to handle and cover the refuse, ho�ever now that the ' volume received at the landfills has increased 25� over What it wae in 1967 for a total volume received in 1969 of 1,3�,000 cubic yards. ' Moreover there is a strong possibility that a burning ba� will be , invoked throughout the metrapolitan area in the future. There.is no question s�hatsoever that if such a ban is invoked that this Nould in- ' crease our total volume oP refuse delivered to the t�o landfills im- j measureably. ' , For the above ressona We have included a fourth Dozer Operator , I � ' in the 197� 1�udget to atart on or about April 1, 1970. The f.otal ` salariea Por the i'our o�erators have bee�n pro�acted thraugh ca�endar I ; ' � ; . ± - 2 - ' ' year 1970 using a 15� increase in salary which undoubtedly will take � effect sometime during the spring of 1970 �hen the nea �age schedules have been negotiated. � The only comment that I would like to make under the Power Shovel / Operator ia that his salary has been pro�ected into 1970, again using � the 15� increase. The Power Shovel Operator or Drag Line Operator is � one of the most important keys in running an efficient landfill opera- tion. He constructs the ' cells into �hich the refuse is placed Where % ' it is compacted and finally covered over. It is a most important func- tion in running a good landfill aperation. � . , Under Field Clerk I we expect to stay at about the same level as � we have been in past years. This allows for t�o fee collectors to cover � both of the shifts at both the Fish Hatchery and Pig�s Eye (6:00 A. M. ' to 8:00 P. M.), and a fifth Field Clerk I or Collector to cover the extra day Saturday that �e are apen each �eek. The only change under ' ,, Field Clerk I that is anticipated is that sometime during the spring 1 of 1970 the Field C1erk I title �ill be done a�ay with and the new . � title Landfill Caretaker which includes fee collectin will be > > �� ' initiated at the landfi118. Civil Service has drafted up this �.ner� title; it has been approved by them, and we expect it will be posted ' by Civil Service shoptlyo There Hill be a small ad�uatment in the salary � , in going from the Field Clerk I to the Landfil3 Caretalcer and this has been allowed for in the total amoun� in the budget for 1970 for fee , �ollectors of $35,9l�5•OOo Under Landfill Caretalcers �+e have included a complement of six ' which is the f�ll con�leinent t,hat has been used in past yearso This allows one Landfill Caretaker out on the actual dun�ping site for each � of �,he shifts at both landfilla lua an e�ct,�a man t,o oover the ext.ra P ' day on Saturday. _ 3 _ � . ' � , Under Overtime and Vacation Replacements �+e have included an amount of �15,000. The ov ertime largely consists of the extra haur each da�y ' that the Motor Equipment Operators and the Po�er Shovel Operator receive , for greasing and maintaining their equipment. There are other instances / �rhere overtime may be �ustified such as the case of a fire or some other � unforeseen situation. ' Under Accounting and Administration Personnel �e have put in an . amount of $15,11t� to cover the acoounting and olerical persoanel necessary ' to keep the recorda of the cash receipts and charges for the tWO landfille. ' CONTRACTURAL SII�VICES � Refer to the attached Landfill Budget for 1970 under the second ' , paragraph, Contractural Services. All of the items are about the same as last year with the exception of Motor 9ehicle Repairs. The total ' ' amount spent for repairs•to the mechanical equipment last year, 1969, ' was $35,?b0.29. Motor vehicle repairs have been reduced in the 1970 �' budget to $32,000. The reduction ia reallzed aince �e replaced one of ' the old doaers last year and we intend to replace Doaer No. 428, a 1963 • model, this year. Crawler type equipment aperating on landfill sitea ' take considerable abuse, much more so than equipment aperating on a , high�ay pro3ect or other dirt or excavating pro3ect,. Track repaire are an especially big item ho�ever we feel that no� the equipment has been ' updated �ith a ne�+ dozer last year and a second ne�+ one this year, that the repair cost ahould begin to drap. ' , COI�Il�IODITIFS Refer to the pra�posed 1970 Landfill Budget under the third paragraph , Commodities. All of the items iacluded uader Commodities• are about the same ae in past years and are pretty much se1P-explanatory. Ho�ever the ' - 4 - _ � . ' ' last item, Landfill Cover Material, bears some further explanation. ' Under Cover Material w e have included an amount of $179,892 in the 1970 Landfill Budget. It is broken down into the following categories: ' 1. The normal cover material that is used for the ongoing day-to- / day landfill operations. By normal cover material we mean , that material which is used�for constructing cel.ls to include the sidewalls and covering over the refuse each day. In 1969 ' under a contract With the Ebertz Construction Company for �� ' January and February and the Rehbein Excavating Company for the rest of t,he year, a total of 87,526.9 cubic yards of dirt _ ' cover material t�as used both at Pig's Eye and Fish Hatchery ' Landfills for a total amount of $79,982.77. It is expected � the approximate same amount oP cover material will be used ' in 1970, therefore we have placed 90,000 cubic yards at the e�ew contract price with Ebertz Construction Co�npany of $1.05 ' � 1 per cubic yard for a total amount of $94,5� ie the ].970 � budget. � ' 2. The final cover material to cover over f,hose areas of Pig�s ' Eye that presently hav� the second or final lift on them and � are up to final grade. Please refer to the map of Pig�s Eye ' Landfill. The area shaded red ad3acent to the Collection building, 66.L� acres, for the moat part has the second lift ' on it or it will have the second lift by early sununer 1970. ' Standard landfill specifications put out by the U. S. Public Health Service and recommeaded-bq-the Minnesota Pollution , Control Agency called for a final t�o-foot iift of cover material to be placed over co�leted areasa At the time , that the second lift Was constructed over this area, about ' _ 5 _ . ' , one foot or possibly more of cover material was placed over the ' cells at the time of construction leaving another layer of final cover to be added. A layer of cover material 6" thick over the � 66.4 acres amounts to 53,500 oubic yarda at �]..05 per cubic � yard for a tota.l of $56,300. Thie amount hae been placed in ' the 1970 Landfill Budget. ' 3. The remaining usable portion of Pig�s Eye I.andfill amounts to 2t�0.1 acres. For the moat part there ia one 6-foot lift over - ' this entire area with a second 6-foot lift to go on. Fish Hatchery Landfill on the other hand hae a remaining usable ' portion of 2b.6 acres with the first lift of 6 Peet already ' in place and a second lift of 6 feet to go on. Again, in the I process of constructing the cells and placing the refuse in on , the second lift, approxi.mately 1 foot or more of cover material is placed over the refuse as it is placed in the�cells. This , � leaves 6" or so to go on once the second lift is up to final 1 , grade and before the area ia abandoned. Combined total acreage of the usable area of Pig�s.Eye and Fish Ha.tchery amounts to � 26u.7 acres. If we compute a 6" thickness of final cover over � this acreage, it amwnts to 214,5� cubic yarda. To convert , f,his t.o a dollar amount, if �e use the present contract unit ' price of $1.05 per cubic yard, ar�d if we intended to cover over the entire acreage thi� year at this contrac� unit price, , it would cost $225,225 to accomplish i�. Itos impossible to say hoW many more years �+e will be aperating at Pigo s Eye and , Fish Hatchery9 and it�a impossible to aay s�hat t�he unit pricea ' per cubic yard for cover materisl xill be ie years to came ' . _ h _ . ' ' since the prices have been increasing about 10% per year. ' However it�s apparent that we must amortize the final cover over this acreage over a period of a few years so that when , we do leuve the site we can finish it off properly to accepted standards. Therefore �e have placed a token amount of $29,092 ' in the 1970 budget �hich will go into a reserve for final cover. ' It is expected tht all areas that are presently up to final grade will have been covered with final cover during 1970 so � ' we can anticipate an amount of approximately $50,�0 to $90,000 for final cover reserve in the 1971 budget. Then in 1972 an ' equal amount of $80,000 to $90,000 can be included for thie ' same ite9n. So, over a three to four-year period, by amor- � tizing approximately $80,000 to $90,000 per year, placing this ' into a reserve, it would appear that aufficient monies �ould be provided to place doWn the Pinal cover over the �hole site once ' , We leave it. i ' CAPITAL OUTLAY The Allis-Chalmera Dozer No. b28, a 1963 model, ia almoat completely , �orn out and must be replaced. A requisition and s�ecificationa have ' been prepared and submitted to the Purchasing Depar,tment to replace No. u28 using the present No. l�28 as a trade-in. �,000 #a placed in , the budget to cover this item. The second item under Capital Outlay is the purchase of one new ' Dozer. The need for thie additiona7: dozer �hich �ould be the fourth , dozer, Was explaired in detail under the preceding eection, I,andfill Personnel. Hriefly it is needed ao that more en�hasie can be placed ' oa coverieg all of the retlnse each day according to eanitary landfill 1 - _ 7 _ � � ' ' ecifications and secondl that the volume of reftise received at the sp , Y, ' landfills is continually increasing and xith the likelihood of a burning ban in the future, the volume can be expected to increase even more. An ' amount of $40,000 �as placed into the 1970 Budget to purchase one new ! dozer. ' Both the Ford Pickups, No. 11 and No. 12, 1963 models, are com- ' pletely Worn out. We recoimnend replacing No. 11 with a neW 4-�heel drive Pickup With hydraulic lift gaf,e, trading in the present No. ll and ke�p-,� ' ing No. 12 until next year. An amount of $3,000 �as placed into the 1970 Budget for this Pickup. ' ' The Lorain Shovel, a 1951 model, is in reasonably good condition, ' however it needs considerable repair �ork. We recommend that $3,000 be � allotted to repair this machine which �ould then make it serviceable for tthe next three to five years. Shovela are axtr�nely e�cpensive iteme aad although the machine ie quite old, it�a in good enaugh condition to ' �arrant the expendi�ure of $3,000. `} ' EI�AINEII�ING & SUP�tVISION Refer to the propoaed landfill budget for 1970 under the paragraph, ' Engineering and S�pervision. ' Although by laW Ramsey County is charged with �he responsibility of proniding for all solid Waste disposal in Ramsey County, including ' 4�.h� City of St. Paul, �ith the Co�unt� Auditcr's and Engineer°a office tiandling this matter, and because the City of St. Paul Praper comprisea ' such a large part of the aolid waste generation ancl present disposal, ' the Conmd.ssioner of Public Works9 the Chief Engineer, ar�d hia staff9 must spend considerable time �+orking �ith the Cauaty ofPicials, the ' 1�Iin�esota Pollution Comtrol Agency, and the I�Ietrapolitan Co�uncil are , . - 8 - � - ' ' in the overall question of develaping solid waste disposal to serne the ' Ci ty and the C ounty. Moreover the investigation of solid waste disposal methods is not ' confined on7,q to the landfill type method. Incineration, which ia a volume reduction method, is also being studied and evaluated. There ia � still much study to be done comparing incineration methods versus land- ' fill methods, aad whether or not incineration is applicable to our St. , Paul situationo In any case St. Paul must .take an active part in evalu-% ' ating the various solid �aste disposal methods. It is therefore reconBnended that a token sum of $15,000 be placed ' into the 1970 budget to provide for engineering and supervision by t,he ' Chief Engineer and his staPf for the overall handling of solid waste, ► the investigation and evaluation of disposal methods, work on potential , sites for future aperation, and the coordination and consultation with the many and varioue goverrnnental agenciea that are im►olved in this ' question. , � CONTII�ENCY ' Based on the Minnesota. Pollution Control Agencq�s landfill standards and the flood plain zoring of the Minnesota Department oP Conservation, ' it does not appear that the City will be able to obtain s bona fide land- fill permit for the preeent landfill aperations at Pig�s Eye and Fish ' Hatchery since both of theae aites are very definitely aithin the flood ' plai� definition. A variance probably Mill be issued by the 1�CA allo�- ing the City to operate on the eaisting sites on a year-to-year basis � for the next fe�+ years. This �ill be dependent an When Rams�pr Caunty , canes up with a �i.table dieposal plae for the County as Mell as tt►e ' . t . . � 9 � ' . ' ' City of St. Paul, and also on when the Minnesota Pollution Control ' Agency �+ill issue an ultimatum to cease operations at Pig's Eye and Fish Hatchery. In any case because the present sites are within the , flood plain, there does not appear to be any likelihood that a permanent bona fide landfill permit could be issued for the sites. , Up to this point the City of St. Paul has aperated tfie landfills on � property that is leased from the MilWaukee Railroad and from the St. Paul Port Authority. Thus there has been no expenditures made for land pur- � ' chase. Now we are faced with the reality that �ithin three to five years or possibly sooner,� the City Will have to move the present disposal site ' to another location �hich is satisfactory to the 1�'�CA and the Metropolitan ' Council. It is true that Ramsey County has a responsibility by law �to � handle the Whole matter of solid waste �+ithin the County as �ell as the , City of St. Paul, but �ith St. Paul Praper being such a large part of the County itself, there does not appear to be nnxch question tha� the � City of St. Paul will have to play an ing�ortant part in the ginancing �, i of new disposal sites. Therefore �e feel that it�s absolutely essential .. ' that the Cit start nrn+ settin aside a certain amount of money each Y UY g � year �hich will go towarda the investi�ation of potential landfill sites, � the possible acquisition of aptions of land, or in some cases even, maybe , the outright purchase of land. It is therefore reconnnended that $25,0009 ' a token amount, be placed into the ].970 Landfill Disposal �,idget for . this purpose, with ae� additional $2�,000 to be placed in the 1971 an d � 1972 budgets to build up a small reserve for po8sible future land pur- chases Por disposal sitea. ' Included herefcr ia�the question of tranefer stat3ons. Assuming a ' , , - 10 - . � , disposal site is set,up out in the County coosiderable distance from , the City, transfer stations �ill probably have to be considered. Whether or not the City �ould finance them, or if they Mould be financed and 1 run privately, is atill open to question. . � , ANALYSIS OF FEES & INCOME The present fee structure at the landfills Was authorized by Ordinance ' , 13356 approved by the Council September 30, 1966 and the Ordinance be- . /� came effective January 1, 1967. The Ordinance atated, and I quote, • , �'The fees and charges for disposal privile�ea at said landfill sitea - ' are hereby established. Said fees and charges to be fixed by resolu- � tion of the Council upon recommendation of the Department of Public , � Works." The reaolution actually fixing the amount of fees pursuant to Ordinance No. 13356 �as Council File No. 230126, approved by the ' Council February 9, 1967 with the fees to become efPective March 13, , 1967 for Fish I�Iatchery and Pig�a Eye Landfille. The Peee are as �! follo�s: , ar f c aci of enterin vehicles lar er $0.25 per cubic y d o ap tq g 6 ' than pickup trucke $1.00 per entering pickup truck or trailer oP a type attached ' to automobilea , $0.50 p er entering automobile Yt should be noted that the fee structure did not take into account ' Whether or not the box or container �as cong�acted or unc anpactedo ' Moat of the rubbish haulere and thoae in the businesa use packer trucks so i t Would app ear that they get a break oa thia Pee atructurea I t , , ' � - 11 - ' , ' should also be noted that there ia no differentiation made as to �hether or not the truck box is full or not. The fee paid is based ' on the overall volume capacity of the box. ' In 1968 the total income of receip ta for the entire landfill opara- ; tion at both Pig's Eye and Fish Hatchery �as $285,241.25; a total of , 1,140,965 cubic yards received for Which fees were paid. � Moreover, in 1969 the tot,a7. income of receipts for the entire landfill operation , at both sites was $327,121.32, 8 total of 1,3�,485 cubic yards of � ' refuse received and paid for. ' The increase in receipts in 1969 over 1968 represents a total ' increase in income of $li1.,880.06 or, in the terms of refuse itself, 167,520 cubic qarda, or on a percentage basis, 11�.6� increase in 1969 ' � over 1968. ' NoH it�s clear that if the fee atructure is left at the present $0.25 per cubic yard that the total volume or income should increase ' � by at least another 10�d over 19690 Moreaver, there ia � strong possi- i bility that a "burning ban" may be invoked thraughout the metropolitan , , area and the effect on this wauld be a definite increase in the volume ' of �olid Waste received at the Pigos Eye and Fish Hatchery disposal • siteso On the other hand, it can be assumed that a fee increase9 or , at least a substantial one, �ill tenci to diminish the overall volixme delivered to the landfills to some extent at least aince there would , be sam►e reluctance to pay the higher fees. Pig�s Eye and Fish Hatchery ' are the only landfil� sites in thia imnedia�,e area, so the refuse woulcl ultimately have to be disposed someplace. So�eiver, the bacic�rard burn- , ers may atte�npt to burn� a�ore, haaever t2�i8 may not have too a�ch effec� ' . , - 12 - � ' , on the overall volume of refuse delivered to the landfills. It is aur , conclusion that at least for the first qear or so that the fee increase may tend to cancel out somewhat the anticipated increase ie volume in , 1970 and, therefore to be on the conservative side, we have computed i the receipta or total income at the t�o landfills for 1970 on the , volume of refuse received in 1969, 1.,300,000 cubic yards. , Based on 1969 figures and previous years it can be expected that about 300,000 cubic yards would come into Pig's Eye and Fish Hatchery ; ' the first three months in the year, January through March, and that the nine months remaining in the year, a total of 1,000,000 cubic yards ' could be expected. Therefore if 300,�0 cubic yards ia computed at ' $0.25, the present rate for the first three months in the year, $75,000 ' is realized. Moreov er, if the eatimated operating expensea for 1970 ' or $525,� is used and $?5,000 ia subtracted from it, that leaves �450,000 to be made up in the last nine montha oP 1970. If this ie , , � computed for 1,000,00� cubic yarda, it amounte to a fee oP $0.45 per i ' cubic yard. � fore, it is praposed that a Co�uncil Resolution be drafted up ' changing the fee structure at Fish Hatchery and Pig'a Eye, effective April lst or as soon as possible thereat'ter, With the following fees ' e�pecified: ' $0.u5 per cubic yard of capacit�v oF entering vehicles larger than pickup trucks , $1.80 per entering pickup truck or trailer •:of a type attached , to sutomobi�.lea $0.90 per enterin� automobile ' ' • ' - 13 - � . ' ---- , The figure of $0.90 per entering automobile may appear to be high� hoWever it isn�t unduly so and, as much as possible, it appears desir- table to discourage the private automobiles from coming down to the ' landfill sites. (The new Washington County Landfill absolutely pro- � hibits private vehicles from entering the landfill site). The private ' automobile is figured to be 2 cubic yards which accouets for the $0.90� whereas a trailer is eomputed to be 4 cubic yards, and a 1/2 ton pickup Struck is also camputed to t>e 1� cubic yards. It does not appear desir- �� , able to apply a different or lower rate t,o the private vrehicles and trailers than the larger packer trucks and other trucks, therefore it ' is recommended that the $0.90 per automobile be used. 1 � SALYAaE OR SCAVEIVGING OPII�ATIONS ' In the recent State of Min�esota Solid Waste Disposal regulations pre- pared by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, uader paragraph SW-6, , \ Sanitary Landfill, sub-paragraph (1) all salvaging is prohibited on ' � landfill sites. Moreover, in the sanitara► landfill handbook prepared . ' by the U. S. Department of Health, Education & Welfare Public Health , Service, 1968 edition, on page 1!� it says and I quote, "The American Society of Civil Engineers has stated that generally the most ob�ec- ' tionable disposal sites from the standpoint of appeara�nce are t,hose where the salvage activity ia the greatest. To insure clean and ' orderly sites and to prevent landfills from looking like open dwnps, � �alvage operationa should be prohibi�ed from a11 sanit,ary landfill sitea." ' At the present time Me have a Pew individuals that acavenge a� tdie Pig�s Eye Disposal site and also two or threa individuale that ' , . - 14 - � � ' ' scavenge at Fish Hatchery. Not only is it ob�ectionable that these individuals pick through the garbage and other refuse and create the ' "little piles" over the site, there is also the inherent danger that ' they are working in and around the dozers and other heavy equipment i and there is potential danger in allowing them to work on the sites. ' There are no special permits issued for the scavengepso It is recommended that along with the ad�us�inent of fees at the landfills, ' the practice of allowing scavengers on the disposal sites be pro- �� ' hibited. ' HOURS OF OPFRATION At the present time both Pig�s Eye and Fish Hatchery landfills ' � are apen for business from 6:00 A. M. to 8:00 P. M. Monday through ' Saturday. Needless to say ours is the only landfill of arry size in the metrapolitaa area that is apen these kind of hours. ' Control is very difficult when you are �read over a fourteen � : (14) hour day, six days a Week With the closing hour as late as 8:00 , , P. M. The Supervisor of Refuse C ollection Works a standard workday ' and 40 hours a week, so there is much of the time that tt►e landfill is open that there is no direct supervision and, of course, this in- � ' cludes Saturdayo Moreover, gor many montha out of a year it is "completely dark1° long before the quitting time. The dozer operatora ' work pretty much a standard 8-hour daq and for the last two to two ' and one-half hours each day there ia no dozer on the site9 and part of this is because it is dark and the ef�iciency of the dozer With ' the drapoff considerably in spre�ding the refuse and covering it a�d compactiag it. It should be pointed out at the pre�nt tin�e that ' � ' - 1 - 5 ' ' for the last tz+o hours from about 6:00 P. M. to 8:00 P. M. the refuse ' that comes in is left pretty much in piles unattended until the dozer aperators report back the following morning. ' For some time there has been considerable concern about the work- / ing hours at the landfill since we have discussed this with the narious , other landfill eyperators in the metropolitan-wide area and it has cer- , tainly been apparent that we are the only landfill that is spread over such a long workday. Therefore, during the week of November 21�, 1969 � ' through November 29, 1969, a survey was taken each day at both Pig�s Eye and Fish Hatchery of the number of individual trucks and cars ' (or individual transactions) coming into the landfills in three res- ' p ective hourly periods: 6:00 A. M. to 7s00 A. M., 6s00 P. M. to ?:00 f P. M., and 7:00 P. M. to 8:00 P. M. Refer to a tabulation of these ' resulta in the back of this report. In analyzing the reaults of the survey We have come to the con- , clusion that the hours should be ad�usted as folloNS: For the period 1 of each calendar year from April lst through Septe�nber 30th, that the , � landfills be apen from 7:00 A. M. to ?s00 P• M•, a i2-hour workday. ' For the periods of the calendar year Prom January lst through March 31 st, and October lst through December 31 st, that the hours of , aperation at the landfills be from ?s00 Ae M . unti3. 6:00 P. M. ' closing< The above hours woul.d be six ciays a week, Monday thpough Satur- , day. There appears to be considerable �uatification to close the landfills earlier on Saturclay�a It Would seem► that a 5s00 P• M• .' cloaing would be in order since from our records the r�wnber of cars ' and trucks coming ie� �fter 5s00 P. I�. on Saturday ia quite Yaw, ' . - 16 - • ' � especially during the winter months. However, for the sake of uni- , formity, it is recommended that We not cut back the hours any further on Saturdays and that the above hours of aperation be uniform, eix , days a Week Monday through Saturda�y. i ' CONSOLIDATION OF LANDFILIS � It is apparent in examining the Praposed Landfill Budget for 1970 and also in reviewing all of the previous information on landfill % , personnel, equipment, etc., that we are paying a considerable premi.um in operating t,�o completely independent sites a mile or so apart at ' Fish Hatchery and Pigoa Eye. Considerable savinga could be realizecl ' if the whole aperation was consolidated at on].y one site. Moreover, � it w auld appear that a much more efficient operation could be run if ' we weren't spread so thin in aperating two landfill sites. Refer to the drawing of the Fish Natchery Landfill. At Fish � . Hatchery there is a maximum of 24.6 acres of usable land left. Most , � of this noW has a 6� lift over it, ard possibly a second 6� lift could . � o on. If for instance we consolidated the entire eration of Fish g > > aP ' Hatchery and Pig�s Eye on the Fish Hatchery site, it Would appear that in approximatelq a six month�s period the Fish Hatchery L andfill site ' would be completed to the extent poesible. Then the entire operation ' cauld be moved back to Pig's Eye to aperate at that location for the duration. • ' During the 1969 flood, the entire landfill operation r�as con- solidateci at Fish Hatcher�r for approximately one month and it worked , out verq e�icely With no particular trafPic prolblems or other serious problems. So We general],y feel that it would be entirel' pract.fca]. ' . , � - 17 - ' , to move in and complete Fish Hatchery, and then move the entire operation back to Pig's Eye. , Traditionally the City has operated the two landfill sites �ith ' moat of the private cars going into Fish Hatchery separated from ! where the large compactors go at Pig�a Eye. There is no reason, from , an aperational standpoint, that all of this refuae couldn't be dis- posed of at one site at the same time. Possibly two cells could be , used with the private cars dumping at one location and the big trucks �� ' and "packers" dumping at a second one. In any case all equipment and personnel could be consolidated at one site. ' At this point we are not making a definite recommendation that ' this be done, haWever We Peel that it does have merit and it� s some- � thing that shauld be considered for efficient and economical landfill ' operation. ' , REMAINII� LIFE OF LANDFII�LS 1 Refer to drawings of Pig�s Eqe and Fish Hatchery Landfills. It , ' should be noted that at the Pi�os F�e Landfill the total area of the , site under lease with the Port Authority and Mil�aukee Railroad is 327 acres. Of that 32? acres, 20.4 ia unusable because it is quite ' heavily wooded and down in the Water. That leaves a total usable area at Pig's Eye of 306.5 acres. Of the total usable area of 306.5 , . acres, 66.t� acres hae the second lift on it and is up to the Pie�al ' grade. 11�5.1 acres has the €irst ba 1.ift on it and will take a aecond 60 lift. Finally 95 acrea remaine to_�u�t�_in the first lift and the ' �inal second lift over ito At the Fish Hatchery landfill the total acreage ia 37•9 acreso ' " � � - 18 - . - ;t' . , 13•3 acres has the second lift on it and is up to the final grade. 19 acres has a first lift over it and �ill take a second 6� lift, , and finally, 5.6 acres is in the process of having the first lift ' put in with the second lift to go on. :% If we compute the remaining acreage at both Pig�s Eye and Fish , Hatchery on the first 6� lift, it totals 100.6 acres, and if we com- pute this into volume or cubic yardage, it comes out to 1,012,000 ' cubic yards. Likewise if we take the remaining acreage at both sites � i ' that Will take a second lift, it totals 264.7 acres. If this is com- � puted out in volume measurement, it totals 2,570,000 cubic yards. I ' Now if we use the volume received for 1969 of 1,3�,000 yards, it would appear that it �ill take approximatelq three quarters of one ' ' year to finish out the first lift and an additional t�o to three ' years to put the aecond lift over both of the sites. It �ould appear that from aur calculations the maximum life oF the two landfills would ' , be four years. It muat, of course, be rea].ized that the volumea of refuse re- , ' ceived are based on looae volume figures. The compactor trucks, of ' course, pack the refuse in tightly,-ho�ever many of the open or uncom- pacting type boxes leave it loose. Morernrer, many of the larger trucks ' may come in with partial loads, so without actua]1y �eighing all of � the incoming refuse, it�a impoasible to determine exactly Mhat the ' cubic yardage that is dispoaed on the eite would amount to. It is ' aur coaclusion that the figure oP 1,3���0 yarde reoeived in 1969 is abaut as cloae as it can be conq�uted. , ' , . . , . - 19 - � � , ' MECHANICAI, EQtTIPMENT , N0. YEAR DFSCRIPTION 428 1963 I�16 A. C. Dozer , i 429 1967 Model H-90C Hough Payloader , u30 1964 HD16 A. C. Dozer l�33 1969 HD16P A. C. Dozer ' '. S-3 1951 L orain Shovel , 11 1963 Ford Pickup aith Hydraulic Lift aate - , 12 1963 Ford Pickup With Hqdraulio Lift t}ate , i b49 1956 aalion Motor Patrol 103 195? Diamond "T" Flusher Truck , 105 1958 Inter�ati.onal Fluaher Truck Nith 2,000 aa1. Tank ' � , ' , ' ' , ' , ' . , . - 20' - ' LANDFII,L FIII,D PERSONN� IN 1969 � SUPERVISOR ' Crea, Jose�ph 7/16/63 LANDFILL CARETAKERS , Tester, Vern R. 12/30/67 Hagen, Henry (Deceased 1/31/70) 12/30/67 ' Tester, Harry C. 8/26/68 Ackerknecht, Charles 8/26/68 Lange, Walter B. 9/23/68 ' Wellington, �2uinn 11/15/69 Sandquist, Robert (}. 9/30/69 (P) Cardinal, Robert V. (Resigned 1/5/?0) �" Tackaberry, Donald (Resigned 1/5/?0) ' Scott, C31en R. 2/2/?0 SU1�9�IER HELP , Conney, Frank P. (Field Clerk I) Hughes, John M. (Landfill Caretaker) , Tomhave, Robert W. (Landfill Caretaker) ' FIELD CLERK I ' Bedbury, N�yrl H. 11/3/b7 Lenahan, Ben J. 9/23/68 (P) � MEO (TRACTOR OPERATOR II) � Taube, Albert 1/16/33 � Chevrette, Armand 6/2/33 � Sporney� John 4/6/53 ' POWF�i SHO�TEL OPERATO�t , I.indatrmn, I Edward A. 5/18/62 , ' ' , . � . , - 21 - • . � ! ' . . � ; , . � � N CO e'�1 1l� N �''� � �` � N � N � � � e-1 t"� � O t�'n tn � , � ��.{ � w ^ w � �, w w w � � � � 6"� �T a O N � N -N N N �.{ � ri r�1 r�l r1 �"! �i e-1 e�'1 e-I � ' H � r � � � ti � � � � � � � � � � O� � ly N -� O� CO �O iV O� O� r'�'1 N � e--1 i � � w w w w w w w '� " � � � Gp Z Lf� ..3 .� � .� .� ll� .,? .? U1 -� � ' ~ � , � H I�� , � � � � . � V � � �+ � � N � � � � � � -S ' , � H � !` � � � , � x � H LT+ ' Q � N � M � � l.�f� N N C�O � C�D � � N N N ..? 00 O� r1 N ' O� �- CO 11� ll� � w w � a r+ � •-� �-+ ° � ' w N � � H � a o p l�- N 00 �O 00 , - Q � � Ll� �O -� N [�. �O GO N l� �"'� GO � � � � N N r-1 r1 r�l r1 rl rl �` p E ri � i-i r-1 W � , � V � t�� /A H O� l� �"1 tD N O� 11� 11� l.l� rl W +� , � a0 O � N � O � m W a �. � �°o � ti ti � o u� ti cv � � � � ^ � w � � w w '� N �O G� �O M O ; O� � O � � � G�; � crl � � p, � � � C�O � � r� �'1 � e"1 t'�'1 r-'1 r-�1 � ' H p. � � �p,H 4 �� t� ri C � O rl O t/� � � � � � � O 'O ? � �C O � � �+ � � 03 .D A � '� C� (I� fJ� , x � � � � °� �o a. � � o � � � � �' � ti � � o � m � a°' � � cn o z° a � � ti w � ti ' ' - 22 - ' . ' O N L�f� N ti O N N N ti N S l�l� S �p• s • • • • e • • • e • • � V �O .� � l�- O� U � 8 � 1n P" -7 V� � C 1J� rl M O -� � �! -� e'Nn tA O C�D 'C1 U M w w w a w w w w w w w w w , g H N r'�! f'�! �O .� � -? .� .� � e'�1 `'rl � v� � tt} � ,� � rd N � ti , ri � � r9 rd N z H ' �+ � , m � O N l�f� H N ti L�f� N L�l� � O O . . . . • . . . �p. . . • � . , � V l.n � � � ��p t� � 111 M � N ti M x � � M 1!w M r� �O O� O� �. r-1 N � 11� O� H ^� N N -? .� V1 �D �O �O �O �O �D a'�1 � ' Z � H � � . � � � ' � v� H aD aD �O .� .� O� ao ao O r1 V� ao O� O� cn �` ti � � c°�v � o�O. o`�. ti � � � � bi � � w w w w w w w w w w w w w Cy S+ O. O rl r�- O r�- tr� M N N ao r-i co '� I � e-1 M -7 .? � -? -7 M N � H 4 0 o v� v� o 0 0 � o o �n o $ g , W � L�1 N l� 11� V1 L!� l� V� 111 [� 1!� • . • . . . . . . . . . . N N ll� [�- �O QO N O G� 1l� GO O V� l` N �-�I O� � rl � M � CO GO 11� t` v f� N N N l� O� �D N N O l� �O O� C� w w w w w w w w w w w w w + , A ~ �-�i �-�i r�-1 r�-I r�-i r-�I r1 r�-I � e� �-�-I e-�� , � � � � � ' � � ' � H Gy a a4 O�V GO CO .p� M .� M tpf�� N M O� �"� N � � O N � M N o�D 11� O ri O ti � � w w w e� w w w w w w w w w ,�" � �O � t��- t�- C�O l� d� l� � GO � l�- � O � ' � � V1 1f� 1J1 Lf� O O 11! 11� O p p O O O N l�- N l� 11� O l�- N 11� O O 11� O (_] • • • e • s • • • • • • • �.f".�, C M O O� ON .�? l.n O� t'^ O� �ep-� L[� M �O ' � ~ � p�. C'�0 O � � 11� r�-I � M M 11 N w w w w w w w w w w w w w H c�Q N O .�' O O O� �. O� aO O l` -� �O a ++ N N N M c'�l N N N N M N N N Hd H EA � , E� � F+ N Rr i� �' at +� � � p .o ' � �y � v � � A � � o � � � G .G Tr ir p► R � +� U y-.°„ ti w � • �' � ►� � a � o z � � , ' ' �3 ' ' ' �os � � �' a � � � � � � �� s�on�y � � � � � � y �i •��e,�y e s e��l e 1 r�i r1 . , � 1 eo�ntl t s o sl A -? , p o �- rl . v� Z� � � � � M � � o. exanay� r°+ � �- "'I � m �o � . � ' �N •t��s � � � �I � � � 8�nv � � � �I � � � 1 � t�os � ° ° °'� � � � 1 N . H $ exon,zy � r°+ r°+ °DI � � , a � �� Q � 't��a.zy � i � � r+� � � � so�ny � � � � � � � ' � � �8�}oy a v� ti o. a ,. N � M �"� � sx��y N v� t� LnI � � ' . � �N •�B.�y s A s e I e N , , ' � so�nv � e � � � �+ ' � I ' �py v� ti •o u,J r� r, N r-1 ( 11� N ' •� B?(�t'LIy N e-��I �O V�I tn O� e-i ?.. -� �+ N •�g�Ji 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 ' � SO'�17� r-I N 1 I I M Lf� ' � w a w eut�y ti �o c� ao � p,1 �O 1i� �D � H � A 1 ' , - 2!� - ' r t�°s °° � � "' a � I � � e� x��y � N � N I �O � � N j�g,Iy A S� 1d� s I � � � � S�ri� � i� e-��i �I tt� a�D � , �py � a O � N .� N �'11 I � M ' �j�iLd,L ' �-E r-1 � � N O O, I ,"� � � �N •�8.�s � � � �,I a M . � � BO�nd "` � � '�` � � I N ' � ts�oy �o � � o. � � � H I � 1 � � � Sx�,�z � N � �,) � � � �o ,. E . �� 't�s�Z � �--� � �--� c� o. � � � , � so�ny � � � v�I •o � � � � ' Z�os �` � � �O( � � N ° - •� 8)j�II.i f, e'^ OD ch M I � � , � 1 � •�E.Ty r-1 N N 1 I 1J1 � � � so�ny s'1 O. 11� MI N � � t�os � � °� � � � I N ' � 63jOri.11, c�- �O 11� -�I N O . � � z ..� � � ''T�B.IZ 1 N c'�l 1 I Lf� N , � SO'�il� -� O� rl -� o� l� I � ri ' � w a a aw�s \o tn •o � Q A � . - 25 - ' Fill M aterial furnished to Pigs � and Fish Hatchery Landfills - 1969 N (� .839 Pigs Eye Fish Total Cubic Hatch. Cubic W.J. Ebertz Company: Yards Cu.Yds. Yards Amount ' � January 19b9 3,300 624 3,924 3,292.2l� � February �� 3,9� 7200 372 436 4�272 84.21 6,876.45 � I ' � ; ; e ,�2 i ' Marvia� Rehbein: . f March 19b9 2 54t� 288 2 8 2 2 605.1t1� � , � , 3 , . i April �� 1�898.88 2�106 Lt�170 3s836.1�0 �. ' i � M�y � " 0 0 • � � � ,Tune " 5s519 804 6�323 5�817.16 ; . ' � July, " 12,8l�0 3,045 15,885 14,611.t.20 � � August " 5,973 1,623 7,596 6,988.32 , '�, � September � 9,933 1�30� 11�2J�1 10�3W..72 '� ' October 8�289 1,005 9,294 8,550.48 � November 6�867 1�152 8�019 7,377.1�8 i , Decembe� 10s392 3,7L�1a 11�,136 1 00 .12 l � , Total Ebertz 200 6 8 1 6 8 6 7, 43 , 96 , 7 .45 ' � Total Rehbein 64,255.88 15,�75 79,330.88 73 1 .32 Total Ebertz and , Rehbein Contracts 71,1�55.88 �5,5�. 879526.88 79,982.77 ' � � � � � ,: ' , ' ' � - 26 - , . � • E � � € ' , . , ' � 4,ANDFIII FEES ; ' � i � I , t NoEx P G� . i ; ! Balante Sheet 1 ' , Statement of Profit or Loss 2 • Detaii of Oparati�g Oisbu�sansnts 3 , � � Reconclitatia� ot 1�ventory 4 � � , ' i ; ' , � } � � � � , � � ' ' , ' � . ''II . � , � ' , ' , - 27 - . 3 � , � , � � � � �, IBALANCE SHEE7 LANDFILL � December 31. 1969 • -- / ASSETS ' Cash � 20�903•76 � Account Receivable 21,321 •33 ' Cover material stock ptle Inventory 1,260.00 . ; Pigs Eye Office Building � 5,594•�+ ; less �eserve for Depreciatio� 732.68 4,861 .76 � � ' Office Equipment �.919•31 � { Less reserve for Dep�eciation 1 4t4•94 ],504.43 � Mechanical Equipme�t 2�=�32 ; Less reserve for Deprectation �,6.931 .04 161 �955•32 _ ; � Tools and Minor Equipment 5.180.� j Less reserve for Oeprecistio� , 7_6.00 4,394.65 ! Total Assets 222 2��•2 � � � -- --- _ 1 � ' IIABILITIES AND SURPLUS � � ' Accounts •Payable $ 417•99 ; �� Surplus S21$,583.36 ; Ptus: Net Gain 3.199.90 22i.783.26 � ' Total lisbiltties and Surplus 22�;�•� , I � � , i ' . ; I ' � i i � , , � ! � ' , ;, � . - 28 - e � , ; � � � I STATEMENT OF PROFIT OR LOSS ' LANDFI LI. December 31, 1969 ` Services Re�dered 5343.082•60 / Mtsc. Receipts �6 • 2 � • 3 3,2 .32 ' less: 1968.Wo�k in progress 16 12 .00 TOTAL INCOME � �2�• 2 � ; , Operating Expenses ` • � � � � Sataries s134,7b6.18 � Telepho�e 808.7z Pri�ting and Binding 7�•5� � Gas and Electrlcity . 558•39 �. ' Water and 5�wer Re�tal 62•27 � � Motor Vehicle Repair 31,331 •91 � Machinery Repat� 70•95 � i � Misc. Repair 101 •96 � i Insurance Z01 •3�► ; Janitor Suppiies 53.80 I ' Heati�g Fuels 741 •95 'l Misc. Supplies �+2•�+7 i Small Tools 25.28 � Misc. Parts 72•�5 E Office Supplies ___ 1,066.21 i 1 Bottle Gas 32?•4�+ ' ' Misc. Materials 46.55 ' Landfill Cover Material 84.272.77 ' Deprectation Expense 45,299.00 ; Automobile Ailowance 1.233. 15 � � Sanitary Services 816.41 � � Household Supplies 6•96 ` Misc. Dues� meeti�g etc. 38•00 Motor Vehicle Rental 475.08 ", � Misc. Contr. Service 6.084.90 � Building Repair �2•18 Petty Cash Advance 40.00 ; Duplicating sarvices 60.00 • ' � Loss on sale of equipment 1=70 00 i .. 1 Total Operating Expense 5323,921•42 • j ' Net Ga i n S .;�.1� ; . � � � � � � ' ' i � i ;r � - 29 - . � • 3 , . � ' Y � DETAIL OF OPERATING DISBURSEMENTS � LANDFILLS December 31 , 1969 , 1969 less: 1968 Plus: 1969 / Disburse- ,�1e;�o�nrRs Accounts Net 1969 EXPENSES ments PaYS�Ie Psyabie Exae�ses ' � Total Salarles 134,766.18 s 134,766.18 � � 237 Toots 25.28 25.28 , 265 Meetings 20.00 20.00 � 219 Misc. Trensportation 2.00 2•� 3 203 Postage 136.00 136.00 � � 201 Auto Allowance 1 ,233. 15 1.233• 15 ' � 202 Telephone, Telegraph, ett. 878.42 _____69_.70 8�•72 - 3 235 Repairs 324.62 324.62 � � 206 Printing 8 Binding 70.50 7�•50 � 22o Gas, Electricity, Steam 640.79 130,33 47.93 558.39 � 221 Water 8 Sewer Rental 62.27 62.27 � 224 Bidg, s Structure Repsir 113.96 � �3•96 ; t t 225 Mtr. Vehicle Repair 34,576.33 3.2�+�+•42 31,331 .91 1 226 Machinery b Equip. Repsi� 70.95 7�•95 ; 239 Misc. Mtce. b Repair 101 .9b 101 •96 i � 245 Mtr. Vehicle - Rental 519•� �+•�� 4�5•08 261 Insurance & Bonds 201 .34 201 •34 269 Misc. Contractual Services 6�084.90 6,084.90 � 222 Sanitary Services 782.9t 33•5� 816.41 207 Advertisi�g 43. 15 43•�5 ?.75 Duplicating Services 60.00 60.00 25) Dues, meetings 16.00 16.00,. • t 301 Janitor � Sanitary Supplies 53.80 53.80 ' 305 Heeting Fuels - coal � oll 788.51 3�3.54 276.g$• 741 .95 � ' 319 Misc. Mtce. Supplies 32.49 . 9•98 42.47 : � 329 Misc. Machine 8 Equlp. Parts �72.05 72•�5 i 340 Office Supplies 1,066.21 . 1 ,066.21 � 357 eottte Gas 307.56 34•72 49.60 322.44 � ' 369 Misc. Materials (N.O.C.) 46.55 . �.55 372 Sand b Salt 1 ,272.45 1 ,272.45 374 Landfill Cover Matertel 70�229.41 �70.229.41 343 Household Suppties 6.96 6•96 ' 304 Repair Flaterials 43.60 43.60 324 smatt •�Tools 325.36 325•36 804 Construction Equipment 31,385•11 31 ,385.71 " r 438 Petty Cash Advance ,�Q 00 40.00 ' Yotal Oparattons Expense ;2$6,400.4S 55,298.31 5417•99 5281 20.1� ' ' ' . , . _ �p . . • � � � � � f�D W A ' O fe dC � O � � � uci S3 � � � p� —i O �1 !�* 0► oo � m c � W b N d N N � 7 9 � � � � � � � , / 3 A 7 �A rC � . , s � i � � ; ' • � � � � � � ' � , � m � r �'+ : m � Z � �n z v c-� n. ° c��pi r �v' n -D�i . , � vo a`"o `� o�'o ao w � z io tC v► �' � � • � � I � � r '� — ' � �o �o o �o o � �o z ; w w o w zrn �► � V V O V G1 Z ' � , O � vs v► sn m , :" r" � c O '� � � �O N O�Q� 'D '.�1 � � V N 3 � i � � v�,� °o� am ; � . j ' � n' pw --� m m i OD O \O w=�D V'1 C = � O�D � VV'i �GD t!�V 'v 2 C� Q ��/1 V1 � RI C� N O N N v�D•O -�1 f 1 3 ' 0 1.ft V'1 PJ N O2 O v �� + � 0 o� v�v �o r � o o -�v, .� r*� w . . . � , v°'i ' v, �°o� o � � i �� �u. y � ' y'' N °=wv —i � C� o �G C�. . .. o w °D v, v�N � � . ' ' o 0 o v� NO r � o v �v�� ' ! � � - 31 - �.