HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977
"yowl
r '
REPORT OF
THE CITY OF DENTON SANITARY LANDFILL SITE SELECTION COMMITTEE
TO
Till; CITY COUNCIL
p)3NTON, TEXAS
i
i
CONTENTS
i f 1
f Narrative 1
1
Recommendations 5 j
Appendix 8
.j
i
1
II
l
I
i 1
c.
y
I
I
-1-
The City of Denton Sanitary Landfill Site Selection Com-
mittee has met approximately twenty-five times since its
appointment in the fall of 1977. Its initial meetings were spent 1
in an effort to learn as much as possible about solid waste
disposal.
The next few meetings were spent in establishing the com-
•.mittee's criteria for use in evaluating possible sites for n
'landfill. Those established, in order of priority, were:
1. Operational and long term cost
2. Acceptable to all people
r 3. Geographical location in regard to other cities
4. Voluntary seller as opposed to condemnation
5. Cost of land
6. Accessibility and adaptability after use as landfill
7. Not prime agricultural land
r 8. Extension of present site
9. Anticipated impact on surrounding land values
10. Legal actions against the decision not likely
11. Availability of adjacent land for future systems of
I
disposal
Criterion 11 did not mean the least possible cost, but a cost
that is feasible. Criterion #2 was stated as an ideal and at
the next meeting was interpreted as meaning unacceptable to the j
smallest number of people possible.
Criterion #2 played a dominant part in our final decisions.
We realized-early that tho placement of a sanitary landfill
s
i
itw ....................v..n.....+Yaua~..I+.urv.muuN.W'..wYaMNW.iWJ4•lnwilMY+iYMWMiyMY.l4. w41MJNWWMI'MMK~I.NWW MWM.Y
l
Ma
-2-
deeply affects people and that it was the reaction to the recom-
mendation of a previous committee on the part of many people
which brought our committee into being. In our effort to involve
those wiw night be or feel they would be affected adversely by
various locations, we have sought to have various sites being
:onsidereu publicized as widely as possible. Consequently, we
have welcomed and listened to many individuals and delegations
r from areas surrounding sites under consideration. Many sites
andor consideration have been dropped because of the feelings
wuirh hive been ;shared with us, Those sites inclucled in our
rroommendations have resultea in the smallest number of objec-
ri.ons. Thus we have done our beet, we believe, to do our work
as hw,an beings conscious of our follow human beings.
During its meetings the committee has considered forty-
.
four sites which have been suggested by former studies, by the
general public, and by the committee members themselves.
The committee has labored with two disadvantages. One of
these has been a lack of certainty in regard to the geological
i forma-?ii.ons of many sites under consideration. Assistance has
been provided by geological maps; however, these are on a scale
such that there is no certainty regarding the geological make- _
up of areas as small as those under consideration. Test borings
and engineering studies have been made on some of the sites con-
sidered, but very few.
The second disadvantage was that there is no way to deter-
mine the ultimate cost of a particular s'i.te, as pointed up by
criterion #11 without the making of a thorough coat study. We i
f .
P:V~iW
l
were, thus, in no
position to secure this
we have been information, although
aware of the fact that the f
a particular city coat of operation for
increases
that city, With the distance of a site from
,
Through the course
Of our meet;nys, the committee members
have grown in
our understanding of each
feeling that the
problem of other, It is our strong we can solid waste disposal is
solve as individual not one which
that a Satisfactory re municipalities Of the county, but
solution may be
together. arrived at only as We work
The committed initial)
tatives from Y had nineteen member
m Penton, Pilot Pont represer
' , Sanger, Aubrey,
and Frisco, A representative Y, Little Elm, Krum,
i
sites from the Colony was with ub w
were under consideration in one when
age attendance at particular area. "'he aver
y has been twelve.
The assistance of city
staff members has
to us• Mr, Chris Hartung met with us as we
attempting to become educated in were organizing
regard to g and
Mr, Jack sanitary IandfiZls.
~ men and Mr. Gre
all our 9 Anderson have been with ua for
meetings, They have responded to al
I alai all of o
to our nae competent) requests
inforformations the competently and willingly. coheir exporienae, the
they have secured for
extremely helpful, Ye us, and their advice have
t at no time have the been
fluenae our decisions. Y attempted to in. .
We greatly appreciate this,
a At its last meeting, the committee passed a
vats of five resolution by
to three to go on record as
situ #l, was an believing the original
equal or suparior site
by the committ9e because of its to any other, site
examined
geologY, economics, and adapta.
._i
le
r•VYWwy~yyWYW.IMM...YV10N(Mp1YNMA ~J
~i
^4-
bility', The site has good accessibility with the completion of
Loop 288,"
It was stated that the purpose of this resolution was not
to undercut the recommendations of the committee, but to evidence
appreciation of the work done by the previous committee in its
search for a site. However, that committee did not use our cri-
terion 12, which was the primary basis for our not recommending
-Site #1.
Two of those present, Bob Laforte and Floyd Mcr)aniel, asked
that the record show their feelings that "the statement was gram-
matically and geologically inaccurate and that it left out the
most important point - that a significant number of people of
Denton were opposed to Site #l." Two members who were not present
at the meeting, Harry Downs and David Compton, have asked that
this report show their concurrence with this position'.
i
J
ti
-5-
RECOMMENDATIONS
1, THAT EVERY POSSIBLE EFFORT BE MADE TO MOVE TOWARD A RECYCLING
PROCESS,
We are aware of the fact that, no matter what system of re-
cycling might be used, there will be a continuing need for a
sanitary landfill for the disposal of certain solid wastes which
cannot be recycled and the residue of any recycling process.
Although we have been told that a lack of sufficient bulk
of solid waste makes such an overall system unfeasible at the
present moment, we believe most strongly that city officials
should plan for and work toward such a system for use at the
earliest time it can be initiated. We see the problem we now
face as a growing one which cannot be resolved by our present
f system of waste disposal. With the expected growth in Denton
County and the metroplex area in the next few years, recycling
j should become feasible in a very short period of time. In the
appendix to this report are several papers which are extremely
i good in making these points and in describing alternatives, We
encourage the members of the Council to read thean and similar
{ reports.
In the meantime, modest programs of recycling should be
instituted immediately. The effort toward paper recycling ear-
liar this year is an illustration of one element in such a pro-
gram. An essential part of such an effort must be a continuing
educational program for our citizens in regard to conserving and
recycling our material resources. Such should be initiated and
-6-
carried on by the city. For example, recycling literature could
be included with utility bills each month.
2. THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF DENTON GIVE VERY CAREFUL CONSIDERATION
TO THE FOLLOWING SITES FOR A LANDFILL, WHICH WE HEREBY RECOMMEND, J
These sites are not listed in p.:iority order. The numbers
have only to do with the order in which the committee gave con-
sideration to them, Comments follow the description of each site
as needed.
SITE 36 - Seven miles southwest of the center of Denton. Pro-
perty is bordered by T.N. Skiles Road, Tom Cole Road,
and C, Wolfe Road. Tests show that the geological
formation is favorable for a landfill.
SITE 43 - Six miles southwest of the center of Demon. About
E
one mile west of I35W just west of Paine Road and
south of Lively Road. Approximately 200 acres. No
tests have been made on this site. however, visual
inspection by a geologist leads us to believe this
site should be investigated more fully.
SITE 44 - Northeast of Ponder approximately nine miles from the
I.J center of Denton. Property is located between Highway
156 and T.N. Skiles Road. Approximately 384 acres, No
tests have been made on this site. Thero is some
k question concerning its location in regard to the muni-
cipal airport.
f SITE 45 - Approximately 30 acres behind Roselawn Cometary. This ;
j' site would be available on a lease basis rather than
a sale basis. This being the case, its cost on a short
{
• :r
,y
own]
PA
-7-
term basis would most likely become feasible. If it
could be used for a term of evert six or seven years,
along with the estimated three years of use in the
present landfill, it would take us to 1988. By that
time, progress should be made in terms of recycling
to such an extent that we would not be faced anew with
our present problem. However, no tests have been made
on this site,
The City Council should be aware of the fact that
this information was not available until our closing ;
meeting. Therefore, the recommendation is made with-
out publicity being given to the proposal and without
the opportunity for a response from those living in
the area.
3. THAT ALL PRECINCTS OF THE COUNTY SHARE IN MAINTENANCE COSTS
OF THE ROAD TO A LANDFILL SITE RATHER THAN ONLY THAT PRECINCT
WITHIN WHICH IT IS LOCATED.
j Respectfully submitted,
Murphey C. Wilds, Chairman
i
r
i
}
6a.
I
APPENDIX
j
I
s
i
+I
Minutes
Sanitary Landfill Site Selection Committee
November 3, 1977
Regular meeting of the City of Denton Sanitary Landfill Site Selection Committee,
Thursday, November 3, 1977 at 7:00 p,m, in the Council Chambers J
Members Present: Floyd D. McDaniel, Joe Bell, Harry Down, Grady L. Callum,
Bobby Whisenant, Robert LaForte, Kenneth Baonsen, Bob ,Miller,
Jim Terral, John Clanton, Isabel Miller, Marion Robinson,
Weldon Goin and Murphey C. Wilds.
Others Present: Mary C. Gay, Council Member;'Elinor Hughes, Mayor; Richard 0,
Stewart, Council Member; Bill Holm and Gary Molter, Texas A & H.
Staff Present: Chris Hartung, City Manager; Jack Owen, Assistant City Manager;
Greg Anderson, Public Works Superintendent.
Chris Hartung, City Manager, called the meeting to order and explained the
purpose of the Committee to the members. Hartung explained that the Committee
was not formed to determine the technical criteria of landfill site selection,
but to determine the political criteria for site selection, Hartung further
explained that our current landfill was being evaluated to determine exactly
how much capacity it had left. Hartung stated that the study would be completed
in three weeks and that information would be a good starting point for this
Committee,
Next Hartung introduced Dr. Gary Molter of the Political Science Department
at Texas A & M and Dr, Bill Holm, Mechanical Engineer at Texas A & M.
Dr, Molter discussed the political and economic considerations o' landfill
siting and resource recovery,
Dr. Holm spoke on the technical considerations of resource recovery.
i
Both men stated that even if the City went to a sophisticated system of
resource recovery we would still need a landfill site.
Both men then opened the meeting uD to questions concerning economic,
political and technical considerations of landfill site selection and solid
waste reclamation,
After an extended period of questioning the Committee decided how they
would like to proceed on t,ite selection, The Committee decided that they needed
to discuss specific criteria in site selection and then visit our landfill and
other successful landfills in the area. Harry Down recommended that the
Committee also study the COG study on landfills,
the Committee considered a regular mooting date and decided they would '
continuo to meet on Thursday nights at 7:00 p.m.
Several suggestions were made to improve the next meeting:
1. Send list of Committee members to each member to assist in the
seloction of officers,
i
~ j
.2-
2. Prepare name tags for each Committee member,
3. Meet in some place other than the Council Chambers to provide better
interaction between the members.
With no further business the meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
i
1
i
,f
Sani'taryr Landfill Site Selection Comm nittee
Dr. Bob Miller Marian Robinson
-'Harry Down 1200 Kendolph 3200 Carmel
1204 university Drive West Denton, Texas 76201 Denton, Texas 76201
Denton, Texas 76201 Dr, Dane Compton
Bob LaPorte 2609 Buckingham
Dick Kelsey 1401 Sherman Drive
206 kidgecrest Denton, Texas 76201 Denton, Texas 76201
__Denton, Texas 76201 Dr. Murphy C. Wilds
Kenneth Bahnsen Grady Collum 1315 Churchill
Rt. 1, Box 409-F RFD 2 Denton, Texas 76201
71,enton „Texas 75201 Denton, Texas ;6201
• Terral Isabel Miller
Dr, Floyd D. McDaniel Jim 0, Box 166 711 W. Sycamore
?311 Jacquelyn Little Elm, Texas 75068 Denton, Texas 76201
Denton, Texas 76201 John Clanton
Mayor F. b1, Fowler p 0, Box 177
-Mayor Bobby Whisenant
0. Box 457 p, 0. Box 217 76249 Frisco, Texas 76034
r
pilot Point, Texas 76258 Krum, Texas Joe Bell
Mayor Ralph B. Cole Aldermen L. Z. Harmon P, 0, Box 1067
0 Box 578 Main Strbet Sanger, Texas 76266
Aubrey; Texas 76227
Sanger, Texas 76266
'Del don Goi n
P. 0. , oo~ 217
exas 76227
Aubrey,
q opy of all notices to;
I Dan Trammell
! ^lounty Judge
Benton County
Courthouse Square
~enton, Texas 76201
I _I 1'
I
t
7i
t,
}1
MINUTES
LANDFILL SITE SELECTION COMMITTEE
NOVEMBER 10, 1977
- Regular Meeting of the City of Denton Landfill Site Selection Committee, Thursday,
November 10, 1977 at 7:00 p.m. in the Civil Defense Room of the Municipal Building:
MEMBERS PRESENTS Bobby Whisenant, Conrad Boorner, Joe Bell, Dan Reding,
Bob LaForte, Harry Down, Dick Kelsey, Weldon Goin,
Murphey Wilds, J. L. Pedigo, Isabel Miller, Bob Miller,
Marion Robinson, F. W. Fowler, Kenneth Bahnsen, Gary Lynch,
t Floyd McDaniel, Tony Franzen
OTHERS PRESENT: Chris Hartung, City Managers Jack Owen, Assistant City
Managers King Cole, Assistant to the City Manager
Greg Anderson, Superintendent, Public Works
1. Chris Hartung called the mooting to order and called for nominations for
` Chairman. Murphey Wilde and Ken Bahnsen were nominated for the position
f of Chairmen. There was a motion that nominations cease. On a hand raised
vote, there were 9 votes cast for wilds and 3 votes cast for Bahnsen. Wilds
I was elected chairman.
I Wilds took the chair and called for nominations for the position of Vice-
Chairman. Ken Bahnsen was nominated for the position of Vice-Chairman.
There was a motion that nominations cease and that Bahnsen be elected by
acclamation. Motion carried. Bahnsen was elected VicarChairman.
2. The Committee viewed a film on solid waste reclamation and sanitary landfills.
3. The Committee considered the sanitary landfill design criteria published
by the North Central Texas Council of Governments.
4. The Committee considered touring some other sanitary landfill sites in
the area. It was determined that the Committee should visit both a good
and a poor sanitary landfill site. Dick Kelsey stated that he did not feel
it was important to visit some other landfills. Kelsey felt that the impor-
_ tant thing was to make a speedy recommendation,
`I Tito Committee determined that a member may send an alternate to the meet-
Inge if the member wore not able to attend.
r
Isabel Miller suggested that the Committee select its own sot of criteria
for landfill site selection.
One member of the Committee recommended that we simply expand our present
landfill. Jack Owen explained that our present landfill was bounded on
ono side by the flood plain of Lake Lewisville and on the other three sides
by the City of Crossroads. Owen further explained that the city of Cross-
roads had passed an ordinance preventing any, other landfills within their
corporate limits.
Tits Committee agreed to set the agenda for the coming wookst
r
t f
_ 2 r
November 19 - Members of the Committee will tour our
sanitary landfill site plus a good and
and a bad site in other cities.
December 1 - The Committee will meet to establish
their own criteria for landfill site
selection.
The Committee also asked that the City staff answer the following
questions and provide the following requested informations
1. Provide some examples of hauling costs per mile.
2. Kit size site are we looking for?
3. Why ;did ::!q exclude the areas to the east in our initial search for a
landfill?
4. What other communities are interested in the joint landfill effort and
what are their tonnages?
}
5. What costs are involved in our present site'b operation?
! 6. Provide population densities for the area.
rJl ~ 1 ,
i ~
~ p
i yyVy..... µMywi`uy..evMN•e,•••••,•~,•ra.wow.w.wtvnww.WWw.a.►sNnwtwararw..wwu+~r«s.ww.rwuf~Fwn+wwrr~awrnw"'+/M°rw
h'. e
r \
MINUTES
LhNDFILL SITE SELECTION COMMITTEE
DECEMBER It 1977
Regular Meeting of the City of Denton Landfill Site Selection Committee, Thursday,
December 11 1977 at 700 p.m, in City Hall .
MEMBERS PRESENTi Bob Miller, Isabel Miller, Murphey Wilds, Robert LaPorte, Tony
Franzen, Ken Cornell, Floyd D. McDaniel, J. L. Pedigo, Bobby
Whisonant, Dick Kelsey, Dan Reding, Joe Bell
OTHERS PRESENTi Chris Hartung, City Managorl King Cole, Assistant to the City
Managers Grog Anderson, Solid Waste Super intendont
1. The Committee received a report from the City Manager answering questions
raised at the last meeting of the Committee.
2. The Committee received a report from the City Manager concerning the remain-
ing life of the existing sanitary landfill. Hartung explained that the study
done by Freese and Nichols Consulting Engineers showed the following comments
and conclusionsi
Comments
{
We have used the compacted weight of solid waste as 1000 pounds per cubic
yard in place with requires good compaction in the field, and we suggest
I that the purchase of a Compactor machine built for solid wastes compaction
be considered by the City of Denton.
,also,. iii order to make full use of the Site as originally proposed when the
plans wore prepared for the Permit Application, it is necessary to borrow
a large volume of material and haul same for approximately a 1000 feet. j
We suggest consideration be given by the City of Denton to the purchase of
an excavating Scraper for this purpose.
i
Conclusioni
Considering the use of a solid waste Compactor, tho'present Landfill Site is
estimated to laste three (3) years with only the r:ity of Denton contributing, j
and approximately 2 years and A months, with all seven participating cities
contributing to the landfill. If a compactor unit is not used to secure
batter compaction of the solid waste, the time will be reduced approximately
six (6) months.
'34 Chairman Wilds stated that he thought the Committee should now consider astab-
lishing their own criteria and then applying proposed sitos to sea which ones
fit the criteria.
The Committee established the following eritariat
h, Operational and long term coat
x, Acceptable to all people
3, Extension of present site
4, Geographical location, ro other cities
54 Cost oe land
6, Voluntary seller as opposed to condemnation
i
-2-
7. Aocessibilitly and adaptability (land after use)
a. Not prime agrivultural land
9. Anticipated iipact on surrounding land values
10. Legal actions against the decision
11. Availability of adjacent land for future systems of disposal
After the Committee established the criteria, they went through a ranking
process to prioritize them. The priorities were noted as follows:
_ Criteria Denton Count Combined
1 1 1 l
2 4 2 2
3 2 6 4
4 5 8 6
5 6 10 5
6 7 7 7
7 3 9 8 11
8 9 3 3
g 11 4 9
10 10 5 10
With no further business, the mooting was adjourned at ar30 p.m.
,
f
I 1
~ I
I
7
i
I:
i
CITY OF DENTON
MEMORANDUM
TOI Chris Hartung, City Manager
FROMI Jack Owen, Assistant City Manager
QATEi November 22, 1977
SUBJECTi Questions Asked At Last Citizens Landfill Committee Meeting
Several questions were asked at the last meeting that we shall attempt to answers
1. Q. What are our haul costa?
A. Greg Anderson is calculating our haul costs and will have the Informa-
tion to you prior to the meeting.
2. Q. What size site are we looking for?
A. The prior committee used 15 to 20 years as the time period for a now
E j site. Should a shorter time period be used, the size can be reduced.
The actual size of the site will be determined by the quantity of
solid waste, the geological formation (how deep does the suitable
formation go?), factors such as area needed for support facilitios,
screening, eto., and how long will the site be used? The prior oom-
f ? mitteo primarily looked at sites of 100 acres and up.
3. Q. Why were the COG sites not considered?
A. The sites listed in the COG study were geographical locations and
not exact sites. Sites in each of these geographical locations were
considered by the committee. In fact, sites were considered in al-
most every section of Denton County. Mr. Charles Jordan then of
COG, Dr. Bill Blaze of NTSU and Mr, Terry Childers, than ~of NTSU,
helped the committee narrow the number of sites. Mr. Charles Jordan `
was the person who first made us aware that the site known as Site 1
I j might be available.
Since the cities that had passed resolutions asking to join in with
Denton were primarily located in the northern portion of Denton County,
j more consideration was probably given to sites in that direction. Meet
holes wore drilled on the four sites included in the Freese and Nichols
study and another site located some fifteen (15) miles cast on Highway
380. The latter site is in the general vicinity at one of the COG
locations.
4. Q, Which cities are serious?
A. The cities of Frisco, Pilot Point, Aubrey, Sanger, Little Elm, and
Krum have appointed members to the present site selection committee.
Each of them passed resolutions at an earlier date indicating their
j
i
2 -
desire to join in on a common site. I assume that certain sites
could prove to be uneconomical to one or more of these cities.
Also, it is possible that some of them may not be able to wait an
extended period for a joint site to be developed.
Q. What quantities of solid waste does each generate?
A. An estimation of the population and the quantity that each generates
is atLachod. As noted on the attachment, 5 pounds per capita per day
was used. The pounds per capita may be high or lows however, the per-
tentage comparison should be meaningful.
5. Q. What is the cost of our present landfill operation?
A. Greg Anderson will address this subject in his memorandum to you. i
should point out, however, that our cost of operations will increase
as it becomes necessary to.transport cover dirt a greater distance.
Also, certain expensive equipment will almost be a necessity if the
life of the site is to be greatly extended.
6. Q. What are the population densities of certain areas?
A. An attempt is being made to obtain aerial maps from the Council of
Governments for Denton County. As of today, the maps have not been
available and we have no information as to when they will be avail-
able. The aerial mapping is still in progress at this time.
It is my thinking that an "on the ground survey" would be the beat
method to obtain the density information for a given site.
J C OW'N
JO/Js
Attachment
November 15, 1977
DENTON AREA
PROPOSED SANITARY LANDFILL
POPULATION AND QUANPITY DATA
Estimated Estimated Present Quantity
City Present Population Tons per Day Percentage
Aubrey 10000 2.5 1.766
Denton 47,250 11811 83.356
Frisco 3,000 7.5 5.296
Little Elm 500 1.3 0.926
Pilot Point 2,070 5.2 3.676
i
Sanger 2,250 5,6 3.956 i.
Krum 580 i . 5 1.06
j
Totals 56,650 141.7 1006
Quantity of Waste Based on 5 lbs, per Capita per Day
i
I
I {
E
I.
r`
i
_ I
i
A PARTIAL LIST OF THE SITES
STUDIED BY THE. ORIGINAL SITE SELECTION COMMITTEE 1
DENTON COUN'T'Y AREA-WIDE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY
POTENTIAL LANDFILL SITES 1
1i
1. 357 acres, Six miles south of Denton off 135-W and Crawford
Road. KCY $3,500 per acre, Hazel Hartin.
2. 144 acres, North of Denton at intersection of FM 428 and 2153.
Green Valley area. KCY $2,500 per acre. Hazel Hartin.
3. 150 acres, North of Denton out FM 428 just across Milem Creek.
Partially it flood plain. QT $1,500 per acre. Barnea Realty.
4. 200 acres.. Adjoining FM 720 south of U.S. 380, -50 KGY
$5,500 per acre. Hazel Hartin,
5, 135 acres. At the intersection of U.S. 380 and 377. KWB
$3,000 per acre. Purchase arrangements flexible, Archie Wilkerson,
6. 400 acres. North of Denton off FM 2164 in Gribble Springs area.
-50 KGY $2,000 per acre. Baker Montgomery.
7, 235 acres. South of Denton east of 135-W. Southern boundary
along Hickory Creek. Out Bonnie Brae southward'. QT and flood plain,
$1,500 per acre. Barns Realty,
~ i
8. 130 acres: South of Denton seven miles southward out Bonnie Peas
iseroes Hickory Creek. QT and flood plain. A, W. ,lames, 715:1 Green
Tree Lane, Dallas, TX 75214. "Happy" Salmon,
9. 187 acres. Near Ponder, nice miles west of Denton. Rocky soil.
Talmage Linaly, 13614 Midway Road, Suite 201, Dallas, TX 75240,
"Happy" Salmon.
10. 200 acres. West of Denton on Airport Road, Partially in dry creek
bed. "Nappy" Salmon.
,
11, ' 300 acres. Sout:a of Denton near Roanoke, 1.1.5 miles east of I35-W t
and 114, two miles north of Roanoke. KOV(?) $5,000 per acre, ~
Hazel Hartin.
12. 200 acres. Out Sherman Drive north of Denton. $10,000 per acre.
13, 210 acres. Northeast Denton County approximately 10 miles north of t
U.S. 380 at the junction of FM 1385 and 428 between Mustang and
Little Elm Creeks, QT $1,900 per acre. Clifton Iriak, Realtor. j
-1
J
3
r
y;~8
f
1
r ,
Solid Waste Study
Potential Landfill Sites
Page 2
14. 500 acres. Northeast Denton County just north of Aubrey. QT
$10,000 per acre. Hazel Hartin, Realtor.
15. 71 acres. East of Denton near Lincoln Park, two miles north
of U.S. 380, west of Pecan Creek. QT $5,000 per acre. Hazel Hartin,
Owner.
Gmiles ifford-
piCounty t, QT ap $1,000-per y eight
^ 16. Oacres, North ravel enton
of Denton near a g Hill Co.,
Owner. Bill Eldridge, Realtor.
17. 139 acres.' tt Denton QT Co$1,500 eight per acrmiles e, Bill north Eldridge,
Gribble Springs area. Realtor.
18. 251 acres, West Denton County, one mile south of U.S. 380 near
Denton Creek, west of Stoney. QT $7,500 per acre. Hazel Hnrtin,
Realtor.
19. 38-1/2 acres. Southwest Denton County near Ponder, Newton Gann,
f Owner.
20. 150 acres, South of Denton out Hwy. 377 south and way*. of Hickory
Creek. -50 KGY $2,500 per acre. Willing to carry. note. M. C. Birch.
21. 150 acres. West of Denton out Airport Road, one mile west of 235-W
and 135-E exchange. QT $2,500 per acre. H, W. Down.
22. 120 acres, South of Denton Airport, QT $2,500 per acre. Hazel
Hartin, (Jim Harn, Bob Smith)
23, 294 acres. West of Denton near Stoney Community. QT $5,000 per acre.
Hazel Hartin. j
24. 251 arses. West of Denton near Stoney Community. $50000 per acne,
Hazel Hartin.
25. 148 acres. East of Denton on PM 423. QT $20850 per acre.
Burt Shryock.
26. 300 acres, East of Denton on PM 423, KEP $4,000 per acre,
Bill Williams,
f 27. 107 acres. Eastern Denton County, PM 2934, QT $3,500 per Acre.
Pat Wiggins.
j_
28, 150 acres, Corner of PM 423 and 2934, QT $4,000 per acre.
Bob Modans.
~J
I
r
I
' Owl I
I
Solid waste study 1
potential Landfill Site
page 3
29. 425 acres. Bast of Sanger on FM 2153 in Green Valley area. -50 KGY
$3,500 per acre. Hazel Hartin. /
30. 460 acres. Four miles south of Denton on I35-W. QT $5,500 per
acre. Baker. Montgomery.
31. 165 acres. North Of Denton on PH 2164. KWB $3,500 per acre.
Bill Williams.
32. 230 acres. North of Denton On Bonnie Brae. -50 KGY. $5,000
per acre. Bill Cayle.
33. 274 acres. Five miles north of U.S. 380 on FM 1385 and 428. QT
$1,450 per acre. Gifford Touchstone Company.
i
j
f .
i
~ 1.
i
i
I
yr
1.
CITY OF DENTON
MEMORANDUM
TOt Jack Owen, Assistant City Manager
F'ROM$ Greg Anderson, Superintendent of Pui:lic Works
SUBJ'ECT% Operating and Hauling Cost Estimates - Sanitary
Landfill
DATEt November 29, 1977
At the present time the landfill is receiving approximately
118 tons of refuse per day (five pounds per capita per day) or
43,070 tons per year. Our 1977-78 operating budget for the sani-
Lary landfill is $127,429.00, so our operating costs are approxi-
mately $3.00 per ton. (Our operating budget does not take into
consideration any cost for lan6 amortization.)
The following data has been updated from the COG Solid
Waste Study done during our fiscal year 1772-73. Each item was
increased by the percentage increase to our present fiscal year.
These haul costs are based on a 30 cubic yard tacker with a
three-man residential crew. For a commercial truck the cost
would be approximately 194 per mile less, because they are one
man operatod.
i
Fuel and ail $ .13
Maintenance and tires •32
Depreciation .58
s
Labor .21 I
.07
• Insurance
3
Management and'overhoad _.._Joe i'
i, , l
' Cost,per mile, per truck $1.39 i
{
1
,
~
i
' ACCEPTABLE GEOLOGIC AREAS
. ~ ~ !
'
' !
1
(l} Kiamichi Shale ~Kki ~
. ~
{2) Grayson Marl kgy ~ .
.
' {3). Eagle Ford Shalo Kef 'I
. 11
(4) Ozan Formation Ko
•
1
(5} Marlbrook Marl ~ ~
Kmb
T' (6) Kemp CYay ~ Kkc,
• ~ ~ ,
i
1
. , ,r , ; •I
`
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
! ~ ~
i • ~
11
I
~ '
~ ~ ~
~ 'r ~ •
I
• j
/,r~
t
' i
"dyy
1 11IIJUTI:$
CITY OF DENTON SANITARY f.All rim, SITE: SLLECTION COMNITTLE
DLCEMBLR B, 1977
R Doegulacomberr B, 1Meeti9ng77 of at 71the00 City of Denton Sanitary Lnndfill Site Selection Committr,o,l '1r4
I p.m. in the Council Chnrnbors of the MuniclpoI ltuildingl
n
MEMBERS PRESLNTi nobinson, Miller, Down, Reding, 11011, Pedigo, MCDattiol,
Miller, LaPorte, Goin, Burns, Wilds, Collum, Compton
~ 07'lIL123 PRF:SENTI ,.f
Chrls 11artun j s
g, Jack Owen, King Colo and Grog Andarfion 4a,r
of the City of Denton staff;
i i
1. The Committee considered the minutes of the meeting of November 10, 1977 ;
and December Is 1977. The minutes of November 10, 1977 were approved as "
d
Section istributed. The minutes of tho meeting of December 1 were amended under ;r
, the portion ljsLing the columns sho}Jing I:he Yank{11rrs by the
individual members of the Cooanit..00. The columns wars amended by addI?1(j
number. It ulydor "Criteria", number B under "Donlon", number 11 under "Count
and number 12 under "Combined",
2. Chairman of the Committee, Murphey wilds, submitted a paper to the Committo
that included the definition of terms in the first part and a proposal. re
garding the uno of criteria in the second part and a narrative ranking as
established by the Comdnitteo at the last mgoting,
i f 9r,'
DECIN2TION OF TEFU•SS
j
1. O,perntionbl and long term cost '
' that the situ be economically feasi
but not necessarily the lowest cost
the, sites onsidered; yip/'e i ti's t ,a;
2. Acceptable to all /,•../~~,~~.'ii
peo1 ple ~Ijlfr- ~~~~nti~, i~,• i~.~, , jf
that the site Would draw the least '
iblo objoetione from the fewest nUMI
of people possible by roasons of su R` 1
i considerations as surrounding envir
mental impact, trnf£ie, litter, etc
3. Extension of present site that the 4J1.
present site he expanded s
j thnt continued use be possible for x'11 '
- / longer than the projected three yon
9. Georgraphic location re other cities that the site be ono which would be r
foaniblo for othor cities in the Co
to use in Corms of distance involve ;
5, Cost of land
that the cost of land bn economical
feasible, though not nocosanrily tb
lowest cost of the sites considered
6. Voluntary seller as opposed to that condemnation procedures not be
i condemnation
necessary for acquisition of the sJ ti
I 7. Accoanibility and ndaptability that the site he such that it may 11
t (land after uno an landfill) ronch Ott with oaso and that it bo ad .
ably to good uco nfCor operation an
landfill in rnmplatod t
}1
wM
1:fN1 /
- t.
2
prrdto 'lot ime 130 0110
8. Not prime agricultural land thatthe
co ,
a landfill, use t.'I
•9. Anticipated impact on surrounding that Lho sS.ln Ile one which would ha }~`ft
land values the leas+t•, passible, if any, impact
surrounding land values r•
10. Legal actions against the decision } } i bo one over a
c tion wou)r
ostlyandprolonged liLig
be atnLiclpaLodi;
11. Availability of adjacent land for that: adjacent land be ava.tlabin s;horl"f'
future systems of disposal it be iinedcci for some future system) of waste disposal ;,.•3
It iROPOaAh RLGAI2DINC, rlti, U56 OL_ CRITERIA
1. A list of all possible sites which moot geological roquitnments be drawn up
2. Criterion 1 as prioritised be applied to all sites listed; eliminating sitoe I
which do not meet it `r
3. Criterion 2 as prioritised be applied to all remaining sites, eliminating
those rates which do not moot it ;t!
4. continuation of process through remaining criteria
F4'''~=p i
For chart, see Attachment s:.h
The Committee studied the paper presented by Chairman Wilds and agreed to
two amendments:
,
1. To remove Section 3 under "Dnf.initSon of Terms" and list It an an al .or- ' 'ry
4 1 native and nmond the wording to read "exhaust n11 possibilities for ex-
tension of tho present site". `
2. Amend the definition of "economically feasible" to the following wordings ,z
"to,inc udo consic3arat op of cost of th Jickrup, haul and aloposnl".
There was a motion by mcDanial., seconded by Compton to ro-ardor tho cr.itari .
a ,
as ranked under the Denton column, The motion failed with 4 in favor and G in
f -
opposition. i;
Next thorn was a motion by Down,soeondod by roll to proceed to Step 1 And
list all posniblo Sites which moot geological requirements be drawn uo. Motion
carried unanimously. Dob Miller racluestod that the stnff iclentify n,, A large
l map, the four four sites that we considared, plus the other Sites listed that
moot the geological requiromonts and any othor sites rocom+nondod by a member of !t
,J the Col mittoe.
rho Committee then dooidod to hold off on diocuuning Site coloction trail ti. t
f ! map was con+pland. With no furt.hiar hnsirinns, if: wan c3ociAnil to moot on Thursday s
December 15, 1077 at 700 p.m. and Lhat the moetlnry bo odjnurned.
. .✓Ir'E' ; .A!i "F.ra'M;4~ r Ao 1Mla+d +h►" y' ,1.s,.,~_.
f07i~r"~9m}vw~jt:~A,~'Y.~iY~'i;1T,'^n1i"!'Vr...p.+. ~•Sy.t~•-p1•w,t3ph,c,M,~yy ►r,1wA1 . tJ~,1 1~1"t~V,C •~i ' . T~1~'•1~ ~~"V'~'~
l~+~Mi11M✓YAF.1►AJNaiiw~ira..SQL...W..Y..~~.hs•+.MrW:1n/.~i•w.Y.:+niwn+~Ii~u.i{tw~J1~i7~bMr"V.~-A-iiA-i1A.10Ai~1+IR~~' ~ .1
1. Operational and long term cost 1, Operational and long term cost 1. Operational and long term cost
2. Geographical location re other cities 2. Acceptable to all people 2. Acceptable to all people
3. Acceptable to all people 3. Voluntary seller as opposed 3. Geographical location re other citie6
to condemnation
4. Cost of land 4. Not prime agricultural land 4. Voluntary seller as opposed
to condemnation
5; Voluntary seller as opposed 5, Legal actions against decision 5. Cost of land
to condemnation not likely
6. Accessibility and adaptability 6. Accessibility and adaptability 6. Accessibility and adaptability
(land after use) (land after use) (land after us.o)
7. Extension of present site 7. Anticipated impact on surrounding 7. Not prime agricultural land
land values
8. Anticipated impact on surrounding 8. Extension of present site 8. extension of present site
land values
9. Availability of adjacent land for 4. Geographical location re other 9. Anticipated impact on surrounding
future systems of disposal cities land values
10. Legal actions against deci,si.on 10. Cost of land 10. Legal actions against the decision
not likely not likely
11. Not prime agricultural land 11, Availability of adjacent land for 11, Availability of adjacent land for
future systems of disposal future systems of disposal
' f
. 1
i `
i
.
c
' II
1
SITES REMOVED FROM MAP
1. 150 acres. North of Denton out FM 420 Just across Milam
Creek. Partially in flood plain. QT $1,500.00 per acre.
r Barns Realty.
2. 135 acres. At the intersection of U.S. 380 and 377. K.W.B.
$3,000.00 per acre. Purchase arrangements flexible. Archie
` Wilkerson.
3. 235 acres. South.of Denton east of 135-W. Southern boun-
dary along Hickory Creek. Out Bonnie Brae southward. QT
and flood plain. $1,500.00 per acre. Barns Realty.
4. 180 acres, South of Denton seven miles southward out Bonnie
Brae across Hickory Creek. OT and flood plain, A.W. James,
7151 Green Tree Lane, Dallas, Texas, 75214, "Happy" Salmon.
5. 210 aeros. Northeast Denton County approximately ten miles
north of U.S. 380 at the junction of FM 1385 and 428 between
EE Mustang and Little Elm Creeks, QT $1,900,00 per acre.
I E Clifton Trick, Realtor.
I E
I 6: 500 acres. Northeast Denton County just north of Aubrey.
j QT $10,000,00 per acre, Hazel Hartin, Realtor.
7. 71 acres. East of Denton near Lincoln PArk, two miles
north of U.S. 380, west of Pecan Creek, QT $5,000.00 per
j acre, Hazel Hartin, owner.
0. 270 acres. North Denton County approximately eight miles
north of Denton near a gravel pit. OT $1,000.00 per acre.
Gifford Hill Company, owner. Bill Eldridge, Realtor. i
9, 139 acres, North Denton County eight miles north of Denton ;
in Gribble Springs area, QT $1,500.00 per acre. Bill
Eldridge, Realtor.
10. 251 acres. West Denison County, one mile south of U.S. 380
naar Denton Creek, west of Stoney, QT $7,500.00 per acre,
- Hazel Hartin, Realtor.
11. 150 acres. West of Denton out Airport Road, one mile west
of 135-W and 135-E exchange. QT $2,500.00 per acre,
H,W. Down.
12. 120 acres. South of Denton Airport. QT $20500.00 per acre. '
I Hazel Hartin. (Jim Harn, Bob Smith.)
t
l
awl,
A7RWl~
.2-
13. 294 acres,. West of Denton near Stoney. QT $5,000,00 per
acre, Hazel flartin.
14, 148 acres.' East of Denton on FM 423. QT $2,850,00 per acre.
Burt Shryock.
15, 300 acres. Ernst of Denton on FM 423, KEP $4,000.00 per acre,
gill Williams.
16. 107 acres, Eastern Denton County, FM 2934, QT $3,500.00
per acre. Pat Wiggins.
17. 150 acres, Corner of FM 423 and 2934, QT $4,000.00 per acre.
Bob Medans.
18. 460 acres. Four miles south of Denton on 13541. QT $5,500,00
per acre. Baker Montgomery.
19. 165 acres. North of Denton on FM 2164. KWB $31500:00 per
acre. Bill Williams,
20. 274 acres. Viva miles north of U.S. 380 on FM 1385 and 429,
QT $1,450,00 per acre, Gifford Touchstone Company.
_ f
i .
I
i
f.,,
c
SITES SPOTTED ON MAP
1, 219 acres. North of Denton off Sherman Drive. Soil borings
indicate impermeable clay. $3,500.00 per acre.
2. 195 acres. North of Denton off Sherman Drive, Soil borings
indicate impermeable clay. Site lies completely in 100 year
flood plain of Clear Creek. $1,200.00 per acre.
3. 174 acres. North of Denton off Sherman Drive. Soil borings
indicate impermeable clay, and a considerable area of sand
and gravel. $2,000.00 per acre.
4. 200+ acres, North of Denton about one mile east of Gribble
Springs between FM 2164 and FM 2153, Soil borings indicate
impermeable clay. $1,500.00 per acre. Hazel Hartin.
5. 357 acres. Six miles south of Denton off 1-35W and Crawford
Road, KGY $30500,00 per acre, Hazel Hartin.
6. 144 acres. North of Denton at intersection of FM 428 and
FM 2153. Green Valley area, KGY $2,500,00 per acre. Hazel
Hartin.
7. 200 acres., Adjoining FM 720 south of U.S. 380. -50 KGY
$5,500.00 per acre. Hazel Hartin.
8. 400 acres. North of Denton off FM 2164 in Gribblo Springs
area, -50 KGY $2,000.00 per acre. Baker Montgomery.
~ j
9. 187 acres. Near Ponder, nine milea west of Denton. Rocky
soil. "Happy" Salmon.
J 10. 200 acres. Went of Denton on Airport Road. Partially in
dry creek bed. "Happy" Salmon.
11. 300 acres. South of Denton near Roanoke, one and one half
miles east of 1-35W and 114, two miles north of Roanoke.
KGY $5,000.00 per acre. Hazel Hartin.
12. 200 acres, Out Sherman Drive north of Denton. $101000.00
per acre.
13, 235 acres. South of Denton out 377 south and west of Hickory
Crack -50 KGY $2,500.00 per acre. Willing to carry note.
M.C. Birch.
144 251 acres. West of Denton near Stoney, $5,000.00 per acre.
Hazel Hartin,
wa
6.,
i~;
"2-
15, 425 acres. East of Sanger on FM 2153, in Green Valley area.
~50 KGX $3,500.00 per acre. llazel Startin.
16. This general area submitted for consideration because of
its being sparsely populated. Barry Down.
17. This general area submitted duce to its proximity to our
present site, and relatively sparce population. Joe Bell,
18. 100+ acres. Realtor had this core tasted and found im-
permeable clay. Flat terrain. $2,000.00 per acre. Hazel
Hartin,
19, 591 acres, North,Denton on McReynolds Road just east of
FM 2164. Rolling, hill terrain. $1,000.00 per acre, Mike
Ramos, Realtor, 387-8811.
20, a170 acres. North nd Rector Road. Flat terrain, $2,000.00iperoacre. Hazel
~ Harlin,
1 1
i
iIt
I
t
i
1
it 1
i
• l
rt L'
I
:
I
II
1
J19
1
MINUTf;5
CITX OF DENTOM SANITARX LANDFILL SITE S>;LECTION COMMITTEE ~i
b>aCEFlDER 15, 1977
Regular Meeting of the City of Denton sanitary Landfill site selection Committee,
December 15, 1977 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Municipal building:
MP.I~BERS PRESENT: Miller, Co11um,Down, Torrai, Lal•'orte, Miller, Dahnsen,
Mc[ktniol, Prison Eor Ralph Cole, CompL•on, Deli, Reding,
Goin, Wilda, John Robinson for Marion Robinson
OTFIERS PRF;5ENT: Jack Owon and Grog Anderson of the City of Denton Staff
1. Tho Commif;teo considered the minutes of the meeting of December fl, 1977.
Tho definition of "economically feasible" used in further defining cri-
- terion number ono, operational and long term coat, was amended to include
"tlte preparation of the site, the cost of the property, and how these
costs will directly affect the usage feoo". (Those amendments offurod by
j Murphy Wilds and Isabel Millor;) Tho minutos wore then approvod as amended.
2. Jaak Owen presented a large map of Dorton County which ahowod with red pins
1 most.oe the sites considered by the original•e,ito aeloation committee. He
explained that the iocatlone pinpointed on the map were approximated.
3.' Joo Be12 asked that a site north of our present situ and Highway 380 be
included among those an the map. Harry Down requested an aAditional situ
south of Rector Raad and west of Interes>;ate 35 ba added to the map also.
9. Bob Millor moved and Dob LaPorte seconded the motion that the sitar Shawn •
' ~ as geologically unsuitable on the map be removed. The motion was approved.
i
5. Isabel f'Siller requested the Small Cities bo mono clearly indicated on the
' map shotring city limits and population. nob LaParto requested the number,
of loads per week each City hauls to our present landfill,
6. Floyd Mcbaniel roquestoft that it be recoxded in the minutos the position
~ ~ of the City of Sanger in possibly owning and operating their own landfill.
~ John Frigon, Assistant City Manager for Banger, stated that his City was
~ still very interested in the regional landfill pro~oot but at the same Lima,
i ~ had to investigate all options,
_ 7. Joe'Dell asked that somaono from the City Staff approach the Army Corps o£
~ atinginoors about possible property south of our present site by the next
mooting,
B. Joe De7.1 moved and Kon Bahnsen seconded that the City of Denton approaoh
Crossroads about expanding our present situ. Tho motion was approvod. Tho .
{ Committee requested this be done ae soon as passible.
I 9. Th's Committee again reaffirmed its concern for finding a bettor alternative
1 for dieposih~ of solid wnsta, !tarry Down and Floyd MdDanioi advocated the
~ Committee oonsidor short form sites. Two main advantages wore mentioned:
l
i _
i u.~ Y
I'
1
1
2
1. Better citizen acceptance.
2. No long term commitment to sanitary landfilling should a
bettor method become feasible.
10. The Committee requested that a now list of the sites be made and keyed to
pinpointed locations, on the map.
11. Floyd McDaniel moved and Harry Down seconded the motion that the meeting
adjourn and reconvene on the first. Thursday in January, January 5, 1979.
Motion was approved.
•f
t
J
#yy'
1
g
y~,
i
CITY OF DENTON
MEMORANDUM
TOs Members of the City of Denton Landfill Site Selection Committee
PROMS Jack Owen, Assistant City Manager
DATEi January S, 1978
SUDJECTi Rescheduling of Next Committee Meeting
The Regular Meeting of the City of Denton Landfill Site Selection Committee
scheduled for tonight, January 5, 19780 has been rescheduled for next
Thursday, January 12, 1978 at 7100 in the Civil Defense Room of the City
Hall.
The same agenda that was sent Co you for tho January 5, 1978 will be used
for the meeting on January 12, 1978,
OWEN
/is
J .
r _
:
;lf"
x
I
Owl
MINUTES
SELECTION COMMITTEE
CITY OF DENTON SANITARY LANDFILL
1SITE 978
Regular Meeting of the City of Denton Sanitary Landfill Site
Selection Committee, January 12, 1978 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council
Chambers of the Municipal Building:
MEMBERS PRESENT: Robinson, Terral, Clanton, Pedigo, Whisenant,
Bahnsen, B. Miller., Franzen, McDaniel, Down,
Wilds, LaPorte, Compton, Isabel Miller.
OTHERS PRESENT: tChr heiCityrStaff aJac ndkLeseHarper ofethe~~Recorrd of
Chronicle
1. The Committee considered the minutes of December. 15, 1977.
Marion Robinson asked that the minutes be amended to show
Scott Robinson and not John Robinson attended the meeting in
her behalf. The minutes were tl.en approved as amended.
2. Bob LaPorte moved that the following three items be empha-
sized to the news media:
a. There is no "push" by the City Staff toward any of
the four original sites,
b. Sites removed from the map were done so from purely
geological reasons. Economics of those sites were
not discussed.
e. All sites are being considered equally by the commit-
tee.
This motion was seconded by Harry Down and approved by the
committee.
3. Mr. Jack Owen reported that he had talked with an Army Corps
f of Engineers representative about the possibility of securing
government land for a sanitary landfill. By telephone the
Corps thought the possibility remote, and premised further
information in writing.
9. Mr, Owen explained he had contacted the Mayor of Crossroads
about a site within their area. The Mayor said he would, dis-
ouss it with his council.
5. There was considerable discussion concerning long and short
term sites. Mr. J.L. Pedigo moved and Isabel killer seconded
the motion that the committee look in the direction of a one
site location to be utilized for a period of more or lose
20 years. Tho motion was approved with a roll call vote of
1
1
1
~JJ
1
.2.
seven yes and four no with one abstention. The members voted
as followst
Yes No
B. Miller Mabdniel
Robinson Down
Terral LaPorte
- Pedigo Compton
Bahnsen
Franzen Abstention
1. Miller ohn Canton
6. Jim Terral asked that the committee attempt to establish soil
types on all sites on the map,
i 7. Members agreed to 'apply the list of criteria to the individual
sites and have their results ready for the next meeting. it
was hoped a consensus of opinion would be found.
f
8. Committee agreed to meet in two weeks Qn Thursday, January 26,
1976 at 700 p.m, and that the meeting be adjourned.
i
A ,
,y
f
f
i •
l '
w ,
AVERAGE LOADS PER WEEK ffAULED
BY AREA CITIES
City Loads Per Week
Sanger '5
Aubrey 2
Pilot Point 12
i
Little .81M 2
I
Krum 2
Frisco 20
Denton t~5
i,
r
MYtauTrs
CITY OF DCNTON SANITARY LANDFIL J SITE SELECTION COMMIT"1>;G
OA 261 1978
Regular: Meeting of tho city of Denton Sanitary Landfill Site
Selection Committee, January 7.2, 1978 at 7700 p.m. in the Council
Chambers of the Municipal Building:
MFM13DkiS PktCSLNi'i MDown, rranzon, oon, Wilds, Pedngot LaPorte, McDaniel, Bahnson Torral,
OTkkk;RS I) SENT: Jack Owen and Greg Anderson of the City Staff
1. The Committee considered the minutes of January 12, 1978. The
minutes were approved as written.
2, Mr. Jaok. Owen presented the geological information compiled
by Dr. Bob Miller.
3. Bob LaPorte moved and,Kon Bahnsen seconded that all sites
listed as QT be removed from map. Specifically sites 08,
#11, and 013. Motion was approved.
4, Jim 'renal moved and Ken Dab,isen seconded that sites listed
as KWt3 or. Woodbine he removed, Specifically site 17. Site
#17 was retained because it was felt a suitable geological
formation may exist in tho large area that 017 covered. The
motion was approved.
5. Jack Owen informed the Committee that site 020 was no. longer
available. Jim Torral moved and Collom seconded that it be
removed from consideration. Motion was approved.
6. Ken Bahnnon moved and McDaniel secondod that sites shown as
KGY bordering on OT be removed. Specifically sites 03, #4,
and 06. The motion was approved.
7, LnVor.te moved and Reding soeonded that site 012 bo removed,
Y.
Motion was approved, Site 012 was QT bordering on KG
0, Reding moved and Larorte seconded that 014 be removed. Motion
was approved.
naniel movod and Hon nahnson seconded that site #2 be ro-
Mn
moved from ccnKidcration clue to the flooding aspects of the
site, Motion was approved,
104 Two additional uitos ware nubm ttod for consideration by
Hnrry Down. Both sitoo wore located north of Donton west
of 141 2164. Both appeared to bo in acceptable geological
fi .
of
Owl
WNUTLS
NUA Dr26,~ 1SITE, 970 SLLIC~SION COMMITTEE ,
CXTY op DENTON SANITARY
Regular. Mooting of the City of Denton Sanitary Landfill Site
Selectio
Chamber.snofothotMuni.cipalal~uilding~70 at 7:00 p,m, in the Council
Tor M1;MI3T;R5 E'I2CSGNT: Down, SV1l.dsr Pedigo, Laportog,McDaniel, Uahnsen
Moran,
0TIIF;RS rhrSE.NT: Jack 0won and Greg Anderson of the City Staff
1, The Committee aconuiedr as whe i nutos of January 12, 1970. The
minutes
2, Mr., Jack Owen presented the geological information compiled
by Dr. Bob Miller.
3, bob,Larorte moved and.Ken Bahnson seconded thhat aall ssites
listed as OT be removed from map. 6c site fle,
#11, and 413. Motion was approved.
4. Jim Terral moved and Hen Dahnsen seconded that sites listed
as HWB or'lloodbino be removed. Specifically site 47. Site
W was retained because it was felt a su.i,table geological
formatiuJI may exist in the large area that 417'covered, The
motion was approved.
i
f 5. Jack Owen informed the Committee that site 420 was no longor
availablo. Jim Terral moved and Collom secothat it be
removed from eonoideration. Motion was approved.
6. Ken riahnson moved and McDaniel seconded that sites shown as
HOY'bozdoring on OT bo removed. Specifically sites 43► #4,
and 46. The motion was approved.
Lat'orto movod and Roding seconded that site 012 be removed.
7.
Motion was approved. Site 412 was QT bordering on KGY,
g. Reding moved and Larorte seconded that 414 be removed. Motion
was Approved.
n g, McDaniel moved and Ken Ddlinson seeondod that site 42 ba re-
moved from considorntion duo to the flooding aspects of the
aito. Motion was approved.
i.., 10, Two additional niten were submitted for adnaidoration by
harry Down, Both sitar wore locatod north of Denton woat
of 141 2164. Both Appeared to be in accoptablo geological
4
1
MINUTtS
CITY OF DENTON SANITARY LANDPZLL SITE SELECTION COMMITTEE
FEBRUARY 2, 1978
Regular meeting of the city of Denton Sanitary Landfill Site
Segectien Committee, February 2, 1978 at 7:00 p,m, in the Council
Chambers of the Municipal, Buildingz
MEMBERS PRESENTi Clanton, Reding, nahnsen, Pedigo, Franzen,
MoUaniel, Wilds, Isabel Miller, Compton, LaPorte,
Whisenant, Robinson
OTHERS PRESENTr Jack Owen and Greg Anderson of the City Staff,
Los Harper of the Record Chronicle and Mike
Ramos, a realtor representing the owner of
site #19
1. The committee considered the minutes of January 26, 1978. The
minutes were approved as written.
2. The general area listed as site #16 was retained until further
information on specific sites could be obtained, no motion
made or vote taken,
3. The City Staff offered for consideration two specific sites
submitted by realtor Hazel Hartin in the area listed as site #17.
More geological information was requested, According to ate
geological map the entire area of #17 is shown to be Woodbine
and QT which are generally not acceptable. it seemed the opin-
ion of the Committee that additional sites in the area should
be sought,
4, Isabel Miller moved and Ken Hahnsen seconded that site #18 be
J removed because of criteria #1. The motion was not approved
and site #18 was retained.
5. Reding moved and LaPorte seconded that site 419 be removed be-
cause of oriteria #2. The motion was not approved and site #19
was retained.
j
6, Clanton moved and 8ahnson seconded that action on sites 021.
and 122 be tabled until further information could be obtained,
Motion was approved.
t
7. The Ca;vnittoe agreed to meet next Thursday, February 90 1978
at 7100 p,m, and the mooting was adjourned.
,
b
~ M
MINUTES
SELECTION COMMITTEE
CITY OF DENTON SANITARY LANDFILL 1SITE 978
Regular Meeting cf the City of Denton Sanitary Landfill Site Selection
Committee, February 16, 1978 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of
the Municipal Buildings
MEMBERS PRESENTt Down, McDaniel., Bahnson, Reding, Knox, Pedigo,
Clanton, Wilds, LaForte, Franzen, Compton,
Isabel Miller
OTHERS PRESENTi Japk Owen and Greg Anderson of the City Staff
wrthe itten. of February had been
1. 2he 1978. The minutes considered were h approved minutes as of
2, wReverend ithdrawn wbydtheepproperty owner, it was removed tfrom 9considera-
tion.
3. Jack Owen reported to the Committee that site #10 had been found
to have two large gravel pits on the property, indicating poor
soils for-landfill purposes. He also indicated that the F.F.A.
would probably ob~eot to this site because of its close proxim-
ity to the Denton Airport and the airplane flight pattern, Lee
f Knox felt that the soils in this r.rea were made of fragmented
limestone, which is highly permeable. Site #10 remained under
consideration.
4. Jack Owen presented a letter from Julia A. Williams indicating
her opposition to a landfill located in the vicinity of Missile
Base Road. The sites west of Missile Base Road were not removed
by the Committee.
f S. Site #21 was pinpointed to be about'ond and one half miles north
of Highway 77 and one mile west of FM 2164, and could be purchased
for $2,500.00 per acre. Reverend Wilds reported that persons
living south bf this area had indicated opposition. The Commit.
tee took no nation and site #21 remained under consideration.
6, Lewis Bingham and several others living near site #17 appeared
before the Committee to express opposition to a landfill in this
area. Those in apposition suggested an alternate site located
north of Denton approximately four miles northwest of Aubrey.
TheCommittee tadded this lsite oontthemmap for consideration as
site #23.
7, The list of criteria was applied to site #21. It passed all
criteria and was left on the map,
8. The Committee asked the staff for more information on sites 416,
j #17, #10, and #23.
,4,
t
wrcrr~gp
.2-
9. Isabel Miller moved and McDaniel seconded that the Committee
chairman respond in writing to the letter of opposition sent by
Julia Williams in regard to sites #21 and #22 west of Missile
Base Road, The motion was approved.
10. The Committee agreed to meet the following Thursday, February 23,
1978. The meeting was adjourned.
i
1 i I
f ' 1
_I
` i
f
All
w
w
MINUTES
CITY OF DENTON SANITARY LANDFILL SITE SELECTION COMMITTEE
FEBRUARY 23, 1978
Regular Meeting of the City of Denton Sanitary Landfill Site Selection
Committed, February 23, 1978 at 7x00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of
the Municipal Building:
MEMBERS PRESENT: Wilds, Collom, Pedigo, Down, McDaniel, Robinson,
Reding, LaPorte, Franzen, Isabel Miller
OTHERS PRESENT: Jack Owen and Greg Anderson of the City Staff
1.• The Committee conside3red the minutes of the meeting of February
16, 1978. Item #3 was changed to read "north" instead of "south."
The minutes were then approved as amended,
2. Mr, Grant Davis read a letter written by Lewis A. Bingham, Presi-
dent of the Suburban Aubrey Citizen's Association expressing op-
position to site #17 near Rock Hill Road north of 380. Mr, Davis
was accompanied by some 46 persons living in the area, Chester
S arks County
Comi
p , en sgi.onr
~r
, addressed the Committee and asked
that any now site seleotod be in another precinct other than his.
Mr. Davis suggested the Committee seek a site somewhere west of
Denton, Bob .LaPorte asked Davis if the Association was opposed
to site #18 near Navo. Davis indicated they had no opposition to
site #18.
3. McDaniel moved and Collom seconded that site #17 be removed from
consideration. The motion was approved.
4. Chairman Wile!, submitted his letter to Julia Williams in response
to her lette.~ of opposition to sites west of missile Base Road.
5. Joe Stookard appeared to inform the committee that any site lo-
cation in the area of Gribble Springs would lead to litigation,
66 Jack Owen reported that site 010 was for sale or lease. He again
stated that the area contained gravel deposits and was dissected
by Hickory Creek.
i
7. McDaniel moved -and Collom seconded that site #23 be removed due to
the small size of the acreage, Motion was approved.
_t
8, Five new sites were taken from the MLS listings and numbered #291
#25, 426, #27, and #28.
i 9. LaPorte moved and Collom seconded that #24 be removed due to its
location in the Gribble Springs area. Motion was approved.
j
2-
10. Site #25 was removed by consensus due to its close proximity to
Sanger.
11. Collom moved and Reding seconded that site #26 be removed because
of its location in Argyle. Motion was approved.
12. Site #27 remained for further consideration. it is located near
the intersection of old Justin Road and Interstate 35W.
13. Site #28 remained for further consideration. It is located east
on 380 approximately 18 miles, south of 380 about 1/2 mile.
14. Committee agreed to meet next Thursday, March 2, 1978. Meeting
was adjourned.
i
:I
i
I
J
r
j
i
i
r 1
i
MINUTES
CITY Or DENTON SANITARY LANDFILL SITE SELECTION COMMITTEE
MARCH 2, 1978
Regular Meeting of the City of Denton Sanitary Landfill Site Selection
Committee, March 2, 1978 at 7x00 p.m, in the Civil Defense Room of the
Municipal Building:
MEMBERS PRESENT: Robinson, Reding, LaPorte, Frigon, McDaniel,
Down, Collom, Bahnsen, Isabel Miller
OTHERS PRESENT: Greg Anderson and Lisa Ford of the City Staff
1. The Committee considered the minutes of the meeting of February
23, 1978. The minutes were approved as written.
2. Greg Anderson submitted a list of criteria published by the VPA
on landfill sites near airports which stated that a landfill
cannot be within two miles of a runway. Situ #10 does not meet
this criteria. Collom moved and Down seconded that site #10 be
removed from consideration, The motion was approved.
3, Grog Anderson reported that site #18 is still available and that
the price has dropped from $2,000,00 per acre to $1,500,00 per acre,
40. Chairman wilds submitted an engineering report on solid waste'
disposal for Collin - Denton County Water and Sanitation District
by Fowler and Grafe Consulting Engineers. The report stated that
the area along FM 1385 in Northeast Denton County was generally
suitable for landfills. Sites #18 and #28 fall in this area.
Wilds also submitted a map from the same report with four areas
spotted and designated A,B,C, and D. Nat Comewell of the Suburban
Aubrey Citizen's Association appeared to express the group's
approval of sites in the Navo area, wilds accompanied Comewell
to the area and reported that the, only development in the area is
f near the intersection of 380 and 1385,
f 54 LaPorte suggested we check into the possibility of McKinney bring-
ing their solid waste to a site in the Navo area. Greg Anderson
said that in the past when contacted, McKinney had not been inter-
ested.
I ,
6. Dick Tedrow and W.E. Williams a
ppeared to question the close
proximity of sites #21 and #22 to their property. Chairman Wilds
said that the committee would let them know of any davelopments
j concerning those two sites.
7. LaPorte said people North of 121 and 122 had called him and opposed
these two sites.
.
H, .
l
.2-
8, Down presented a new site that was submitted to him by Mrs. Sam
Fulton just off the end of FM 926, The site was placed on the map
as site #29.
9. The Committee decided to put the areas listed as A,B,C, and D on
the map as sites N30A, 30B, 30C, and 30D.
_ 10, Chairman Wilds suggested the staff check into 30A, 303, 30C and
30b, Reding suggested we give this area priority, Bahnsen suggested
we check into the acreage and said that this was the only area so
far that met criteria 02,
11. Isabel Miller was not in favor of the Navo area unless we have new
assistance to offset additional hauling costs. She suggested we
contact the Colony.
12, Down moved and McDaniel seconded that the staff try to get more in-
formation on sues in the Navo area including data on costs
whether or not the Colony is interested. The motion was approved,
13. The Committee agreed to meet March 16, 1978. Meeting was adjourned.
,
I
E
i
1
,
r'
r
CITY OF DENTON
MCMORANDUM
TOr Members of the City of Denton Sanitary Landfill Committee
FROMr Jack Owen, Assistant City Manager
DATE March 61 1978
SURJECTr Date Change for Next Committae Meeting
There will be no meeting of the City of Denton Sanitary Landfill
Committoe this coming Thursday, Mai•ch 9, 1978. The next meeting
will he a week from Thursday, March 16, 1978 at 700 p.m. at a
place to be determined,
I The agenda for the March 16, 1978 meeting and the mihutes of the
meeting hold on March 2, 1978 will be mailed to you next Monday,
March 13, 1978.
OWRN E
i
_ J0/3a
1 i
I
~ t
~ .a
iy
I
_.1
MINUTES
CITY OF DENTON SANITARY LANDFILL SITE SCLECTION COMMITTEE
MARCH 16, 1978
Regular Meeting of the City of Denton Sanitary Landfill Site Selection Committee,
March 16, 1978 at 700 p.m. in the Denton Area Teachers Credit Union Building, 225
West Mulberry, Denton, Texasr
MEMBERS PRESENTr McDaniel, Bahnsen, Collom, Reding, Robinson, Pedigo, Franzen,
Wilds, Isabel Miller
OTHERS PRESENTS Jack Owen and Tom Hart of the City Staffs Ernest Murray of
the Denton Record-Chroniclor Mike Ramos, Realtor and M.M. Long
1, The Committee considered the minutes of the meeting of March 20 1978. The
minutes were approved as written.
2. Jack Owen made a presentation on estimated hauling costs for site 018, as
compared to the present site. They were shown to be estimated at $12082,280
for site 018 and $5,088,512 for the present site. He further stated that
those costs could vary somewhat, depending on the per mile cost for the truck,
but these figures should show a fairly accurate ratio of cost.
3. Next, Jack Owen presented a memo from Clifton rrick regarding two sites and
Tony Franzen presented information on one site, It was decided that these
sites were to be numbered 031, 0320 and 033. Tony Franzen stated that
the site that he was presented was approximately 230 acres and was up for
sale for $475,000.00. He also said that a house was located on this site
that ho estimated to cost approximately $234,000.00 of this total cost,. Mike
Ramos then,prosented two sites that he had information 04'' rXt was decided
that these would be numbered #34 and 035 respectively., '
14. The Committee discussed the direction the Committee should take. It was
- decided that the Committeo should try to establish an area to recommend
to the City Council in order not to strictly pinpoint one or two particular
sites - thereby causing the coat to go up.
Kenneth Bahneen then moved that an area five miles in diameter at U.S. 380
and FM 1385 be recommended to the Council as a good area. This was seconded
1 by Grady Collom.
5. The Committee then determined which sites were left on the board that had
not been excluded to date. This list included sites 016, 1121, #22, #27, 029,
We #33 and 034. A motion was than made to remove 033 duo to the fact that
it was in the airport landing area. This motion carried,
It was dooided to hold the next meeting on March 30, 1978. The staff was
directed to prepared several items for this meeting. These.inoluder
a. Determine hauling cost differential per customer per month between
site 018 and the present site,
._i
b. Inspect and report back on sites #27, #29, #32, #34 and 035,
r, With business concluded, the meeting adjourned at 8 30 p.m.
i
i
.
A
MINUTHS
CITY Or DENTON SANITARY LANDFILL SITE SELECTION C'OMMIT'TEE
A['RIL 6, 1978
Regular. Meeting of the City o£ Denton Sanitary Landfin site
selection Committee, April 6, 1978 at 7.00 p.m, in the Denton
Area Teachers Credit Union Building, 225 West Mulberry, Denton,
Texas:
MMMBERS PRCSENT; Collom, Reding, wilds, Pedigo, rranzen,
Cooper, Robinson, LaPorte, Knox, Down,
Isabel Miller, Bahnnen
and
and o Greg p AnRocord derson Chronicle,
OTfILRS PRESENT: ac} o Owen Murray
of o the 1 City
Staff
1. The Committee considered the minutes of tSarch 16. They
were approved as written;
2. Chairman Wilds submitted another letter from Julia Williams
again stating tier opposition to sites #21 and #22 near
Missile Base Road,
j 3'. The Committee considered the field report prepared by the
` City Staff on sites 021, 129, 432, #341 and 435, Jack Owen
I told the Committee that sites located in other cities P.T,J.
or city limits, for all practical purposes should be eli-
minated. Reding moved and Collom seconded that sitor; 1127,
#29, 1341 and 435 be eliminated. The motion was approved.
4. Tony rranzon submitted a latter from Mr, Kirk Treiblo, a
1 representative of Southwestern University, offering a
1 site in the nkon of 016. The sits is approximately 116
acres at $750.00 per acre, Franzen reported that the ter-
rain was rolling and open. He also reported an expensive
home across the road from this site.
5, fsob LaPorte submitted a 123 acre tract west of Ponder and
east of Denison npproximatoly 6 miles. it was placed on
the map as 136. ,
6. The Committee agreed to inspect tho remaining G sitos on
the map - 1161 #l0, 421, 122, 432, and #36. The trip was
scheduled for 1i00 p.m., April 19th. Tile group is to
meat in the parking lot of City Nall,
7. With business concluded, the-mooting was adjourned.
lk'
101
J
NNW
c
owl
i
MINUTES
CITY OF DEWTON SANITARY LANDFILL SITE SELECTION COMMITTEE
APRIL 27, 1978
Regular Meeting of the City of Denton Sanitary Landfill Site Selection
Committee, April 27, 1978 at 7:00 p.m, in the Civil Defense Room of
the Municipal Building:
MEMBERS PRESENT: Franzen, Pedigo, McDaniel, Down, Robinson, Wilds,
Bahnsen, LaPorte, Reding, Miller, Collom, Compton
OTHERS PRESENTi Jack Owen and Greg Anderson of the City Staff,
and rnie Murray of the Denton Record Chronicle.
1. The Committee considered the minutes of the April 13 meeting.
Item #5 was corrected to read "east of Ponder and west of Denton,"
The minutes were then approved.
2. LaPorte moved and Miller seconded that because of the poor road
conditions leading to it site 432 be eliminated. The motion was
approved.
3. Franzen moved and Collom seconded that site #16 be removed due
to the site's size, the possibility of water problems in the area,
and the presence, of limestone rock in the area. The motion was
approved. Nineteen persons appeared in opposition to site 116.
I Mr. Richard Muir was there spokesman.
4. Franzen moved and Miller seconded that #22 be eliminated because
j ' it is not a defined area. The motion was approved.
S, Pedigo moved and Bahnsen seconded that the Committee recommend
sites 021, #36, and the 5 mile area of site #18 to the Denton
City Countil as the proposed location of the new landfill. The
motion was approved. The Committee agreed to submit a report ex-
plaining the Committee's recommendation.
6. Pedigo moved and Bahnsen seconded that Coun'.y Commissioners be
requested to equally share any costs incurred in building ads-
quate roads to the site selected.
7. The Committee agreed to meet May 11, 1978 at 700 p.m. The
meeting was adjourned.
f
I
y
s .
l Mi
MINUTES
CITY OF DLNTON SANITARY LANDFILL SITE PiRLECTION COMMITTLL
MAY l1, 1970
Regular Meeting of the City of Denton Sanitary Landfill Site
Selection Committee, May 17.1 1970 At 700 p.m, in the Civi.].
Defense Room of the Municival Building)
MLM1l13RS. P11X1SrN'1't 'Wilda, Collom, Miller, Robinson, Reding,
Bahnsen, LaPorte, McDaniel, Pedigo, Goin,
Franzen, Compton, Down
OT112R5 PRhSLNT; Jack Owen and Greg Anderson of the City
Staff, and Ernie Murray of the Record
Chronicle
1. Tho Committee considered the minutes of the last meeting,
They were approved au written.
2. Over 50 por.eon8 appearad from the Navo area protesting
sites being considered in that area.
3. Isabel Miller moved and J.L, Pedigo seconded that the
sites in the Navo area be removed from oonsiderni-Jon (11.10
to the distance from Dentdn and the resulting haul costa.
The motion was approved.
€ 4. The Committee asked the City Staff to determine the
geological "suitability of the two remaining sites, 010
y and 022. The Staff was asked to have preliminary test
holes bored and re)ort the findings to tho Committee as
s soon an they are obtained.
5. The Comlittee Agreed to meet in approximately two weeks.
With business concluded, the meeting was ad;Jour.ned.
EE
. '
~7
4
4
x
I
MINUTES
CITY OF DENTON SANITARY LANDFILL SITE SELECTION COMMITTEE
JUNE 22, 1978
Regular Mooting of the City of. Denton Sanitary Landfill Selection
Committee, June 220 1978 at 7:00 p.m, in the Council Chambers of
the Municipal Buildingi
MEMBERS PRESENT: Down, Franzen, Isabel Miller, Bob Miller, Collom,
Wilds, Reding, LaPorte, Robinson, Bahnsen
OTHERS PRESENT: Greg Anderson and Jack Owen of the City Staff,
and,Ernie Murray of the Record Chronicle
1. The Committee considered the minutes of the May 11 meeting.
They were approved as written.
2. Kenneth Hatride appeared before the Committee and presented a
r petition in opposition to site #21,
3. Clyde Nicholson appeared before the Committee to voice opposition
to site #36, lie requested the Committee consider a site located
not far from the Municipal Airport. The exact location was not
known at this time,
4. Mr. Owen informed the Committee of an additional site offered
by Morrell Miller consisting of approximately 384 acres at
$2,000.00 per acre, The tract is located east of 156 and north
of Skiles Road,
5. LaPorte moved and Bahnsen seconded that the site suggested by
i Clyde Nicholson be numbered #43, and Morrell Miller site be
numbered #44. The motion was approved and the sites were placed
on the map,
6. The Committee asked the City Staff to obtain as much additional
information on the two now sites as possible for the next meeting.
T 7. The.Committee agreed to meet next Thursday, June 29. with busi-
ness concluded the meeting was adjourned.
i
f '
I
CITY OF DBNTON SANITARY LAMINUTES
NDFILL SITE SPVXTION COMMITTCE
j JUNB 29, 1978
Regular MeaLing of the City of Denton Sanitary Landfill site Selection
Commmittee, June 29, 1978 at 700 p.m, in the City of Denton Council
Chambers Room, 215 Bast McKinney, Denton Texas.
MEMBERS PRCSBNTi Down, Franzen, Reding, Collom, Bob Miller, Wilds,
LaPorte, Robinson, Isabel Miller.
OTJ1nRS PRESENT: Grog Anderson and Jack Owon of the City Staff and
Brnie Murray of the Record Chronicle.
1. Committee considered the winutes of June 22' 1978 meeting, They
were approved as written.
2. LaPorte moved and Bob Miller seconded the motion to remove Site
421 from selection. Motion was approved.
3. Jack Owen reported to the Committee the findings after a visual
inspection of Sites 443 and #44. Both appaared to be suitable
for, a landfill sitel however, Site 043 was thought to be too close
to the Municipal Airport, Both sites were presently used for
agricultural purposes and would necessitate the trench type method
operation.
44 Isabel Miller moved and Bob Miller seconded that the City Staff
' contact the FAA about Site #43 because of its close proximity
to the Airport.
R S. Reding moved and Down seconded that Sites #44, #43, and #36 be
included in the Committee's report to the City Council, It would
"t be left up to the City Council to further.tGst Sites #43, 044,
and 436,
I 6. Committee agreed to meet next Thursday. bob Miller moved and
j LaPorte seconded. Motion was approved. Meeting was adjourned.
,f
,
1.
;A
l
r
MINUTES
r' CITY OT UEN'PON SANITARY L 78
LANDFILL SITE SELECTION COMMI1 M Regular. Meeting of the City of Uontonina~h~aCtyaoafDentontCoupciition
Committee, July 6, 1978 at 7:00 p.m.
Chambers Room, 215 East McKinney, Denton Toxas.
MEMBERS PRESENT: LaPorte, McDaniel, Collom, Pedigo, Robinson, Bob
Miller., Reding, Bahnsen, Wilds, Isabel Miller.
OTHERS PRESENT: Greg hond Re1Cson of the cCity Staff and Ernie Murray
1. The Committee cconnsidesredithenminutes of June 29, 1978 meeting.
They were approe a.
2. Greg Make Anderson actions prohibiting AaA landfidll
site within 10,000 feet of an airport. Site 443 is withileft
10,000 foot of Denton 's Municipal Airport. A motion rwasllmadev by i Bob by Miller Committee.
for lack to remove
sec:ond.4ho
site
3. Chairman Wilds reported that J.B, Floyd had off.orod to lease
approximately 30 acres behind Roselawn Cemetar The land
contains deep ravines and was thought to be ads property ail-
road property. Landfilling would i
future use.
4'. Bob Millar moved and Grady Collom seconded the motion that the
Floyd property be added for consideration and listed as Site 045.
The motion was approved. Tile motion was amended to include the
fact that no publicity had been given on this property and to
make the City Council aware of this in the Committee's final
I report.
51 Bob Miller reported to the Committee his visual inspection of
site 044. Limestone was noted north of the gater however, clay
and mare formatonsr were noted elsewhere and Bob felt the site
may be acceptable
6. LaPorte moved that the motion made by Dan Reding at theilast
The motion was
meeting be removed from the i:nblo.
in the Committee's final report Sites #44, #43, and #36. It
would be left up to the City Council to further tent those sites.)
- McDaniel seconded the motion to remove it from the table 'and it
was approved. The Reding motion was than put to a vote and was
amended and approved to include with sites 044, 0430 636,"and #45•
4 71 laabel Millar moved and Kon Bahnsen seconded that the Cor:mittoe
go on record believing that the original site-, Site #1 was an
equal or suporior site to any other situ ax,aminod by the Committed
booausa of its geology, oconojnies, and adaptability. The site had
E
1
1
r good aecessabilJty with, the completion of Loop 288, McDaniel
moved and LaPorte seconded that this motion by Miller be amended
to include "but wzattheCMtllnremato a tionlbutedidmnat appi~ovtolthe
The Committee appoved
McDaniel amendment.
that
(07? i Was egprammaticallyeandcgealoJically
g, then the Miller masked otion that
they y felt
inaccurate and that it left out the most important point - that
a significant number of people of Denton.were opposed to Site N1.
g, McDaniel wanted in the Committee's report a
for the City to begin some kYp-
recovery as soon as possible.
10. Chairman Wilds was to finalize the Committee's report the report
copies to the committee members for approval and thn
would be submitted to the city Council by the Committee Chairman
at the earliest possible date.
{ 11, With the business of the Committee completed, no future meetings
'were scheduled, The meeting was adjourned.
j
i
, I
f
I
i
r
I • •
r
1
"Viol
I
I
SITES RECOMMDNDRD
BY COMMITTEE
Site 036 - 7 miles southwest of the center of Denton.
Proper 7 is bordered by T.N. Skiles Road, Tom Cole Road,
and C. Wolfe !toad.
Site 043 W 6 miles southwest of the canter of Denton. j
otut I wile west of I35W just went of Paine Road and
south of Lively Road, Approximately 200 acres,
r
i
Site 044 - Northeast of Vander approximately 9 miles
rom Elio center of Denton. Property is located between
156 and T,N. Skiles Road. Approximately 384 acreo. t
Site 045 South of Denton behind Roselawn Cometary
a anent to railroad property. Approximately 30 acres
•j for'ieaae, ~
- t
r
1
i
Courtesy Leave 01 Wolnen VOtnrs or Tarrant County 8"5-77
r
RECYCLING INFORMATION
ALUMIUM
-Dovornea cnna ONLY (Pricos subject to change without notice) 170 l b.
Vocal Six, Flags Mal]. lligltwny 360 at lfthwny 80 8130-4100 Sot,
Will Rogers Parking Montgomovy & lfarley 8130-4100 Sat.
8owlerland 5601 Past Lancaster. 8130-4100 Sat.
Coorst Fort Worth 509 Fnot Horthside Drive 9100-3100 Zion,-Slst,
Fort: Worth S14mirnr.y farting Let 9100-4100 MWSnt,
Fort Worth Ridgmar Mall 900-600 Wod'„ Snt.
Euless lll.ghwny 183 & llighwny 157 900-400 M143at.
Arlington-Wilco Varki.ng Lot
Now York Avo, & Pioneer Ilwy 9100-4100 11)11rs,,Sat.:'
Arlington War6house 3508 Avolulr, F Nast: 91001100 Morr,-Sat:,
Nillersl (Redoom own bottlos,too) 7001. South Freeway 9100.11100 W4d „ Snt.
to 1~y folds l Beveraga enns, trays, roll., and small aluminum sernp 1100-41 b0 Fri .
Arlington Forum 303 & Watson
Fort Worth Buddies 3701 gnat Jtosedale 1100-11100 Uod,
Fort Worth - Oakbrook M:.rll Shopping Contor
Itiverside &'Bast Barry 10100-3100 Tuos,-Sat;,
200 1U. i
].nduatria]. Scrams Melialsl All aluminum (clean, free of plastic, aCc,
,
3800 North commerce 8130.4130 Mon..-Fri
9100-200 Sat.
BI-MC1'AL
"Tin" cans or aluminum, NO aerosol cans, remove labels, rirrso out food. j
Amer_iu_a_n_Can Com nn t Cans ONLY (For Arlington charities) .
Arli.nton 2801 Enst Abram Collection Mn
INDUSTRIAL SCRAP MC''ALS1 Cane, also motol scrap 1.'t lb. }
3800 North Commerce 8130-4130 Mon,-Fri.
9100••2100 Sat.
GLASS
Caen C01a1 Barrels for depositing clean, clear or. green Olass, ROmova_ all t,Yaatic
and al 'i tov from 700 Soutll Plain a0lcdayo Unr*0
at foxmor.ly Cannon St, 2130 p,m. s
Mil_lo_ra1 Redeem own bottlos 7001 South FrbQwny
PAPBR
A11' moat be CLEAN, NO waxed paper,. mild cartons, plastic, or aspha],I; L•npe, 1
SORT INTO CATCOORTES, Prices aub1eat to apnnBe without notice,
Conablidated Fibres, Inc.. (formerly Amoricnn Paper Stock Compnny)
i 1308 North Jones at 7100-4100 Mon,°Fri.
Nor.thaidn Drive 8100-12100 slit, ;
j Newspapers - $1400 cwt.l mixed paper products, magaxinoll, phol,o
booker catnl.o s, etc. $0.35 ctoS , I Corrugated cardboard, brotrn
pnpor. bags - 51,00 cwt, ;
ClevQpatt Corltorntiont 1000 Cant Lnnoautor 7130-4100 Mon.-Fri.
AI (bast of freeway mixmaator) 800-1.200 Snt,
Nawspapors - $1.000 Cwt,l mixed palter produet:si mnanzittoa, phono
beetle, cntalo a, We " $0,35 cwt.l cotrugntod cardboard,
brown pApor bags " $1,00 ewt,l cmaputer 0nrdn,'mm11ila " $6,00 Ct?t,
Moto tgl itor L111rcen I
Gran P1'airto 1181 Gront Southwest 8100-4100 Mon,-refe
1'Arlttlay 8100-12100 Silt,
Noanropars $1.00 ctg. I corrupatnd cardboard, brown bnl{ n
$075 bwt,l mixed papor products - $6150 awt,l computer nnt'dn,
Otaniln " $6600 cwt.
I
i
I
0
' .ny
All
J I r 10 BiY 1
,.h1 more than 200 corn, nunlties MJIIC United Stales, rest- Asecond ndvanlagels Thal recycling reduces the need
eels are asked to keep cenaln recyclable portions of Ihttir w use virgin material resources, thus extending doinesllc
'ash separate from the rest. Those recyclobles are placed and global suppilcs of mw mawrinls like bauxile or Iron
At curbside, collected by samfoiton crews, and sold to are. in the case of paper prWuciion frorn Trees this advan-
sompantes that roprocess lho materials Inio nvwv products. lage Is less clear cut since Ines are a renewable resource. ( t
Aosl of these programs help remove only newspaper from There Is. however, the possibility that the demand for wood 't
.he solid wasie sironm, hul a low Include oilier papers, products could Increase since proclucls made frail other n~
glass and metals as kill. materials are more energy. Intensive. This may make
Why does a community develop a curbside program paper reci cling even more allracovc.
u"J
o separate waste at Its source? What are fire benelils pf Tldrdly, the reprocessing 4 scrap materials usually
imitation in tic community and the emirooment? causes less pnllutlon Ilion does rho processing of virgin ; ~In .
In ninny communllles, the savings in landfill space is a materials. rot example, when fresh newsprint Is produced " omdncing reason to separaloly collect newspapers
and from old newspapers there Is less air pollution and wafer 11I i
uthe'r materials. Newspapers slake up six percenl of Ilia consumption Ilion with produGllon tram now materials.
``residentinland commercial wasiesneAm,Glass conlnlncrs 'rho processing of recycled paper can, in some cases, r
and metal cans add anolhor M'elve porceru to the loW, Increase tvoler pollution ns a rt suit of de•inkhlg used
Landfills Are increasingly expensive to buy and opor• papers. But when Iheerld product Is n lower grade paperor Iirgw„
ate. Escalating disposal costs can make recycling prolocls paperboard, where color is not lraporlanl, using old paper
Ihat col down on waste reaching the landfill appealing to results in less wafer consumpllon, air pollution and waler
city officials, Because of public antpathy, the siting of pollution, f I pr
i
landfills is extremely dilftrull; increased recycling can give Fa n if n local government concludes Thal recycling of
public officials a little more time lo .locale desirable site,,, resources can benoflt Iho community as woll as Ilie envl
and receive Approval for landfills. ronment, there can still be disogreemeni on the melhod.
The requirements under the Resource Conservation Voluntary recycling centers or high-technology wasie-
andRecoveryAct (RCRA)of 1916 for stricter rules on land processing centers may be proposed as olfernrilives to J~
disposal practices could help tip the balance toward more curbside separallan. These options should not be coast
recycling. RCRA calls for the eventual closing of all open doted mutually exclusive since one approach molt solve / I
dumps; FPA Is currelilly' In the process of developing all solid waste problems. 1 ~
erlleriafor determining which laclllllesk'lllrecclvulheoixn Recycling centers, for example, are not as convenient
dump classification And which are sanitary landfills, To as curbsidecollecllonprograms, Thoprocessof locating 01
qunlifyasa sanllary landfill A faclllly must not, According to center. and Ilion transporting the collected recyclAbles will I
the Act's definition, "have adverse effects on hoollh o( the discourage manywould•be participants. The most impor•
i environment" {sec. 4004), 'rho requirement to close dls• font advaninge of centers over curbside collection Is that +
posal spies, along with problems in esiabllshing nek,ones. more kinds of materials can be accepted wlth 111110 or no ~i
All force many communities to reassess lhelr solid waste addlllonal effort by the city Waste oil or color•sorfed glass
° i management praclices, aro examples of materials Owl can be collected more easily
An additional Incentive for municipal adoption of a al a center than by is separate collection program
1 recycling program is that the city is paid for materials they Resource recovoiyplanls facllittes that mechanically 9
would olhervAse pay to get rid J. Cities do Incur oxlra separate refuse Into its componenf parts - are not n
costs in the operation of a cutbslde collectlon program but substitute for ail forms of source separation, FAth porllon
many find than the Additional costs are minimal. of the waste stream is more valuable when ll Is unconlAmt•
Whether or not the system pays for Itself depends on: elated byolher elements. It Is easier to prevent conlamina-
a the proxlmlly to materlal markets; lion by soparallon at the source. Ihnn it is to remove ox-
n the market value of recyclables; Irancous materials. In most high-technology recovery
u the conlrml provisions between the municipality and facilities the organic fracilon •--vdileh includes paper fiber
the buyer; - is directly burned or convcrled into a Iransportnbto fuel.
n the disposal costs if llic material is not reclaimed; it seems reasonable to prevent easily recyclable papers like
n lbe design and cost of Ihe'colleclion system; newqxnper Irom reaching the recovery plant since alms-
n the public parlicipatlon rata paper Is worth more as n molrrlnl than h Is An energy
These will be discussed more fully below, source.
If lire economic and owiromuental nrguments have
The Cr saves energy I Thhe e figures Vfilw ary, but expert but compelling. Fl901 - ail, convinced you or your. organimlion of the Value of a
T' recycihig saves . T esary T separAlecollecuanprogram for your community your first
orally concur t I %
' hat appreciable le energy savings can IT
reallmd, Aluminum, According to most eslhnates, can b<, step will be to prersugde local niflclols to adopt such A
prw ram. You'll rood hard fuls about Iho cusis And bone- jilt 1 'r't INC
recycled using less Ihnn live percent of the energy needed Ills fo your follow loxpayers and suagesgnns on nine the lr f? ~T irl,;
to mnke it in Iho first place,
i program can be run. You'll Also need towns ilia support of
!f C9 1977 League oI blkutrers Valets Fducallon fund the sanliallnn department and jwrsons hl your connmunl•
M1 1
I
r
X,im
f
i
public alfoh or public Infarnlallon offices; their cornminn ll to A to have for snie is neco%my. He Sure In lake Into comidernilon:
residential recovery program Is vital. Arid. Perhaps roust Imporlonlly, u perperson nnllonal averngas for waste generation and uamtxasillon; t
you'll need to Awaken public interest in the program, n your comnnmlly's pupulallon;
low should your communllys program be organic d7 You might u a projected parlicipallun rate,
n want to make a checklist of the topics lhml need consideralon, including (See pp. 5•6 of Nestdonfloll'oper llveoveryul MunicilkilCulde, listed in
the (ollowbag.
Resources secgon,j
[Gnomic factors to gel is more accurate fix on your communllys pulencial you will /r
n 1 low much mnleriol do you expect to recover? also need to faclor In other variables, 't'he actual coin posit Ion of your l/
to I1mv niarlalable are your recyclabfes? communllys• waste scream, for Instance, may differ considerably from
n What conlracl provisions are best for your community? national averages; yon may wanl to work wHh your Si nltalion Depart
u What are the disposal costs if the material is not reclaimed? meal In answer queslions on the comoosillon of refuse in your area.
One of the most important factors affecting your calculations is the
Collection systems
o What malerlafs can be collected? projec led parlicipotion tale, the estimated percentage of residents who
n Should a special rack for recyclabfes or a separate truck he used', will separate mocerial for collection. Participation rate's do vary eonsl'
a flaw often should recyclabfes be collected? derabiy hom communily to connnnurtiy fie design of the Collection
a I kra, can you devise a rollecllon system that will encourage public sysleni, the public cduen+lon program, and residenls'commilrnerarto the
pal11cipalion? program will affect the (trial result lonnnge collecIO&
You shouldn't expect that All, or even most, of the nvollahlr materials
Local ordinances wlfi be recycled. ff you can, for example, recycle fifty percent of your
n Should your community pass an anil•scavenging ordinance? community's newspapers your program Is doing very well. Such n high
in What are the pros and cons of making a progreni mandatory? tale may not be possible it first - studies have shown Ibal longer-lived
Sarnlfatfon workers programs usually enjoy better participation Newspaper separation (it
o Does your system take lain consideration the concerns of sani+allon curbside Is Basler to achieve than glass and metal separonon; soma
workers? residents are not willing to take the extra line and effort needed to
o Are there benefits to offset any additional wotk required? sepmale several types of trash.
~n Ilaocal officials
will the Deparlincnl of Sanitation? Learning from nearby programs
a What are local consulted is' concerns ardent osuggestions? One way to find out about poloiliol markets, means of lransportailon,
and the general economics of curbside collection In your Arco Is to
n How can your communitys public affairs office help? f
~ contact nearby communities wllla ongoing programs, if ilu+re me any In
7Publlclzing Ilse program your area, Allhough each communily should have a program tailored to
~n Will 11u: city earmark funds for publicity? Its oun needs certain information and ideas can easily be shared. 'fake
I n What communily organitatfons might help7 advantage of the experience of olhers,
n What ore the alternatives for "getting the message oul" In your Contracts
conmunlfy?
A contract with a buyer provides the city with a semi-permanent market
for Its recyclables. It also benefits the buyer to have n conslAnt, or near
Economic factors constant, source of materials. Wthoul a contract is community ,may not
ho financial pluses and minuses will determine whether a curbside be able tuweatl,er the ups and downs in materials markets. The contract
teporAifon program sinks or swims. And for the pluses to add up, there should include a flour price, a minimum price level that the buyer will
j usl be accessible buyers for recycled materials (sue Resources}, pray regardless of market conditions. The price paid to the city may go
I above this floor price; pl Is usually tied to the going prier in a soecifled
rom curbside to market malerials market.
E From the earliest plannln: singes It Is Important to determine the mar- Meat about smaller communities?
gelability of recyclabfes, Long the questions you'll have to answer, Can small communttiesJusllfy a residential source separallon program?
How far is your community from potential markets? Cities like Ridgew6cid, New Jersey (pop. 28,000) and Indian 11I11. Ohlo
What Is the going priceforurap materials In your part of the countryl pop, 7,000) must think so; both have ongoing collection programs.
! How, much does it Ilucluale? mallness can actually be an advantage. In smaller cities, for Instance, a
b WII your "product" meet the specifications of Uwe potential buyers? strong sense of community may make It easier to mobilize support,
b Are potential buyers Inlereeted in signing a contract to buy your The questions that need lo be Asked are the same whether your
product? What floor prices will buyers guarantee In writing? coninunhy is small or large. Where can, we sell racyclnbles? What Are
Transporlailon costs are nn important factor in determining mar, the fransportation costs? Can we justify the program on the basits of
lelnbdcly. Isolated communities have a special problem; the closest money saved and spent? Or, are the envlrotlmeglAf and energy benefits
-ilnarkefs may be hundreds of miles away. Solutions are possible but Ihc'y wordy the extra costs that m!ghl result front ilia program?
require some Ingenuity. SMI Loke Cliys for example, sends Its collected
}owspaperstoPomona, California. via aninlermedlnrycalled file News- Collection systems
Japer Agency. This company needs to solid Its Irucke to California
anyavay to pick up Sunday magar.bnes, comics and fresh newsprlnl for The kind of collection sysleni used will, of course, affect the economics
Al c local papers. Traosixtrliq old newspapers from Still Lake City to of a progrAln, Santa communllies have trucks wllh n special rack or
omcOWnia.Is, therefore, not asexpeoske as ti might appear it first glance, compartment for recyclabfes, which can collect recyclabfes and trash at
f11UCti 11~F1f~'Ciai will the soma Ikne. Utter communllies use A separate truck collection
you collect? system for recyclablos.
„d~efore community represenlalWs have serious discusslooswllh paten- Collecting recyclabfes at the sonic lime As ollner (rash can Savo on
nE buwrs, mnesUmate of thequanfllyof material the cammunily expects perscmael and equlpmenl costs, 1311t some local officials heel that sepu-
J Li
,
I zr
k,i
7rrleit uckculiecllonsysleinsworkbejIvrforthell).Cllnl,mU111ties11la1Use Local ordinances
separate truck may set rside one rbey of lite vve vk solely for collediny
recyclables, On Thal day, they man be able to draw from the same 'ro Implement your community's curbside collection program some
^'Ivrsonnrl and equipment used for Irmit-pickup the other four days of local ordinance -,haoges or additions may be considered. Where art- ken
le week, kinds of old Inoncea Ihal may receive special aneniton In connection will,
such A program; "anti-scavenging ordinances" and orchlonces dial
Multi-material separation require residents to separate ihelr (rash,
1197'), ITA c how hvo Mossachusens c tiles f or demunsl radon projects,
romervllle and Marblehead each received federal funds to esiabllsh Anti-scavenging ordinances
rnullf•malerinl curbside coilmilon programs, Ili bolh cities, glass, melai Perhaps one of Ihr best proofs thal newspapers and other materials are
,rants, aluminum foil and pie parts, and flat paper have been separately valuable crnnmodllles Is the fart that they Are often removed from
ollecled by sanitation crews for almost hero years. Allhough such curbside by someone other than the community's collecllon ser.-Ice.
ystems are not AS common as simple newspaper collrcllon, a number Thlsmay be an especially obvious problem when market prlcesare high
of communities, especially it, New England, do rol!ecl metal and glass, and IndlvlduAls can realize A good return for their efforls.
'lo collect a number of materials, the community must either run Toprevenl A fewpeople front reaping ilia profits of a comnnunity~vide
ixlra collecilon routes for the same neighborhoods or buy or devise service, many communities have enacted ami•scavenging ordinances,
speclal compnomenialired collecllon trucks, father of Ihese options will These ordinances clarify the city's ownership of materials placed at
cost lite city moray - money Thal may not be offset by the sale of curbside for pick-up but do not preveol residents from saving
.ollecled materials, recyclables for volunteer groups.
Most cofnmuntlles wllh mullI - material programs collect glass and Voluntary v5. mandatory participation
metal calls Iogelher. INS makes it easler for the resident flew contaimrs
_tc, put III curbside) and less expensive for the city to collect bolls male- Most curbside Separation programs are voluntary, depending lolally on
'lnls. The biggest problem Will Ills approach, however, is Ihol the the interest and concern of the clllzenry. But In Is few communities
;lroducl collected Is nol vvorllt much to potential buyers. Industry finds ordinances require residents to segregate newspapers from Cite rest of
the separation process expensive, and the mAlerlals may Uo contarni• the trash.
-Mated. The effects of such ordinances are uncertain, 'rhey commonly go
unenforced, and at I.easl one studys findings Indicated Ihat participation
Making it easy rates do not dlifrr between voluntary and mandalwy programs. 5orme
The tolleclion scheme must Also consider the potential participants, residents may Ieel an added sense of responsibllbyloseparele tltcir (rash
-1inee a higher pnrilcipatlon rate will obviously make sire program more because of lite "mandatory" nature of the program, while ooers may
successful. Communilpes with frequent collections generally find 11 respond negatively to being forced to participate,
easlertogel A higher percentage of 'Ihe iargeled material, since residents
are often unwlllipg to store recyclables for a month as some programs Sanitation Udlorkers
require. Weekly,or biweekly collection schedules will spur greater par
Ilclpttion. Its good to keep in mind that a recycling program at curbside may not be
Unlverslty Cliy, Missourls unique way o! making it easler to parlicp• appealing from ilia sanllatlon vvorkcrsvIc%vpolni, They nlay feel HIM they
pate Is to provide residenceswlth yellow plastic conlakrersfor newspaper are being required to do Additional work wllhout addiflonat pay. sorne-
)slorage. These conlalners are then plb;ed at curbside on collection day. Ihing no onevvould bevery happy about. In recognition for providing this
-The contalner is designed to keep newspapers dry on rainy days and Io extra service, lherefore, some communities funnel A portion of Ilse
t stare a I1111e more than o tvvo week supply of A daily paler. revenues ~ iwaied by recycling back to services for the sAniiatton
workers, In We form of bonuses, new uniforms, or a spruced,up
work- place. r
A demonstration project If residents don't understand hot. , ne system works; they may even
J Newton, Massachusetts separately collects paper, metals and glass. unknmvinryly make It herd on workers- bylying bundles too heavyio be
However, the Nomon League of Women Voters found, lit talking lVgh Ihravii onto An overhead rack, for example. Clearly wrlllen explanations
Li { residents, that many did not participate in the program because Ihey of the "rules of the game" acceptable to both workers and local govern.
Zell duns Ihey did not hove enough recyclables to make it vvorti line men, officials and'provided to every household, should minimize phis
effort, The League decided to demonstrate Thai the volume of difficulty,
recyclables A familygenctmos Is enough to justify the effort needed lo It Is ideal If it system for chy/vvorker/resident communlcallon Is
recycIa. dev'sed before the program gets off the ground. Some cities have
t 'ten fomtllcs, most of whom had mop recycled before, volunteered dmJoped "f lollines' to recely , residents' conlmemsand questions. Salt
to be port of late experlment. The families. for n one•monlh period, Lal•a City uses slickers to explnln to residents wily a pirtl, uine bundle of
separated hollles, calls and paper from their bash, and closely newspaper wits not colletied, These stickers are nflixed to uncollected
l monliored volume and Illne spent recycling, bundles and an explannilon Is checked: "too heavy;" "Improperly lied;"
j At late end of the month the results of the experiment were "wel;" And "the hopper is full, workers will return later to pick up
compiled and released to the press, with a number of feature Articles rrMvspapers," W iliout Ills Infomlallon a resident has noway of knowing
( As a result. Newcomers to recycling found their only fnconvenleuce whelher to be angry (that the recyclables vveie Ignored), contrte (that
was lit esiablishlog a system ht the k11chen. Once INS Iniiol Adjust' Ihey were Improperly prepared), or pallonl (unill IN, frock comes back),
went was made. lite lime estimated for recycling ranged from I to 20
nm+idesper aeek,vvith15minutesasliteneragelbnellwc'sanenf,ln with ~Q w all, Ilic ken lamllles recycled approx'mateiy 1,189 glassarid tan Items Communicating
y local
E
Ortimltly 500,600 pounds) Fled 299 Inches of ne%vspnfx.'r (About officials
0(.),r p,.)unds) during the ont-month period. All those Involved
{ plonrb d to eollgnue to patltripaln As A resuh of Ihr experlmcul. The ollllude of the col^munilys director of snnlpAtnn will allect both
` resldentss' And workers' perspvcllves, so pry to h npnrss the director wlllr
4
,
I '
It
' cP
4
the Inc His of a rccycIingprogr in.Involve hI In or her in all Ihe sieps of Ili(- principles In to„nw
decislun-making. enaclinenl and publicity processes. I he •,ariilallun n I xplain Ihe• ' nuts and bolls" of nrycfing - not just Ihe a•Iry but Ihr
r director and Ifni program Ilsrl( will benefit from dose coopvtadon, hots.
Also remember Ilial you'll need to cvur k closely wilh public oflolrs or u Use a number of communications ntedlo.
public lnfurmalion offices. Thelrlot), after ml, is to provide in(orn,allun to n Appeal to varlous hurrcsl groups twilhln the c onnnunily and Ili Ihr
your conununttys rrskfenls un loaf programs and acd ?IL's. foiling to unaffiliated resident ns well,
toordinoiv your Mlorls could result In a duplication of effort or conflict, II find ways In reor11 new rrsletvnis,
Ing publicity nw5sages. a Conlnrur Io remind der public -the process never stops.
Publicizing the program Knowing and telling - the facts
fo effeclivcly promuiv your coimnunliv's curbside collection of
Determining Ihr logistics of a program scheduling roules, passing I mvclables yocr will nut only need ro get your fac15 strolgld - you'll nerd
nrill•scaveoging ordintinces, stgnk,g coniraclswilh buyers, etc, - Is onfy to convey Ihem to Ihu public, As noird earlier, each cominunlly,s rr-
n (list stop. A ronthwIng effort Io publiclev ?lie program and encourage clulrements will differ. Local waste aulhorny officials will probably be
pardclpnllonIs nveded.Aportluaollliechy'sbudgelshorddhe alloilydto your bvslsource of lnformallon.
a public Information program on the bows and whys Of sour( v Sepata• l bese are Snmr questions you shodki be answei Ing In your pro,
don. niol!onal rrralarinl:
But in many cases the community (foes nut ollocale adrquale funds n I low nften are recyctables collet led?
for publlclly 'lo make Ihr program work concernr(l cldzens need to get o Is Ihr program mantjaiory or voluntary?
Ihe recycling message out. n Will Ihe city make money Irom ill's proilram?
Urganiziny a team n Wbal aboul rainy days, should I still pill my newspapers out?
n Du I hAVV to blmdle my newspapers?Can I put Ihem to a paper bag or
A corltlton of concerned organlzalloru is one way of organizing a plaslk, bag Insluacl?
enmpnign. 'fry contaciing a wide range of urganlzallons: Sc"""', 'lie Also be pwpared to anstsvr:
Junior [(,d( ye, IUwanls, Ihe Chamber of Conunrrce, religious and o What should I do if an urmuiharUcd Individual (someone milt^r Ilion
envlronimeniat groups, and others, The San Dlega League of Womert Ili( (fly or a cilypald colfe( lion scrvior) Is collecllny recyclables from
Voters In Its efforts to pronwle Thal digs program even enlisted the hltl;, curbside?
of the U.S. Nnvo! If an org,mlaalion doesn't wani a rmnfor responsibdlly ;r Whef companles are buying the recycfables?
for publicizing Ific wash collecllun program, it maysllll be willing to help cr What happens in the reiyclablrs note Ihcy leave curbside? Wha! new
oul; II mighl, for example, Include recycling reminders in its ncv,sielters producis are bolog made from diem?
or schedcde a slide show on the collection of to(yclobles for one of Its
mcolings. Getting your message out
One comrnunlly organlzallun, with or without Ihe help of other. Because, of the usual consiralntsof personnel and budget, Itwill probably
groups, can effective!-,- run 0 publicity campaign. In sf-AK•n crnmmuntdas' , po,, v possible to try all publlclly approaches. Also, some approaches
across he country (Newton, Massacbnset1s; fildgewood, New Jersey; may not wvrk as well in your community, for example, some suburbs of
University City, Mlsgouri' Sall Lake City Utah; El Paso, 'Icxas; Tucson, laroecities don't have (heir own local porer, so that respdenis clepond on
Arizona; And San Dlego, Calllornla) during K'76 and 1977, local the central city paper for news. Such a sllualfvn makes It hard for the
Leaggreg of Women Voters successfully look on the major lesponslblhly suburban community to gut Its message across Ills way since largo city
for publicizing lheir communities collection of recyc fables. They pipers der unlikely to cover Ihe program In the some way Thai a local
! received (cords for their progrnrns through a U. S. Environmenlnl Prulec• nettspoper will. Mix and match the methods belov for your own corn
I lion Agency grant to the League of Women Voters Gduroon f=und. murilly and resources,
f Mlpasuring public awareness Netvspnpera, For those communilles that do hacA A local paper, IhIJ can
I To helpgaugo the effectiveness of a publicltycamhnign, before and niter be a vnluabf r way of publicizing a separate col!ecdon program. And II Is
surveys may be tvorthwhlle. i forvyou phraw questlonsce Influence Ihe only hiling that the people who read newspapers should be mado aware
I AIISMrs, so your quaslIcins must be well thought out, Try to be ns clear of how to recycle Ihem!
and ohjeclive as possible, Do people know that their cummunhy has Kncouruge publlcallon of feature antics about the program and
/ ! residential mcovory of recWtibles? How did Ihcy find oul about file recycling ks general a well-wrillen article Is an effecilve way of gelling
program? In finding out whether reslderifs pnrilcipate In iho program, g your niossa0o across. You may need to developynur own set of contacts
Is important to detrnnino whether they pnrAcipme regularly or srwrAdi• wilhln the newspaper slat(. Be sure to keep Ihem hdgrmed nbauf rocycl•
(Ally and why. 11 they don't parllcipatr, find out why nol, The reasons keg "events" In the conmunlty. I fov about preparing press re.le4ses for
resldvi glue can helpyou understand whal needs to bedone In the way Ihelr use or providing them will, pholographs that IllustrAle some uspecl
of publicity Mlsirdormhdodl cony be discouraging would-be parllcipnnts, of the program? {For addlllonal hinis oaf working with the press, see
Some of 0110 IOCPI Leagues that chnsr it) Conduct surveys found Ihnt f•lrtNlJS publication #49f, CeRbrg Into Print, 250.)
the personal louch oflalkln0 with people about Ihr program was n boon Adverdsrmenls In lho local nowspaper can be woriliMille invest-
to their effort; After Ihe fnfervivvii, resldows were beucr hilornied and meats. You need to catch IN publlc's eye, so ads should be visually
more wllllug to help the recycling program, Sometimes this help was appealing. Both slralghlfon,tard explannltuns of wlirn and howfo recycle
III ewers kl the form of vokirl eering kr help wilh publlcliy Conducting or cartoon approaches can be. tried,
surveys Is dmu•consuriihtg hcAkevrr, so be sure you have Ihought Handouts or mailings, A lellcr signed by eonmunlty leaders and cent
through all Ihu nclivilres your group 11110111 devolr Ifs gar and eflorts to to eac!1 household can bo nn ulfectlvo way 10 gel die publics Alteuliolt
Mow deciding to go Ibis joule, 1lie CM studies done In Sunmrvllk, and Marblohrnd, Mnssachuselts
Selecting your approach shenlyd that a lol er can be an Impoi mein moNalor, Such it lellcr is often
used al the begluning of the program to Introduce Ihr public to file
Each eonunuolty Is unique communication nivillads which %kklilld ehon0es in [lie wash plck•up sysicm.
work twll in a small lotwl In Nwl"llufand mlghl hot hr hdnsferdble to a Some smollrr cumtnunilles have muolc[pnl cnlendnrs which are
Inrue city nrr the Wasf Coast, Still, it Is possible to id( olily some general distributed free to ench household, hr Ridgewood, New Jersey, and
4
S
The big picture p+agrmn. 'f ht- rumba of requests for PSAs ntay be mare than your
scatlons raw handle (hough. so vou'p have to do sonic checking in find
What arc the options it solid wash' manaycrneat7 our II you'll have across in Ihv acnvaves. liy approar; ing it number of
RC'C)lICH011 sidlluns with a prirurd ropy of wiled yaw's' Ilkc to say.
u Mandatory deposlrs'In Ileve,rnge cnnlainers infer sf of lut(alcbroadcasller~s~gTheYlu'Ifd a 1iasli 13nsi udfu~urtrecyclfiables
ti Dispasal,laxes weer tullcclyd
It for n specific purpose - to ralso money for a bird
I'nxhrc'l dt-sl(ln regufaliuns sanclunry. lind!o sfaliuos eovcrrd Ihr cweitl, 1'hc l.engur's chlel spokes.
Sclecilve buying 11.11311S woman teas lifer able to ftdkon the air niuwl the Inaporlaureaf rrcy(ling
Our tvw leluiness costs nwnfcipal treasuries and lilt- environmcnr an I;I Prier's Ncws Mngazlnc program.
Iicduciny the waste stream ter o
cull, t olhrdion and Iranspuriallon costs. Conlesls, Coulesis scn'ra nundfpurposes, root Ihr lcasl of which is
as we l as disfwsal costs - nn advaainge over rucycling. h is even the rrentlon of a "n" SvIv )rihy ourevel -II l" he annuuncemonl of winners
nacre "consrrvnlive"Ilan recycling, in brnelils io energy end rmifer• that cony gel Invdio I. ovcrilge.
lot conscrvanat and In pullullon rcdu(Ilun, A runless cart lake many forms: Inventing n oily-Aldo re(ycling slogan
SOUP('(! SejJilriif)011 or f,Klo, or designing a poster adverlis!ng the sc'parale collection or
o ;o
)ilecllon renters recycling inessage. for exompfe. Ali advantage of i ovcr colnesls is that
in C(obsfdo comic s programs the cnlries of a number of cunteslanls tall be displayed rhroughoul dac
u Ctob paper eclonnon tatm even attar flit' srlecuon of Winners. Parallel cornperilluns ran be
Separav po et the alloll source prevents ,;nntantiontlon of held for diflereni a'Ie Uraups, will) appropriate prizes fur cnch,
recycfa lin II rrqukes the cosou me p of people' to hike the unto to Working Through the schools, The local school system can serve as a
sec aside es, [I bfa rnnterlals for recycling, t, h exit help save resources goodchanrtrl for various publlCily lecltnlcµrrs. Including corttesis, You'll
and cif drum Ort pathirla wanl In get cltlldren enthused about the program. In many famlhos
Ihcy're ilia ones Ihat pill Ihr Irash nut' W Ihcir cJmmianenl to the
V RCSOUrCe recovery facillfles ctud)side coNrcflon program can mall(, a big difference.
u Materials recovery One long-term "pubkcifv" approach is to Incorpornic the (oiict-pt of
ri Energy recovery recytiling Into school curricula, In Rtdgetsvod, New Jersey. League
13eso erg recovery fncllifles mcchnnlcaliy separnie mixed refuse Into efforts helped formalize An emphasis on recycling In Ili(, seventh grade
u' !n UiUvcrsBy City, Missouri, elemeiVary all and m u
lerlals. like glass, Icrruus f oci(1InnblC organics. Such eurricuk»
mn sic
mail tial make II pas, er to rrrwrls n and high bllf prnabl or of municipal leachers devrlolx•d lessons flint used Unlvrrslly Cllys collecllo- of
refuse. l'he e1 probblo to will Ills method are that file finuill l recyclables as a Ilionne, They plan in share (heir expprrlences wllh ofher
qY all and music leachers in file hope that they tvlll becrnne slanc;ard
Is new (rnaklug results unrcrlnln) and Ihr irrllfal caplldl costs are high, lessons.
Disposal Also, don'( neglect the high school, community clollege or edull
a Land disposal education programs when considering whether schools could help you '
o Inchienilion spread the word
Even wilh n concei led'ellorf to reduce waste and piontcde rec'ycling' Display materials, Contests, se),udl programs, commercial graphics i
spine malerial will need to be disposed of, ideally Iltrough piethods firms - Arid srotr - can creole display hems to promote Ilia recycling
Ilial cause Ill' least damage Io the envlromnenl. For example, the program, '['lie materials can lake file form of posters, bumper slickers,
replacement of clumps wicli well-sited, designed and manngcd snnl• and Itvu• and Ihree•dirnonslonal dkphnys, Burner slickers have on
Inrylandflllsisaiwsftlvcstcp onelhmshouldcu!drnvnanrnrisnnce obvious doslfnallon, ahhough Ilicy may be used for general display
probicros and ground wafer pollution.lhal can be caused by unman purposes as well. Posters and other displays can be sot up in schools,
aged dumps, public libraries, stores, shopping malls, or wherever people golher, to
disirlbuie a large number of posters, enllsl the Iicip of many hands;
University City. Missouri collection dales for recydnbles fire printed on young peoples g(out)s like Ihr Scoulr. or high school environmental s
clubs mighl be good sources of help.
(hose Calendars, to serve o n consfl reminder f r rocto es resderils.
Many In tiny cotnmunllu residents need some kind of basic ex planation of Many cummunlllea use Ihelr garbage Irucles as fx'rrnanenf traveling
1 Jigwand when io recycle, somrfhlnp Iltey can relrr 1011 the Iwnnl In gel romInders of ilia Curbside collecllon of rrcycltlbles. Brightly colured '
Into ike recycling habit. Such recyclln Inslrucilons are often sent nloll i ew Jet and logos proclaim Thal Stiff Lake CIIy, Ulah and Ridgewood.
will (,tiler city rnailings, such nswater gills, to defray costs, In your town New Jersey recycle,
youmlghl reach people bell bybanding owl mfilerfnlsin olher scilings as Slide shows or nnovles, Audk)visufil materials about your romnncnlly
! well, An nifrnciive flyer explaining the colleclion system could be given to con be devefrt)ed for pronenlallons nl schools find meelings of Conimu•
chlidreii In school, passed oul at falls or meetings, or dlsidbuled door- rally groups {;ee LWVUS liublleolfon #296, Prolvelimy Your lncagor
Id•doon llon' to Produce n Side Show, 309.) You may also wont lo borrow
the San Diego League of Women Vuh'rs passed oul balls of string movies or slide shows about curbskfo Colleclfon programs, recycling In
(net7iperg nulsl be bundled In Son Diego) wtlh flyers designed so Thal gcncral or why new wnys of dealing willi Ilse solid waste problem arm
Ihey slipped really Irtlo Ihr center of flit, airing, Since flit- edy propromk necessary, e.g., Ilia problem of rapidly filling landlllis, (See The Sahrl
slogan IS "Bundle 11 W Culb If," Ihts idea was especially wvc'II stilled to Write Resource Crddr, listed under Resources for more Inlotfrellon,.)
promuling recycling (hen'. One on. one
' Bacdln rind television, Nonprofit oruanlzatlons devilled io the litnpi-ove• Personal contact ran have a major hmpod In spreading your message,
meat of the rommunliy art, cllglble for Pobllc Service Annnuncemenl 'f'ife public gels n'thnnce to ask queFllnns and air gripes, and you gel n
flint. (PS 5) on radio and Iris 0sfon (sve LOUS publIc'ntiun #5$6, baler Idea of Ihr problems with Ihr rIay-Io•tlny imirkbiq of flit, program
Btolkii; halo Rr(uri easlb)p, 25v. lot ideas on using I SA+Q, In olhrr and lwsslbly slime Ideas for Improving ll,
words, you Inrey be (11+10 to air lice announcenwnls for your recycling 011 records may be able. 10 loll Vol) 'which nelghborhoods aft
F,
wcycling comparatively Imer vukitties of malerials. Try to find o i l I why. Also, os the wiminty (ullecl]oil program br('uties eslabllshed II Iutulu
In sore sections of o cornnuulily fewer propiv Iwriy subscribe to news. also be easlvr to convince city ollidals to allocate funds for pUhlit Ile.
palx-rs; It Is rrilwllahly irl HIES Cris, to exmrcl less newspaper "'OLild be Try to or(onizr "semi prruionrrd" ways of reminding the pubkr, the
roeVO 1. Make a concerted Alert to reach people In largel nrtyh porlimhk'I5 hr Welcome Wagon parkas, periodic I'SAs and changes in
Irorliomis Illm "should" hove it uryalcr volume of trey( Ioblcs. You m6ill school curriculum mcnliuacct earner are Have such approaches.
visit hc>Incs or have sivakcrs expiai n Ills program it rlib and Ildoll. Asm,glowhur,-asinglyaworeoftie illnilsofImid,mnierlals,cnrrgy
bahood associldlun uurethufs In low parllrlpallon arras, and local fln;mces• recycling heeds to be pail of our lifestyle m iwII as
Appealing to various interests part of our vocabulary. Residenllal recovery willing trash - Is an
Imporianf step Inward Ihal goal
Sliecial groups wilhin a community may need a tallorrd approach lit it)(,
same way that different cities may nerd chllervo publicliy approaches.
In areas with sizeable I.nfino or Chicano population, Irv Using Resources
Spanish lit your publ d y. In 7`.;cson, the League-sponsored conlesl
lacluded prlaes for bo1,I f:ngilsh And Spanish iangynge slogans nboul LWVIT RF.UO'L': 7brgels, A1evrs and bnlaids of Source Rcdudlon.
Ihr rrcycling program. One of the Judges was a local Smallish langilmle 1975, Pub. # 1376, 47 pp: 31.00.
columnist who later decided to dwow her Sunday column and Avekly
tall( show 10 the curbside collection program LMF1:' Rl.'CY0.h. hr Sexch o1New PohrIvs lor Resource Recovery,
11 proceeds from recycling nre kelo separate from general revenues, 1972. Pub. 11132. 39 pp• MV- Sen(f prepald orders fo file I WVl IS,
cunnimilly residcnls :an sec tangible results Iron their efforts, 'I'bc address below,
money could help pay for Ennis courts, hlslorical prrsclvaliom services Pllcher, Kay. Solld Waste Resoor(o Guldr, Environmental Action t'oun•
for the clderfy, etc, Illc possibilities arc endless This may be an dallon, 1977. 12 pp, rive ham he Foundallon• 724 DuPont Circle
Afcclive way to Inspire people wllll varlous Interests' Bldg, Wasiingfon, U.C. 20036.
Reaching new residents 1: ,
j In our highly twOle society mucomers mny be a high proportion of pleniemallon G IN(% )975. 26 pp. EPA pub. #MV-15 i
your community. II left Io chance, it could lake months before a new
resident necidentlyfhnds out about Ihr source separallun program. Try to F-1W SCS [aiglneem 1116 Office Paver Recovery lrrckgram: Air hit.
establish a nlechawsm that ell5nres Ihai Ihc'y will gel the vinrd early. plenwalalion Alanuml. 1911. 53 pp, IT A pub. #5W-571
Mel(( sure Owl Informallon aboul your corimunfty's wasle collection f:PA. 5wrrcr Scpararhur: 17ie Communlly Awareness Prcrprain !n
program Is Included in Wclcomr Wagon packers. Work with rcnllors to Sunierville and Marflleliead A1asmclruse1ls. 1976. 81 pp. FPA pub,
i see If Ihcy would dlsblhute pamphlets or make Informallon available to #SW,5g1,
j new hoincomors.
i Perhaps ike moil direct e•Ay of renching newr:1117ens is Io eacati mSie Hf A, I loward, Stephan F. A4arlwl Locallons !or Recovered Maledols,
the departing ie6ldnts In passnlong Informallon on curbsldo collection. 1976. 81 pp. IT' A pub. 115Wv19,
h Many sellers of hornes leave printed dlredlons on opornting and main' All FPA publicallons are avallat,le free, by pub. from 5011(1 Waste
Inlning household appliances; IId5 packet of mnleriai on "running a bdornim on MAIel'lals Control Svolon, U,$. EI virunmenial Proleclion
house" could be, wpplemenfed wllh re5lifenNal'rerovery Irwlrucilons. Agency Cfaclnnali, Ohio 45268,
fiesklonllal recovery insirmilons could encourage this by suggesting
Ihat Informallon on source selmallon belongs with other basic home -
rt inalniruance malerlals. The research and gulling of Ihis publication was made possible, by n
j ean( J900604) from iho Office of Solid Waste, US, Lnvbnnmenlol
Orofecllon Agency to the League of Women Voters rdutallo n fund II
the process never stops was under Ibis snore (grnni that the local Leagues destribed Ili Iliis
One publiclly No or even n year of concentrated effort is not enough. publication recolved funds for their public educnllon rnOvlgeb.
The prow<ss Is a m mr'cnding one.
01 course, It's hard to gear up Ior nu endless publicilyeampalgn, Porl Researched an($ widen by Sally J. Vold(ts'Coglinno, SiMI Specialist,
J of 1110 solution Is Iu share the eltortwdh oilier communlty organlrallons, firivlroarno ill Quallly Uoparfmoni, LWVEf',
r
~.1
F r
CC ,
1h9ntod ott paper rocyclod fltom 100% coasumor scrap,
"f Order from i League of Womon Voters of the Urliecl Siales, 1730 M $11c6f, N.W, Washhlflton, D.C; 20036, Pub, No, 147, 40V.
r ,
r,i"yy(,.l uu
m ~:,Y~;