HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987
W'T
uw
' ' L1, STT1; gELECTION COMMITTi,k;
? 9'tkE CITY OF DENTON 5ANITAaY LANDFI
TO
THE CITY COUNCIL
DENTONt TEXAS
3 ~
CONTENTS
a
Narrt~l ivo
1 ~toaonunanda~~.ons 5
8 I
,M~ Ap~oridiX 's
p IVA
i I
i
I
I
A
h4~
muff-
1
L
FFEDERALnAVIATIONFADMINrISTRAR ONT`O. `
gpyYµWEST RE0110H AV14
P. 01 Box test
FORS WORM 1[%011 76101 `
OCT 3 0 1974 N1 lit
Mr. King Cole a,
Assistant city manager p I
City of Denton
Denton Municipal Building
Denton, Texas 76201
j~ Dear Mr. Cofer
Wet appreciate your concern of the hazards associated with landfills
being located near airports. The poderal Aviation Administration, j
in its role of enhancing safety for civil aviation, has implemented
a program of alerting the public of the hazards that birds present
to aircraft. FAA Order 5200,5 identifies sanitary landfills as an
incompatible use if located wl.thin the specified distances' ,.s
a, 100000 feet of any runway used or planned to be used by
turbojet aircrafte
ircraft.
b. 5000 fast of any runway used only by piston type a
c. Within conical surfaces described by Federal Aviation
a
Regulation Part 77 on a case-by-case, basis.
{ d. Places runway 'or approach/departure surfaces between landfill
and bird feeding, water or roosting aroau.
You should also be aware that the government and the owner of the
landfill could be hold liable for a bird/aircraft collision if the
site is known to contribute to the bird hazard,
We hcvo enclosed a booklet which we have prepared thhatt,iincluudes
various reforancec to the known bird hazards. If You questions relating to landfill locations, please. call this office.
i
Sincerely,
i
*GNS. FAULKNER
Chief, Engineering and Certification Branch, ASW-620
I
Enclosure
i
'r
f
w
' Ma.aW+
The City of Denton Sanitary Landfill Site Selection Com-
mittes has met approximately twenty-five times since its
ti appointment in the fall of 1977. Its initial meetings were spent
in an effort to learn as much as possible about solid waste
disposal.
The next few meetings were spent in establishing the eom-
•mittoolu criteria for use in evaluating possible sites for a
'landfill. Those established, in order of priority, werai
1. Operational and long term cost
2. Acceptable to all people
8. Geographical location in regard to other cities
4. Voluntary seller as opposed to condemnation
Cost of land
6. Accessibility and adaptability after use as landfill
7. Not prime agricultural land i
8. Extension of present site
9. Anticipated impact on burrounding land values j
i 10. Legal actions against the, decision not likely !
11. Availability of adjaoent land for future systems of
i 4.
disposal
Criterion #1 did not mean the least possible cost, but a cost
that is feasible, Criterion 02 was stated as an ideal and at
f the next meeting was interpreted as meaning unaccoptable to the
t smallest number of poople possible.
Criterion 12 played a dominant part in our final decisions.
j Y We roalixed•early that the plaaoment of a sanitary landfill
i
f
J
e,
town"
Orsax
1
-2-
deeply affects people and that it was the reaction to the recom-
mendation of a previous committee on the part of many people +
M V
It which brought our, committee into being. In our effort to involve
r~ those who might be or feel they would be affected adversely by
various locations, we have sought to have various sites being
considerr.i publicized as widely as possible. Consequently, we
have welcomed and listened to many individuals and de3egations
from areas surrounding sites under consideration. Many sites
r under consideration have been dropped because of the feelings
which have been shared with us. Those sites included in our
j t4 recommendations have resulted in the smallest number of objec-
tions. Thus we have done our best, we believe, to do our work
w as human beings conscious of our fellow human beings,
During its meetings the committee has constdered forty-
four sites which have been suggested by former studies, by the
f general public, and by the committee members themselves,
t The committee has labored with two disadvuntages, one of
I - these has been a lack of certainty in regard to the geological
i
formations of many sites under consideration. Assistance has
been provided by geological maps however, these are on a scale
a» 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 coat of a artieuln,. site, as
p pointed up by
r
r criterion N1, w+.thout the making of a thorough cost sttidy, We
I
i
.3-
were, thus, in no position to secure this information, although
we have been aware of the fact that the cost of operation for
a particular city increases with the distance of a site from
that city,
Through the course of our meetings, the committee members-
have grown in our understanding of each other, it is our strong
P
feeling that the problem of solid waste disposal is not one which
i we can solve as individual municipalities of the county, but
that a satisfactory resolution may be arrived at only as we work
together, The committee initially had nineteen member represen-
tatives from Denton, Pilot point, Sanger, Aubrey, Little Elm, Krum,
f
E and Frisco, A representative from the Colony was with us whon
j sites were under consideration in one particular area, The aver--
li age attendance at meetings has been twelve.
The assistance of city start' members has been invaluable
to us, Mr. Chris Hartung met with us as we were organizing and
! attempting to become educated in regard to sanitary landfills,
I !
Mr. Jack Owen and Mr, Greg Anderson have been with us for
all our meetings, They have responded to all of our requests
for assistance competently and willingly, Their experience, the
information they have secured for us, and their advice have been
rr i extremely helpful, Yet at no time have they attempted to in-
fluence our decisions, We greatly appreciate this.
At its last meeting, the committee passed a resolut.ton by
f y
a vote of five to three to go on record as "believing the original
site, #1, was an equal or superior site to any other site examined
{ by the committee because of its Bolo
g gy, economics, and adapts
I
W
.
-4-
bility. The site has good accessibility with the completion of
Loop 288.°
Xt was abated that the purpose of this resolution was not
to undercut the recommendations of the committee, but to evidence
i appreciation of the work done b the
by previous committee in its
r search for a site, However, that committee did not use our cri-
terion N2, which was the primary basis for our, not recommending
Site #1.
' ICI Two of those present, Bob Laforte and Floyd McDaniel, asked
that the record show their feelings that "the statement was gram-
I! matioally and geologically inaccurate and that it left out the
most important point - that a significant number of people of
Denton were opposed to site 01,11 Two members who were not Present
{ at the meeting, Barry Downs and oavid Compton, have asked that
1 ~
this report show their concurrence with this position.
i
i
I
1
i
i I
I
i
t
ra
r
, V.
su
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. THAT EVERY POSSIBLE EFFORT BE MADE TO MOVE TOWARD A RECYCLINC
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,
rr
Although we have been told that a lack of sufficient bulk
I of solid waste makes such an overall system unfeasible at the
f 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 she problem we now
r,.
i
face as a growing one which cannot be resolved by our present
system of waste disposal, With the, expected growth in Denton
County and the metroplex area in the next few years, recycling
should become feasible in a very short periou of time, in the
appendix to this report are several papers which are extremely
good in making these points and in describing alternatives. We
encourage the members of the Council to read these and similar
reports.
In the meantime, modest programs of recycling should be
ti 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 r continuing
educational program for our citizens in regard to conserving and
recycling our material resources. Such should be initiated and
r
i
R
.6-
carried on by the city. For example, recycling literature could
i4
be included with utility bills each month.
2. THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF D1''MON GIVE VERY CAREFUL CONSIDERATION
R
TO TIM FOLLOWING SITES FOR A LANDFILL, WHICH Wf HERF-BY RECOMMEND.
These sites are not listed in priority order. The numbers
F~ have only to do with the order in which the committee gave con-
sideration to them. Comments folalow the description of each site
as needed.
SITC'36 » Seven miles southwest of the center of Denton. Pro-
f 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 Denton. About
one mile west of I35W just west of Paine Road and
,youth of Lively Road. Approxima';,ely 200 acres, No
tests have been rr:de on this site, However, vieual
I I
inspection by a geologist leads us to believe this I
site should be investigated more fully. i
SITE 44 - Northeast of Ponder approximately nine miles from the
I
center of Denton, Property is located between Highway
166 and T.N. SkIles Road, Approximately 384 acres. No
i
tests have been made on this situ, There is some
I
question concerning its location in regard to the muni»
{ oipal airport,
i SITE 48 • Approximately 30 acres behind Reselawn Cometary, This
site would be available on a lease basis rather than i
a sale basis. This being the case, its oast on a short
1 `'E
I
xi; q~~,
Q
term basis would most likely become feasible. If it
could be used for a term of even six or seven years,
along with the estimated three years of use in the
f~ present landfill, it would take us to 1988. By that
I4 time, progress should be made in terms.of recycling
EN
to such an extent that we would not be faced anew with
k
our present problem. However, no tests have been made
a on this site.
The City Council should be aware of the fact that
li
ry 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 MAINTrNANCE COSTS
OF THE ROAD TO A LANDFILL SITE RATHER THAN ONLY THAT PRECINCT
WITfIIN WHICH T IS LOCATED.
Respectfully submitted,
i
Murphey C. Wilds, Chairman
s
MAI
i
;s
~r
APP~:ND:CX
i'
i
II
i
I
1
{
i c
~W4
tvHNtl,,fd
V
Minutes
Sanitary Landfill Site Selection Committee
November 3, 1977
election Committee,
in i the y Council Landfill Chamburs
Regular Thursday, Novembef 3i,e 1977 V at o 7:00 Denton p.m, Sanitary
Th
Members Present: Floyd D. McDaniel, Joe Dell, Harry Doan, Grady L, Collum,
Boboyy Whisenant, Robert LaForte, Kennoth Bahnsen, Bob 14iller,
Jim forral, John Clanton, Isabel Miller, harion 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 Holter, Texas A ?
Staff Present; Chris Hartung, Cityy 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 tho 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
C ommi ttee,
Next Hartung introduced Dr. Gary Holtor of the Political Science Department
at Texas A & M and Or, Bill Holm, Mechanical Engineer at Texas A & M.
Dr, Holtor discussed tho political and economic considerations of landfill
I '
siting and resource recovery,
De. Holm spoke on the technical considerations of resource recovery,
Both men stated that even if the City went to a sophisticated system of
resource recovery we would still need a landfill site.
~r Both meo then opened the moetinq uD to questions concerning economic,
political ancl technical considerations of landfill site selection and solid
waste reclamation,
th+ Committee decided ho~ they
After t n ,n extended period of questioning ~1 the
f
would like to proceed on site selection, The Conmittee decided that they needed
to discuss specific criteria in site selection and then visit our landfill and
on a landfiljsDowi+ recommended that the
other ommittee C also u study landfills the COG In study area.
I C
The Committee considered -i regular meeting date and derided they would
continue to meet on Thursday nights at 7.00 p,m$
Several suggestions were made to improve the next meeting:
I 1, Send list of Conauittee members to each member to assist in the
selection of officers,
, r
h
r
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 aajourneo at 8:30 p.m.
i i
r1
f
V
i
k
r
I
i
f
%Omni
h
MCI
Sanitary Landfill Site Selection Committee
-'!Harry Down Dr, Bob Miller Marlon Robinson
;.11204 University Drive West 1200 Kendolph 3200 Carmel
Denton, Texas 76201 Donton, Texas 76201 Denton, Texas 76201
ick Kelsey Bob l.aForte Dr. Dane Compton
106 Ridgecrest 1401 Sherman Drive 2609 Buckingham
(enton, Texas 76201 Denton, Texas 76201 Denton, Texas 76201
enneth Bahnsen Grady Collum
Rt. 1, Box 409-F Dr. Murphy C. Wilds
RFD 2 1315 Churchill
~ enton, Texas 76201 Denton, Texas 76201 Denton, Texas 76201
f`
Dri Floyd D. McDaniel Jim Terral
Isabel Miller
pip 31 Jacquelyn P. 0, Box 165 711 W. Sycamore
1)enton, Texas 76201 Little 51m, Texas 75068 Denton, Texas 76201
i klaYor Bobby Whisanant
Mayor'F, W. Fowler John Clanton
0, Box 467 P. 0, Box 217
' P. 4. Box 177
'pilot Pont, Texas 76258 Krum, Texas 76249 Frisco, Texas 75D34
4 'Mayor Ralph B. Cole Alderman 1, 7„ Harmon Ball
Q. Box 578 Joe
Main street, P. 0. , Box 1067
Sanger, Texas 76266 Aubrey, Texas 762£7 Sanger, Texas 76266
S ...Jeldon Goin
! P. 0, Box 217
Aubrey, Texas 76227
t
Ii
j Opy of all notices to;
Dan Trammell
"oOnty Judge
enton County
0"ourthouse Square
nenton, Texas 76201
~I
i f
E '
e ~
9
I" M\N
MINUTES
LANDFILL SITE SELECTION COMMITTEE
NOVP.MBER 10, 1977
j
,w Regular Meeting of the City of Denton Landfill Site Selection Coauaittaa, Thursday,
November 10, 1977 at 7x00 p.m. in the Civil Defense Room of the Municipal Building,
MEMBERS PRESENT: Bobby Whisonant, Conrad noornor, Joe Hell, Dan Reding,
Bob LaPorte, Harry Down, Dick Kelsey, Wpldon Guin,
Murphey Wilds, J. L. Pedigo, Ieabal Miller, Bob Millar,
Marion Robinson, F. W, Fowler, Kenneth Bahnsan, Gary Lynch,
Floyd McDaniel, Tony Franzen
OTHERS PRESENTS Chris Hartung, City Managerr Jack Owen, Assistant City
Managers King Colo, Assistant to the City Manager
Greg Anderson, Superintendent, Public Works
! 1. Chris Hartung called tho meeting to order and called for nominations for
Chairman, Murphey Wilds and Ken nahnsen wore nominated for the position
` 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 Bahnaen. Wilds
was elected Chairman.
Wilds took the chair and called 0r nominations for the position of Vice-
Chairman. Ken Bahnson was nominated for the position of Vice-Chairman.
There was a motion that nominations cease and that nahnsen be o7ected by
acclamation, Motion carried, nahnsen was elected Vice-Chairman,
2, The Committee viewed a film on solid waste reclamation and sanitary landfills,
3. The Committee considered the sanitary landfill design criteria published
I~ by the North Central Taxas Council of dovernmonts,
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 diet not fool
it was important to visit some other landfills, Kelsey felt that the impor-
tant thing was to malto a speody roeommendation.
The Committee determined that a member may send an alternate to the meet-
inge if the member were not able to attend,
Isabel Millar 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 axplained that our present landfill was bounded on
~.ie side by the flood plain of Lako Lewisville and on the other three aides
j the City of Crossroads. Owen further explained that tho City of Cross-
oads had passed an ordinance preventing any other landfills within their
lorporato limits,
J _ The Committee agreed to set the agenda for the coming wookst
w.
2 _
November 19 - Members of the Committee will tour our
sanitary landfill site plus a good and
and a bad site in other cities.
December 2 - The Committee will meet to establish
j their own criteria for landfill site
E selection.
t r' The Committee also asked that the City staff answer the following
questions and provide the following requested informations
4 1, Provide some examples of hauling costs per mile.
2. What size site are we lcoking for?
s
3. Why did we exaludo 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?
S, What costs are involved in bur present site's oparation?
6. Provide population donsitiss for the area.
E
E
i
1
i
.
I
{
` I
i j
i i
i
f `
I
NB
1 • Y,
• f
II7~
I
MINUTES
LANDFILL SITE SELECTION COMMITTED
DECEMBER 11 1977
Regular Meeting of the City of Denton Landfill Site Selection Committee, Thursday,
December 11 1977 at 700 p.m, in City gall .
q MP.MBERS PRESENTi Bob Miller, Isabel Miller, Murphey Wilds, Robert LaPorte, Tony
Franzen, Ken Cornell, Floyd D. McDaniel, J. L. Pedigo, Bobby
Whisonant, Dick Kelsey, D.An Roding, Joe sell
VNIERS PRESENTi Chris Hartung, City Managers King Colo, Assistant to the City
ManagorU Grog Anderson, Solid waste Superintendent
M.
1. The Committee received a roport 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 Proeso and Nichols Consulting Engineers showed the following comments
{ and conolusionsi
k Co~ mmontui
We have used the compacted weight of solid waste as 1000 pounds par cubic
1 yard in place with requires good compaction in the field, and we suggest
,1 I that the purchase of a Compactor machine built for solid wastes compaction
be considered by the City of Denton.
Also, in ordor to make full use of the Site as originally proposed when the
plans were prepared for tho Permit Application, it is necessary to borrow
a largo volume of material and haul same for approximately a 1000 foot,
We suggest consideration be given by the City of Denton to the purchase of
1 an excavating Scraper for this purpose.
Conolusi,~n~
Considering the use of a solid waste Compactor, the'prosent Landfill Site is
estimated to laete three (3) yearn with only the city of Denton contributing,
and approximately 2 years and S months, with all seven participating cities
contributing to the landfill. If a compactor unit is not used to secure
better compaction of cho solid waste, hho time will be rodueed approximately
_I
six (e) months.
'3, Chairman wilds stated that he thought the Committee should now consider, estab-
lishing their own criteria and then applying proposed bites to coo which ones
fit the criteria.
The Committee established the following critorint
i '
I 1. Operational and long harm cost
2, Accoptablo to all people
3. Rxtennion of proaent sito
4. Geographical louation, re ot}ior onion
" S. Cost of land
I
S, Voluntary sollor An opposed to cor,'mmnation
E
7. Accessibilitly and adaptability (land after use)
8. Not prima agricultural land
9. Anticipated impact on surrounding land values
20. Loyal actions aqainst the decision
11. Availability of adjacent land for future systems of disposal
M' After the Committee established the criteria, they wont through a ranking
i process to prioritize them. Tho prieritiea were noted as followsr
Cri,A Denton Count
Combined '
! r, 2 4 2 2
l 1 1 1
9 2 6 A
5 5 6 6
6 l0 g ,
7 7
7 3 9 e
8 9
{ i 9 ll
10 4
f 10 5 10
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at SOO ~
Ipan.
I
I
171
i
i
i
4
t ,
1
CITY OF DENTON
MEMORANDUM
TO) Chrir Hartung, City Manager
FROMI Jack Owen, Assistant City Manager
DATES November 22, 1977
I!`M
ly SUBJECTs Questions Asked At Last .itizons Landfill Committee Meeting
IM
' Several questions were asked at the last meeting that we shall attempt to answor,
- 1. Q. what are our haul costs?
A. Greg Anderson is calculating our haul costs and will have the informa-
tion to you prior to the meeting.
i
2, Q. What size site are we looking for?
A. The prior committee used 15 to 20 years as the time period for a new
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 dodo the suitable
formation go?), factors such as area naedod for support faoilities,
screening, eta., and how long will the site be used? The prior com-
mittee primarily looked at sites of 100 acres and up.
,
3. Q. Why were the Coo sites not considered?
A. The sites listed in the Coo study were geographical locations and '
not exact sites. Sites in each of those 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 olaze of NTSU and Mr. Terry Childors, then of NTSU,
helped the committee narrow the number of sites, Mr. Charles Jordan
was the person who first made us aware that'the sito known as site 1
might be available. I
Since the cities that had passed resolutions asking to join in with
Denton wake primarily located in the northern portion of Denton County,
more consideration was probably given to sites in that direction. Test
I holoo wore drilled on the four sites included in the Freese and Nichols
study and another site located some fifteen (15) miles east on Highway
380, The latter site is in the general vicinity at one of the COG
locations.
4, Q, Which cities are serious?
,W A. The cities of Frisco, Pilot Point, Aubrey, Sanger, Little E.lm, and
+ Krum have appointed mombors to the prenont site selection oornittoo.
i Each of them passed resolutions at an earlier date indicating their
1 {
M
~2F
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 attaehod. As noted on tho attachment, 5 pounds per capita per day
was used. The pounds per capita may be high or lows however, the par-
aentage comparison should be meaningful,
S. 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 oquipment will almost be a necessity if the
life of the site is to be greatly extended.
I
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 boat
method to obtain the density information for a given site.
E
E
,
a C OWN
Jo/je
Attaohment
j
j
E
N
k' ro k
Ir,1 A
N N W V p Ir"
I00 N p + N p WI i
i ~
W
M
!JI 00 I
N M W W O In W N
~ ~ I ~ M ~ M dP INO ~p +UI
F
i ..~i
I
i ,
r r
A PARTIAL LIST OF THE SITES
STUDIED DY THE ORIGINAL SITE SELECTION COK41TTEE
DENTON COUNTY AREA-WIDE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT.' STUDY
POTENTIAL LANDFILL. SITES
i
1. 357 acres, Six miles south of Denton off 135-W and Crawford
! Road. KGY $3,500 per acre. Hazel Hartin.
2. 144 acres. North of Denton at intersection of NM 428 and 2153.
Green Valley area. KGY $2,500 per acre. Hazel Hartin,
3. ParOtially.inNPlaodoplaintonQTut$FM54008porA nl Creek.
acre. Barnes Realty.
~p
4; 200 acres.. Adjoining FM 720 south of U.S. 380, -50 KGY
I r~ $5$00 per acre. Hazel Martin.
51 135 acres. At the Intersection of U.S. 380 and 377. KWB
$3,000 par acre. PUL'liase arrangements flexible, Archie Wilkerson.
61 400 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 Creak. Out Bonnie Brae southward, QT. and flood plain.
[ $1,500 per acre, Barns Realty,
8, 180 acres, South of Denton seven miles southward out Bonnie Bras
i
' across Hickory Crook. QT and flood Plain. A. W. James, 7151 Green
~ Tree Lane, Dallas, TX 75214, "Happy Salmon,
I
9, T187 elmageei,inslyo 136148 Midway sRoad$ Suite 203j Dallas, RTXk75240, miles West of Denton, "Happy" Salmon.
i
10, 200 acres. West of. Denton on Airport Road, Partially in dry crook
bad. "Happy" Salmon,
11, ' 300 acres, South of Denton near Roanoke, 1-1.5 miles cast of 135-W
and 1140 two miles north of Roanoke, KGY(?) $5,000 par sore,
I Hazel Hattin.
12. 200 acres. Out Sherman DriVa north of Denton. $100000 per sere,
13. 210 acren. Northeast Denton County approximately 10 miles north of
U.S, 380 at Cho junction of FM 1385 and 428 between Mustang and
Little Elm Creaks. QT $1,900 par acre. Clifton Trick, Realtor. .
i
i
i
E
+
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. 11aze.1 Hartin,
P* Owner,
16. 270 acres, North Denton County approximately eight miles north
of Denton near a gravel pit, QT $1,000-per acre. Gifford-Hill Co.,
Owner. Bill Eldridge, Realtor.
17, 139 acres.' North Denton County, eight miles north of Denton in
Gribble Springs area, QT $1,500 per acre. bill Eldridge, Realtor,
18, 251 acres, West Denton County, one mile south of U.S, 380 near
Denton Creek, west of Stoney, QT $7,300 peg: acre. Hazel Harkin,
Realtor.
190' 38-1/2 acres. Southwest Denton County near Ponder, Newton Gann, i
Owner.
20, 150 acres, South of Denton out Hwy. 377 south and west of Hickory
Creak. -50 KGY $2,500 per acre, Willing to carry note, M, C. Birch,
21, 3.50 acres. West of Denton out Airport Road, one mile west of 135-W
{ and 135-E exchange. QT $2,500 per acre, 11. W, Down,
22. 120 acres, South of Denton Airport, QT $2,500 per acre. Hazel
Hartin, (Jim Barn, Bob Smith)
23, 294 acres. West of Denton near Stoney Community. QT $5,000 par acre,
Hazel Hartin,
24. 251 acres. West of Dontou near Stoney Community. $50000 per acre,
Hazel Hartin,
251 148 acres. East of Denton on M 423. QT $2,850 per acre,
Burt Shryock,
261 300 acres. East of Denton on FM 423. KEP $4,000 per acre.
8111 Williams,
27, 107 acres, Eestarn Denton County, Fkl 2934. QT $3,500 per acre,
Pat Wiggins. %
j 28, 150 aoros, Corner of M 423 and 2934, QT $40000 per acre,
Deb Madans.
I
",Vol
Solid Waste Study
Potential Landfill Site
Page 3
1
29. 425 acres. Bast of Sanger on FM 2153 in Green Valley area, -50 KGY
$3,500 per acre. Hazal Martin,
30. 460 acres. Four miles south of Denton on 135-W, QT $5,500 per
r acre. Baker Montgomery,
Ik 31. 165 scree. North of Denton on FM 2164, KWB $3,500 per acre,
e Bill Williams.
rF 32. 230 acres, North of Denton on Bonnie Brae, -50 KGY. $5,000
per acre. Bill Cayle,
i~4 33. 274 acres. Five miles north of U,S, 380 on FM 1385 and 428, QT
1 $1,450 per acre, Gifford Touchstone Company,
! I
r
i
t
R
;t
,
i
i
(PWA*W
11Yf1YA~
CITY OF D5NTON
MEMORANDUM
T0i Jack Owen, Assistant City Manager
i
FAOM~ Grog Anderson, Superintendent Of Public Works
and Hauling Cost Estimates - Sanitary
SUD7UCTi operating
Landfill
DATE I November 29, 1977
~
approximately
/M
At the present time the landf)ounds illispercoapita per day) ox
3.18 tons of xofuae Per day (five I 3,070 tons per yeAZ. -78 operating buaos~
Ot,r 1.977 oxi-
43 sf&retappr
landfill is $127,429.00, so our operating
00 per tons (Our operating bud of does not take into
a tary landfill
t COG
consideration any cost for land amortdaizat on.?
The following data has been upr 1772m73 pzot.esent fiscal item ywas
WaateTStudY done during our fiscal yo* ear,
increased by the percentage increase to our racke cubic These haul costs are bbased commercial truckrthe t cost
1117 1 thro& man residential lq axe a por mile less, because they arc one
would be approximately
man operated.
f $ ,13
Fuel and oil
32
,
Maintenance and tires
.58
Depreciation
421
Labor
07
Insurance
Management and Overhead
I Cost Per mild, per truck $1.39
j
L
}
i
3
E l I.
Mel
y
WA"I
ACCEPTABLE GEOLOGIC ARE?AS
(1) Kiamichi Shale Kki
(2) Grayson Marl Kgy
(3) Eagle Ford Shale Kef
(4) Ozan Formation K0
i
(S) Marlbrook Marl K
mb
(6) Kemp Clay KkC,
w
> 1
1
a • fryjt'
• i ,
IIINUI'hS :!~'i:
CITY OF DEN'I'ON SANITARY LANDFILL SITE' SCLL'CTION COI*IITTIiI. c 'V
DECEMBER Of 1977
•,r
Ragular Mooting of the City of Denton Sanitary Landfill Site Selection Committee,,
Docombor 0, 1977 at 7100 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Municipal riuildlny, rf'
i
MUMS PRGSLN're Robinson, Ml.llor, Down, Roditlg, Bell, Pedigo, McDaniel,
Miller, LaPorte, Goin, Burns, Wilds, Collum, Compton
OTHERS PRESEN'1'+ Chris Ilartun hr~1{
gr .lack Owen, Y.iny Cole and Grery Anderson
of tho City of Denton sLa£f
t
-l 1, The Committee eanoidercd the t nutos of tho meeting of Novcmhcr lu, 1977
and Docombor 1, 1977, Tho mir rtas of November 10, 1977 wore arprovod a!;
dintribus.od. The minutort of,tho mooting of Documher l wore amouded kindar
Section 3, the portion listing the colueins showing the rankinfls by the ,rr
individual members of Lho Committee. The columns wore asrtendecl'by adding 9"s
w- number 11 tinder "Critoria", number 0 under "Denton", number 11 under "Count '
And number 11 under "Combinod", rt
2. Chairman of the Committee, Murphoy Wilda, submitted a barer to Lhu commiLto
that includocl Lhe dofiniLlon of tcrms in tho first. part and At proF+asal ro» ;
gnrding the use of c.+,terin in tho,socond part and a narrative ranking as
estnb)ishod by tho Committee at the last moeLiny.
D1-1P INI'1'L(N 0!' Trg, IS
1{ , i
1. Operational and long term cost that the a.ito be economically feasi '
but not necessarily the lowest cost
-•^tho si •os ~ansi<Ierod; r+;u't t ,r~~'
2. Aecoptable to all poor).e 1 that the aitr, would draw Lho least t4 `
able ob;IecLlonB from t•ho Cewoat num)
of peoplo possible by ronsons of au
considerations as surrounding envir +i
mental impact, LraPf.ia, litter, eta =
r}11
3. Extension of present sito that Lho presont site bo oxpandod a
that continued use be possible for
longor Lhnn tho projoeted three yea
4. Georgraphia location re other eitios thnL tho sito by olio which would bo s -
foanible for othor eitios+ in t•he cot
to use in germs of dJ.atnnoo involve
5. Cost of land that tho cost of )nnd bo economical
r.
• fuaaiblo, though not nccosnarily Lit
E lowo.t cost of the sites considered
6. Voluntary aol)er as opposad to that condemnation procodurea not bu
condemnation nocoasary for acquisiLion of tho aJ
7. AccossibiliLy and adaptahi)1ty that tho sito bo such thnt It, may )"1L
finned after lion as landfil)) reached with nano a,nd that it bo n11 .114
ably Lo quod use nrLur operation it,, landfill In comploterl ?+3r
`2
1 { ,
r ~L •
8. Not prime agricultural land that Cho Site not be orte which woul 4
S convert prime agricultural land to
~A a landfill use N
9. Antiaipatad impact on surrounding that the site bus one which would ha `i'`•
r 1 srt land values
the lonst i,ut,nihlr:, if any, in,paCL I
surrounding land vuluos
PA 10. Legal actions against the decision that the situ be one over which no
cosLly and prolongod litigation wou
I be anticipated
j 11. Availability of actjacont land for that adjacent land bo nvatlabir. she,f
future systems of disposal Jt be neodud for, some future Sys tom of waste disposal
A PROPOSAL REGARDING rHi. USN; Of ClUIPIAZIA
4 I.
1. A list of all possiblo sites which moot solo ical re uirement
k g g q s he drawn up
2. criterion l as pr.loritizod be applied to all sites listed, eliminating site
which do not moot it
I
3. Criterion 2 as prioritized be npplied to all. remaining siton, eliminating )r'
those sites which do not moot it
4. ConLinuation of process through remaining criteria
h;
r For char L•, see Attachment
The Committee studied the paper presented by Chairman Wilde and agreed to ,
two amendmontsr
1. To remove Section 3 under "Definition of Tormg" and list It as an a1Lor- f
native And amend Cho wording to road "exhaust all passibilltles for
ox- tension of the present situ".
2. Amend Clio definition of "economically feasible" to the following wordingr ;i'
"tohinctudo.conyidernt on/of cost of Clio i,lck-up haul' and cllsposnl",
C. Y
There was a motion by McDoniol, seconded by Compton to ro-order the eritorl+~..
as rankod under thu Denton column, I'M motion failed with 4 in favor and G in
u opposition,
yr, o
I 4 Next thoro was a motion by town,nocondod by Soll to proceed to 9110p 1 and 1)
list all poBsiblo nitan which moot goological roquiromentn be drawn up, Motion 7,'.
I Carried unnnimounly, Doi) Miller roquastod that Cho staff identify oft a largo
map, thn four four siton that wo consiclored, plan Lho other nit-on lintod Clint.
t
moot thn goological rocluirmnonta and any other siton roconunondod by a member or
Cho committoo,
IrL
y+ 11110 Committee then dneided to hold off on diacurscsing alto aalool; n unCi1. LI r
mnp was completott. With no furllhnr l+uninurrs, iL wan deuidorl to r„uot on Thursday,""sy r
Uocombor 15, 1910)" nL 700 p.m. and LhA the mnatfnry hrt nd;lnurneci.
VIM,
W Q W (b OIn tr W IJ W '''~•ti
Cl 0
o n N 'u
n vroi a r it i F+ ,H n O N
f
w F'. N• ,9 N rf N 0 '1
'd iJ N a W W 1' t7 n h J 'I 'S
a t .,I
K ri s u 4,r W N O 11 O It w 1' ,.tK
n a g 11 V. f 'tf Y• p, N n I I W rh W 'U r'• • r!
R n 1. 1~ P. Di O U W i U' W O
N N 0 rf w r, J n. tr a W r
P. 7 :'r
N• ' N (v 1, j m N n G,
a r.' o rt rt a n. b w n. m a W '
00 tD 0 N '-0 N r rrr It F' N CL rl w
rf N !A 4. b i' !1 f O 1-I taf
N b N 1 'U !D W N W n a f•t rh N 'U O n.
~ r. m ro a N a fI ry 1+ n
W N Il a fl N C 1 f'• 3`' a 1'' ,
fa y CL n N IA fL O a f I O
t.,.3 N i3 N 'U r+f
rl N b a O rl v w a 01 ~f
pIJ N •h n b N Vii' a3 'V .1 rl
N Irt 1 N w th
1. pwj A W~
N 1
Y. ,U W rl W N O
n
~Y~I n ur O a b P.
f;, n• n. ii i m
y
+ o a
~ K oa I•.
r n
L
i
I W N
W 6 W co V O• VI f:• W N W
a m pOq r, rI n op7 n w n N
}i, w n n •1 ~ n vroi q 1-+ •cf n ~s til ui :,1; i
r, 3 rq r1 O H. a m Fp~+ Y• 1-' N O rS O fI rt If ,
C dl
U 3• [3 Cl w 1^ n w w a 1
L,, cr o L1, a ~~yy a' n ~1' n u• b
d rl iL W W rt ro O •d W 7 1 i
N v. a ~i n d ro
U w N
It O O a fl, a wr,
•V1 v, n. r+l C 1M, 4; 1N ai N O a
N b W G ri .roi w 4.4 a P. rr 6 o a' CI. f r
h Ifi
a N n L. A. P G't
i
O a O 'i t
(il rai, r,
Lu 1+• 9 H 9 r,• It
to N Li p N 0 _
OI h d fn U N rl rU 'C rf31.,v
1,, 14
IA It
W H FF `d p H s.,
1; QO ! x'.44 •
~ ONCE ft r~ 0
It
n y p NI N e1 1+i. 1~ f
y ro ry ( r
pp w NWN A Shc 'tl r~ INS O rf0 irrJ, a 'v Nj 5~,
G Oil
'r n. U' n N b 'U Y. , r• H. 61 v t w
1 W 1-+ tf r rf q fffDDD W ~ s~s 'Q r~~' ~ ppf ;'r{t
N I Y' ~ O .0.1 t+• iLN N W i'
C I fi rH Nn n w o a it
na 4ja H n H 3J ,QW
a n+a or N w t~
t n a p o o s
o a w b it
0 0 Id -j ti
fpiD fD r P, i
r ♦ ~y
O ~W,I (L 0(' 1r}~ f l ¢ ~ w
4 .r 3' ro. (L Vt ~i IA • •n
b •
it r s '
i
1
/IbMN~ .
I
SITES REMOVED FROM MAP
1. 150 acres. North of Denton out FM 428 just across Milam
Creek, Partially in flood plain. QT $1,500.00 per acre.
Barns Realty.
iR
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 C3onni.e
Brae across Hickory Creek, QT and flood plain, A.W. James,
2 7151 Green Tree Lane, Dallas, Texas, 75214. "Happy" Salmon,
5. 210 acres, Northeast Denton County approximately ten miles
north of U,S. 380 at the junction of FM 1385 and 428 between
Mustang and Little Elm Crooks. QT $1,900,00 per acre.
Clifton Trick, Realtor,
L
. 6. 500 cares, Northeast Denton County just north of Aubrey.
QT $10,000,00 per acre. Hazel Hartin, Realtor.
i 7. 71 acres. East of Denton near Lincoln Pgrk, two miles
north of U.S. 380, west of Pecan Croak. oil $5,000.00 per s
acre, Hazel Hartin, owner,
81 270 acres, North Denton County approximately eight miles
north of Denton near a gravel pit. QT $1,000.00 per acre.
Gifford Hill Company, owner. Bill Eldridge, Realtor,
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. (Vest Denton County, one mile south of U,S. 380
near Denton Crook, wash of Stoney, QT $7,500.00 per acre.
! Hazel Hartin, Realtor.
11. 150 acres. West of Denton out Airport }toad, one mile west
of 135-W and 135-- exchange. QT $2,500,00 per acre.
f _ H.W. Down.
f 12. 120 acres. South of Denton Airport. QT $20500.00 per acre.
Hazel itartin, (Jim Narn, Bob Smith.)
1
d
.2-
13. 294 acres. West of Denton near Stoney. QT $5,000.00 per
acre. Hazel flartin.
14, 148 sates.' East of Denton on FM 423. QT $2,$50.00 per acre.
Burt Shryock.
15. 300 sores. East of Denton on FM 423. KEP $4,000.00 per acre.
gill Williams.
E FM 2934. QT $30500.00
16. 107 acres, Eastern Denton County,
P" per acre. Pat wigging.
y
17, 150 acres. Corner of FM 423 and 2939. QT $9,000.00 per acre.
Bob Madans,
18. 460 acres, Four miles sorath of Denton on I3541. QT $5,500.00
E w. per acre, Baker MontgomerY.
194 165 acres. North of Denton on FM 2164. KWB $3,500.00 per
acre, Bill Williams.
20, 274 acres, Five miles north of U.5. 380 oil FM 1385 and 428.
QT $11450,00 per acre. Gif.Ecrd Touchstone Company,
I
I
I
I
I
SITES SPOTTED ON MAP
219 Denton $3g500.00ape Dracreive. Soil borings
l~ acres.
indicate impermeable clay.
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.
30 174 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. 2004- acres. North of Denton about one mile bast of Gribble
E Springs between FM 2164 and FM 2153, Soil borings indicate j
impermeable clay. $1,500.00 per acre. Hazel Hartin.
5. 357 acres. Six miles south of Denton oft 1-35W and Crawford
i Road. KGY $3,500.00 per acre. Hazel HartirL,
I E '
6. 144 acres. North of Denton at intersection of FM 428 and
PM 2153. Green valley area. KGY $2,500.00 per acre, 11azel
Martin, .
7. 200 acres., Adjoining FM 720 south of U.S. 3800 -•50 KGY s
$5,500.00 per acre. Hazel Martin,
8. 400 acres. North of Denton off FM 2164 in Gribble Springs
I area. -50 KGY $2,000.00 per, acre, Saker Montgomery.
i
i 9. 187 sores, Near Ponder, nine miles west of Denton. Rocky
eoi.l, "Happy" Salmon.
10. 200 acres, West of Denton on Airport Road. Partially in
dry creek bad, "Happy" Salmon.
11, 300 acres. South of Denton near Roanoke, one and one half
i miles east of Z-35W and 114, two miles north of Roanoke.
Kay (7) $5,000.00 per acre, Hazel Martin,
V 12. 200 acres. .Out Sherman Drive north of Denton, $10,000.00
C7 I I
per acre.
13. 235 acres. south of Denton out 377 Knuth and west of hickory ,
f
Crook -•50 ROY $2,500,00 per acre, Willing to carry note.
M ,C, Birch.
14, 251 acres. West of Denton near Stoney. $50000.00 per acre.
I
Hazel ifartin.
i E I
P
I
NW~
_2d
15. 425 acres. Bast of Sanger on FM 2153, in Green •Valloy area.
.50 KGX $3,500.00 per acre. Hazel Hartin.
This general area submitted for consideration because of
its being sparsely populated. Harry Down.
16'
} to our ' 17. This general area submitted deipopulationty Joe hell.
present site, and relatively sparco ,
Y 18. 100+ sclay. Flathterrain.co$2,000.00 per acre im-
permeable
Martin.
terrain McReynods Mike
19. 591 acres. 42o111rth ng,hillDenton
FM 2164.
Ramos, Realtor. 387-8811.
I 20. 170 acres. North Denton west of intersection of Ganzer k
and hector Road. Flat terrain. $2,000,00 per, acre. hazel
Hartin. I
i
4
I
r
I
MINUTES
CITY OF DENTON SANITARY LANDFILL SELECTION COMMITTEE
Dramm 15, Regular Meeting of the City of Denton Sanitary Landfill Sita Selection CammittOc,
December 15c 1977 at 700 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Duildingr
MEMBrRS PRESL14TO Miller, COllum,DOwn, Terral, LaPorte, Miller, Dahnson,
MoDaniclr Frigon for Ralph Cole, Compton, Bell, Reding,
/M Goin, Wilds, John Robinson for Marion Robinson
OTHERS PRESENT, Jaok Owen and Greg Anderson of the City of Denton Staff
1. The Committee considered the minutes of the meeting of December 80 1977.
The definition of "economically feasible" used in further defining cri-
torion number one, operational and long term cost, was amonded to iucludo
"the preparation of the Bite, the cost of the property, and how these
costs will directly affect the usage fees". (Those amondmonts ofEoyamendedod by
i Murphy wilds and Isabel Miller,) The minuted ware then approved
1 2. Jack Owon presented a large map of Denton County which showed with red pins
most of the sites considered by the original site selection committee. He
r' explained that the locations pinpointed on the map wore approximatod
3. Joe Boll asked that a site north of our prevent site and Highway 380 be
included among those on the map, ltarr.y Down requested an additional site
south of Rector Road and west of Intorestato 35 be added to the map also,
i
Q, Bob Millar moved and Bob LaPorte seconded the motion that the silos showi
as geologically unsuitable on the map be removed. The motion was approve,
i
51 Isabel Duller requested the Small Cities be more clearly i.ndiaated on the j
map showing city limits and population. Bob LaPorte requested the number
` of loads per weak each City hauls to our present landfill.
6. Floyd McDaniel requosted that it be recorded in the minutes the position 4
of the City of Sanger in possibly owning and operating their own landfill,
John prigon, Assistant City Managor for ganger, stated that his City was
still very intorestod in the regional landfill Nroleot but at the name time, !
had to investigate all options.
76Joo'6e11 asked that someone from the City Staff approach the Army Corps of
i~ngi.noora about possible property south of our present site by the next:
moeting,
0, Joe Boll moved and Ken llahuson seconded that the City of Denton approach
Crossroads about expanding our prosant Oita. The motion was approvad, The
f i committee roquostad this be done as noon as possible,
l 9, The committee again roaffirmod its concern for finding a batter alternativo
1 for disposing of go! id waste. !tarry Down and Floyd HcDnniol advoonted tho
Committee consider shore: term sites, Two main advantagoa woro montionodi
I ,
f
f
2
Better citizon acceptance. 11
s
i 2. No long term commitment to sanitary landfilling should a
f better method become feasible.
h ,
10. The Committee requested that a now list of the sites be made and keyed to
h' pinpointed locations on the map.
11. Floyd McDaniel moved and harry Down seconded the motion that the meeting N
adjourn and reconvene on the first Thuraday in January, January 5, 1078.
r Motion was approved,
M±
I ~
t '
f .
t
I k
i
i '
i
I i
I1 .J {
} i
'r
CITY OF DENTON
MEMORANDUM
TOs Members of the City of Denton Landfill Site Selection Committee
j FROM, Jack Owsn, Assistant City Manager
DATES January 5, 1978
r. SUB3CCTo Rosgheduling of Next Committee Meeting
t
The Regular. Meeting of the City of Denton Landfill Site Selection Committee
scheduled for tonight, January 5, 1978, has been rescheduled for next
Thursday, January 12, 1970 at 100 in the Civil Defense Room of the City
Hall.
The same agenda that was sent to you for the January 50 1978 will be used
for the meeting on January 12, 1970.
s
owEN
I
i
j
.ter ,r...
MINUTES
CITY OF DENTON SANITARY LANDFILL SITE SELECTION COMMITTEE
JANUARY 12, 1978
A
Regular Meeting of the City of Denton Sanitary Landfill Site
Selection Committee, January 12, 1978 at 7100 p,m. in the Council
Chambers of the Municipal Duildingi
i9
MEMBERS PRESENT: Robinson, Terral, Clanton, Pedigo, whisenant,
Bahnsen, B. Miller., Franzen, McDaniel, Down,
Wilds, LaPorte, Compton, Isabel Miller
.r
OTHERS PRESENTt Chris Hartung, Jack Owen, and Greg Anderson of
the City Staff and Les Harper of the Record
Chronicle
1, The Committee considered the minutes of December 15, 1977.
i Marion Robinson asked that the minutes be amended to show
j Scott Robinson and not John Robinson attended the meeting in
her behalf. The minutes were then approved as amended,
2, Bob LaCorto moved that the following three items be empha-
i sized to the news modias
a, -There is no "push" by the City Staff toward any of
I the four original sites.
b, Sites removed from the map were done so from purely
geological reasons. Economics of those sites were
not discussod.
e. All sites are being considered equally by the commit-
tee,
J This motion was seconded by Harry Down and approved by the
committee.
,y+ 3. Mr, Jack Owen reported that he had talked with an Army Corps
of Engineers representative about the possibility of securing
government land for a sanitary landfill, By telephone the
Corps thought the possibility remote, and promised further
f information in writing.
4 A, Mr, Owen explained he had contactrd the Mayor of Crosgroads
about a site within their area. The Mayor said he would dis-
cuss it with his council.
` i 5. There was considerable discussion concerning long and short
term sites, Mr. J,L, Pedigo moved and Isabel Miller seconded
the motion that the committee look in the direction of a ono
site location to be utilized for a period of more or lose
20 yoars, The motion was approved with a roll call vote of
1
Yy i .
I
..2..
I
t .
' seven yes and four no with one abstention. The members voted
as'followss.
Yes No
B.*` ller MoGaniel
Robinson Down
F ; Terral LaPorte
Pedigo
s Bahnsen Compton
Franzen Abstention
1. Miller Mfin Clanton
t 6. Jim Terral asked that the committee attempt to establish soil.
E types on all sites on the map.
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.
Committee agreed to meet in two weeks on Thursday, Ja)7uaa•y 26,
1978 at 7100 p.m. and that the meeting be adjourned.
}1 ,
ilI
1
I .
I r ,
v~
1 '
I
k
w .
i
_j
p*
AVERAGE LOADS PER SVHEK HAULED
BY AREA CITIES
Loads Per Week
i Sanger 5
Aubrey 2
I ~
i _ Pilot Point 12
Little Elm 2 i
Krum 2
1
{ Frisco 20 ~
Denton 105 i
f
{
t
:rL
a rwe•~ ,
CITY OP DENTON SANITARY LAMYNOTB8
NDPII,L SITE SrLECTION
PEDRUARY 21 1978 .COMMITTEE
Regular Meeting of the City of Denton °anitar
Selection Committee, February 2,
Chambers of the Municipal Duildiny97B at 7r00y r'andfill Site
p.m. Ill the Council
MEMDER5 MSENT1 Clanton
Reding, Dahnsen, Pedigo,
McDaniel, Wilds, Isabel Miller
Whisenant, Robinson Comptonen,aPorte
OTHERS PRrSENTj to,
Jack Owen and Greg Anderson of the Cit
j' Los Ilaxper of the Record Chronicle andY StaFP,
W sites#19 realtor repr,asentin Mike
g the owner of
1• The committee considered the min
minutes were approved January
as written. . arY 261 1978. The
2, The general area listed as siPe retain.
in formation on s e
#16 could be was
made or vote taknoiFic sites
obtained until further
No motion
3, The City Staff Offered for t
- submitted b considerAtlon two sptleiia sites
more Y roaltor flazel Hartin in
he area listed as alto
geological '-he was requested,
#17
andlOT whichaarQhe entire area of According to
generall N17 is shown to the
be woodbine
ban of the Committee that yaionaltsites in It be Sought, ddit t seamed the apin- '
area should
4. Isabel miller moved and Ron Dahnsen Seconded
removed because Of criteria
~I
and site #18 was f #1. The motion that site 018 be
retained,
was not approved
5, Reding moved and LaPorte
0"80 of criteria 12, seconded that site
was retained, The motion was not a p#19 be removed be-
pprovod and site 019
61 Clanton moved and bahnson seconded that action on sites ahd Y22 be tabled until further information co
#21
Motion was approved. uld sites
obtained.
7, The Committee agroocl •o rnoet next Thursdny, P
7'00 and the meeting was adjourn
at ebruary 9, 1978
ed,
t '
J
r
1 ' ~2- NNN
areas. The sites were listed 021 and 422, Site 121 appeared
to be in KGY, and 122 in KPWD.
11, McDaniel movr.d and T,aror.to seconded that site #1 be removed
bocauso it does not meet criteria #2. Motion was approved.
12, Dahnson moved and Pedigo seconded to remove site AS because
it did not meot,critoria #4. Motion was approved,
13. Pedigo moved and Terral seconded that site #9 bo removed be-
cause it did not meet,eriteria 11, Motion was approved.
14, Eroding moved and Larorte seconded that site #15 be removed
because it dial not meet criteria 42. Motion was approved,
15. Committee agreed to accept additional sites for consideration
as they are submitted to either Committeo members or City
Staff.
16. Next mooting was sot for, Thursday rebruary 2, 1970 at 7100
p,m. and the meeting was adjourned,
j
1
f
1
k~
f
i
I
\~b r
r
r
1
MINUTES
CITY OF DENTON SANITARY LANDFILL SITB SELECTION COMMITTEE
FEBRUARY 16, 1978
Regular Meeting of the City of Denton Sanitary Landfill Site Selection
Committee, February 16, 1978 at 7500 p.m, in the Council Chambers of
the Municipal Buildings
MEMBERS PRESENTS Down, McDaniel, Bahnsen, Reding, Knox, Pedigo,
Clanton, Wilde, LaForte, Franzen, Campton,
Isabel Miller
OTHERS PRESENTS Jack Owen and Greg Anderson of the City Staff
1.
~ The Committee considered the minutes of the meeting of February
2, 1978. The minutes were approved as written.
1
2. Reverend Wilds reported to the Committee that site #19 had been
I withdrawn by the property owner. It was removed from considera-
r tion.
j 3. Jack Owen reported to the Committee that site 110 had been found 1
to have two large gravel pits on the property, indicating poor j
soils for landfill purposes. Ile also indicated that the F,F,A,
would probably object to this site because of its close proxim-
ity to the Denton Airport and the airplane flight pattern, Leo
Knox felt that the soils in this area were made of fragmented
limegtono, which is highly permeable. Site #10 remained under
considoration.
4. Jack Owen presented a letter from Julia A. Williams indicating i
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,
i
5. Site #21 was pinpointed to be about one and one half miles north
of Highway 77 and one mile west of FM 2164, and could be purchased j
for $20500.00 per acre, Reverend Wilds reported that persons
living south 6f this area had indicated opposition, The Commit-
too took no action and site #21 remained under consideration.
j 6. Lewis Bingham and several others living near site 417 appeared
before the Committee to express opposition to a landfill in this
area, Those in opposition suggested an alternate site located
norrtth of Denton approximately four miles northwest of Aubrey.
The Committee added this site on the map for consideration as
site 423. Site #17 was left on the map.
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 016,
#17, 010, and 923.
i
I
i
M,.Aly9 I
• Mile
F~
^ .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
r
I
I
I
I
1 J
1
i
I
11
MINUTES
CITY OF DENTON SANITARY LANDFILL SITE SELECTION COMMITTEE
FEBRUARY 23, 1978
1 Regular Meeting of the City of Denton Sanitary Landfill Site Selection
Committee February 23, 1978 at 7;00
the Municipal. Buildingr p•m• in the Council Chambers of
MEMBERS PRESENT; Wilds, Collom, Pedigo, Down, McDaniel, Robinson,
! Reding, LaPorte, Franzen, Isabel Miller
OTHERS PRESENTr Jack Owen and Greg Anderson of the City Staff
The Committee considered the minutes of the meeting of. February
16, 1978.' Item #5 was changed to read "north" instead of "south."
E f 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 exp,:essing op-
position to site #17 near Rock Hill Road north of 380, Mr, Davis
was accompanied by some 48 persons living in the area. ster
Sparks, County Commissioner, addressed the Committee andCasked
asked
1 that any new site selected be in another rect other than
Mr. Davis suggested the Committee meek a siteisomewhere west of his.
Denton, Bob LaPorte asked Davis if the Association
to site #18 near was
Na opposed
VO,
d site #18. Davis indicated they had no opposition to
McDaniel moved and Collom seconded that site #17 be removed from
consideration. The motion was approved.
4, Chairman Wilds submitted his letter to Julia Williams in response
to her letter of opposition to sites west of Missile Base Road,
5, Joe Stookard appeared to inform the Committee that any alto lo-
cation in the area of Gribble Springs would lead to litigation.
6. Jack Owen reported that site 0.10 was for sale or lease.
stated that the area contained gravel deposits and was dissectedn
by Hickory Creek.
7, McDaniel moved and Collom seconded that site #23 be removed due to
the small size of the acreage. Motion was approved.
f 8, Five new altos were taken from the MLS listings and numbered 2
l #25, #26, #27, and #28. # 4,
9, LaPorte moved and Collom seconded that #24 be removed due to its
location in the Gribble Springs area. Motion was approved.
1
-2-
10. Site #25 was removed by consensus due to its close proximity to
Sanger.
ll. 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 21 1978. Meeting
was adjourned.
i
f
i
I ~
i
t r
i
I r
L r
I
uw
r^
MINUTES
CITY OF DENTON LANRCHDFILL SITE SELECTION COMMITTEE
2t 1978
iOn
Regular Meeting of the City of Denton Sanitaryivildfill Site SGIGfttho
Committee, March 2, 1978 at 74 p.m. in the C Defense m
Municipal Buildings
MEMBERS PRESENT: Robinson► Reding, LaPorte, Frigon► McDaniel,
Down, Collom, Bahnsen► Igabel Miller
Ford of the City Staff
OTHERS PRESENTt Greg Anderson and Lisa
1. The Committee considered the minutes of the meeting of February
23, 19784 The minutes were approved as written.
2. Greg Anderson submitted a libt of criteria published by the FFA
1 on landfill sites near airports which stated that a landfill
canntwo ot #10 e
this criteria. Collom moved and Down seconded be
~ removed from consideration. The motion was approved.
`
f
th acre. {
C Greg Anderson reported romthat 2,site 000.00 8 per available
the price has dropped
4. Chairman Wilds submitted an engineering report on Solid waste j
disposal for Collin - Denton County Water anheSanniitation District
by Fowler and Grafe Consulting Engineers. stated
the area along FM 1385 in Northeast Denton County was generally
suitable for landfills. Sites 018 and #28 fall in this area,
j I Wilds also submitted a map from the same report with four areas
spotted and designated A,BrC► and D. Nat Comewell of the Suburban
Aubrey Citizen's Association appearedWi~dsexpress
aocompaniedrCom+3wel1
approval of sites in the Navo area.
to the area and reported -hat the. only development in the area is
near the intersection of 380 and 13850 McKi 'S. LaPorte suggested weo~oea site inetpoesNavosibilareaity brinersong-
their solid wante
ing
said gr
said that in the past when contacted, McKinney had not been inter-
ested.
6. Dick Tedrow and W.E. Williams ap~eared to question the close
proximity of sites #21 and 022 to' their property. Chairman Wilds ,
said that the committee would lot them know of any
concerning those two sites.
7. LaPorte said people North of 021 and 022 had called him and opposed
these two sites.
E
i
r,
1
r .2-
8, Down presented a now site that was submitted to hiin by Mrs. Sam
~p Fulton just off the and of PM 926. The site was placed on the map
as site #29.
94 The Committee decided to put the areas listed as A,B,C, and D on
r the map as sites #30A, 30B, 30C, and 30D.
s
10.. Chairman Wilds suggested the staff check into 30A, 308, 30C and
s. 30D. Reding suggested we give this area priority, Bahnsen suggested
t
we check into the acreage and said that this was the only area so
far that met criteria 02.
{ C 11. Isabel Miller was not in favor of the Navo area unless we have new
assistance to offset additional hauling costs. She suggested we
I contact the Colony.
f 12. Down moved and McDaniel seconded that the' staff try to get more in
A formation on sites 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, 1979. Meeting was adjourned.
r
i ~
i 1
~.I
I
4.J 1
CITY OF DENTON
MEMORANDUM
_I
TOr Members of the City of Denton Sanitary Landfill Committee
ERONS Jack Owen, Assistant City Manager
DATEi March 61 1978
{ SUbJEC'Yr Date Change for Next Committee Meeting
I f
There will be no meeting of the City of Denton Sanitary lAndfill
Committee this coming 11hur.sday, March 91 1978. The next meotinq
' .will be a week from Thursday, March 16, 1978 at 700 p.m, at a
place w be determined,
The agenda for the March 16, 1978 maetinq and the minutes of the
meeting held on March 21 1978 will be mailed to you next Monday,
March 13, 1978.
I
I
OMN
t
JO/Js
i
j
MINUTES
CITY OF DENTON SANITARY LANDFILL SITE SELECTION 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, Texans
MEMBERS PRESENTS McDaniel, Bahnsen, Collom, Roding, Robinson, Pedigo, Franzen,
Wilds, Isabel Miller
OTHERS PRESENTS Jack Owen and Tom Hart of the City Staffs Ernest Murray of
the Denton Record-Chroniclat Mike Ramon, Realtor and M.M. Long
1. Tha Committee considered the minutes of the meeting of March 21 1978. The
+ minutes were approved as written.
~ 2. Jack Owen made a presentation on estimated hauling costs for site 918, as
i
compared to the present site. They were shown to be estimated at $120782,280
f for site 918 and $5,088,512 for the present site. He further stated that
these costs could vary somewhat, depending on the per mile cost for the truck,
but those figures should show a fairly accurate ratio of cast,
3. Next, Jack Owen presented a memo from Clifton Iriok regarding two sites and
Tony Franzen presented information on one site. It was decided that these
sites were to be numbered 031, 1132, and 033. Tony Franzen stated that
the site that he was presented was approximately 230 acres and was up for
3 sale for $475,000.00. Fie also said that a house was located on this site
+ that he estimated to cast approximately $230r000.00 of this total cost. Mike
Ramos than presented two sites that he hpd information on. It was decided
that these would be numbered 034 and 035 respectively,
14. The Committee discussed the direction the Committee should take. It was E
decided that the Committee should try to establish an area to recommend
f to the City Council in order not to strictly pinpoint one or two pntticular
sites - thereby causing the cost to go up,
Kenneth Bahnsen than moved that rn area five miles in diameter at U.S. 380
and VM 1385 be recommended to the Council as a good area. This was seconded
by Grady Collom,
.,i .5. The Committee then determined which sites were left on the board that had
not boon excluded to date. This list included sites 016, 021, 022, 027, 929,
032, 033 and 034. A motion was than made to remove 033 due to the fact that
it was in the airport landing area. This motion carried.
j It was decided to hold the next meeting on March 30, 1978, The staff was
directed to prepared several items for this meeting. Those includes
a. Determine hauling c%:,zt differential par customer par month between
site 1118 and the present site,
I ~
b, Inspect and roport back on sites 027, 029, 032, 034 and 935,
f
4.. With business conoludod, the meeting adjourned at 8530 p.m.
al
All
1
h
MINUTES
CI'T'Y OF DSNTON SANYTARY LANDFILI, SITL S8LCCTION'COMMITT1;E
APRIL 6, 1970
r,
Reg(tlar Meeting of the City of Denton Sanitary Landfill Site
Selection Committee, April 61 1970 al; 7100 p.m, in the Denton
Area Teachers Credit Union Building, 225 West Mulberry, Denton,
Texast
REMBERS PRSSENTi Collom, Reeling, Wilds, Pedigo, Franzen,
Cooper, Robinson, LaPorte, Knox, Dawn,
Isabel Miller, Bahnson
1 ( 0THRRS PRLSLNT: rrnie Murray of the Record Chronicle; and
i Jack Owin and Grey Anderson of the City
Staff
i
i 1. The conwI Ltee considered the minutes of March 16. They
` were approved as writ ton.
l( 21 Chairman Wilds submitted another let.t•.e1: from Julia Williams f
f again stating leer opposition to sites 421 and
112?, Haar
Missile Base Road. 1
I 3. The Committee considered the field-report prepared by the r
City Staff on sites 427, 429, 432, 4341 and 435. Jack Owen
told the Conuni.ttee that sites locatr.d in other cities R.T.J.
i or city limits, for all practical purposen should be eli-'
minated. Reeling moved and Collom seconded that sites 427, l
#29, 434, and 435 be eliminated The motion was approved.
z
~I 44 Tony Franzen submitted a letter from Mr. Kirk Tr.oible, a I
representative of Southwestern University, o'Cering a
site in the area of A1.6. The site is approximately 1.16
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.
r 5, Bob LaPorte submi.ttod n 123 acre tract went of Ponder and
east of Denton approximately 6 miles. It was placed on
the mat) as 436.
6. The Committee nclrocd to inspect the remaining 6 sites on
! the map 416, 11100 422., 022, 432, and 436. The trip was
j scheduled for 100 p.m., April 190h. The group is to
i
moot in the parking lot of City Hall,
7. With business concluded, the•moeting was adjourned,
I f
1
t
b !I
i
MINUTES
CITY OF DENTON SANITARY LANDFILL SITE SELECTION COMMITTED
APRIL 27, 1978
Regular :fleeting of the City of Denton Sanitary Landfill Site Selection
} Committee, April 27, 1978 at 71U0 p.m. in the C3•vil Defense Room of
the Municipal Buildings
~ MEMBERS PRESENTt Franzen, Pedigo, McDaniel, Down, Robinson, Wilds,
II f 11ahnson, LaForte, Reding, Miller, Collom, Compton
OTHERS PRESENT: Jack Owan and Greg Anderson of the City Staff,
and Ernie Murray of the Denton Record Chronicle.
1, The Committee considered the minutes of the April. 13 meeting,
j r ?
Item 05 was corrected to read "east of Ponder ans. west of Denton."
The minutes were than approved. j
2. LaForte moved and Miller seconded that because of the poor road
conditions 1ea6.ing to it site 132 be eliminated. The motion was
i approved,
3. Franzen moved and Collom seconded that site #16 be removed due
f
to the sice's size, the possibility of water problems in t:.e area,
and the presence of limestone rack in the area. The motion was
approved. Nineteen persons appeared in opposition to site 016.
t Mr. Richard Muir was there spokesman.
4. Franzen moved and Miller seconded that #22 be eliminated because
it is not a defined area. The motion was approved.
5, Pedigo moved and bahnsen seconde6 that the Committee recommend
sites #21, #36, and the 5 mile area of site #18 to the Denton
City Countil as the proposed location of the now 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 County Commissioners be
requested to equally share any costs incurred in building ado-
guate roads to the site selected.
7. The Committee agreed to meet May 11, 1978 at 730 p,m, The
meeting was adjui+rnod.
1~f1~
I
h
MI14UT1S
OF DENTON SANITARY LANDFILL SITE SSUCTION COMMITTLI
CITY
MAX 11, 1978
i
Regular Meeting of thc- City of Denton Sanitary Landfil). Site
selection Committee, May 11, 1978 at 7:00 p.m, in the Civil
Defense Room of the Municipal Building!
•M MEM13 RS 1'RBs8NTr Wilda, Collom, Miller, Robinson, Rcdinq,
j Dahnsen, LaPorte, MoDani.el, Pedigo, Gain,
Franzen, Compton, Doom
OTHERS PROS} NIN Jack own)) And Greg Anderson of the City
Stair, and Unic Murray of the Stecurd
~ Chrnni.cle
1, The Committee considered the minutes of the last mooting.
l They wexe approved as written, ~
. 1
Over 50 persons appeared from the Novo aroa.protes:ting 1
sites being considered in that area
3, Isabol Miller moved and JA, Pedigo seconded that the f
sites In the' Navo area be removed from coils Ider.ai-Aon ds.ie
to the distance from Dent-6n and the roault;i,ng haul costs.
Tha motion was approved,
4. The Committee asked the City Staff to determine tho
geological suitability of the two remaining sites, 010
and 422. The Staff was asked to have preliminary test
holes bored and report the findings to tho Committee as
soon an they are obtained.
5. The Committee agreed to meet in approximately two weeks.
With business concluded, the meeting was adjourned. {
I ~ I
,
i
MINUTES
CITY OF DENTON SANITARY LANDFILL SITE SELECTION COMMITTEE
JUNE 22, 1978
Regular Meeting of the City of Denton Sanitary Landfill Selection
Committee, June 22, 1978 at 7:00 p.m, in the Council Chambers of
the Municipal Buildingt
MEMBERS PRESENT: Down, Franzen, Isabel Miller, Bob Miller, Collom,
Wilds, Reding, LaPorte, Robinson, Bahnsen
' OTHERS PRESENTt Greg Anderson and Jack Owen of the City Staff,
and.Ernie Murray of the Record Chronicle
1 1. The-Committee considered the minutes of the May 11 meeting.
1 They were approved as written.
r ,
2. Kenneth Hatride appeared before the Committee and presented a
petition in opposition to site #21.
i 3. Clyde Nicholson appeared before the Committee to voice opposition
to site #36, fie requested the Committee consider a site located
not far from the Municipal Airport. The exact location was net
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 skile8 Road.
j S. LaPorte moved and Bahnsen seconded that the site suggested by
Clyde Nicholson be numbered 043, and Morrell Miller site be
numbered 0444 The motion was approved and the sites were placed
J on the map.
6. The Committee asked the City Staff to obtain as much additional
information on the two new sites as possible for the noxt meeting.
7. The Committee agreed to meet next Thursday, June 29, With busi-
ness concluded the meeting was adjourned.
I
7
IMCOIr ,
' MINUTES
CITY OF DENTON SANITARY LANDFILL SITE SELIXTION COMMITTEE
JUNE 29, 1978
Regular Mooting of the City of Denton Sanitary Landfill Site Sc:lecti.on
Committee, ,7une 294 1978 at 7:00 p.m, in the City of Denton Council
Chambers Room, 215 Bast McKinney, Denton Texas,
i
MEMBERS PRESENTs Down, Franzon, Reding, Collom, Bob Miller, Wilde,
LaPorte, Robinson, Isabel Miller.
OTHERS PRESENTS Greg Anderson and Jack Owen of the City Staff and
Ernie Murray of the Record Chronicle,
1. Committee considered the minutes of June 22, 1978 meeting. They
were approved as written.
2. LaPorte moved and Bob Miller seconded the motion to remove Site
#21 from selection, Motion was approved,
3. Jack Owen reported to the Committed the findings after a visunl ~
i inspection oL Sites 443 and 444, Both appeared to be suitable
for a landfil). siter however', Site #43 was thought to be too close ~
to the Municipal Airport, Both sites wore presently used for j
agricultural purposes and would necessitate the trench type mot-hod
operation,
• a
4. Isabel Miller moved and Bob Miller seconded that the City Staff
contact the FAA about Site #43 because of its close proximity g
to the Airport,
5. Reding moved and Down seconded that Sites #44, #43, and #36 be
included in the Committee's report to the City Council. It would +
be left up to the City Council to further, test Sites 1133, #44,
and #36.
6. Committee agreed to meet next Thursday. Bob Miller moved and
LaPorte seconded. Motion was approved, Meeting was adjourned..
I
i
i
f
6
4
n
MINUTES
CITY OF DENTON SANITARY LANDFILL SITE SELECTION COMMITTEE
JULY 61 1978
Recular Meeting of the City of Denton Sanitary Landfill. Site Selection
Commiejtoom,~July 216F 1078 at 700 .m. in 5 East McKinneyn DentontTaxas~y of Denton Council
Chambers Bob
MEMb1;125 PEt1;S>;NT1 Miller, Rading, 13nhnsenc,mWildst IsabeliMiller,
OTHERS PRESENT] Greg Anderson of the City Staff and Ernie Murray
1 of the Record Chronicle.
The Commitf.o.i ions ider.c~. the minutes of June 29, 1978 meeting.
They were ap1,j ovod as arit:ten.
j
j 2, Greg Anderson reported to the Commj.ttea that the 1',A.A. would
not make exception to their regulations prohibiting a landfill
site within 10,000 feet of an airport, Site W is within
10,000 feat of Denton's Municipal Air port, Site 043 was loft
under consideration by the Committee, A motion to remove the
i
site was made by Bob Miller but died for lack of a second.
3, Chairman Wilds reported that J.B, Floyd had offered to lease
approXimately 30 acres behind Roselawn Cemotary. The land
contains deep ravines and was thought to be adjacent to rail-
road property. Landfilling would reclai.m this property for
future use,
4'. Bob Miller moved and Grady Collom seconded the motion that the
I Floyd property be added for consideration and listed as Site 445.
t~✓ The motion was approved. Tho motion was amended to include the
fact that publicity had been sgiven
in o the this
Commitpoe's finale
make the City Council aware of thi
report.
S. Bob Miller reported to the Committee his visual inspection of
Site 044. Limestone was noted north of the gager however, clay
6tandpointob 'felt the site
a geological elsewhere
and may beL acceptable formations from were noted
6. LaFori;o moved that the motion made by Dan Reding at the last
meeting be-removed from the table. ( The motion was to include
in the Committee's final report Sites 044, 443, and 036. It
would be left up to the City Council to further test those sites.)
McDaniel seconded the motion to remove it from the table 'and it
wan approved. The Reding motion was than put to a vote and wns
amended and approved to include with Sites 11441 0430 0361"and 045.
~ 7, Isabel Millar moved and yon 13ahnsen socondad that the Committee
go on record bolioving that the original site, Sit'.e 01 was an
equal or suporior Rita to any at.her si.ta .xnminad by tho Committee
beCausa of its geology, econoplieu1 and adaptability, Tho nito had
F
I '
good accessability with the completion of Loop 288, McDaniel
moved and LaPorte seconded that this motion by Miller be amended
to includo "but was not acceptable to a large number of people".
The Committee approved the Miller motion but did not approve the
McDaniel amendment.
~ 8. LaPorte and McDaniel asked that it be placed in the record that
} 16 they, felt the Miller motion was grammatically and geologically
inaccurate and that it left out the most important point that
pe a significant numbor of people of Denton,wore opposed to Site #1.
` 9. McDaniel wanted in the Committee's final report a strong recommon-
dation for the City to begin some type of recycling or resource
recovery as noon as possible.
10. Chairman Wilds was to finalize the Committee's report and mail
i' copies to the Committee members for approval and then tho report
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,
s '
t ~
f `
i
a i
I
' I
ti.
V~
yJ
i
k~
I j .
f
II ,
SITES RECOMMENDED
BY COMMITTEE
{ pl Site #36 - 7 miles southwest of the center of Denton,
ro'porEy 1.e bordered by T.N, Skiles Road, Tom Cole Road,
and C. Wolfe Road,
Site #43 - 6 miles routhwost of the center of Denton.
out ""mile west of X35W just west of Paine Roid and
south of Lively Road. Approximately 200 acres.
7
Site 444 - Northeaut of Ponder approximately 9 miles
ro`Fthe` center of Denton. Property is located between
156 and T.N. Skiles Road. Approximately "84 acres.
Site 045 - South of Denton behind Rose.lawn Ccmetary
adjacent to railroad property, Approximately 30 acres
for lease. j
fl
{
M
~ L-
i ~ '
y~
1
Courtesy League of Woman Votor.a of Tnrraut Country 8-5-77
RECYCLING INFORMATION
ALUM UM
P Bavorneo cans ONLY (Prires subject to change without notice) 17p lb,
Al coac Six Flags Mall Ilighway 360 at highway, 80 8130-4100 SnL,
r Will Rogers Parking, Nonteomor.y & Nnrlay 8130-4t00 Snt.
8owlerland 5601 Vast Lancaster 8 130-4 100 Sat. „
Coors) Fort Worth 509 rnat Northside Drive 9100-3100 Hon.-StsL.
p1 fort Worth Seminary Parking Lot 9100-4100 VwJiaL.
4 + Fort Worth Ridgainr Mn11. 9100-4100 Wr(I'„ Snt.
Euless Highway 183 & 111obwny 1.57 9100-4100 MWSaI:,
Arlinrl.on-Wilco Purl%ina Let
Now York Ave. & Pioneer llwy 9100.4100 T'hurs.,Snt.;
Arlington War6houso 3508 Avenuo r tsnsl: 9100••3100 Non,•-Sat.
Milloral (Redeem own bottlos)too) 7001. 50110 rr.eeway 9100-4100 Idetl.,Snt,
R i-ay l_Mls I AOverage cans, trays, foil, anti small aluminum scrap
Arlington Forum 303 & WnLnon 1100-4100 l'ri,
Fort 140r.Lh Buddies 3701 1•,nnL Rosedale 1tOO-4100 Wed,
r, Fort Worth - Oalchvook -Mall ,Shopping, Center
llivevside &'Vast. )terry 10100-3100 'Pug's,-SAt,
lndustrial._Scrap Alotalar All aluminum (clann, froe of plastic, ate, 20 lh.
3800 North Commerce 8130-4130 Ham, - Nri,
{ 9100-200 Sat,
R1418TAL
"'Fin" cane or nlwninurn, NO aeronol cons, remove labels) rinse uut food,
American Canmpnny1 Cans ONLY (For Arlington charities)
Ar inton 2801 Ea8L Abram Collection lain
INDUSTRIAL SCRAP MIT'ALS1 Cans, also metal nerap 1'I{• lb,
3800 North Commerce 8130-4130 Mon.-Fri..
9100-200 Sat,
GLASS
Coca-Color narrola for depositing clean, clear or rrnen g,lnss, Remove all Onsl:ic
and metal ViRor from 700 South Main 1VeoUrnya ooforo
at formerly Cannon St, 2130 p.m.
MI.Ilersi Redeem own bottles 7001 Saab Freeway
PAPER
All must be CLEAN, NO waxed paper, mild cnvtons, plastic, or asphalt; tapa.
SORT INTO CATrGORIRS. Prices subject to c11a110e without notice.
Consolidated ri._brea, _Inc. (raunarly Amaric.nn Paper. Stoclc Company)
- 1308 North Jones at 7100-4100 Itun.-Fri,
Northsidn Drive 8100-12100 Sat,
Newspapors - $1,400 ewL,l mixad pallor produc,ta, mag,a•r:inos, phono
hoolcs) ck nlo{tA) etc, - $0.35 cwL•,) Corrugnted enrdbonrd, brown
paper ha0s - 51100 owt,
Clavapalt Cor)nrntionl 1000 rant, Lananstor 7 130-4 100 Nun, -Fri,
(anal; of froawny mi.xmnater) 8100-1?:100 .SAI:,
Nawspnpora $1,00 Cwt.1 mixed pnpar products) maprtyinon, phono
hobl(s► entnlogs, eta, - $0,31' cwt.) corrugaLnd cardbonrd,
brown popnr bnon - $1,00 cwt,) computer cards, manila - $6600 cwt,
Ma tars Al 11("11orlrccn t
Ornncl`~ Ririe 1185 Crant Southwant 0100••4100 Masn,-P)ri,
1'Arkwny 6100-1200 Snp,
Nuwspnpot'a - $1,00 owt,l currnratod onvdhoard, brown bnl;n -
I $0,75 uta,l mixad pnpar products - $0,50 cwtil compntor cnrdn,
mnuiln • $6,00 awl:.
l
- P41_
,
t
more than ZOb eomr.,unnirs it+lhe Unlled States, rest- A second advnnlagc Is Ihol recyus a reduces the need
?ntsarc asked to keep cerlatn recyclable porllons of Ihelr to use vlryln material resources, thus extending eloruesNc
bash separate from the rest,'I'hcse rocyciables are placed and global suppiies of raw maerlols like hauxue or iron
at chsepara collated by sanllailon crews, and sold to orc.ln III(. case of paper prafucuon born Rees this aJvan
-rompanles Illal reprocess the materials Inlo new products. [age Is less clear cut since Irces are a renewable resource,
lolloi(hosePrograms helpremove only newspaper from I~roduclsicauldhrichascsincelpriodlucris/madellomo(I r ! 1
oie soil waste stream, but a fchv Include other papers, malerlats fire more enclgyIlvens[ve, 'fins Wray make i
glass and melals as well, k
Willy does n communily (Imclop a curbside program paper recycling even more Nlracnvc, ~
the rL
comm cs the r pratcsslnysol(slrgin
roC g a( causes less pollutin than rdo
ff _ } separan( ik a aVly a nd he(eiwirnnn enl7fns of oThlidly,
saparal3 to e is a malerlats fir example, when fresh newsprint is produced f
In mfinycommunlltes, the savings in landl111 Spa( +
onvlnc(ng reason to separately collect newspapers and from old newspapers there Is Tess ale cm rim and water j
1 { direr materials. Newspapers make up six perccul of Ihr consumption Ulan wlllr produ4l(on fro,` ntu' ntal.
'
residentlalandcammcrclalwas[cirean},Glfissconlainers Che processing of recycled paper can, in some Cases.
,and metal cans add anolller hkx-lve. percent to the total, increase water pollution as a rosull of dj brking used ' awrh
pa(xrs. [3t Walton the end pendant Isa o , c using rags old paper papeerr ~y t
Landfills are increasingly ext+enive to buy and oiler l
or is not Important,
j disposal costs can make recycling prolecte paperboard, where co and
gnat dI waste reaching the IandpH appealhrg to results In less water consumption, alt pollutton
that cut water
ile. Escalating ity ol(iciDls. Because af,pu611c mnipnlhy, the slliny of poltuilorr.
isexlremely difficult; increased recycling ble An give ril a ices rcesirn lei ef, IIc cornmu,lly as well as Ihe[elwoi! U
andlills reuu
[ lUbllc olliclals fi little mo ronlnenl, there con slill be disagreement on he method.
and rt'cclvc opproval lot iandhll c s, l locale The requirements under the Resource Coosa IanJ vro<csslnyrcei idrSlnaytbe proposed caslahcr~la(westln i
E an osal e cilces could helpcJ7 flit balance rule p
disposal processing
calls ortl a cwIltual closing al till (open dereddmulual(yaexclushnsince oopilons. ne approach won't soKe ! ~
i:lumps, ; e Is currently in the r,rxess of developing all Reny ling coolers, for example, are not as convenicnl 1 ~
crllerla f or (Ielerminingwldch lac NNles uill receh+c ll le open
dump classlfica ran and which are sonltary landfills. to ascurbside collection programs. The processof locatlog a
qualilya9 a saniltllY nol,accoidInic
effects on heolhor the discourage manyabuldrbe nartlclparls' he moslthn(ror
"
definition,
the acts
he uIfemenl to ow is Ia avae centers
srin eslablishlug nIe• ones, moredklndls of materials canebe ncce(pted ut hllollclor no
a ,sorled ass
psal slies,lalong with prloblen
more as(ly
will force many communities to reassess their solid waste are iexnm(>Ie9 al the city, that cosic an be or
mmtege ddilpracactices.
An addillonai Incentive, for municipal a'lop,un of a at af'center than esource by a plants-cfalcliules tliracmechen(raily
recycling otprogram isihat in the city is paid for materials extra
unuld otherwise pay y in gel rid rid oi, Oliva do o Incur extra separate reluse into its component parts are not a of sou tests in Ilse operation of a curbslde
collection program but soubsi
more o rce Se when II 19 ash portion
dtcl waste allln forms
many find Ihai lie addhy5tr + rite are me l
Whelhar or not the sysrem pegs for Itself self fl d depends on( Ionoted n by sgmralion ate heisourcetthan 11 Is to remtove(ex•
{ tl {Iro proxlrnlly to ntnerlDl markclst traneous materials, In most Idglrlechnology recovery
c n the market value of recyciahles' lacllllles the organk frnclion wl}Ieh Includes paper fiber
a the contract provisions benvecn the municipally altd _ Isdlreciiyburned or convoiled into a Iransporeblefuel,
' lb e buyer; Il seems reasonable to prevent easily recyclable papers like
n the disposal costs if the materlnl is not reclaimed; rlcsvsptperlron+ t% Aching Ili( n'covery plant since news
a tie public nerd cost 0 Ihe'collccuon sysleml paper Is svoilh more as n rl*F0nl than It Is mt energy
a
n the public pnrllclpalIon rate. sou(co. +
k These will he discussed more fully bclc+u'. If 111c economic and a+rvlronntenlal arguments have
f The environmental reo $uns Ole also compcllh I" 1*lrs6 convinced you or your or(lanl~al3an of the value of n
f reeychho cave's energy, 'l'hc figures vary, but experts yen- sr,pamlu toilertktn plnyram for ytnrr conummily. yourfirsl
ctabic energy savings cart be step w4il bo kl (xrsuade iacol oflicinls to adopt such a
u' ' '
orally concur hat app t
yc ed program. You'll need hard Inds oboul the costs and bone. ! d +
i I teak'( Aluminum, IlCf(lydhlg IU IItU51 Cstltllah's, con
roc yclvd u91lif s and suygesllons on 11(m d!e ! 'I
ny less hen live percent of Ilk- covr((y nv( fits to your Irllow texpasn'r
program cote he run. Yau'11 also I 'lo win the suplwll of
J
to make h (n 1hr first place.
the !.,Inflation deparlnrcin and p'rsons In your cantrmull
Lj Womou Voters f ducnlion fund
c)77
I
+
' I
Its public affairs or public infurniallon offlces; Ihelr commitment to a to have for sale is necessary. fie sire to lake Into tonsidrrallorr
residential recovery progrnrn is vital, And, rx,rhaps most Imporianffy, a per•persnn national averages fur wade gencealion and conpuslllon;
you'll need to awaken public interest in fhe program, o your ronnuntliy's populallon;
flow should your compumilys program be organlred? You might o a projected parlicipafion rate.
want to make a checklist of the topics that need c•onslderaiion, Including (See pp. S•G of liesldivr!!al!'arlterlTeruvury. AMunlellmlGulde, listed In
the following. Resources section.)
Eonomic factors to gel a more nccuruic fix on your cornmunllys palunll[J you will
u f-low much material do you expecl to recover? also need to factor in other varlables. The ac.lual conntrrsinon of your
n I low markelable are your recyclabfes? community's waste stream, fur Instance, cony differ considerably from
a WWI contract provlslons are best for your communlIV? national averages; you may want to work with your Sanliallon Deparl•
n What are the disposal costs if the manorial is not reclalmrd? ment to answer quesiions on Iho compuslllon of refuse in your area,
Colfecffoll systems One of the most bnponani farfors alfecling yourtafcufailons is Ilia
n What materials can be collected? projected pariiclpaflon rale, the estimated percentage of residents who
n Should a special rack for recyclabes or a separate truck be used? 'I" separale malerl,d for collection. hnrlicipallon iaf,rs do vary consl-
Howoffert should rccycfablrs be collected? derably from community to community. Thu design of die collection
0 How can you devise a collection system that will encourage public system, fhe public education program, and rrsidknls' commihnenl to liar
partlcipalion? program Will affect the final iesull tonnage collected.
Local ordinances You shouldn't expect that afl, or even most, of the ivallabla maicrrlals
i 17 r Should your commuritf will be recycled. If you can, for example, recycle fifty percent of your
y y pass an sail scavenging ordlnance7' communily's nmvspapers your program Is doing very well. Such a idgh
a What arc the pros and cons of making n program mandatory; rate may not ba possible at fled - studies have show) Ihal longer-IM'd
Sanitation workers programs usually enjoy boiler parlicipngoii, Nrwspapar separatlon at
l u Does your system lake Into consideration the concerns of sanilalion curbstdr• Is easier to achle a Than glass and racial separalion; sonic
workers? residents are not 1adling +o tAke Ilre extra lime and effort weded to
a Are there beneflis to offsel any additional work required? separate several types of trade.
Key local officials Learnin from nearby programs
n Have you consulted with the Depailmenl of Sarillalfon7 One way to livid Out abool potenltara eis,, means of fransportallon.
What are local officials contents and/or suggesllorls' and fhe eneral economics of curbside eolfecoon In your area is Io
j u flow can your communlty's public affairs office help? g y
conlacl nearby comnnudliks with ongoing programs, if Ihere arc any In
publicizing the program
I ' - -j Will Ilte cif lauds for Your area. Although each cam+munily should have a program tailored to
t earmark publicity? Its own needs, certain Information and ideas can easily be shared, 'fake
d What community organizations might help? advantage of the experience of olliers.
li 7 'What are the alternatkms for "gelling the message out" In your
ff :ommunlty? Contracts
i E A conlracl wAh a buyer provides the city with a wmi•permaneol markel
( CO11~RY1RC f ~C~f1➢"S for Its recyclabfes. It also bene0ls the buyer to have n constant, or near
ronstani, source of materials. blrllioul a contract It community may not
I'he financial pluses and minuses will dote-nnine uhrlher n curbside be able foweniher the ups and downs In materials markets. The conlracl
separation program sinks or swims, And for the pluses to add up, Thew should Include a Noor price, a minimum price level that the buyer will
nusl be accessible buyers for recycled materials (see Resources), pay regardless of market condlltons. The price paid to Iho cby may go
above Ihls floor price; U IS usually lied to the going price in a sltrclllad
{ From curbside to market materials market.
From the earliest planning stages 11 Is important to determine the mar. What about smaller communities?
elablllfy of recyclables, Among the questions you'll have to answer: Can small communlnrsJustify a residential source separation program?
I How far is your community from potrnfiai utarkelsl
(pop. like ft1' must gewoocf, think New Jersey (pop, 28ga001 and Indian IllllUhlo
n What Is the going price for scrapmalerlals In your part of Il1e couniry?
r flow much does H pucluale? . 7,000 so; both have ongoing collection programs.
Will your "product" meet the spkciikallons of lire potential buyers? Smallness can ndually lm an advantage, in smaller titles, for Instance, a
strong
Are potential buyers interested ht signing a contract to buy your 1hsuisc i 01 c5 thatnlyase. arr to may mask a11 d raster to m mew s liery
product? What IlOUr prices will buyers guarantee In wrilinq? community y Is et Is small si or iner ask are the same es? W r tarlarge. Where can, We sell reryc.tablrs?
What are
j 7ransporlalion costs are on Imporinnl factor in determining mar the transportation costs? Can we Justify the program on the basis of
etablllly. Isojaled communilles have a special problem; the closest nionky saved and spanl? Or, are the environinenlal and energy benefits
`markets may be hundreds of allies away, Solnltons are possible but Hwy worlh the extra costs that might result from the program?
require sorne Ingenully Sah Lake City, for example, sends Ifs collected
nvspapers to Pomona. California, vla an Infermvdlnry called the Newv;•
irvr Agency. This company needs 10 solid Its flicks to California Collection systems
j Anyway fo pick up Sunday magazines, comics and fresh nt-wsprinl (fir
The kind of raNeellnn syslam used will, of course, affect the economics
'r local papers. •1'rnnsprJi119 old newspapers from Sall La1w City to of a prmgrant, Soine communltlrs Have frocks wilh a special rack or
onnona Is, therefoe, not as expansive as II knight appear at first glance. contparlinvie for recyclables, which can collrcl recyclabfes and Irash it
Wow much material will OU collect? the same How. Olhkr rommuoilles use a sepaiate (ruck colk-Olun
I
system for recyclables.
neforv connnunltt represo Ila lives have Orlous discussions w91h potan• CoNivOing recyclables at the same time ns other (rash run save on
If buyers, allestlnlak,of Ihcquaiddyof nralrriaifiteVornmultfyexpects personnel all(] equlpmenl rolls. 13111 same local offtrlnts feet Illisl sepa
M 3 ~ iS
nletruc:kcollection syirmswndehedcrlot IIIVM.Cummunillcslhallist. Local ordinances
some
d separate truck may sel aside one day of the week solely for collecting
recyclables, Oil "hit" clay, "hey may be able to draw born "Ire sarne l o ocal implement ordinance chayournroges u arl or arkdllyd'snns cur may hsider c considered.
pu TI gtr we re are iwv
he usher four clays of l
kinds of ordinances Ihal moy receive special allenlloa In cow lecliun whir
crsohncl and rqulpmrnl useJ for trash pick-tip t
lewrek. such a program: "anli•scavenghnn ordinances" and ordinances Ih.'l
require residents to separate t1wil Iras1L
Mulfll•mat'erial separation .
jj97:' I'TAchow I"'NassuchusallsCities for dernonstrallonprojecls. Anti scavenging ordinances
umervdle and Marblehead each received Icderal funds to establlsh
Imdli•malerial curbside coilydion programs. In boil, c111es, glass, metal perhaps one of the bc. prools fatal newspapers and usher matrria s are 'ore ,11 o from
valuable commodities is tile fact 111'11 urbside by someone other than the cornmunlly'st collecli(WCscrvlce'
--ans, alumhrum foil and plc pans, and flat payer have been .'P rec such c
prices air high
olleetecl by w!" lion crews for almost y
ystems arc not as .onnmon os 3s nQwj,r do collollection andirglasa. arid slndl (duals can n'aih/c lavgood pYCiU1n1(of f l}lrlr nelfurls.
of cornmiall ies, especially in New England, I 'ro prevent a few people from reaping lice profit"; Of a cumtnunllywide
ailed anII'S( venging ordinances.
rhe conimwtiy muss ellher run c man eornmut +Ilirs have cn
mnlcrfals,
To collect a number of ~rmershi ul rnatarlals placed nl
speck A eomtion r parimenlro les sod the sa vd1oll e trucks. fr}ihc~of these op ia~sWill These ordinances clarify "he ctly s p
cost the city money money Ibal may not be uflse" by site sale of re ycl I Ies for viol rn cer r yroups not prevent rrsldenls from saving
ollected naterlals. ih muhFrnateriek programs collect glass and
Most communities wl Voluntary vs. mandatory participation
melof cans rogclher.'r}ismakesd easier for tine resident (icw( onlallet" Most curbside separation programs me voluntary, depending totally on
pus al curbside) and less expensive for tie city to collect both male' the Interest and concern of the citizenry. But inn it kk comnrunllies,
roar h, however, is Il+al the
ials. 'rile biggest problem wish this app ordinances remilre and c rc side rtls to sclzen re newsp,•rprle from the rest of
riroduct collecled is not worth mach to potential buyers. Industry finds tine trash,
'rite effects of such ordinances are wrcerlaln. They commonly go
the separation process expensive. and the materials may be conran+i-
Wed. unenforced, and at least one study's i.tidings Indicated Ihal parilclpalion
Making it easy rates du not differ between voluntary and mandalory programs, $onc
progam5r Iriletollers"may
The cnllecllon scheme must also consider ilnna potll}Oolro~~rai ipiiore residents e(eel inaAil ndadory" nalurrtol oopons1l) [lily Ili
iinee o higher participation rate will obvlou.ly a program find it respond negatively to bei g forced to parliclpoic,
wccesbful. Commundtes wish frequent collections g v
easier to gel a higher percentage rl the targeted malerlal, since residents F8 ~NOr~B~~r~►
{ are often unwillifig to store recychbles for a month as some programs
equine. Weekly.or biweekly collection schedules will spur c; epee par. ,tatio It's good 10 keep hr mind that a recycling pfogrann al cUrbsiJe maynot be
Icipallun. They 1 University City, n Unique way making It ceder l rlq i' a e being required to+do additionalru ork %Vil howl
oddiiior nl pay,nosolme-
se cfesidldencecetiliii yellow plastic. conlrilticis (or na ews na rr aboul, hi recugnliionfor providing this
)ote Is to provide
~ tloragc,'The containers ore den pieced at currbbsId side on on collection day, thing noone would be zeryhappy potion of ire
the (ornink,, ( is designed to keep newspapers dry on rainy days and to extra service, therefore, sonic comnunllies funnel a
ces
(or i store a little more than a Acs rvicek supply of a daily paper, workersyUr tilerfu m of honuseis,fl bw a afar ns, for a sprucreJ upicwrlr
place.
{ A demonstration protect If residents don't understand how the system corks. Ihcy nn, f even
reckrfor exnrnpl(,~Cle rlyndiilletncrspl~atoollof
i Newton, Masells separately collects paprn f t in Talking duowi o nice oil ce 11
Ha ns
v ver, the N Nemoewton League of Womern Uolers fou
res dents, Ihal ma'nydtd tml participate Its the program because piney ollhr "rules of the game" acceptable to both uorkcrs and lo. al dow rn
fell that they did not have enough recyclables to make 11 w•orlh the menl officials and provided to every liousehold shoved minlmize this
effort, 'I he League der lded to dennonslrale flim "he volume of cillficully,
rdcyrlablcsalawlIV9eiteraieslsenoughtulusllfytlreCfforlnrrded"o devised Iefoiref tie pograw gets cifrithe/grnlrld. Scone cities have
`I recycl
''nn Innilies, most o( whom had not rccyclcJ before, volunteered developed IoIIMes' to receive reslflenls comments and ryuesdnns. Sall
l e,
i to be par[ of the experiinrni. '[he inmllles, for a one•monil+ period, Lake City use's slickers to explain to resiclentswiny a particular bundle of
sepaaled bodies, cans and paper Itrnr, Ihelr Iash, and closely bundle and as not co lien dschose sticker here alfixedmpro in unckllected
~I monhoree d of allie nd wolspent recycling.
as noway "of knowing tip
number off featuretarlicles r MWspoprrs." Without l isilnkxlrna on (a res rolurn
to ho sir"css, rostills of tile
i At d and end of
I compiled
a result lishin nr(rsrecycling found Ilic-Ir l r. Ilcy wore Improper y(plrepaired), ores lions {un111111le truck coons W6d
w ,
n rues In cs madeing a s ,ysi n In lic killion. Once Ihis Initial Adjust.
nl was de, Ihrilli15 dnuis sr ai 6v lingrd from l lu?.0 Commru~ic~tir~c vlith key local
ntbwrlcsp+1res wd}+ 1 J Itlh1UioSaS rile le flV191) iimv 1 (Lill Hems
a11,1hrlenfannik+ilte 's 1 rarrcyrlcy{approxpr+irpely,l89glassaIld cns ls
I (roughly 500-000 !wends) and 295 inches of newspaper (about of 1 frcra
1 690 Ixrunds) during the nnr•moolh portent, All Meuse Involved I'hr nllduJe of ire annmwrpys director of sunllalom will alfecl bode
planned lu continue ire parlicipale as a rrsuh of the experlinen~ fe5idenls acid worIwr5' pr'rspecllves, so fry to Impress the dirt-clor wllh
3