1978
q 'Mi1'iW '
Rr
6 MAIN
w%rm,
0
I 1
E
l l o
CWT , ,
. l I
d
n+} e
I
~111 REPORT OF
THE CITY OF DENTON SANITARY LANDFILL SITE SELECTION COMMITTEE
TO
I
I THE CITY COUNCIL ~
DENTONi TEXAS
i
CONTENTS
M ~
dz Narrative j
f f
Raaommandations 5
4pondix 9
t
•N
,100,0~'M'8~sr-J..we.
I~i
■ M i
~Y1'Ni17
{(r`r{ 81g6
A3 ;iM
I MM
wI~
4 r The City of Denton sanitary Landfill Site Selection Com-
mittee has met approximately twenty-five times since its
appointment in the Pall of 1977. Its initial meetings were spent
in an effort: to learn as much as possible about solid waste
K disposal.
n The next few meetings were spent in establishing t
he oom-
•-mittce's criteria for use in evaluating possible sites for a
'landfill. Those established, in order of
J priority, worst
1. Operational and long term cost
2• Acceptable to all
People
~ i 3. Geographical location in regard to other cities
4. Voluntary seller as opposed to oond,mnation
1 I L~ 5. Cost of land
f 6, hocessibility and adaptability after use as landfill
I1 f 7. Not primp agricultural land
8. Extension of present ...site
9. Anticipated impact on surrounding land values
14. Legal actions against the decision not likely
110 Availability of adjaoo6t ?nnd for future systems of
disposal
Criterion 11 did not mean the least possible cost, but a cost
that is feasible. Criterion #2 was stated as an ideal and at
the next meeting was interpreted as meaning unacceptable to the
smallest number of people possible,
Criterion #2.playod a dominant part in our final decisions.
We roalized,early that the placement of a sanitary landfill
M
~t'Mlt
sM¢a~aa cucy
e YJffilJl+ccgg
9YY
( YI
deeply affects people and that it was the reaction to the recom-
mendation of a previous committee on the part of many people
which brought our committee into being. 7n our effort to involve
those who might be or feel they would be affected adversely by !
various locations, we have sought to have various sites being
considered publicized as widely as possible, Consequently, we
{ have welcomed and listened to many individuals and delegations
J i from areas surrounding sites under consideration. Many sites
I
under consideration,have been dropped because of the feelings
which have been shared with us, Those sites included in our
recommendations have resulted in the smallest number of objec-
tions, Thus we have done our best, we believe, to do our work E
as human beings conscious of our fellow human beings. i
During its meetings the committee has considered forty-
. ~ i
four sites which have been suggested by former studies, by the,
i
general public, and by the committee members themselves,
i
The committee.has labored with two disadvantageso one of
kl 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 mapal however, these are on a scale
such that there io , certainty regarding the geological make-
. ;
up of areas as small as those under consideration. Test borings
and engineering studios haVo been made on some of the sites con.
I
siderad, but very few.
The second disadvantage was that there is no way to deter-
mine the ultimata cost of a particular site, as pointed up by
criterion 01, without the making of a thorough cost study. We
v
t
r
U '
Q s![
M
. ~grna~ar
a \ 3-
were, thus, in no position to socure this inAformation, although
r,
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.
i
Through the course of our mestings, the committee members,
! have grown in our understanding of each other, It is our strong
^i fooling that the problem of solid waste disposal is not one which
we can solve as individual municipalities of the county, but
I I
that a satisfactory resolution may be arrived at only as we work
I
together. The committee initially had ntnoteen member represen-
tatives from Donton, Pilot Point, Sanger, Aubrey, Little Elm, Krum,
and Frisoo. A representative from the Colony was with us when
sites were under consideration in one
particular area. The aver-
age attendance at meetings has boon twelve,
'?'he assistance of city staff members has boon invaluable
iJ
to us. Mr, Chris Hartung met with us as we were organizing and
attempting to become educated in regard to sanitary landfills,
Mr, Jack Gwen and Mr, Greg Anderson have been with us for
a1lourmeetings, They have responded to all of our requests
for assistance competently and willingly, 'heir experience, the
information they have secured for uA, and their advice have been
extremely helpful, Yet at no time have they attempted to in-
fluenoo our decisions, We greatly appreciate this.
W At its last meeting, the committee passed a resolution by
R a vote of five to three to go on record as "believing the original
site, M1, was an equal or superior site to any other site examined
by the committee because of its geology, economics, and adapta
e'
1
R
~ 'Al1'liN
(r
S ` .4-
d
bility. The site has good accessibility with the completion of
hoop 288.11
w
it was stated that the purpose of this resolution was not
j to undercut the recommendations of the committee, but to evidence
appreciation of the work done by the previous committee in its
search for a site. However, that committee did not use our ori-
terion #2, which was the primary basis for our not recommending
{ site N1.
I i
Two of those present, Bob LaPorte and Floyd McDaniel, asked
{
that the record show their feelings that "the statement was grcim-
j
j matioall and
y geologically inaccurate and that it left out the I
most important point - that a significant number of people of
Denton were opposed to Site N1." Two members who were not present
at the meeting, Larry Downs and David Compton, have asked that
this report show their concurrence with this position.
Id ~
6
MI
r I
i
i
■
. ..cn•,,ti4x~Wr4 +.c i'mi::,u wil.IMN
w
s!arrv
weW
IS Y
} RECOMMENDATIONS
i
1. THAT EVERY POSSIBLE EF'F'ORT BE MADE TO MOVE TOWARD A RECYCLING
9 Mj 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.
l ~J Although we have been told that a lack of sufficient bulk
of solid waste makes ouch an overall system unfeasible at the
present moment, we believe most strongly that city officials
1
should plan for and work toward such a system for use at the
earliest time it can be initiated. We see the problem we now
face as a growing one which cannot be resolved by our present
system of waste disposal. With the expected growth in Denton
County and the metroplex area in the next few years, recycling
~ i
should become feasible in a very short period of time. In the
I
i appendix to this report are several papers which are extremely
good in making these points and in describing alternatives. We
tr„ encourage the membera of the Council to read these and similar
reports,
In the meantime, modest programs of recycling should be
instituted immediately, The effort toward paper recycling ear
liar this year is an illustration of one element in such a pro-
gram, An essential part of such an effort must be a continuing
educational program for our citizens in regard to conserving and
reoyolifig our material resources, Such should be initiated and
M
t
WWI
rr✓,afe
rawv
rstc}m
e
I
fF carried on by the city. For example, recycling literature could
month.
F ~ be included with utility bills each
( r! THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF DENTON GIVE VERY CAREFUL CONSIDERATION
2.
TO TIIE FOLLOWING SITES FOR A LANDFILL WHICH WE IiEREbY RECOMMEND.
The numbers
pal
These sites are not listed in priority order.
have only to do with the order in which the oommittee gave con-
sideration to theme Comments follow the description of each site ;
as needed.
I
SIT 36 - seven miles southwest of the canter of Denton. Pro-
SITE'
{ pA+;ty is bordered by T.N. gkiles Road, Tom Cole Road,
and C. Wolfe Road. Teats show that the geological ~I
~ formation is favorable for a landfill. !i
1
1 SITE 43 - six miles southweot of the center of Denton. About
MI
! one mile west of 135W dust west of Paine Road and
south of Lively Road. Approximately 200 acres. No
tests have been made on this site. However, visual I
inspection by a geologist leads us to believe this
1 site should be investigated more fully.
4
SITE 44 - Northeast of ponder approximately nine miles from the
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,site. There is some
question concerning its location in regard to the muni-
cipal airport,
SITE 46 - Approximately 30 sores behind Roaelawn Cemetary.' This
site would be available on a lease basis rather than
a sale basis. This being the case, its cost on a short
s
-M
a.
k -7-
r term b,,ssis would most likely become feasible. if it
f.p could be used for a term of even six or seven years,
t
along with the estimated three years of use in the
present landfill, it would take us to 1988, By that
44 time, progress should be made in terms of recycling
to ouch an extent that we would not be faced anew with
I `
our present problem. However, no tests have boon made
on this site.
`
The City Council should be aware of the fact that
this information was not available u!itil our closing
f meeting. wherefore, the reoommendation is made with-
{ out publicity being given to the proposal and without
` the opportunity for a response from those living in
the area.
3. THAT ALL PRECINCTS OF THE COUNTY SHARE IN MAINTENANCE COSTS
,
OF THE ROAD TO A LANDFILL SITR RAT4IER THAN ONLY THAT PRRCINCTI
WITHIN WHICH IT I3 LOCATEp.
Respectfully submitted,
j ,
Murphey C. Wilds, Chairman
t
r
3 \ .
i
1'YIIRf/f
F I 't
t"
i} 1
I ti ,
1 a
i
n APPENDIX 3
a
VI
l r.,
t
t
ik
{,l
u ,~y4nw r,s v:~~y..;ah'ma.w~»KSWNa fudf.
1
X •
P'R11f.V.y
Minutes
Sanitary Landfill Site Selection Committee
November 3, 1977
Regular meeting of the City of Denton Sanitary Landfill Site Selection Committer),
! Thursday, November 3, 1977 at 7;00 p,m, in the Council Chimbnrs .
R Members Present; Floyd D. McDaniel, Joe Bell, Harry Down, Grady L, Collum,
] Bobby Whisenant, Robert LaPorte, Kenneth Bahnsen, Bob Miller,
Jim Terral, John Clanton, Isabel Miller, Marion Robinson,
Weldon Goin and Murphey C. Wilds,
Others Present: Mary C, Gay, Council Member;'Elinor Hughes, Mayyor; Richard 0,
Stewart, Council Member; Bill Holm and Gary Holter, Texas A & M.
•i)A Staff Present, Chris Hartung, City Manager; Jack Owen, Assistant City Manager;
Greg Anderson, Public Works Superintendent,
i
Chris Hartung, City Manager, called the meeting to order and explained the
purpose of the Committee to the members, Hartung explained that the Committee
[1 was not formed to determ no the technical criteria of landfill site selection,
but to determine the political criteria for site selection. Hartung further
explained that our current landfill was being evaluated to determine exactly
how much capacity it had left, Hartung stated that the study would be completed
in throe weeks and that information would be a good starting point for this
I ~ Committee.
Next Hartung introduced Dr, Gary Holter of the Political Science Department
at Texas A & M and Dr, Bill Holm, Mechanical Engineer at Texas A & M.
Or, Holter discussed the political and economic considerations of landfill
siting and resource recovery.
Dr. Holm spoke on the technical considerations of resource recovery,
Both men stated that even if the City want to a sophisticated aystom of
resource recovery we would still need a landfill site,
Both men then opened the meeting un to questions concerning economic
political and technical considerations of landfill site selection and sold
waste reclamation.
After an extended period of questioning the Committeb decided how they
would like to proceed on site selection, The Conmiittee decided that they needed
to discuss specific criteria, in site selection and then visit our landfill and
other successful landfills in the area, Harry Down recommended that the
Committee also study the COG study on landfills,
The Committee considered a regular meeting date and decided they would
f continuo co meet on Thursday nights at 700 p.m,
Several suggestions were made to improve the next meeting:
1. Send list of Committee members to each member to assist in the
tt(( selection of officers,
M
,
rwnryt
aae^rr
. viw,n
y l
07
j
l
tI w~w
3 w ,
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 aas adjourned at 8,30 p,m,
a
t ~ ~ l
{
I
i
1
i
. n. av t i r.. t
fdbAln;.ri:u. n,r... ..n. .i-..,.. ....,v..,., ..nuu e.. rn. ..u u.n.w.....rsr. Aq.1, n. ...wey
MOO
M
!i
~~~111
vlw: . 15ii
Y
nVaure
• kwonxr
i.
s Sanitar landfill Site Selection Comrnittoe
t.;1arry Down Dr, Bob Miller
i .204 University Drive West 1204 Kendoiph Marion Robinson
I Denton, Texas 7620} 12n0o Texas 76201 3200 Denton, Carme'1 Texas 76201
Dick Kelsey Bob LaForto
-Penton, Texa Texas st 1401 Sherman Drive Dr, Dane Compton
~en "6201 Denton, Texas 76201 2609 Buckingham
'`kenneth 8ahnsen Denton, Texas 76201 Rt. 1, Box 409-F Grady Co11um RFD 2 Dr, Murphy C. Wilds
F enton, Texas 76201 Denton, Texas 76201 1316 Churchiii
Denton, Texas 76201
Dr, rloyd 0, McDaniel Jim Terra}
~g311 Jagquelyn P. 0, Box lb6 Isabel Miller
Benton, Texas 76201 little Elm, Texas 76068 711 W. Sycamore
Denton, Texas 76201
ayor Bobby Whisonant Mayor F. W. Fowler
P, Oc Box 217 John Clanton
cl0, ot Sax point, 467 Texas 76268 Krum, Boxas 76249 P, 0, Box 177 1
Frisco, Texas 76034
70ayor Ralph 8, Cole Alderman G, Z, H ?
11 O,, Box 678 armon Main Street Joe Bell
i Sanger, Texas 76266 P, 0, Box 1067
! Aubrey, Texas 76227
13e1don Goin Sanger, Texas 76266
P, 0, Box 217
ubrey, Texas 76227
f Opy of All notices toy
Dan Trammel l
~yooty Judge
I~snton County
Courthouse Square.
enton, Texas 76201
a
t .
I
4 1
I
MINUTES
LANDFILL SITE SELECTION COMMITTEE
NOVEMBER 100 1977
I
Regular Meeting of the City of Denton Landfill Site Selection Committee, Thursday,
November 10, 1977 at 7fOO p.m. in the Civil Defense Room of the Municipal Buildingi
MEMBERS PRESENT, Bobby Whisenant, Conrad Boerner, Joe Bell, Dan Reding,
Bob LaForte, Harry Down, Dick Kelsey, Weldon Goin,
Murphey Wilds, J. L. Pedigo, Isabel Miller, Bob Miller,
i Marion Robinson, F, W. Fowler, Kenneth Bahnsen, Gary Lynch,
Floyd McDaniel, Tony Franzen
OTHERS PRESENTr Chris Hartung, City Managers Jack Owen, Assistant City
Managers King Colo, Assistant to the City Manager
M.+ Greg Anderson, Superintendent, Public Works
1. Chris Hartung called the meeting to order and tilled for nominations for
chairman. Murphey Wilds and Ken Bahnsen were nominated for the position
E of Chairman. There was a motion that nominations cease. on a hand raised
vote, there were 9 votes cast for Wilds and 3 votes cast for Bahnsen. Wilds
was cleated Chairman,
~ j L•f
I Wilds took the chair and called for nominations for the position of Vice-
Chairman. Ken Bahnsen was nominated for the position of Vice-Chairman.
' There was a motion that nominations cease and that Bahnsen be elected by
acclamation, Motion carried. Bahnsen was elected Vico-Chairman.
^J1~, 2, The Committee viewed a film on solid waste reclamation and sanitary .landfills,
rr• + 3, The Committee cnnsiderod the sanitary landfill design criteria pubiirhs9,..
by the 'North Central Texas Council of Governments,
s, 4. The Committee considered touring some other sanitary landfill sites in
j~ the area. It was determined that the Committee should visit both a good
P. W and a poor sanitary landfill site. Dick Kelsey stated that he did not foal
Y it waa important to visit some other landfills. Kelsey felt that the impor-
tant thing was to make a speedy recommendation:
The Committee determined that A member may sand an alternate to the moot
Ingo if the member were not able to attend.
I toaDol millet suggested that the Corlunitteo select its own set of criteria
<<' for landfill, s.!4% selection.
One member of tho Committee recommended that we simply expand our present
St landfill, Jack Owen explained that our present landfill, was bounded on
one side by the flood plain of Lake Lewisville and bh the other three sides
by the City of Crossroads. Owen further explained that the City of Cross-
es roads had passed an ordi•nanoe preventing any other landfills within their
oorporats limits.
f'I
The Committed agreed to set the agenda for the coming woeksl
YILtlf ~
11G{191y1+...
RU101
71
n 2
f ,
November 19 Members of the Committee will tour our
sanitary landfill site plus a good and
I and a bad site in other cities.
t,
December I - The Committee will meet to establish
? their own oritoria for landfill site
t selection.
The Committee also asked that the City staff answer the following
questions and provide the following requested information,
1, Provide some examples of hauling costs per mile,
2. What size site are we looking for?
r~
i. 3. Why did we exclude the areas to the east in our initial search for a
landfill?
~ i
4• What other communities are interested in the joint landfill effort and
what are their tonnages?
j 5. What costs are involved in our present sitefs operation?
6• Provide population densities for the area.
t
Yar,'
r..
I
5 u
1
Tya~~.~1i1,
far. _ ,
• M
alb
~ CCC
woo
i, W !lIQQQGGG
I
MINUTES
E LANDFILL SITk SELECTION COMMITTEE
( DECEMBER 1, 1977
r
Regular Meeting of the City of Denton Landfill Site Selection Committee, Thursday,
E December 11 1977 at 7100 p.m. In City Nall ,
f~
MEMBERS PRESENTt Bob Miller, Isabel Miller, Murphey Wilde, Robert LaForto, Tony
1 Franzen, Ken Cornoll, Floyd D. McDaniel, J. L. Pedigo, Bobby
Whisonant, Dick Kelsoyi Dan Reding, Joe Bell
OT11ER$ PRESENTr Chris Hartung, City Manager) King Cole, Assistant to the City.
Manager) Greg Andorson, Solid Waste Superintendent
1. The Committee recoi.vea a report from tho 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-
K ing life of the existing sanitary landfi7,1, 11artung explained that the study
done by Freese and Nichols Consulting Engineers showed the following ronunonts
and conclusions)
14 We have used the compacted weight of solid waste as 1000 pounds
yard in place with requires good compaction in the field, and wepsuggestc
that the purchase of a Compactor machine built for solid wastes compaction
k~ be considered by the City of Denton. '
Also, in order to make full use of the Site as originally proposed when the
' plane were prepared for the Permit Application, it is necessary to borrow +
a large volume of material and haul mama for approximately a 1000 foot,
We suggest consideration be given by the City of Denton to the purchase of
' an excavating Scraper for this purpose. i
C na usi,on,
Considering the use of A solid waste Compactor, tho'prasent Landfill site is
estimated to lasto three (3) yearn with only the City of Denton contributing,
and approximately 2 years and a months, with all seven partic!4ating cities
contributing to the landfill. If a compactor unitt is not used to secure
better compaction of the solid waste, the time will be reduced approximately
oh( (6) months.
'3. Chairman Wilds stated that he thought the Committee ahould now consider astab f
lisping their own criteria and than applying proposed sitam to goo which ones
fit the criteria.
h
The Committee established the following oriteria)
1- I. oporational and long term coat
2. Acceptable to all people
3. Extobdlon of present mita
4. GdcgraphicAl looaticn, re other citiou
Cost of land
6. Voluntary sailer as opposed to eondomnation
r
D
0~1 '01
tnMp~/{
1 rti a
2 `
i i
1
7. Aocossibilitly and
a ads
• Not prime agricaulturalplandlity (land after use)
9. Anticipated
10 Loga impact an surrounding land values
11. . 1 actions against the decision
r AvailabillC Of Y adJaeent lnnd for future
After the systams of disposal
process Co Prioritize e Committee
established the criteria, the
them,
The priorities were notes an ent thr sugh a ranking
boor, as
~ 1 2 1 1
i 3 2 2 2
4 6
1 5 5 a 4 f 6 7 10 6
s
9 3 9 7
f 9 9 3 B
11
10 20 4 3
5 9
With no Further 10
{ rosiness, the meeting was adjourned at 8,30
art, .
r ifw'r
r <<'ly
,
.i
i>+P i
,
Ire ,
Pfd ' 1
,A
i ,
CsTY OF DENTON
MEMORANDUM
Too Chris Hartung, City Manager
FROMo Jack 016n, Assistant City Manager
_ DATEi November 22, 1977
SUBJ$CTo Questions Asked At Last Citizens Landfill Committee Meeting
r
Several questions were asked at the last meeting that we shall attempt to answort
i
1. Q. what are our haul costs?
i
A. I
Grog Anderson is calculating our haul costs and will have the informs- ~
Lion to you prior to the meeting,
2. Q. what size site are we looking for?
A. The prior committee used 15 to 20 years as the time period for a new I
site. Should a shorter time period be used, the size.can be reduced.
The actual size of the site will be determined by the quantity of
solid waste, the geological formation {how deep does the suitable
formation go?), factors such as area needed for support facilities, ~
soreoning, eto,, 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 these geographical locations were
considered by the committee, In fact, sites were considered in al-
most every section of Denton County, Mr, Charles Jordan, then of
COO, Dr. Bill. Olaze of NTSU and Mr, Tarry Childers, then of NTSU,
helped the committee narrow the number of elites, Mr. Charles Jordan
Was the person who first made us aware that'the site known,as Site 1 j
MLght be available,
Since the cities that had passed resolutions asking to join in with
Denton woke primarily located in the northern portion of Denton County,
more consideration was probably given to sites in that direction, Test
holes were drilled on the four sites included in the xroese and Nichols
study and another site located some fifteen (15) miles east on Highway
380. The latter site in in the general vicinity at one of the COO
' locationo,
4, Q, which cities are serious?
A, The cities of Frisco, Pilot Point, Aubrey, Sanger, Little Elm, and
Krum have appointed members to the present site selection committee,
Each of them passod resolutions at an earlier date indicating their
• ~ u
a ~
i
2
c
f
j desire to join in on a common site, x assume that certain sites
R 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
r extended period for a joint site to be developed.
Q. What quantities of solid waste does each generate?
r T A. An estimation of the population and the quantity that each generates
is attached. As noted on the attachment, 5 pounds per capita
? per day
was used, The pounds per capita may be high or lows however, the per-
tentage comparison should be meaningful,
s B. Q. What is the cost of our present landfill operation?
A. Greg Anderson will address this subject in his memorandum to you. I
should point out, however, that our cost of operations will increase
as it becomes necessary to transport cover dirt a greater distance.
Also, certain expensive equipment will almost be a necessity if the
( life of the site is to be greatly extended,
i {
What are the population densities of certain areas?
If w
A. An attempt is being made to obtain aerial maps from the Council of
J 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, i
it is my thinking that an "on the ground survey" would be the best
method to obtain the density information for a given site.
1
!
J OWN
OZ
I
JS
~t
Attachment
i
i
+,a
j
~y
w
y.,;.: 1 u~ewsalp
i~ Bg
1
r
wi♦
o
th
a
ICII o ~ td
~ I
J
K) 0
1
i
Q
s ~ V N C+ N W UI H UI
fi vim.
~~1 , ~ ~ w w w ~w 4 w w
f
yYYYj+++.; /
r. '
A PARTIAL LIST OF THE SITES
a 89'UDIED BY THE ORIGINAL SITE SELECTION COMMITTEE
N R ii
DFNTON COUNTY AREA-WIDE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY
r, POTENTIAL LANDFILL SITES
357 acres. Six miles south of Denton off 135-W and Crawford
Road, KOY $3,500 per acre, Hazel Hartin,
2. 144 acres, North of Denton at intersection of FM 428 and 2153.
Green Valley area, KGY $2,500 par acre, Hazel Hartin.
31 150 acres. North of Denton out FM 428 Suet acmes Milam Creek,
r Partially in flood plain. QT $1,500 per acre, Barnes Realty,
4: 200 acres,, Adjoining FM 720 south of U.S. 380. -50 KGY
$5,500 per acre, Hazel Hartin.
E 51 135 acres. At the intersection of U.S. 380 and 377. KWB
$3,000 per Acre. Purchase arrangements flexible. Arabia Wilkerson,
400 acres. North of Denton off FM 2164 in Dribble Springs area,
-50 KGY $2,000 per acre, Baker Montgomery.
j 14 235 acres.
South of Denton seat of 135-W. Southern boundary
along Hickory Croak, Out Bonnie Brae southward, QT and flood plain.
` $1,500 per acre. Barns Realty, ;
8, 180 acres. South of Denton seven riles southward out Bonnie Brao
across Hickory Creak. QT and flood plain. A. W, J'amea, 7151 Green
Tree Lane, Dallas, TX 75214, "Happy" Salmon.
5. 187 acres, Near Ponder, nine miles west of Denton, Rocky soil.
Talmage Lively, 13614 Midway Road, Suite 201, Dallas, TX 75240.
"Happy" Salmon,
10, 200 acres. West of Denton on Airport Road. Partially in dry crook
bad. "Happy" Salmon.
,
E.
" 11, 300 acres. South of Denton near Roanoke, 1»1.S miles east of 135-14
i
1+J and 114, two miles north of Roanoke. KOY(?) $5,000 per acre.
Hazel Hartin,
124 200 aorea. Out Sherman Drive north of Denton. $10,000 per acre. i
13, 210 acres. Northeast Denton County approximately 1.0 miles north of
U.S, 380 at the junction of FM 1385 and 428 between Mustang and
Uttla Lim Crooks, QT $1,400 per acre, Clifton Irick, Realtor,
'sr
Y, •t1
q+
' o
g M
tMdYM L
7y1
~iP4td'IIW
wool
Solid Waste Study
potential Landfill Sites
page 2
i
14. $00 acres. Northeast Denton County just north of Aubrey, QT
p I~ $10,000 per acre. Hazel Hartin, Realtor.
15. 71 acres, Last of Denton near Lincoln P,:rk, two miles north
of U.S. 3SO, west of Pecan Creek. QT $5,000 per acre. Hazel Partin,
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
Oribble Springs area. QT $1,500 par acre. Bill Eldridge, Realtor.
18, 251 acres. West Denton County, one mile south of U.S. 380 near
Denton Creek, west of Stoney, QT $7,500 per acre, Hazel Hartin, E
Realtor,
j 19.' 38-1/2 acres. Southwest Denton County near Ponder, Newton Gann,
Owner,
JJ 20, 150 acres, South of Denton out Hwy, 377 south and west of Hickory
i Creek. -50 MY $2,500 per acre. Willing to carry note, M. C. Birch, f
~ I
21, .1,50 acres. West of Denton out Airport Road, one mile west of 13$-W 1
a and M-E exchange, QT $2,500 per acre, H, W, Down.
22. 120 eors9. South of Denton Airport, QT $20500 par acre, Hazel
Hartin. (Jim Harn, Bob Smith)
23, 294 acres, West of Denton near Stoney Community. QT $5,000 par sore,
Hazy Hartin,
240 251 acres. West of Denton rear Stoney Community, $5,000 per acre.
' ~ Hazel Hartin,
250 148 acres, East of Denton on PH 423. QT $2,850 per sore.
Burt Shrycck,
I. 26, 300 scrag, East of Denton on FM 423, KEP ¢4,000 per sore, ~
Bill Williams,
27. 107 acres, Eastern Denton County, FM 2434, QT $3,500 par acre, 1
Pat wigging,
' 28, 100 acres, Corner of PM 423 and 2934, QT $40000 per acre,
Bob Modena,
i
I `
r
11/1
f 1
So4id Waste Study
Potential Landfill Site
! Page 3
I
€ 29. 425 acres, Bast of Sanger on FM 2153 in Green Valley area, -50 KGY
71 $3000 per acre, Hazel Hartin,
304 460 acres. Four miles south of Denton on 135-W, QT $5,500 per
7 acre. Baker Montgomery,
31. 165 acres, North of Denton on FM 2164, KWS $3,500 per acre.
8111 Williams,
I i r
32. 230 acres, North of Denton on Bonnie Brae, w50 KGY,
per acre, Bill Gayle, $5,000
33.
I L, 274 acres, Five miles north of U.S. 380 on FM 1385 and 428, qT
$1,450 per acre, Gifford Touchstone Company,
~ I
{
t
r '
i
C
I
1
F l
f1
I 1
I
1 y 1y
1
r fii`°1
Now
ylXr
n
' r.PQYAa
txnp%DEI
0"
Y
f
f ! ,
~ CrTY OF DENTON
r MEMOPANDUM
01
TOt Jack Owen, Assistant City Manager
FROMt Greg Anderson, Superintendent of Public Works
SUBJECTS Operating and Hauling Coat Estimates Sanitary
Landfill
i
DATBs November 29, 1977
~ r
At the `
present time the landfill is receiving approximately
} f 118 tons of refuse per day (five pounds per capita per day) or
43,070 tons per year, our 1971-78 operating budget for the sani-
tary landfill is $127,429.00, so our operating costs areappro -
matoly $3400 per ton. xi
four operating budget does not take into
consideration any cost for land amortization.)
Waste Th
Study during e following data ohas ur bfiscal een updated from the COG Solid
year 1.772.73. Each item was
increased by the percentage increase to-our present fiscal
'these haul costs are based on a 30 cubic ydar.
t
I three-man residential crew. Vor a commercial truckrthetcost
f i would be approximately 140 per mile leas, because they are one
men 6peratsd,
Fuel and oil $ ,13
Maintenance and tires
.32
Depreciation i
,5B ~
Labor ,21
tneiurdnce
' .07
~y Management and overhead
Cost Per mile, per truck
f~ $1.39
M
I
1
F 1 ,
I/ tY.
1 r
• y
t I f 1,
ACCEPTABLE GEOLOGIC kRFAs
(1)" Kiamichi Shale K
it ^ (2) Grayson Marl
1 Kgy
(3) Eagle Ford shale
E Kef
(4) Ozan Formation K
r of
~r a
(5} Marlbrook Marl K i
mb
(6) Kemp Clay
Kkc E
pippp ; , . , •
' NIA 1 .I, , • 1 1 I~r
E
Ida
tip . A! • ' i r ' ' ,t I 1 , , t
. V
r
+w
I ~ ry~4
l ~ 1
r CITY Or DENTODI SANITARY I.AIIDPILL SITE SLLLCTION CCIVITTIr
J: {
DLCEMbER 0
i , 1977
I Regular Meeting of the City of Denton Sanitary Landfill Site ,5olection C
December 00 1977 at 7100 olnmltte
p.m, in the Council Chamhors of the Municipal Ruildingl U
I ME118ERS PRESLNTr Robinson, Miller, Down, Reding, J;o22, t'odigo, hlcuan.fel,
Miller, Lnrorto, Goin, Burns, Wilds, Collum, Compton
OTNERS PRESENTr Chris Hartuno N
I of the City of DoAton~stafFing Colo and Grog Anderson ~i,~
The Committee oonsidoxed the minutes of, the meeting of November 10, 1977
I and December 1, 1977. The minutes of November 10, 1977 wore upJiroved as '
distributed. Tho minutes of tile mooting of Decanbor 1 woro amonded under
Section 3, the portion listing the columns showing tho rankinrin by tho
individual momhorL of the Committoo,
„ The columns wnro nmanded'by adding I
y number 11 under Criteria", number 9
And number 11 under " 8 under Denton", number n
der C 11 under
n I,.
mbi Cou
nod ?it
I r(iti
2• Chairman of the Committee, Murphey Wilds, submitted a paper to the Committo
` that included the definition of torms in the first part and n propoual ro•-
garding the use of criteria in tho, second part and a narrative ranking as
1 established by the Cormnittoo at the last meeting.
DErINIVoN or '1'EIZ lS !'n!1 r
Y1 j~+ • I
1. Operational and long term coot
~ that the site be economically t'oasi
but not necessarily the lowest cost A .6
the eft-s onsiderod, jJI&'l 4 -o' ti •4
,
2. Acceptable to all people Il (fr"~~/S%, Ze' j f
11} teat the silo would draw the loast
iblo objections from the fewest 'ntw,1 r?1;, '
rrd of peoplo possible by reasons of su
considorntions as surrounding onvir
mental impact, traffic, litter, etc
3. Extension of present site that the prosont site bo expandod s tF: I
that continued use be possible for
longer than the projeetod throe yea
4. Goorgraphic location ro other cities Oat the eJ.tn be one which would bu
funnibla for other cities In the cc `rb
to use in terms of diataneo involve y: ,r
pf 54 Cost of land J
that the coot of ).and bo economical
feasible, though not nocoarnorily' 01
lowest coat of the sitar conaidared
6• Voluntary roller as o
pposed to that condomnation
condemnation procoduro not
necessary for acquisition of f the si si
7• Acossnibility and ndantabilit
Y that the silo be such that it may 1~~
(land after use as landfill) ronahgd with ease aiul that it bo Ad Al
larndfilltJInrlcomplota1r operation au f;
h
gay'
r req ,
i
2
n 1.1. Al
i• 'i 1
f}fjlt ,
8. Not prime agricultural land that the alto not be, ono which woul
j convert prima agricultural land to
a landfill uao
9. Anticipated impact on surrounding that tho site be ono which would ha F{'
c, I
` land values the loaat possible, if any, impact
surrounding land values
10. Legal actions against the docision that the auto be one over which no
costly and prolonged litigation wou
be anticipated
11 11, Availability of adjacent land for that adjaconl land be evnilnbla sha
future systems of disposal it bo nooded rot soma future: system
E~ of waste disposal
A PROPOSAL RrOARn1NC3_mttr l1S.1, -Of CHITRRIA
i
1. A list of all possible sites which meet geological.. requirements he drawn up
2. Criterion 1 as prioritized be applied to all sites listod, alirn.inating alts j;
I which do not moot it
S{
~ 3. Criterion 2 as prioritized be applied to all remaining sits, eliminating t,t
those sites which do not moot it i"
4. Continuation of process through remaining criteria f1,'
For chart, Roo Attachment ;
d" i 't `cl
The Committee studied the paper presented by Chairman Wilds and agreed to
two amendmontsf c,'+
1. To remove Section 1 under "hofinition of 'forme" and list it an an altor-
native and aiwond the wording to read "exhaust all possibilities for ex• f
7
tension of the present silo". .tt• r
64
l
2. Amend the definition of "economically feaeiblu" to the following wordings
"to Inc Lido .connidornt On of o t of 4;? ~fokwtp haul and disposal
t 11 1 d / i / i giI" ; I. / yl,( Z, , r
Thorn was a motion by McDaniel, seconded by Comttton to re-ordor the criLorl s
as rankod under tho Donlon column. The motion failed with 4 in favor and G in }
opposition. ;tt
Next there was a motion by Down,socondod by troll to procood Lo stop 1. and list all possiblo altos which moot,gooiogical raquiromonl;n be drawn up,
Motlon
carried unnnimouAly. Bob Miller recluostod that the otnff identify oil n iaroo
map, the four four sites that we conaidored) plus t1to othor nitos listed that
`
moot the geological raquiromonts And any other altos rdcommondod by a mambar of l~h+f
the Committed.
The CommitLao than dooidod to 110111 Off nn diucunflinq alto solection until ti, ` i
Wrap was c0ml1let:ocl. With ne furthor bllflitloftfl, it waft decided to moot oil Thursday ,f
December 15, 1977 at 710n p.m, and that the nu>etinq be Adjhurnod,
y '
~ 01
:Y3
1
awry .
rM10oul
owl
~i M ` A ,11
lwe
A W O 6 0 V r, x'14
I,
n S
b L1 IW-~ r1r E Fa f/ IS H JA rn7 p I~n4r!,
roN N
07
0 C pV w A t7 i. +n n to
a n w it t1' J 4N. w }}N O 0 W f1
µ N. N N n r7 p. b' p w F~ I1 W Jr, i
d o
1 N V~ ~
r lI j 0 pV
A w a wi ro w
to) a N 01 W IG p, O C
j G 00
1 V 4V {}Q; W f7 UI Qj ji, rt h+ h
f{ M N rh f1 p I r v fle IS O A j
fl ' Q no y ri v
tj P. Ili
r ,
f r? N N r ri ro si N ro (0
f ~ n h
JH ji, rf it N
04
N
a' h~ tr r a a•
to n
(I a U' M, P' •0 NM UNt H l n 'S 'rCS QI 0 (1 '(3 fl. Id ci P. rf A)
tt P. 01
f~ , a pV
w> o W ro ,
CIA
M N M U p0 A rye r`
Hr H rd H N N. F I 3
N 0
1 rr~~}} r r R N P a n
CC
rA 1-` N, ~y S.d Hr a
.64
tf et
0 Wp ~ t N a t3 G i] I/V 't1 . j~{~• j
p n C M n v N r1
a m n' a r-1*4
w n ro tr {{n ro E
I'}f tJ tr O t VAS it
U W d ~D pp V O~ Vr ~ ~ N ` , ti,
N M " n n N n
r (ti W N a ra+ o W q"~ 1J
' re p tr 4s 0 I
ff
a v (r(pp n (ip' M
M M N •jj H V_~' H t3. {,J O [fir.
(ny ~ WWµ h ~ ~ ~J ~ ~t'r3
~ ~ 4pp~~ ~ rf tyryrol~
M Pryryj Y p M VS W twy V+ r~~p tl .1.
N - r0 6~pn0 JJ
` CS r1 pry `WU r0 ryp
' W tlroe f l N pV v 19 Ip ry r ;
~ At7r ~ I7 .I
[1 , 0 V
H 00 tr
n
' vP?e~H
VY
Mal
i
E SrTiS REMOVED FROM MAP
I8
1. 150 acres. North of Denton out FM 428 Oust across Milam
Creek, Partially in flood plain, QT $1,500,00 por acre.
Barns Realty.
2, 135 acres. At the intersection of U,S. 380 and 377. K.W.B.
$3000,00 ;er acre. Purchase arrangements flexible. Archie
Wilkerson.'
3. 235 abkes, South of Denton east of r35-W. Southern boun-
dary¢tit~ Hickory Creek. Out Bonnie Brae southward, QT y
anQf P`i,':~d plain. $1,500.00 per acre. Barns Realty. I
4. 100'x•• South of Denton seven miles southward out nonnia
A~,s across Hickory Creek. QT and flood plain. A.W. .lames
71:,1 Green Tree Lane, Dallas, Texas, 75214. "Happy" ►
Salmon,
5. 210 acres. Northeast Demon County approximately ten miles
north of U.S. 380 at the junction of FM 1385 and 428 between
Mustang and Little Elm Creeks, QT $1,900.00 per acre,
Clifton Iriak, Realtor.
6, 500 pores, Northeast Denton Count:y,Oust north of Aubrey,
f M $10#000,00 per acre. Hazel Martin, Realtor.
I ,
7. 71 acres. East of Denton near Lincoln Perk, two miles
~p north of U,S, 300, west of Pecan Creek. Qm $5,000,00 per
acre. Hazel Martin, owner,
8. 270 acres, North Denton County approximately eight miles
y~ 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 par acre. Bill
uldridqes Realtor.
10. 251 acres, West Denton County, one mile south of U.S. 380
near Denton Croak, west of Stoney. QT $7,500.00 per acre.
Hazel Hartin, Realtor.
Yl. 150 acres. West of Denton out Airport Road, one mils west
of 135-W and 135-E exchange, "QT $2,500.66 par acre.
H,W. Down.
12. 1.20 acres. South of Denton Airport. QT $215(0,00 per acre.
~M Hazel Martin. (brim darn, Bob Smith.)
f
r
r „2w
t
13. 294 acres. West of Denton near Stoney. QT $5,000.00 per
{ acre. Hazel Hartin.
(f 14, 148 acres.' East of Denton on FM 423, QT $2,850.00 per acre.
Burt Shryock.
15. 300 'acres. East of Denton on FM 423. KEP $4,000.00 per acre.
Bill Williams. E
16. 107 acres. Eastern Denton County, FM 2934. QT $3,500.00 t
par acre, pat Wiggins.
17. 150 acres, Corner of FM 423 and 2934. QT $4,000.00 per acre.
Bob Medans.
1
16, 460 acres. Four mikes south of Denton on 135-P1. QT $5,500.00 i
per acre. Baker Montgomery,
196 165 acres. North of Denton on rM 2164, KWB $3$00.00 per
acre. Bill Williams
j 20. 274 acres. Five miles north of U.S. 380 on FM 1385 and 428. i
+ QT $1,450,00 per acre. Gifford Touchstone Company,
i
1
1
1 ~
I
y
f
i
y
i
1
r
M
H
SITES SPOTTED ON MAP
11 219 acres, North of Denton off Sherman Drive.
Soil borings
indicate impermeable clay, $3,500.00 per acre.
1 2. 195 acres. North of Denton off Sherman Drive, So
I it borings
indicate impermeable clay. Site lies completely in 100 year
flood plain of Clear Creek. $1,200.00 per acre,
! 3, 174 acres, North of Denton off Sherman Drive. Soil borings
indicate impermeable clay, and a considerable area of sand
1 and gravel. $2,000.00 per acre.
4. 200+ acres. North of Denton about one mile east of Grabble
Springs between FM 2164 and FM 2153. Soil borings indicate
impermeable clay. $1,504.00 par acre. Mazel Martin,
5. 357 acres. Six miles south of Denton off I-35W and Crawford
Road. KGY $3,500,OO per acre, Hazel Martin, j
f S. 144 acres. North of Benton at intersection of FM 428 and
FM '2153. Green Valley area. KGY $21'500.00 per acre. Hazel
Martin.
7. 200 Acres., Adjoining FM 720 south of U.S. 380. •-50 KGY
~j $50500.00 per acre, Hazel Martin,
8, 400 acres. North of Denton off FM 2164 in Gribble Spring0 1
area', -50 KGY $2,000,00 per acre, Baker Montgomery,
1
P. 187 acres, Near Ponder, nine miles west of Denton, Rocky
soil, "Happy" Salmon,
10, 200 acres. West of Denton on Airport Road, Partially in
dry creek bed. "Happy" Salmon.
11. 300 acres.
'..south of Denton near Roanoke, one and one half •i
miles east of 1-35W and 114, two miles north of Roanoke.
KGY $50000.00 per acre. Hazel Martin,
12. 200 acres, Out Sherman Drive north of Denton, $10,600,00
per acre.
k1 13. 235 sores. South oil Denton out 377 south and west of Hickory
Creek -50 KGY $21500,00 par acre, willing to carry note.
M,C. Diroh,
a 14. 251 acres. West of Denton near Stoney, $5,000.00 per acre.
Hazel Martin.
..s=
-10
~ra+l~xnr p
r .2-
I ,
( 15. 425 acres. East of Sanger on FM 2153, in Green Valley area.
x-50 KGY $3,500.00 per acre. Hazel Hartin.
16. This general area submitted for consideration because of
f its being sparsely populated. Harry Down.
17. xhis'general area submitted due to its proximity to our
present site, and relatively sparse population. Joe Bell.
I 1e. 100+ acres. Realtor had this core tested and found im-
f permeable clay. Flat terrain. $2,000.00 per acre. Hazel
I Hartin.
I
19. 591 acres. North Denton on McReynolds Road just east of
FM 2164. Rolling, hill terrain. $1,000,00 pez acre. Mike
j Ramos, Realtor. 387-8811.
ri 20. 170 sores. North and Rector Road. Flat terrain. $2,600.OQ per of acre. H re, H
Hartin, Q per
I 1
9
,
1
i
I
I
T
LM81M
• 1
Alm
I
• 1
l r
r
MINUTES
j CITY OF DENTON SANITARY WDrILL SITE SELECTION COMMITTEE
•E DECEMBER 150 1977
}
Regular Meeting of the City of Denton Sanitary Landfill Site Selection Committee,
December 15, 1977 at 7tOo p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Building,
1 r
MEMBERS PRESENT, Miller, Collum,DOwn, Terral, Larorta, Miller, Bahnsen,
MODaniel, Frigon for Ralph Cole, Compton, Bell, Reding,
I( } (loin, Wilde, John Robinson for Marion Robinson
I
I OTHERS PRESENTi Jack Owen and dreg Anderson of the City of Denton Staff
i. The Committee considered the minutes.of the meating of er 61 1977,
i
The definition of "economically feasible" used Infurthercdefining cri-
terion number one, operational and long term cost, was amended to include
IX~ the preparation of the site, the cost of the property, and. how these.
costs will directly affect the usage fees". (These amendments offered by
Murphy Wilde and Isabel Miller,) The minutes were then approved as amended.
f~
f 2. Jack Owen presented a' large map of Denton County which showed with rod pine ~
most of the sites considered by the original site solection committee. He
explained that the locations rInpointed on the map were approximated.
~i
3• Joa Bell asked that a site north
of our included among those on the map, Harry Downerequestednan additional site
I I i south of hector Road and west of Intereetate 35 be added to the ma also.
p
4, Bob Miller moved and Bob LaForto seconded the motion that the sites shown
an geologically unsuitable on the map be romoved. The motion was approved, j
5. Isabel Miller requested the small Cities be more clearly indicated on the 1
map showing city limits and population. Bob Larorte requested the number
of loads per week each City hauls to our present landfill,
64 Floyd McDaniel requested that it be recorded in the minutes the position
+~1 of the City of Bangor in possibly owning and operating their own landfill,
John Frigon, Assistant City Manager for Sanger, stated that his City was
still very interested in the regional landfill project but at the same time,
had to investigate all options.
ri 7. Joe' Boll asked'that someone from the City Staff approach U Engineers about possible property south of our presontsiteoby theCnext of
meeting.
( g. Joe Bell moved and Ken Bahnson seconded that the City of Denton Approach
Crossroads about oxpAnding our present site, The notion was approved. The
Co mittoe requested thin be done as soon at possible.
N
9, The Committee again roaffirmod its concern for finding a better alternative
for disposing of solid waste, harry Down and Floyd McDaniel advocnLrod the
Committeo consider short term sites. Two main advant,1g08 wore mentioned,
_w
n
f 1 .
r ~
1
I '
M A
`2
I I
f 1. Better citizen acceptance.
{ 2. Na long Corm commitment to sanitary landPilling should a
better method become feasible,
10. The Committee requested that a new list of the sites be made and keyed to
1 pinpointed locations on the map. j
11. Floyd McDaniel moved and Harry Down seconded the motion that the meeting ,j
adjourn and reconvene on the first Thursday in J'anuar.y, January 50 1978. ^i
Motion was'approvod. 1
I ~
f
I
f~
I
1 e' ~
r i1
r
1 '
yyyF y
YAW y
~r
I
k(t
p
L i .
~ n
CITY OF DENTON
MEMORANDUM
i
TOr Members of the City of Denton Landfill Site Selection Committee
j FROMs Jack Owen, Assistant City ManAger
DAM January 5, 1978
SUHJECTt Rescheduling of Next Committee Meeting
The Regular Meeting of the City of Denton Landfill Site Selection committee
scheduled for tonight, January 50 1978, has been rescheduled for next
Thursday, January 12, 1978 at 700 in the Civil Defense Room of the City
Hall,
~ E
The same agenda that was sent to you for the January 5, 1978 will be used
E for the meeting on January 12, 1978,
i
OfJEN I
1 ~ I
E
j
j
I
.
E
a
yr
'AlP'lpY
vama' V8
I
MINUTES
CITY OF DENTON SANITARY LANDFILL SITE SELECTION COMMITTER
j JANUARY 12, 1978
Regular Meeting of the City of Denton Sanitary Landfill Site
Selection Committee, January 12, 1978 at 700 p.m. in the Council
Chambers of the Municipal Building:
MEMBERS PRESENT: Robinson, Torral, Clanton, Pedigo, Whisenant,
-3 Sahnsen, B. Miller, Franzen, McDaniel, Down,
Wilds, LaPorte, Compton, Isabel Miller
OTHERS PRESENT: Chris Hartung, Jack Owen, and Greg Anderson
of
E the City Staff and Les Harper of the Record
_i Chionicla
I . The Committee considered the minutes of December 15, 1977,
Marion Robinson asked that the minutes be amended to show
Scott Robinson and not John Robinson attended the meeting in
her behalf. The minutes were then approved as amended.
2. Bob LaPorte moved that the following three items be empha-
sized to the news medial
I a. There is no "push" by the City Staff toward any of
the four original sites
b. Sites removed from the map were done so from purely
geological reasons. Economics of those sites were
not discussed.
F e. All sites are being considered equally by the commit-
tee.
This motion was seconded by Harry Down and approved by the
committee.
3. Mr. Jack Owen reported that he had talked with an Army Corps
of Engineers representative about the possibility of securing
!'h government. land for a sanitary landfill. By telephone the
Lj Corps thought the possibility remote, and promised further
information in writing.
I~
A. Mr, Owen explained he had contacted the Mayor of Crossroads '
about a site within their area. The Mayor said he would
dis- cuss it with his council, ,
5, 'there was considerable discussion concerning long and short
term sites Mr. C,L# Pedigo moved and Isabel Miller seconded
the motion that the committee look in the direction of a one
sito location to be utilized for a period of morn or loss
20 years Mho motion was approved with a roll call vote of
SY
hr,
c ram.
s
r'1 \ _2r
seven Yes and four no with one abstention. The members voted
as follows$
Yes No
1 ller MoYaniel
Robinson Down
Terral LaPorte
Pedigo Compton
Bahnson
Franzen Abstention
1, Miller ohn an on
E
h, Jim Terral asked that the committee attempt to establish soil
I types on all sites on the map.
I 7. Members agreed to 'apply the list of criteria to the individual
sites and have their results ready for the next meeting, it
was hoped a consensus of opinion would be found.
8, Committee agreed to meet in two weeks on Thuraday, danua-ry 26,
1978 at 7100 p.m. and that the meeting be adjourned.
J
li
r~
E
f
1
f ' E
i
i
' r, i
v
'
.4:
s, 1
l
t.
r~m*uNM
r
{
r ,
AVERAGE LOADS PER WEEK HAULED
i
3 BY AREA CITIES
s I
C1tY Loads_ Per Weak.
Sanger 5
71
Aubrey 2
Pilot Point 12
G
.i
• Little Elm 2 ;
s Xrum 2
Frisco 20
Y ` wJ
Denton 105
h
r:
~P 4i i
,15, r
n
,7
IVAOM
r
j
i
,aFi<:~ rnrxw
r
CITY or Dr1JTON SANITARY LnNllrTI:J
Xbb SITB StLVCTION COMMIxT,EE
JANUARY 26, 1978
l
A091111ir Meeting of the City of Denton Sanitaty Landfill Site mmittee -i Cliambersnofothe MunicipalBuildinl~78 at 'Y:00 p,m, in the Council
MEMbBRS PRESnNT: D g i
own, I~ranzOn, Collom, Reding', Clbnton Torral
Moon, Wilda, Pedigo, Larorte I
►
J OxlJElts pSNT: , McDaniel, Bbhnsen
Jack Owen and Greg Anderson of the City Staff i
The Committee considered the minutos of Januar
Minutes were approved as written. y 12, 19784 The }
~ r 2• Mr. Jao)c Owen
3+ ! presented the geological
by DX-- Bob Miller. information compiled i±
Bob Laporte mov@d and, Ken Bahnsen seconded that all sites
listed as QT be removed from map. specif
#11
and-013. Motion was a iaally Bites #8,
pi?roved,
A• J'im Tarsal moved and yon Bahnsen seconded that sites listed
As K11D or WOOdbinca be #17 was retained bocaus@mitQwas felt aimalluyt@ 07. site
formation may exist in the large area th b3b
at geological
motion was approved.
417 covered, The
5. Jack Owen informed the Committee that site #20 was no longer !
available. Jim 9`erxal moved and Co.l.lom seconded that i '
r ~
removed from consideration. Motion was approved.
6• Kan Bahnson moved 4nd 1,)cbani@1 I
4. ROY bordprn second@d that sites shown as ' 1)0 and 96. Thegmotion WasrApprovecl.s eoitically sit@0' #3, YA,
74 Lai' or. te' moved and Roding ooconded that alto V
2 rem
F
Motion was approved. Site 012 was T bordering be removed,
8' sn apound and Larorte seconded toot 014 be removed
wan nl~provoa, Motion
9, Atonnnial ntovrd and Ken n0hnren s@conaad that sit•a 42 be re~
moved from cons id Oration dua to the flooding aspects or, the
site. Motion won approved,
10. TWO additional Vi.taa were subm.il:i:nd for consideration by
Harry Down. Doth siten worn located north of Denton %vorst
of I'At 2164. )loth npponrod to be in accoptablo' geological
-10
1
•,JV(Iplgl
y®~RpFJ
' MINUTES
CITY Of DENTON SANITARY LANDFILL SITE SELECTION COMMYTTEE
FEBRUARY 2, 1978
Regular Meeting of the City of Denton Sanitary Landfill Site
Selection Committee, February 2, 1978 at 7s00 p.m. In the Council
Chambers of the Municipal Buildings
MEMBERS PRESENTS Clanton, Reding, Bahnsen, Pedigo, Franzen,
McDaniel, Wilds, Isabel Miller, Compton, LaPorte,
Whisenant, Robinson
OTHERS PRESENTS Jaok Owen and Greg Anderson of the City Staff,
Les Harper of the Record Chronicle and Mike
Ramos, a realtor representing the owner of
ry site 419
s ~ ,J
1. The committee considered the minutes of January 26, 1978. The
minutes were a
pprovsd as written.
The general area listed as site 416 wag retained until further
Information on specific sites could be obtained. No motion
made 'or vote taken.
t 34 The City Staff offered for consideration two specific sites E
submitted by ronltor Hazel Hartin in the area listed as site 017.
!lore geological information was requested. geologidal map the entire area of #17 is showAco the
nctodbegWooA,'Ane
and QT which are
ion of"the Committee Qthatyadditionaltsites in theearea shouldn-
be sought.
4, xsabol Miller moved and Ken Bahnsen seconded that site #18 be
removed because of criteria #1. The
and site 018,was retained, motion was not approved
Reding moved and LaPorte seconded that site #19 be removed
cause of criteria #2, The motion was not a be-
was retained. approved and site X19
Clanton moved and nahnson seconded that action on sites #21 l
and 122 be tabled until further information could be obtained.
K. Motion was approved.
7. The Committee agreed to meet next irhuradny, February 9, 1978
I~ at 700 p,m. and the meeting was adjourned.
t
A
AAI*l
R
r
.an,ff 4^'ipTK
l I I
f '
~ M
l
J CITY OF DENxON SANI MINUTES
TARY LANDFILL SITE SELECTION COMMITTEE
FEBRUARY 16, 1978
i Regular Meeting of the City of Denton Sanitary Landfill Site Selection
i Committee, February 16, 1978 at 7100 porn, in the Council Chambers of
the Municipal Building:
r'
MEMBERS PRESENTr Down, McDaniel, Bahnsen, Reding, Knox, Pedigo,
Clanton, Wilda, LaPorte, Franzen, Compton,
f ' Isabel Miller
OTHERS PRESENT: Jaok Owen and Greg Anderson of the City Staff
1. The Committee considered the minutes of the meeting of February
20 1978, The minutes were approved as written,
2, Reverend Wilds reported to the Committee that site #19 had been
' withdrawn by the property owner. It was removed from
considera-tion,
3o Jaok• Owen reported to the Committee that site #10 had been found
to have two large gravel. pits on the propert
soils for landfill purposes. He also indicated indicating poor
would ndicated that the F.F,A.
probably object to this site because of its close proxim-
ity to the Denton Airport and the airplane flight pattern, Lee
Knox felt that the soils in this area were made of fragmented
F + limestone which is highly permeable, Site 410 remained under
consideration,
4. Jack Owen presented a letter from Julia A. Williams indicating
her opposition to a landfill located in the vicinity of missile
Base Road',) The sites west of Missile Base Road were not removed
by the Contmi,ttee,
8, Site 421 was pinpointed to be about one and one half miles north
of Highway 77 and one mile went of FM 2164, and coul
for, $2,500,00 d pe purchased
per acre. Reverend wilds reported that parsons
fr living south of this area had indicated opposition, The Commit
tee took no action and site #21 remained under doiiiideration.
6. Lewis tingham and several others living near site #17 appeared
before the Committee to express opposition to a 'landfill in this
area. Those in opposition suggested an alternate site located
north of Denton approximately four miles northwest of Aubrey,
The Committee added this site on the map for consideration as
site 123, Site 017 was left on the :nap,
7, The list of criteria was applied t~ ,iLu #21, it passed all '
criteria and was left on the map.
8. The Committee asked the staff for more information on sites #16,
F #17► 410, and #23.
}
.
~Mrl
1 i
tFl.
n
it
spy,..,-
i
-2-
a
7
9. Teabol Miller moved and Mobaniel seconded that the Committee
chairman respond in writing to the letter of opposition sent by
Julia Williams in regard to sites #21 and 422 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
I
S,
I
1
1
i
l;
r1, I
a
j
!
la
1.
,Ik
t
oI:
M
IR.IHr . '~*l
NHMYI'
} NNNyyy
1
~gyrt 9R+IT{I.
rr
MINUTES
CITY OF DENTON SANITARY LANDFILL SITE SELECTION COMMITTER
FEBRUARY 23, 1978
ii
} Regular Meeting of the City of Denton Sanitary Landfill Site Selection
Committee, February 23, 1978 at 7100 p.m. in the Council
the Municipal Buildings Chambers of
MEMBERS PRESENTS Wilde, Collom, Pedigo, Dawn, McDaniel, Robinson,
a Reding, LaPorte, Franzen, Isabel Miller
OTHERS PRESENT: Jack Owen and Greg Anderson of the City Staff
V
1. The Committee considered the minutes of the meeting of February
16, -1978: Item #5 was changed to read "north" instead of "south."
The minutes were then approved as amended.
2. Mr. Grant Davis read a letter written by Lewis A. Bingham, Presi-
dent of the Suburban Aubrey Citizen's Association expressing op-
position to site 417 near Rock Hill Road north of 360. Mr. Davis
was acoompanied by some 48 persons living in the area. Cheater
P- Sparks, County Commissioner, addressed the Committee and asked i
thhat any new site selected be in another I
Mr Davis preainot other than hls.
suggested the Committee seek a site somewhere west of
benton. Bob LaPorte asked Davis'if the Association was opposed l
ry to site #18 near Navo. Davis indicated they had no o
ppasitian to
site #18.
X71
3. McDaniel moved and Collom seconded that site #17 be removed from
rl consideration. The motion was approved.
4. Chairman wilds submitted his letter to aulia Williams in response }
k}" to her letter of opposition to sites west of missile Base Roast. ~
S. ace Stookard appeared to inform the Committee that any site 10-
cation in the area of Gribble Springs would lead to litigation.
6. Jack Owen reported that site 410 was for sale or lease. i
Ja,t
\t He again i
stated that the area aontainpd gravel deposits and was dissected
r<~, by Hickory Creek.
I~ Et .
7. McDaniel moved and Collom seconded that site #23 be removed due to t
the small size of the acreage. Motion was approved.
i
as Five new sites were taken from the MLS listings and numbered X24,
#25, #26, #27, and #28. i
9. LaPorte moved and Collom seconded that #24 be removed due to Its
e location in the Gribble Springs area. Motion was approved.
NI
4 . r.. .....r... i.....r. rl.n Y., . V ..rYl 1♦ v...Xr rM{~14 , r vlvotlNl> 4M z.N;Lfi:\S,W IA
f
owl
i
' v
! ~2-
7 10. Site,025 was remove) by Consensus due to its close proximity to
.1 Sanger.
11. Collom moved and Reding seconded that site #26 be removed because
of its location in Argyle. Motion was approved,
12• Site #21 remained for further Consideration, It fa located near
the intersection of Old Justin Road and Interstate 35W.
,J
13. Site #28 remained for further consideration. It is located east
! on 380 approximately 18 miles, south of 380 about 1/2 mile,
{r,' 14. Committee agreed to meet next Thursdays March 2, 1978. Meeting 1
was adjourned.
l I oJ
i j
~ I
Al
L7
4,
s t,
f ,
r,
EF';
i 1
RIl}7C`
,
MINUTES
CITY OF DENTON SANITARY LANDFILL SITE SELECTION COMMITTEE
MARCH 2, 1978
li Regular Meeting of the City of Denton Sanitary Landfill Site Seleotion
Committee, March 2, 1978 at 7:00 p,m, in the Civil Defense Room Of the
Municipal Buildings i
' MEMBERS PRESENT: Robinson, Reding, LaPorte, Fvigon, McDaniel,
i Down, Collom, Bahnsen, Isabel Miller
0"bRS PRESENT: Greg Anderson and Lisa Ford of the City Staff
s, 1. The Committee considered the minutes of the meeting of February f
23, 1978. The minutes were a
pproved as written. ,
2. Drag Anderson submitted a list of.criteria published by the FFA
{ + on landfill sites near airports whirh`stated`that a landfill
1 cannot be within two miles of a runt►ay, Site,#10 does not meet
this criteria, Collom shoved and Dovin seconded that site #10 be
removed
from consideration. The motion was approved. ~
3. Greg Anderson. reported that site #ZB is still available and that
the price has dropped from $2,600,00 per acre to $1,500600 per acre. i
4. Chairman wilds. submitted an engineering report on solid waste
disposal for Collin " Denton County Water and Sanitation District '
by Fowler and Grafe Consulting Engineers. The'report stated that
the araa along FM 1385 in Northeast Denton County was generally
' suitable for landfills. Sites #18 and 428 fall in this area.
Wilds also submitted a map from the same report with four areas
spotted and designated A,S,C, and D, Nat Comewell of the Suburban
Aubrey Citizen's Association appeared to express the groupr
e
approval of sites in the Navo area. Wilds accompanied Comewell
to the area and reported that the. only development in the area is
near the interseotion of 380 and 1385.
B. LaPorte suggested we check into the possibility of MoXinney bring
ing their solid waste to a site in the Navo'areas Greg Anderson
said that in the past when contacted, McKinney had not been ifiter- '
ested.
6. Dick Tedrow and W.E, Williams appeared to question the close
proximity of sites #21 and #22 to their property. Chairman Wilds
said that the committer would let them know of any developments
concerning those two sites.
74 LaPorte said people North of 121 and #22 had called him and opposed
these two sites.
lM~
P ,
1 ~ 1
0
}7N
snwsw
r
I
e ,
"2`
Down presented a new site that was submitted to him by Mrs. Sam
Fulton lust off the end of FM 426. The site was placed on the map
as site #29,
# 9. The Committee decided to
a the map as sites #30Ao 30D,~t30CF anda30D~sted as A,B,C, and Don
10. Chairman Wilda suggested the staff check into 30A, 30B, 30C and
,;q4; i 30D, Reding suggested we gyve this area prioriky. Bahnsen suggested
tr we check into the acreage and said that this w?s the only area so
sax that met, criteria 02,
j 11, 'Isabel Miller was not in favor of the Navo area unless we have new
assistance to.offeet additional hauling costs. She su
contact the Cslony. suggested we
2, Down moved.rAni McDaniel seconded that the staff try to get more in~
formation tin vites in the Navo area including data on costs
whether yr n6t the Colony is interested, The motion was approved,
s 13, The Committee agreed to meet March 16, 1978. Meeting was adjourned,
i
r
Y,
r
t
i
,
M /
~tlY ~
144 ~~I
1
4
7,
I
f
s
.i ,
s,
nuM
roaar
r
Z
CITY OF DENTON
MEMORANDUM
f T03 Members of the City of Denton Sanitary Landfill Committee
4 ^ FRAM: Jack Owen, Asnistant City Manager
DATEi March 6, 1978
SUBJ•ECTs Date Change for Next Committee Meeting
5X
e}`A III
There will be no meeting of the City of Denton Sanitary Landfill
Committee this coming Thursday, March 91 1978, The next meeting
✓'~n, will be a week from Thursday, March 16, 1976 at 7,00 p.m, at a
place to be determined.
~n The agenda for the Match 16, 1978 meeting and the minutes of the
meeting held on March 2 1978 will be mailed to
March 130 3.978, You next Monday,
i
ti
t i OWEN
i
~4A
r
~ pf
~f .
l'
Y rap✓" ,
r•
~12:0.[11A
I
MINUTES
r CITY OF DENTON SANITARY LANDFILL SITE SELECTION COMMITTEE
I MARCH 161 1978
f
Regular Meeting of the City of Denton Sanitary Landfill Site Selection Cummittee,
March 16, 1918 at 7:00 p.m, in the Denton Area Teachers Credit Union Building, 225
West Mulberry, Denton, Texas#
E I I
MEMBERS PRESENTt McDaniel, Bahnsen, Collom, Reding, Robinson, Pedigo, Franzen,
Wilds, Isabel Miller
I OTHERS PRESENT: Jack Owen and Tom Hart of the City Staffl Ernest Murray of
the Denton Record-Chronicled Mike Ramos, Realtor and M,M. Long
1. The Committee considered the minutes of the meeting of March 2, 1978, The
minutes were approved as written.
2. Jack Owen made a presentation on estimated hauling costs for site #18, as i
4 ' compared to the present site. They were shown to be estimated at $12,792,280
`r' or site 018 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 these figures should show a fairly accurate ratio of cost, f
3. Next,- Jack Owen presented a memo from Clifton 'Trick regarding two sites dnd '
Tony Franzen presented information on one site. It was decided that these
sites were to be numbered 031, 03X, and 033. Tony Franzen stated that
the site that he was presented was approximately 230 acres and was up for
sale for $475,000,00. He also said that a house was located on this site I.
I that he estimated to cost approximately $230x000.00 of this ;
total cost. Mike r
Ramos then presented two sites that he had information on. It was decided
that thoso would be numbered 034 and 035 respectively.,
4. The Committee discussed the direction the Committee should take. It was
decided that the Committee should try to establish an area to recommend
' to the City Council in order not to strictly
sites - thereby causing the coat to go up. pinpoint one or two particular
Kenneth Bahnson then moved that an area five miles in diameter at U,S. 380
and FM 1385 be recommended to the Council as a good a
area, This was seconded
by Grady Collom.
,S, The Committee then determined which sites wore loft on the board that had
not boon excluded to data, This list included sites 016# 021, 0220 027, 029,
`4r
0320 033 and 034. A motion was then made to remove 033 due to the fact that
x it was in the airport landing area. This motion carried.
It was decided to hold the next meeting on March 30, 1978, The staff was
directed to prepared several items for this meeting, These include,
a, Determine hauling cost differential per eust:mer per month between
' site 018 and the present site,
b. Inspoot and report back on sites 027, 0290 032, $34 and 035,
With business COnoluded, the meeting adjourned at 830 t
p.m.
r 4S
I
i
w MINUTES
CITY Or dENTON SANITARY LANl7CILls SITS SELECTION COMMITTEE
APRIL 6, 1978
Regular,Meoting of the City of Denton Sanitary Landfill Site
Selection Committee, April 60 1978 at 700 p.m, in the Denton
Area Teachers Credit Union building, 225 West Mulberry, Denton,
Texas:
MEMBERS PRESENT:. Collom, tteding, Wilds, Pedigb, Pranzen,
f Cooper, Robinson, LaPorte, Knox, Down,
II Isabel Miller, Bahnsen
i OTHERS PRESENT: Frnic Murray of the Record Chronicle; and
Jack Owen and Greg Anderson of the City
Staff
1, The Committee considered the minutes of March 16. They
were approved as written.
2. Chairman Wilds submitted another letter from Julia Williams
a'4*` again stating her opposition to sites #21 and #22 near
Missile Base Road,
3. The Committeo considered the field report prepared by the
~i
City Staff on sites 027, 029, #32, 034, and 035, Jack Owen
told the Committee that sites located in other eitia s E.T.J.
or city limits, for all practical purposes should, be eli- '
4 minatod. Reding moved and Collom seconded that sites #27,
029, 134, and #35'be eliminated. The motion was approved.
4. Tony Franzen su4)mitted a letter from Mr. Kirk Trei.ble, a
ropresentati.ve of Southwestern Univorsity, offering a
1 4h site in the nroa of #16. The nite is approximately 116
acres at $75000 per acre. Franzen ropor.tcd that the ter-
rain was rolling and open, He also reported an expensive
home across the road from this site.
5. Bob Laf'or.te submitted a 123 acre tract wort of Pohcler and
east of Denton approximately 6 milos, it was placed on
the map as 136,
6, The Committoe agreed to inspect the remaining G sites on
F the map - #16, 9180 121, 022, 132, and 036. The trip was
schedulod for 1100 p,m., April 190h. The group is to
meet in the parking lot of City 11011.
7, with business concludod, tho-mooting was adjourned.
E
VA, a
7-1 R16MN
.91h1r
I
X
i i
i~
MINUTES
1 I CITY OF DENTON SAVITARY LANDFILL SITE SELECTION COMMITTEE
{ APRIL 270 1978
Regular Meeting of the City Of Denton Sanitary Landfill Site Sel
r, Committee, April 27, 1979 at action the Municipal Buildings 7rOQ p, m, in the Civil Defense Room of
,i
i MEMBERS PRESENT: Pranzon, Pedigo, McDaniel, Down, Robinson, wiids,
Bahnsan, LaPorte) Reding, Miller., Collom, Compton
OTHERS PRESENT: Jack Owen and Greg Anderson of the city Staff,
~j and Ernie Murray of the Denton Record Chronicle.
1. The Committee considered the minutes of the April 13 meeting.
Item #5 was corrected to read "east of ponder and west of Denton," j
The minutes were then approved
~ i
2. LaPorte moved and Miller seconded that because of the poor road
uonditi6ns leading to it site #32 be eliminated. The motion war;
j ! approved
i 3• Franzen moved and Collom aecondod that site #16 be removed due
to the siteos size, the possibility of water
and the presence of limestone rock in the`,rea. robl in
Thesmoti.onewasea,
i approved, Nineteen
S peappeared in opposition to site #16,
~ I Mr. Richard Muir was there spokesman.
4. Franzen moved and Miller seconded that #22 be eliminated bcoause' it
it is not a defined area. The motion was approved.
5. Pedigo moved and Bahnsen seeondsd that the Committee recommend
r~ sites #210 #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 aos!:s Incurred, In building ade-
quate roads to the site selected
~i 7
The Committee agreed to meet May 11, 1978 at 730 p.m. The
meeting was adjourned.
rrgg
hP
uouas.
'mss • -
~4VO.i
'owl
MIOUm1 S
Cr9,'Y OF DE14TON SANITARY L1NDPTLL STT8 8PLEC ION COWITTE'E'
MAY 11, 1978
f Regular Meeting of the City of Denton Sanitary Lanclfil3. S.ttit
J Selection Committee, Aay 11, 1978 at 7100 P.M. in the Civil a
bofense Room of the Municipal Building:
l ME;M1313R5 PRB''9BHTt Wilds, Collom, Miller•, Robinson, Reding,
Bahnsen, LaPori:n, Mc)aniol, Pedigo, Goin,
Franzen, Compton, Down
OTHERS PnrSE;NT: Jack Owen and Greg Anderson of the City '
Staff., .and Brnie Murray of the Reoovd
f I !.J Chronicle
1. The Committee. considered the minutes of the last meeting.
} They vare approved an written.
2. Over 50 persona appe"ed from the Navo area protesting
sites being considered in that area. a
' 3. Xsabol Miller moved and a.L. Pod-igo seconded that the
siteg in the Nava area be removed from co'Jisfaernti.oh (.Nc
to'the distance from DontOn and the resulting haul costs.
+»1 Thu motion was approved, ,
4
4. The Committee askod the City Staff to determine ne the
,J, geological suitability of the two romainincf sites, 1,1,0 G
and #22. The Staff was arcked to have preliminary test '
holes bored and report the findings, to tho Committee as
soon as they are obtained.
5. The Committee agreed to meet in approximately two weokn.
• With business concluded, the meeting was adjourned,
,
j
i
I ~ ,
I. ~
A
' MINUTES
CITY OF DENTON SANITARY LANDFILL SITE SELECTION COMMITTEE
JUNE 22, 1978
Regular Meeting of the City of Denton Sanitary Landfill Selection
Committee, June 220 1978 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of
the Municipal Ruildingi
I~ MRMBERS PRESENT:
Down, Pranzen, Isabel Miller, Bob Miller, Collom, i
wilds, Reding, LaPorte, Robinson, Sahnsen '
OTHERS PRESENT: Greg Anderson and Jack Owen of the City Staff,
„ and.Ernie Murray of the Record Chronicle
E 1. The Cittee considered the minutes of the May 11 meeting,
They omm pproved as written,
2. Kenneth Hatride appeared before the Committee and
{ petition in opposition to site #21, presented a
1. 3. Clyde Nicholson appeared before the Committee to voice to site #36, He requested the Committee consider a siteopposition
located
not far from the Municipal Airport, The exact location was not
known at this time,
Mr, Owen Informed the Committee of an additional site offered
by Morrell Miller consisting of a
$20000,00 per acre. The tract to locatedeast3of 156tlandtnorth
t Ay of nkilen Road.
( 5, LaPorte moved and Rahnsen seconded that the site sug
Clyde Nicholson be numbered #430 and Morrell Miller siteebeby
numbered #44, The motion was approved and the sites were placed
on the map.
6. The Committee asked the City Staff to obtain as much additional
information on the two new sites as possible for the next meeting,
7, The Committee agreed to meet next Thursday, June 29, With bust,- ~
ness concluded the meeting was adjourned,
■
r
r
rnw~
r w.
n
MINUTES
CITY;OF DENTON SANITARY LANDFILL SITE SELECTION COMMITTED
JUNE 29, 1978
Regular Meeting of the City of Denton Sanitary Landfill Site Selection
"I Committee, Juno 29, 1978 at 7:00 p.m. in tho City of Denton Council
i Chambers Room, 215 East McKinney, Denton Texas,
MEMBERS PRESENT: Down, Franzen, Rodi:ig, Collom, Bob Millar, Wilds,
LaPorte, Robinson, Isabel Millar.
OTHERS PRESENTt Greg Anderson and Jack Owon 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.
21 LaPorte moved and Bob Miilor seconded the motion to remove Site
#i21 from selection. Motion was approved,
3. Jack Owen reported to the Committee the findings after a visual
inspection of Sites 443 and #49. Both appeared to be suitable
for a landfill site; however, Site #43 was thought to be too close
to the Municipal Airport. Both sites we}:e presently used for
1 1~ agrioultura. purposaa and would necessitate the trench typo method
{ operation.
41. Isabel Miller movod and Bob Miller seconded that the City Staff
contact the FAA about Site #43 because of its close proximity
~b the Airport.
51 Reding moved and Down seconded that Sites #44t #43t and 436 be
included in the Committee's report to the City Council. it would
be left up to the City council to further,teat Sites #43t #44,,
and #36.
6. Committee agreed to meet next Thursday. Bob Miller moved and
LaPorte seconded. Motion was approved. Meeting was adjourned.
M
l
\ VlA
ia1MP.V
y
r
MINUTES
j CITY OF DENTON SANITARY LANDFILL SITE SELECTION COMMITTEE
JULY 6, 1970
f
f Regular Meeting of the City of Denton Sanitary Landfill. site Selection
Committee, duly 6, 1918 at 7:00 p.m, in the City of. Denton Council
Chambers Room, 215 East McKinney, Denton Texas.
MEMBERS PRESENTt LaPorte, McDaniel, Collom, Pedigo, Robinson, Bob
Miller, Reding, nahnsen, Wilds, Isabel Miller.
j OTHERS PRESENT: Greg Anderson of the City Staff and Ernie Murray
I of
the Record Chronicle.
F i 1. The Committee considered tlia minutes of June 29, 1978 meeting.
3 They were approved as written.
2. Greg Anderson reported to the Committee that the F.A.A, would
f not Mke exception to their regulations-prohibiting a landfill ;
J site within 16.,000 feat of an airport, Site W43 is within
10,000 feat of Denton 'a Municipal Airport, Site #43 was loft j
under consideration by the Committee. A motion to remove the
Mi site was made by Bob Miller but died for lack of a second.
3. Chairman Wilds reported that J,B. rloyd had offhrod to lease +
approximately 30 acres behind Aoselawn Cemotary. The land
+ contains deep ravines and was thought to be adjacent to rail-
road property, Landfilling"would roolnim this property for
future use.
~ 4'. Bob Miller moved and Grady Collom seconded the motion that the
Ploy: property be added for consideration and listed as Site #45.
The motion was approved. The motion was amended to include tho
fact that no publicity had boon given on this property and to
make the City. Council aware of this in the committee's final
report.
5. Bob Miller reported to the Committee his visual inspection of
Site #44. Limestone was noted north of the gdta; however, clay
and mare formations wore noted elsewhere and Bob felt the site
may be acceptable from a geological standpoint.
6. LaPorte moved that the motion made by pan Reding at the last
" meeting be removed from the table. ( The motion was to i.noluele
in tho Committee's final report Sites #44, #431 And #366 it
would be left up to the City Council to furthor test those slten,)
McDaniel 8euonded the motion to remove it from the table and it
was approved, The Reding motion was than put to a vote and was
amended and approved to include W'th Sites 044, #43, #360"and #45.
w
7, 19abel Miller moved and Kan Dabnson aeconddd that the Committee
go on record bnliovinq that the original site, site #1 was 6n
equal or suporior nito to bny othor sito oxhm,tnod by the Comnnittoo
booauso of its goology, e00notniop, and adaptability, The bite had
Owl
1
r I
r.
~ T
good aacessability with the completion of Loop McDaniel
288,
moved ahd LaPorte seconded that this ,notion by Miller be amended
to inoludo "but was not acceptable to a large number of people".
The Committee approved the Miller motion but did not approve the
McDaniel amendment.
! B. LaPorte and McDaniel asked that it be placed in the record that
they felt the Miller motion (y7) was grammatically and geolo icall
inaccurate and that it left out the most h y
a significant number of people ofbenton.wereropposed to site #l,
91 McDaniel wanted in the Committee's final report a strong repo
dation for the City to begin some type of recycl r mitten
j recovery as soon as possible, recycling or resource
( t
r 10. Chairman wilds was to finalize the Committee's report and mail ~
I conies to the committee members for approval and then the report
would be submitted to the City Couno.l by the Committeo Chairman i
at the earliest possible date. I
11, With the business of the Committee comb>eted, no futurd moetings
were scheduled. The meeting was adjourned,
w
I
i
1
' r
1
1 1
i
°t
,
i SXTES RECOMMENDED E
~x COMMMU j
Site 136 - 7 miles southwest of the center of De,11tOn.
' F265 MY is bordered by T.N. Skiles Roadt Tom Cole Road
and C. Wolfe Road,
site 43 - 6 miles southwest of the Center of Denton,
u mile west of X35W just went of Paine Road and
south of Lively Road. Approximately 200.acres.
site 44 - Northoost of Ponder approximately 9 miles
rom no center of Denton. Property is located between
156 and'T,N. Skilea Road. Approximately 384 Acres. 1
Site X45 - South of Denton behind Roselawn Cometary
a ao4n to railroad property, Approximately 30 acres j,
for 10480, 1!
f
j
f
R
I
i
r.
Courtesy Lee
guo of Womon VOters of Tarrant county 8-5.77
R E C Y C L I N 0 INFORMA ION
i' nLUFirurf
'Beverage cans ONLY (Prices subject to change without notloo)
Al'COD r Six Flags Mall IliGhwny 360 at highway ap 170 The
i Will Rogers Parking flontgomory & Ifrlrle 8130-11100 Sat,
Bowlorland y 8130-4100 SAL,
Coors, Fort Worth 5601 Bust Laneast:or. 8130-4100 S,7t.
fort ]darth 509 Past Northsido Drive 9100-3100 Mnrt,-Sat,
Port Worth Shmtnavy parlcing Lot
Ridgmar Mall 9100-4100 Pm nt.
1 Euless 9100-4400 Wrd:,,sat.
Arlington-Wilco rarkittg Lorglrway 103 & iitChway, 157 9100-000 FIFlSnt.
Arlington Wnrtlhous0 Now York Ave, & Pioneer My 9
3508 Ayenuo F rest y 100••4100 1 hungSat
HlllersI (nodoom own bottl.os,t•.oo) 7001 South rroelony 91003100 Fion.-Sar,
Ro noldsr Bovor&go cans, trays, foil, and small aluminum scrap 9100-4100 warl,,Snt,
j Arlington Forum 303 & Watson
Fort Worth Buddies 370E &nse Rosadala 11004100 i'ri, f
Fort Worth - Oakbrook Mall Shopping Center 1100-4100 Wed.
1
~J
IrXtustri~ a
f y 10100-3100 Tuos.••Sah.t
Scra n Na fais 1 All slumf ncimv(clonn) &f roeLOfoplastie, eto$
3800 North Contmorco 20 ] be
l 1 0 r, 8130-4 i 3o Non. -Ft'i,
9100-21,00 Sat,
"Tin" cans or aluminum, NO aerosol cans, romova labols, rIinso out food. ;
American an ompanvl Cana ONLY (For Arlington charities)
Arlinton 2801 Fast Abrar.
MUSTRIA1. SCnAP METALS, Cans, also mernl scrap Collection bin r
3800 North Commerce 1~0 lb,
8130-4130 Hon,-rri. I
0 SS 9100-2100 Sae, f
Co--e tole, Barrels for dopositing clonn, oloar or t
and metal gxean glass. ROmovo all lac~tiQ
ry Enter from 700 Beath (fain. t}o ;t s( yg ~,r :1,1,0
I llorsl Redeem own bottles at formor.ly Cannon St,
• roeway
7001 South p 2130 p.m,
LAPrin
All must be CI,CAN, NO waxed paper, mild cAetens, p).astio, 017 Asphalt to n
SORT MTO Mumps, prices
nuyjeet to chont;o with0ltt notico, p
k Cpn olidatod Fibres Ino, (formarly Ambrienn ,PApar Stock Compfiny)
1308 North Jones 'tit X100-1Nor.thaida Drivo 1100 Flun.~1"ri.
r Nowshapdre - $1.00 cwt.1 mixed pal,or prorlueta, magnzino$,~pha a00 Sat,
books, catalogs, etc. - $0,35 cwt,l Corrugated cardboard, brown
PAJ)ar bags - MOO cwt,
Clevonelc Corpnrntionl t
1000 ran[: Lnnonstar 7130»4100 Mon.-Frio I
Bows a wrs . (cast of freeway Mixmnoter) 800f1µ1?fO0 W.
p I $1400 Cwt,I mixod pnpor productu, mngnyitlna, h110110
books, entaloaa, 011.0, - $0,35 owt',1 corroptod nartlbonrd,
4. brown paper bagn - $1.00 ewt:jl coldputer cards manila µ
HAtorhl Ronnurch
r $6600 Oe,
00011 rnirie 1185 Droot Southwont 8100»11100 Non.-11140
;
P011MAY 8r00-22100 Sat,
NOwapnpers 51.00 cwt,1 corrubntarl cnrdbonrd, brawls bags E
as $0475 ein f ndxntl pnpnv produata - Manila $6400 cwt. $605
0 cwl;,I tcmplrtr+r. omxfs,
,Yt
wxn:~ur
wwaac<
;toar,.xY.q~
RYR~WA~g
~TAiOQ ~ ,.r 4 u 4.ff~Y, .,11~ • or,.i r.,,~~
Y RRRRR
r
I -
Za_ ~ lGrt i
! ~n more Than 200 communiles In the United Slates, rrsh A >ocond advantage is that recycling reduces the need ..F~
enfs are risked to keep certain recyclable pennons of their to usc• vlrgin material resources, thus extending domestic ~
-Ash separate from the resl, These tecyclables are placed and global supphrs of raw molorfak like tauxilo or iron 1 l
at curbside, coheetcd by sonualton crews, and sold in ono, In thocase of paper production from frees this advao• f
-jonspanles Ilrat reprocess the materials Into new products. Iaue is less clear cut since hers are a renewable resource, {
of these programs help remove only newspaper from There Is, however, the possiblllly that the demand for wood I imivms'.
'o solid waste stream, but a few include other papers, products could Increase since products made from other r I,~
{ glass and mofals as welt matcrlals are more onorgy •infensive. This- may make {
Why does a community develop a curbside program paper recycling even more Allinlive.
separate waste At its source? What are Ilse benefits of Thirdly. Ohe reprocessing of scrap materials usually I
"kparAlloh to the community and the environment? causes less pollution than does the processing of virgin w7wffr:
In many eommunilles, the savings in landfill space Is a materials. For example. whon fresh newsprint is produced
onvincing reason to separately collect newspapers and from old newspapers Otero is less air pollution and wafer
Iher malerials. Newspapers make up six percent of the consumption than with produolon from new materials, 1~ ta:
I 11esidenllaland commerclalwastestream.Gfassconfoiners The processing of recycled paper'con, in some cases,
and metal cans add another twelve percent to the total, Mereaso wafer pollution as a result or de-Inking used
Landfills are increasingly expensive to buy and oper• papers, But when the end product Is a fmivr grade paper or i
i I tie, Escalating disposal costs can make recycling proJecls paperbontd, where color is not important, using old paper I )
Ihaf cal down on waste reaching the landfill appealing to results in loss water consumpfiort, air pollution and wafer i
city officials, Because of ppublic antipathy, the siting of polluflon• t17 f..
`landfills Is extremely dlfilculi; Increased recycling can give Even 11 a local government concludes Ihaf recycling of r
jpublic officials a Mite more i(me to locale desirable Oct rosourceg can benelit the community as well as the egvi• ~V t
and receive approval for landfills, ronmeni. Ohore crn still be disagreement on the method.
The requirements under the Resource Conservation Voluntary recycling centers or high-technology waste. I} i
and Recovery Acl(RCRA)oft976forstricferrulesoaland processing centers may be proposed as alternatives to
„ disposal practlces could help l(p the balance toward more curbside separation. These options should fief be consl
recycling. RCRA calls for ilte eventual closing of all open dered muiualty excluslvz since one approach won't Sohn
{ I dumps; EPA Is euerenlty' in Ile process of developing all solid waste problems, k T
criteria (ordole rminingwhich facilit(eswlltrecelveihoopen Recycling' centers, for example, are not as convenient
,]dump classification and Witch are sanitary lanndfills, to as curbside collection programs. The processor locating a
i qquailfyasasanllarylandilflalocilllymusinot,accordingto center, andIlion lransporlingthecollected recycfobleswlll
I the aclls deflnhlon, "have adverse effects on health of Iho discourage manywrould'be parlicipants. The most Impor'
environment" (sec.4004).'rhe requirement to close dis• ton) advantage of centers over curbside colleellon Is that f
pOsal <lfes, afeng with problems in establishing new ones, more kinds of materials can be accepted wilt Mile or no , l
u411 force many communities to reassess their solid waste addtlional effort by Ohe city Wasfe oil or celor•sorfed glass
I management practices. areoxamplesot materials that can be collected more easily
11 M additional Incenik, for municipal Adoption of•a at a center than by a separate collection program.
" recycfing program Is Ihat the city is paid lot matcrlals they Resource recoveryplanis- facilities that mechanically
would olherMse pay to gel rid of. Cities do !,'.cur extra separate refuse into Its component parts are not a is
s I~t costs In the operalloO oft curbside collection program but substitute for all lorms of source separation, Each portion €
j many find that the additional costs are minimal. of the waste scream 1s more valuable when It Is uncontaml• {
Whelher o • not file system pays for itself depends on; noted by other elements. it is easier to prevent confamina'
a Ilse proximity to material markets; tion by separation at tine Source than it is to remove ex-
a the market value of recyclahles; traneous malorlats. In most high-technology recovery
a the connect pitwislons bomwa the municipality apd facilities lite organic fraction which Includes paper fiber f
the buyer; - Is directly burned or ccrvor led into a lransporlabfe fuel,
;
a file disposal costs If lhematerial It not reclain,ed; I It seems reasonable to prcvenlcostly recyclable papers like
a the dos(gn end cost Of ihe'collcchon system; new3paper tom reaching the rrcoveryplanl since newsy i
a the public pancelpallon tale, paper it vnrth r,iore as n malprlal Ilion li Is an energy
These will be discussed nowt toily Mmv. source, i Tlw' orwhonmcnlal reasons are also eornpehfng• FIrs6 It the economic and environmental arguments
have
convinced you or your orgoiO.ailon of the value of it
renyclitig Ave' senorgy, IN' figures vary, but experls gen' fivpamie eollecilon program for yourcomrnunlfy, your NO
orally concur Thai appreNahh energy savhtg call be
)enlbcd. Aluminum, according to most usilwo es, can be glop tulii be ref persumle local Oil lals to adopt such a
recycled using less than five' perconl of the enmity needed !>rogrmn, You'll nrad hard facts about file costs And bent
11ts to your fellow tn%papers and suggesflolls un low the I 1'i,
to make ii its ltd best place program can Ixr rim. You'll nlsu need to will III(- support of
1977 Leeilut, of 1A mini Voters Education f'un'Id the sauliollon deparnnrni and persons in your curmmunl• qi'l
~r ;
8 µ
.ate,
Vs public affairs or public Information offices;
residential recovery (heir conunllrrnenl to a to have for sale Is necessary, fie sure to lake Into consideration;
rr program is vital. And, pcrit;rps most hnpoharifly, n perpcrson national averages for waste generation and c llon illun;
you'll need to awaken public Interest In file program.
How should your commm~blys program be orgaolwd? You might n your acted p rite? puon r lo.
want to make a checkltst of the foPlcs that needconsido~raflon, incl',dlitg u a projected eacfpntion role:
1
the following, {See pp. G of kcsrdpnUall'nrx rRerove{vrAMunlclpal Guide, listed in
Eat noniie factors liesources section,)
n How much material do you expec! to recover? To Vol a more accurate fix out your community's potcnllal Vol, will
n How mark mat are your you expect to r also need to factor In Miler variables, The actual compnslflon of your able c How contract provisions are best for
community's waste stream, for Instance, may differ considerably f:nm
your community? national averages; you may wand to work with your Saulfan°a Dep
n art t
What are are disposal coals if the material Is nol reclaimed? ment to answer questions on the composiWon of refuse in your area.
r Collection systems One of the most Imporfnnl factors affecting
1 a What materials can be collected? projected participation role, the estimated percenta
j n Should o special rack for rocyclables or a separate truck be used? ",fit separato rnaterial for collecllon. Panici je of residents who
paflon roes do sivary de condo
n How oflen should rocyclables be collected? derably from community fu con4munay. The design of the collection
n How can ou dwlse a collection system that will encourage publlc system, the public educaliun program, and lestdents'cornmannenl to file
-r partlclpallon~ prograrn will affect file final result - lonnagp collected,
Local or You shouldn't expect Ihal all, or evens most, of ilia avallable materials
n Should al or your communlly pass an anlFstavenging ordingnce? will be reryeted, If you ran, for example, rec9cle flff
!p What,Are ilia pros and cons of making a program mandatory? eommunitys newspapers your program Is doing very wellrSuctl~a high j
I 5anifaflon workers role may not be possible of first - studies have shown that fonger-ifvcd
'i0 Does your system bake into consideration the concerns of sanifallbn cu rog usually en b bsdesIs easier lot act ieveriliari glaissl andHmetal separnllon; somei
k
~wnrkers?
i Are (hero benellls to offset any additional work re aired? residents are not willing to take ilia extra time and effort needed Io
i Key Deal offiC)ats q separate several types of (rash.
i n Have you a°nsufbed with the Department of Sanitation?
Learning from nearby programs '
i n What ate Local officials' concerns arid/or suggestions? One way to find out about potential markets means of transportation,
n How can your communlly's public affairs office help?, and the general economics of curbside collection In { ~PGbflcf2ing the program contact nearby
comrnunltles with ongoing programs, if 1 ere are any In {
~ ill) 'he city earmark funds for publicity? your area, Ahhough oath community should have a program tatfored to
I n What communlly organleallons might help? Its owrl ant needs, certain Informallo and ideas can easily be shared. 'fake
a What are the alternatives for " Advantage of the experience rlenre of others.
communlly?, gelling the. rnessage out in your
6 Contracts I
l ,
A contract will) a buyer provides the city will, a semhfsormanenl marital
-(fE~conomic ft' ctor$ for its recyclables. Ii also benefits the buyer to have a consbanl, or near
'„1f'he flnanclal pluses and minuses v.;il determine whether a curbside be constant,
to soweurce ather of the mau»slAnd downs in ma ef
` rials narke s 7he'coniracb
separaibon program sinks or %vims, And for ilia pluses to add up, there should Include a floor price, a mintmum price level that the buyer will
finust be accessible buyers for recycled materials (see Resources), pay regardless of market condillons. The price paid to the city may g°
kw-F
tom C[1rb$icle to market above this floor price; 11 Is usually lied to the going price In a specified
rrom the earliest planning stages 11 Is Important to determine the mar materials market.
lability of recyclables. Among the questions you'll have to answer:
What about smaller communities?
How far Is your community from potential markets? Con small commnnales )uslifya resldenaal source separnffon program?
What lsthegoingprlceforscrap maerlals In yourpsrlof line country? Cities like lildgewtiiod, New Jersey (pop, 28,000) and Indian Hl11, Ohio
ow much does it fluctuate? (pap. 7,000) muss Ihlnk so; both have ongoing collection programs.
your "produce meal the speclftcaaons of the frbtenllal buyers? Smallness can oclually be an advantage. In smaller cities, for hlsonce, a
WiArell y yoour r buyers vet t e s In signing a contract to buy your Wosonse, of community may make it cosier to moblllm su Interested product? Are p What
lbor prices will buyers ignIn nree In tract t l '81w questions that rived to be asked are the same whpihorryour retvcl
PTransportation costs are an Important factor In determining mdr, community is small titi?rCan %re can we sell program r) th Wasi are
file
money transportation and coals? Can we )usnvi I program energy bases of
elabllay Isolated tommunllles have a special problem; the closest money saved and spent? Or, are rare enuiron mertlol and en I enemy benefits
iarkels may be hundreds of mfios away. Solullonsare'Iwssible but they worth the extra costs fliel might result from the program? i
require some Ingenuity. Sall lake City, for example, sends Its collected
awspaprtrs to Pomona. Caflforola, via on Intennedlnrycalied ilia Neuigt Collection
put goncy. This company peeds to solid its Iruck4 Io Cpllforn; systems
a%ov,ly Io pick up Sunday magnzUles, comics and fresh newsprint for The kind of colfeCllorl system used W11, of course affect ilia economics
rc local papers. Transporting old ncnvspapers from Still Lake City to of a program, Some comnitiolaos have trucks with a spcclal rack or
om°na is, therefore, not as expensive as it mlgla appear at first glance, compartment for reryetahles, whlch can colt, O reryclablaq and Irash at
ow much material will you collect? the sine 1111T. Other Cbnnnritnlacs use a stparale truck collecllon
1,9efore rommunhy representatives have serious dlscussfons with snlen• system for r ycl bles.
t Collecting n l clables At it same Ilene other alsf + earl give on
!buyers, an estlmne of tl requnturryuf material the community expects , ptvsrnnel and equlprnenf co41s. find some h>rnf officials s feel oral sepn,
nom _
N.
' nor
~eaw
! 'ale it uckcofleciionsyslemsworklwuerfor them, Communillestbatuse Local oidi lances
! r separale truck may set aside one day of lire week solely for collecifng
recyclables. On 111,11 day, they may be able to draw from the f.-- to Ito Implement your commurdly's curbside collection program some
visonnef and equlpmenl used for trash pick-up the other four days of local ordinance changesor additions may he considered. There ore iwo
he week, kinds of ordinances that may receive special anenlion 6r conocciiun wlill
such a program: "anwscavenghig ordinances" and ordinances that
Multi-material separation require residents to separale their fresh,
a075,1iPAchose twoMassachuseuscinesfor demonslrallonprojects,
Anti•scaVenging ordinances
iomervifie And Marblehead each received federal funds to eslabfisb
I multi•malerIM cotbslde collection programs. In bosh cities, glass metal Perhaps one of the best proofs that newspapers and other materials are
_Beans, aluminum' fall and pie pans, and flat paper have been separately valuable commodities is the fact that they are often romowed from
collected by sanilation corms for almost two years. Allhough such curbside by someone other than the community's collection service.
yslems are not as common as simple newspaper co)lecllon, a number This may be An especially ofwlous problem when market prices are high
of communities, especially fit New hngtand, do cotlecf metal And glass. and indfviduals can rcalVe A good return for their efforts,
To collect A number of materials, the community must cliher run Toprevent afewpeople from reaping IN, profits of A communusAvide
I txlra collection routes for the same neighborhoods or buy or drA4se service, many communllles have enacted anll•scavenging ordinances.
I ! ( .3peclbl comparlmenisllred collection trucks. Father of these optfonswill These ordinances clarify the city's mweiship of malerials placed at
l cost the city money money That may not be offset by the sale of furbs for pick-up bill do not prevent residents from saving
'±oliecfed materials, Y bias for volunteer ps
Most tammunBlAS will) mull! -material programs eoliecr glass And Voluntary vs. mandatory participating
metal cans together. This makes it casler for the resident (fr'w containers
It o put at curbsidel and less expensive for the city to collect both mate- Masi curbside sepnrallon programs arc voluntary, depending totally on
I lals, 'Cho biggest problem with this approach, however. Is that 111,1 the kNCresi and concern of ilia citizenry. But In A (e,.1 contmunilies,
roduei collected is nol worth much to potential buyers. Industry finds ordinances require residents to segregate ncwvspapers from the rest of
the separaifon process expensive, and fire materials may be confatnt. rile trash.
sled The effects of such ordinances are uncertain. They cornmonly go
unenforced, and al least one study's findings indicated Mai participation
f aking it easy rates do not differ between volornlary and mandatory programs, Sonic
The collection scheme most also consider the pofenflal parltcipanis, residents may feel an added senseof responsibility to separale their trash
r-since a higher participalion rate will obviouety make flee program more because of the "mandnfory" nature of the program, while others may
successful, Communities with frequent collecilons generally find it respond negalively' to being forced to pArliclpato.
I M easier to get a higher percentage of the fargefed material, since residents
are often unwilling to store recyclables for a month as some programs
oquire.Weekly,orbiweoklycoilecttonschedules will spur greater par. Sanitation workii>,rf
Iclpallon, , f1'sgoodto keepin mhidThat arecyclingprogram at curbsldemay nofbe
UnfntsilyCity, Missouri's unique way of making If easier to parllet• appealing from file sanllAlion workers'vImpoinl, They may feel that they
l ale Is to provide resldenceswlih yellow plastic containers for newspaper are being required to dodddillonal work wlthoul additional pay. some- .
orage, These conlnlners are then placed 61 curbside on collection day. Ihingno onewould beveryhappyaboul, In recognition lot providing this
he conlalner Is designed to keep newspapers dry on rainy days and to extra service, iberefore, some communities funnel a portion of the
` store a little more than A hvro-week supply of a dally paper, revenues generated by fecycling back to services for the sanitation
( J _ _ workers, in lire form of bonuses, new uniforms, or a spruced-up work-
place.
A demonstration project If residents don't understand how the syslem works, they may even
Newfon,Massachusetts separafefycollects paper,metals and glat& unknowtnglymnke11hold on workcrs•-bylyingbundles too licavytobe
However, the'Newfon League of Women Voters found, in lalking with Ihtamonto an overheAd rack, for example, Clearly wTion exp)anallons
residents, that many did not participate In the program beea•rse they of the "rules of ilia came" acceplable to both workets and local govern -
fell illpi they did not have enough recyclables to make if worth the menf officials and provided to every household should minimize this
effort, The League decided to demonsfroie, that the volume of dilficoby
recyclnblesafnmllygenerates Is enough to lusidythe efforlneededto It is ideal if a system for ells/worker/resident communlcanon is
recycle, devised before the rrogram gels off the ground. Some cities have
Teri n. lit s, most of whom had not recycled before, volunteered developed "Hoilines' fo receive residents' oxmmenfsaiid gltesl►ons. Snli
to be part the experiment. 'rho lamiho% for a ono•monih parlod, Lake City uses slickers 16 explain to resldenlswhya pArllcular bundle of
separalm bottles, CAns and paper' from thelr trash, and closely nowspaper was not collected, 'T'hese slickers are Affixed to uneollecfed
monitored volume and time spent recycling, bundles and fill explanation Is checked; "foo heavy;" "Improperly Ilod;"
At tho, and of the month tiro results of file experiment were "wet;" an(( "the hopper is full wotkars will return War to pick up
r complied and released to the press, with a number of feature articles neivsralwrs." Willow this information a resident has no way o! knowing
as A result, Nowcomers to recycling found lheir only Incorwonience wliclher to he angry' (Ihaf the recyclables were Itlnofed), conlrlfe (that
was In esinblishing A system In the Wchen. Once this Inhfal adjust- Ihey Were Improperly prepared), or pniienl (until the truck conies back).
in men( was made, the time esilmaled for recycling'tanged from 1 to $0
mirhdesperWork %QlllrIS mloule4as the averAndtime lnwesttneni.in with k~ local
All, the left famNfesrmvelodopproxhimtely 1,191)glass and can items Communicating with y
(roughly 500.600 liounds) and 295 Inches of ii.wspaper (about a eCial$
690 pounds) doting fhe one-monih period. All those Involved
planned to conlinue to paillclpale as a result of file experiment. The attitude of the community's director of sanllalloo will affect boil
re.sidenis' and workers' perspecitwti, to Iry in hnprhss lire director will
far,",,, _ 1
~axr,raa
3
rile merllsof a recycling program. Involve him or her in all thestvins of the prtnoplvc; In follow,
declslon•making, enactment and publicity processes, The sanitation a txploln life "nuts rnfd bolls" of recycling - not just the it hi, bul fit(.,
director and file program itself wilt benefit from dose cooperation. how.
l Also remember that you'll need to work ctosrlywith public affairs or 0 Use a number of communlcullons media,
public kdutmatlon uffices.1 heir job, afler all, is to provide Information to o Appeal to various Interest groups within the community and to the
your communlly's residents on local programs arid nclivilies. Failing to unaffiliated resldenl as well.
coordinate your efforts could result In a duplication of effort or conflic;• rJ hind ways to reach new residents.
Ing publiclly messages o Continue to remind the public - the process never slops.
Pnbiicirin the program Knowing -W and telling the facts
g To effectively pronsole your community's curbside collection of
Determining the logistics of a program - scheduling routes, passing recyclables you will not only need to gel your fads straight-•• you'll need
i anfl•scavengblgordinances. slgoingcontracts with buyers. enc.-. is only to convey them to the public. As noted earlier, each communlly's re,
s first step. Aeonlinuincg effort to publicize fife program and encourage quiremenis will differ. Local waste authority officials will probably be
participation lsnecded.Aportionolthecity's budget shouldbeAllotted to your best source of Information.
a public informallon program on lite bows and whys of wurce separa• These are some questions you should be answzring in your pro,
j Icon, motional rnaferiaif
f but in many cases the community does not aflocale adequate f ;nds a Flow oflein ore recyclables collected? I
for publicity.'ro make the program work, concerned citizens need to gel o Is the program manllolory or voluntary?
! - the, recycling message out, a Will the city make money from this program? l
a What about rainy days, should I still put my newspapers out?
Organizing 'a team v Dol havetobundle my newspapers?Can I pun them in a papr r haq or
j A coalition of concerned organizations is one way of organizing a plastic bag Inslead? i
campaign, Try contacting a wide range of organlzationsf Scouts, fife Also be prepared to answer;
Junior League, Khvools, the Chamber of Commerce, rellgiovs and r, Whnl should I do if an unauthorized Individual (someone. other than
envlronrnWal groups, Alen nihers, The San Diego League of Women life city or a (ltypaid collection servlce) Is collecling recyclables Irons
_J Voters In its efforts fo preac 'e llrat drys program even enlisted the help curh5lde?
i of the U.S. Navy! If an t rjam ealmn doesn't wanta major responsibility b Wlint companies are buying the recyclables?
for publictain the wastecolleegon program, II may still be, willing to help n What happens noble recyclables once they Icave curbslde? WI lot new
l oul; II might, for example, Include recycling reminders In its newsloflrrs
pro<lucfs are icing made from Ihvm?
or schedule a slide shay on the collection of recyclables for one of its
meetings. - Getting your message out
One community organization, with or without the help of other Because of the usual consfrolnlsof personnel and budget, Invlll probably
groups, can effectively run is publielly campaign. In seven communlllos not be possible to try Alf publicly approaches, Also, some approaches
t across Ilia country (Newton, Massachusetts; Ridgewood, New Jersey; mayfiol work as well lt) your communhy, rot example, some suburbs of '
t University Cfiy, Missouri; Sall Lake City, Utah; rl Paso, To.as; Tucson, Iarye cities don't have their cwti, local paper, se~Jhat residents depend on
-I 911 Arizona; and Smi Diego, California) during 1976 and 1977, local the central city paper for metes Such a slluatle.,, :•.akes ii hard the
Leagues of Women Voters successfully took on the major responsibility suburban community to get Its message across ibis wny, since lart,a city I
for publicizing their communities' collection of recyclables. They papers are unlikely to cover the program In ilia some way that a local ;
received funds for Ihelr programs through a U.S, Ernvlronmenial Prolec• newspaper will. Mix and mach Ilia melhods below for your own corn-
lion Agency grant Io the League of Women Voters Educailon fund, munily and resources.
Measuring public awareness Newspapers. For those communities that do have alocal paper. this con
To help gauge Life elfec+ivenessof a publicity campalgn, belore•and after be a valuable way of publicizing a separate eollecllon programs. And it is
surveys may be worlhwhlfe, How you phrase questions can Intl fence Iffe onjyfilling that the peopla who read nowspapers should be made. aware
answers, so your questions most be well thought out. Try to be ns clean of how to recycle Ihetnl
and objective as possible. Do people know that their community has Encourage publication o', feature articles about the program and
residenllal recovery of recyclablos? Flow did they find out about the recycling In general- a wall-wrlilon article is on effeellvo wa,r of gefiing
program? Ili fit ii+ fig out whether residents participate In [lie program. II your message across, You re, y need to develop your own set of conintis
is Important to a -;ennlne whether they participate regularly or sporadi• within the newspaper sialf Be sure to keep them In(otmed about recycl•
cally and why. II they don't participate, find out why not. The reasons ing "events" In the community. How about preparing press releases for
of Additional hints on workingwith file opress, see
residents Misinformation omy be discouraging would-be participants. of e the progrm? (For tl
Some of the local Lcagms that close, to conduct arnrys found dial LVftg publication #491, Cellind into 'rlnG 25y,)
file personal touch of hniking with people about the program was a .boon Adverllsemenls in the local newspaper can be tkorlhwhlle invest,
fo their ef(orf; offer the interviews. residents were better Informed and (Welts. You need to catch the public's eye, so ads should be visually
i more willing to help the recycling pmgrnrn. Somellme.4 ling help was appealing. Built siralyhiforword explanaliwssof whcnand how to recycle
even In the form of volunleering to help Will publlclly Conducting or cartoon approaches tan be tried,
surveys is Itmf)•consumlog however, so be sure you have thought Handouts or mailings, A Idler signed by community leaders aiid sent
through fill the acllvifes your group might devote Its time and hfforis to to each ho fsohokl can be All effective Way to gel the public's allenUon,
before deciding In go this route. The 01A sludies done In Somerville and Marblehead, Massachusetts
Selecting approach shooed litnl a letter can be not Importanl moAwfor, Such is letter 15 ofien
g your app used al info beginning of the program to Introduce tile, public to the
L Each Conlrnluntiy I5 tflllflue Communication wolhods which tvaukl Changes fn the waste pick-up system,
work tvoll In a small loan In New rngiand might not be transh-roble to a Some smaller communities have nftfnlcipal calendarv which are
large city oil the West Coast, 5I111. If Is p+lssible, to Ide-ftily some geneenl dislribuled free to each hotfsehoid, In fildgewKwd, New Jersey and
4
i
rooirw
Rim
~ IM
The big pIGtUP~ Program. The number of requesis for f SAs may he morc+ Than your
stations can handle though, v.) you'll have to do some checking to find
What are file options in solid waste managernem? out If you'll have access to the airwaves, Try approaching n number of
71 stations with +a prbnled copy of what you'd like to say.
RCCIIld1411 The CI Pnso 7i'xas• League developed a news event Thal caught Ihc
o Mandamry deposits on beverage containers Interest of local broadcasters. They held a'lrashfiash, where recyclables
L' Disposal- toxos were collected for a specific purpose - to raise money for a bird
n Product design regulations sanctuary Radio stations cowered Ili(, event. The League's chid spokes-
n $rleealve buying hablis woman was later able to lalkon the air aboul the importancoof recycling
Our wastefulness tusk municipal Ireasuries and the environment. oil L- I Pasos Ncws Magazine p,ogrann.
Reducing Ihc waste stream cues collation and Iransporlallon costs, Contests, Conlesls Solve,) number of purposes, not the leasf of which is
as Well as disposal costs - on Advantage over recycling. It Is even the creation of a "newsrvorlhy evert" - the announcement of winners -
more "conservative" than recycling, In heneflls to energy and mater- that may get media coverage.
al conservalton And in poilullon reduction. A contest can Inky manyfonns: inventing a chywlde recycling slogan
or logo, or designing a poster advertising the separate collection or
Source SGparalfotl recycling message, for example. An advantage of poster contests Is that
o Collection centers the entries of a number of contestants can be displayed throughout Ilse '
n Curbside ccdlecilon programs
7 u Oiffte paper separation lotvtt even alter the selection of winners. Parallel compeAgons can be
r SCPAYAIIng At info W'85Te •SOUYCe I)rCVCntS contamination of held for different age groups, whh approprafe prizes for carp.
net fables. It roclitres Ihc csoure p u! Working through the schools, The local school system can serve as A
yt 1 people to lake the time to good channel for various publlcby techniques, including conlesls. N'ou'li
P1 set aside reusable materials for recycling. It can help save resources want to get children enthused about the program. Ili many (amities
and cut down on pollution, they're the ones that put Ihq trash out, so their commitment to the
ke5ource recovery facilities curbside collection program can make a big difference.
u Maotlals recovery One long-term "publidfy"Approach is to incorporate the toncepl of
I u Energy recovery recycling Into school curricula, In Ridgewood, New Jersey, League
Resource recovery facilities mechanlrally separate mixed refuse into efforts helped formalize an emphasis on recycling In the seventh grade
curriculum. ht Uhlverslty City. Mlssourl, elementary all and music
materials, like glass, ferrous metals and burnable organics. Such teachers developed lessons that used University Clly's collection of I
{ lacllilies make it possible to recover a high proportion of municipal recyclables as a theme, They plan to Share their experiences Willi odter
i.1 refuse. The malor problems Willi Ihls medrod are that the technology. Art and music teatlters In the hope IhAI They w;'I become standard
Isnew (Ir,aking results uncertain) and the Initial capital costs are high; Ieswns.
l C Disposal Also, don't neglect the high school, community college or adult I
u Land disposal education programs when considering whether schools could help you
n IncinerAlinn spread the word,
even with A concerted ellorl to reduce waste and promote recycling, Display materials, Contests, school programs, commercial grnphics
spme material will need to be disposed of, ideally through piolhods firms and you - can create display Items to promote the recycling
(flat cause the least damage io the environment. For example, the program. The materials can take The form of posters, bumper slickers, i
eplacannvo of dumps with uelhslled, designed and managed saol and hvo And three dlmrnsionni displays. Bumper Slickers have an
iarylandfills lsaposlilvestep-one that should cutdown onnulsance obvious destination, although they may be used for general display I
4 problems and ground water pollution.ihat can be caused by unman • purposes as well Posters and other displays can be uu up in schools, f
i aged dumps, public libraries, stands, shopping malls, or wherever people gather. To
: distribute a large number of posters, enlist the help of many hands;
University City, Missouri collodion dates for recyclables are printed on young people's groups like the Scouts or hngh school environmental
these calendars, to serve as a conslnnl reminder to residents. clubs might ba ood sources of help.
In any communtly residents need some kind of basic explanation of reminder i` reminders cof the cursbside use coiIhalr garbage trucks a l pejrmanent travelled
( how and when to recycle, something theycan refer to if they waist to gel lellering and of the logos cur proclaim that Sans Salt ll Lake City, Uln e Cit , UlAh
Brightly colored
Into the recycling hnbll. Such recycling Instructions Are oflett sent aloe Nv and Ridgewood,
witholhercilymailings,stchaswaterbills.todefraycosls,inyouriavn New Jerseyrecycie,
a■ you might reach reopie best byhAndbigoul mhlerlnls in other tellings os Slide shows or movies, Audiovlsuhl materials aboul your community
Mf tvoll•An attractive flyer explaining the collection system could be given to can be developed for presealattons At schools and memings of commu-
chlidren in school, passed out at (airs or moollnc s, o, distributed door. nhy groups, (bee LWVUS publication #290. Prolecfinh Your linage:
td-door, Now 10 Produce a Slide Shore 300,) You may also want to borrow
The San Diego League of Women Voters passed out balls of string movies or slide shows about curbside collodion programs, recycling In
(novspapors must be bundled In Snn Dlogo) with flyers designed so that goneral or why new ways of dealing with the solid waste problem are
they slipped needy into file center of ike string. Since the city program's necessAry, e,g„ the problem of rApldly filling landfills. (See The Solid
slogan is Bundle It Curb If," this Idea was especially well suited to While Resource Guide listed under Resources for more Information,)
prtanollng recycling Mitre. One on one
Radio and television. Nonprofit organlzaltons devoled to the improve. Personal contact cnn have a mnlor Impncl bn spreading your message,
Tnenl of the contmunlly arc ellgibie for Public Servlce Announcement The public gets n'chance in Ask queolons And flit grlpos, And you gel a
fine IPSAs) oil radlo and Ickvislon (wo MUS publication rk58G, better idea of the problems Willi the dny•to•day working of flit' program
!>rIvtking Inks Broadoisliurg, 25v. flit Ideas on using P3As),' Ili other and ppccrssihly some ideas for Improving If.
words, you may be Able to air Iree annnuncemenls for your recycling Clty records may be Able to lell you which neighborhoods are
r : ,a
f
tl{
"na ua
6
recycling comp,arallvely loser volumes of nnaterlals, 'iiy to fGul out why Afar, as 'lie sepatah urdretlon program beconres esl,rblished it might Ir)
III some secllons Of a community frwrr people ntay subscribe IO nvws• also be easler tO cunvinn dly uIffdals to allocate (ands for pubhclly.
papers; II is reasonable in Ibis rase to expert loss nrwspiper wnuld be SAs
Tiy toorganizr "sent prrnrancnl"ways of rernl file pahhc't Ihr
rreycled, Make a concerted effort to reach pvopfe In largc'f neigh. pamphlets in Welcome Wagon packets, p riodlc P and changes In
borhO0ds 111,11 "should" hove' a greater volume of reevclables. You might school curriculum nu•nftuned earlier are three such approaches.
visit hones or have srleakers explain the program ,nt club and neigh- Asargrowhncreasinglyawareofthclinnusof iand,matt,rh0s•energy
bothood associnflon mdrfings In low parlicip,1rlor Areas, and focal finances, recycling Herds to be part ui our flier,lyir as well as
Appealing to various interests part of
rt our vocabulary. al goal, recovery - curbing (rash - is an
Special groups within is community may need a tailored approach In the Important step toward Ilnal goal,
same way that different cities may need different puhllcby approaches.
In areas with simable Lallno or Chicano population. Irv using Resources
Spanish In your publicity. In Tucson, flu League•sponsnred contest
Included prizes for bolfv English and Spanish language slogans about
i LWVL
the recycling program, One of fine judges was a local Spanish language . Pub, #576, 7nr. Means and I+;rpuls of Sourer Rrduclian.
colwmisl who later decided to devote her Sunday column and wooly 1975. f u # 176, 47 pp, $l.OC.
talk show to the curbside coliecllon program, I."EF, RECYCLE: hr Searrh o1NewPollcirs forNrsourceRecovery.
If proceeds from recycling are kept separate from general revenues, 1972. Pub, # 132. 39 pp. 759. Solid pre
conununlly residents can, see tangible results from Ihelr efforts. 1-he address belay,
paid orders to the LWVUS,
moncycould help pay for tennis courts, hlsforlcal preservation, services
i 1 1 far !hc elderly etc. the Richer, Kay. Solid Waste Resource Cuide. Environmenial Action Four). 1
I rf r lhr way to inspire peoples ibilities are endtsts.. This may be an
1 E31dgn , 1977. 12 Wasl irvatonrn.Cr 20f036. Uve f oundatinn, 724 DuPont Circle
I - Reaching new residents
In our hlghty mob* society ncucomers may be a high proportion of CPA' Hansen, Penelope, Rosldenllal f.nper Reccmery. A Alunldpal hi l-
community, If left to chance, if'could take months before a new plrrnrnlallon Cuidr..1975, 26 pp, EPA Pub. #SW 155,
resldenf accidenlly finds out about ilia source spparallon p1 agram. Try to ERA. g
eslabllsh A mechanism Ihal ensures that Ihey will get ilia word early plemenallcv? Manual. 19177. 531 pp, F pA pub. #SW y7~ra!?t, An In)
j ~ Make sure that inlortnalion about your cormmunily's waste coUeCilon
program a Included in Welcome t Vo6r packets. Work with rollers to EpA Sooree Somralion: rho Conmunlly Awareness Program in f
f
see If they would dlstrlbute pamphlets or make information available to r
5ornrrelllr and Marblehead. Massarhusrns. 1976, 81 pp. J:pq pub.
new homeowners. #SW.r.51,
7 Perhaps ilia most direct way of reaching newciflxensIs to encou rage 'UPA, Howard, Slephen E. Market Localions tor RrcovrrodMatorials.'
lM116 any ullersof homes lean es prl led direcnom on operaiing And main- 1976.81 pp, EIrA pub, #SW 518.
IAlniny' household appliances; Ills packel of malarial on by a All fiPA pubhcailons are avt ilable tree, b I
{ house" could he supplemented wlfh reside ntial'recovcry Inunning a information Materials Conlroi Secllon, Fnelro by pub, o from Solid Waste
1 „ Residential recovery Inslructlo s could encourage this by suggesling nmentai f rolecflon
that information on source sepatallon belongs wllh Oliver baste home Agency, Cincinnall, Ohio 452(;8.
malnlennnce mnterlals. f
Tho research and willing of this publication was made possible by a f
at "1"t~~ process grant (1'900604) from the' Office of Solid Waste, U.S.'Environmontal
1 (i
never stops Prolection Agency to Ilia League of Women Voters Educailon Fund. 11
' One publicity 011Z or even a was under this some grant that the local Leagues described In Ills !
fff«««iiil year of concrntraled effort Is noI enough, publicAlion rrcolved funtls for their public education acllvhles.
The prrcess is a never ending one.
Of course, Ills hard logear up foran endless publIt tycampaign. Part Researched and wrllfen by Sally J, Valdds•Cogllano, Staff Speclallsl,
of ille solution is to share the effort with other communltyorganixallons, L•'nvironmenlal Qualtiy Department, LftEr.
I
i
M s
i
,
Printod un paper recycled from 100% consumer scrap.
Under from; Leatluc of WOIIri• ~ '
m Uolcrs of the Unlled Skales, 173`0 M Si►eol, N,., Wayhinglrm, D.C. 20036, pub, No. 147, 400,
I
~r
yyi
vY11y~
1
J
~t 9f'w I
Flo
I
i
i
I'
I ~
j
E fir. lyk 1 f l
Ind Il