Board of Commissioners
BOARD AGENDA Fran Miron, District 1 Stan Karwoski, District 2
Gary Kriesel, District 3 NOVEMBER 7, 2017 – 9:00 A.M. Karla Bigham, District 4
Lisa Weik, Chair, District 5
1. 9:00 Roll Call Pledge of Allegiance 2. 9:00 Comments from the Public Visitors may share their comments or concerns on any issue that is a responsibility or function of Washington County Government, whether or not the issue is listed on this agenda. Persons who wish to address the Board must fill out a comment card before the meeting begins and give it to the County Board secretary or the County Administrator. The County Board Chair will ask you to come to the podium, state your name and city of residence, and present your comments. Your comments must be addressed exclusively to the Board Chair and the full Board of Commissioners. Comments addressed to individual Board members will not be allowed. You are encouraged to limit your presentation to no more than five minutes. The Board Chair reserves the right to limit an individual's presentation if it becomes redundant, repetitive, overly argumentative, or if it is not relevant to an issue that is part of Washington County's Responsibilities.
3. 9:10 Consent Calendar – Roll Call Vote 4. 9:10 Community Services – Sarah Tripple, Planning and Program Manager Approval to Release Transit Needs Study Draft Report for Public Comment 5. 9:20 Library – Keith Ryskoski, Director and Mary Burke, Marine Community Library Board Chair Update from the Marine Library Association on Activities and Services at the Marine on St. Croix Community Library 6. 9:30 Public Health and Environment – Jeff Travis, Senior Environmental Program Manager Approval of Contract with Dynamic Recycling for the Transportation and Recycling of Waste Consumer Electronics Collected by the County at the Environmental Center and Remote Collection Events 7. 9:40 Public Works – Kevin Peterson, Engineer II Resolution – Approval of Cooperative Agreement No. 133636 with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources for Preliminary and Final Engineering on the Hadley Avenue (County State Aid Highway 35) and Trunk Highway 36 Interchange Project 8. 9:50 General Administration – Molly O’Rourke, County Administrator 9. 10:00 Commissioner Reports – Comments – Questions This period of time shall be used by the Commissioners to report to the full Board on committee activities, make comments on matters of interest and information, or raise questions to the staff. This action is not intended to result in substantive board action during this time. Any action necessary because of discussion will be scheduled for a future board meeting.
10. Board Correspondence 11. 10:15 Adjourn 12. 10:20-10:50 Board Workshop with Public Health and Environment – Nikki Stewart, Environmental Program Supervisor Discuss the Draft Washington County Waste Management Master Plan 2018-2036 13. 10:55-11:25 Board Workshop with Public Health and Environment – Jeff Travis, Senior Environmental Program Manager Provide Update on the Yard Waste Collection Project
Assistive listening devices are available for use in the County Board Room If you need assistance due to disability or language barrier, please call (651) 430-6000 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS CONSENT CALENDAR * NOVEMBER 7, 2017 The following items are presented for Board approval/adoption: DEPARTMENT/AGENCY ITEM Administration A. Approval of October 17, 2017 County Board Meeting Minutes.
B. Approval to set December 12, 2017 as the date for a public hearing on the final 2018-2022 Washington County Capital Improvement Plan (CIP).
C. Approval to reappoint Edward Marachan, Stillwater, to the Valley Branch Watershed District to a three-year term expiring November 13, 2020.
Community Services D. Approval of contract #11239 with Sheryl and Paul Nickle to provide short-term foster care to individuals working with Washington County Adult Mental Health Case Management.
Human Resources E. Approval of memorandum of agreements for the 2018 county contribution for health insurance for each of the following union/employee groups: American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Exempt and Non-Exempt units; Correctional Officer/911 Dispatchers represented by Minnesota Public Employees Association (MNPEA); Probation Officers represented by Teamsters; Attorney’s Association; Deputies represented by Law Enforcement Labor Service, Inc. (LELS); and Deputy Sheriff Sergeants represented by Law Enforcement Labor Service, Inc. (LELS).
Library F. Approval of resolution for a request from the City of Marine for $6,000 from the Jordan bequest to be used for materials and services at the Marine Community Library.
Property Records G. Approval of the plat of Basswood Grove in Denmark Township. and Taxpayer Services
Public Health H. Approval of ratification of the maintenance and support agreement between and Environment Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc. and the Minnesota Counties Computer Cooperative.
Public Works I. Approval of Cooperative Cost Share Agreement No. 11261 between Independent School District #832 and Washington County for the County State Aid Highway 12 Mahtomedi Middle School Traffic Signal Project.
Sheriff’s Office J. Adoption of resolution authorizing the Washington County Sheriff’s Office to accept a donation from Target Corporation in the amount of $1,500.
K. Approval of a grant agreement between the State Court Administrator’s Office and Washington County in the amount of $6,604 for the period of November 1, 2017 through April 1, 2018.
Consent Calendar items are generally defined as items of routine business, not requiring discussion, and approved in one vote. Commissioners may elect to pull a Consent Calendar item(s) for discussion and/or separate action.
Assistive listening devices are available for use in the County Board Room If you need assistance due to disability or language barrier, please call (651) 430-6000 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER November 6, 2017 Monday
5:00 PM County Extension Committee -- Washington County Government Center, 14949 62nd Street North, Stillwater
November 7, 2017 Tuesday
8:00 AM Interview Candidates for Valley Branch Watershed District -- Washington County Government Center, 14949 62nd Street North, Stillwater
November 8, 2017 Wednesday
10:00 AM Metropolitan Emergency Services Board -- 2099 University Avenue, St. Paul
1:30 PM Minnesota Inter-County Association -- Best Western Plus Capitol Ridge, 161 St. Anthony Avenue, Sibley Room, St. Paul
November 9, 2017 Thursday
3:30 PM Gateway Corridor Commission -- Woodbury City Hall, 8301 Valley Creek Road, Woodbury
Meeting dates, times and locations may change. Contact the Office of Administration or individual agencies for the most current information.
Admin Commissioners Calendar 1 10/27/2017 2:39 PM 255
OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE COUNTY BOARD WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA October 17, 2017
WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS CONVENES
The Washington County Board of Commissioners met in regular session at 10:30 a.m. in the Washington County Government Center, County Board Room. Present were Commissioners Bigham, Kriesel, Weik, and Karwoski. Commissioner Miron absent. Board Chair Weik presided. Also present were Molly O’Rourke, County Administrator; George Kuprian, County Attorney Division Chief; Becky Sells, Board Clerk; county residents; media; outside agencies; and county staff.
The Board recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC
The Board Chair asked for comments from the public; none were heard.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Commissioner Kriesel moved, seconded by Commissioner Karwoski, to adopt the following Consent Calendar.
1. Approval of October 3, 2017, County Board Meeting Minutes.
2. Approval to appoint James Kelly, Lake Elmo, to the Parks and Open Space Commission to fill the District 3 position for a partial term expiring December 31, 2019.
3. Approval to establish debt service funds 352 and 362 pertaining to the 2017 refinancing of current bonds.
4. Approval of Resolution No. 2017-218 as follows:
RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT GRANT FUNDING FROM MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY FOR ONGOING SERVICES TO VICTIMS OF CRIME IN THE AMOUNT OF $280,000.000 TO BE BROKEN DOWN INTO $140,000.00 PER YEAR FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2018 AND FISCAL YEAR 2019
BE IT RESOLVED, that Washington County is authorized to enter a Grant Agreement with the Office of Justice Programs in the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, for ongoing services to victims of crime in the amount of $280,000.00 to be distributed equally between FY 2018 and FY 2019.
256 October 17, 2017
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Washington County Attorney, Pete Orput, is hereby authorized to execute such agreement and any amendments thereto, as are necessary to implement this agreement on behalf of the Washington County Attorney’s Office.
5. Approval of revisions to Section 17 of the county Personnel Rules and Regulations relating to the county contributions to employee health savings accounts.
6. Approval of a memorandum of agreement for the 2018 county contribution towards health insurance with each of the following union/employee groups: Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc. (LELS) Captain/Commander unit; International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE), Local 49; Supervisors Association; Correctional Officer/911 Dispatcher Supervisors represented by (MnPEA); and also apply the same cost sharing schedule for the non-represented employees and officials.
The motion was adopted 4-0 with a Roll Call vote as follows: Ayes, Commissioners Bigham, Kriesel, Weik, Karwoski; Nays, none. Commissioner Miron absent.
Commissioner Miron arrived to the County Board Meeting at 10:35 a.m.
ACCOUNTING & FINANCE
Resolution Approving Issuance of General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series 2017A Estimated at $44,575,000
Commissioner Miron moved to adopt Resolution No. 2017-219 as follows:
RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF THE COUNTY’S GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 2017A
BE IT RESOLVED By the Board of Commissioners (the “County Board”) of Washington County, Minnesota (the “County”) as follows:
1. It is hereby found and determined that:
a. The County is authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.67, subdivision 3 to issue and sell its general obligation bonds to refund obligations and the interest thereon before the due date of the obligations, if consistent with covenants made with the holders thereof, when determined by the County Board to be necessary or desirable for the reduction of debt service cost to the County or for the extension or adjustment of maturities in relation to the resources available for their payment.
b. Furthermore, the County is authorized by the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 475, as amended, and Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.67, subdivisions 4 through 12 (collectively with Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.67, subdivision 3, the “Refunding Act”) to issue and sell its general obligation bonds to refund outstanding bonds when determined by the County Board to be necessary and desirable for the reduction of debt service or interest cost and the adjustment of maturities of outstanding issues of bonds. 257
October 17, 2017
c. The County previously issued the following general obligations in accordance with the provisions set forth below (collectively, the “Prior Bonds”): i. General Obligation Capital Improvement Plan Bonds, Series 2007A (the “Series 2007A Bonds”), dated as of June 1, 2017, in the original aggregate principal amount of $79,385,000, the proceeds of which financed various capital improvement projects described in a five-year capital improvement plan for the years 2007 through 2011, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 373.40, as amended, and Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 475, as amended (collectively, the “CIP Act”), and which are subject to optional redemption on or after August 1, 2017; and ii. General Obligation Bonds, Series 2011A (the “Series 2011A Bonds”), dated as of May 1, 2011, in the original aggregate principal amount of $40,055,000, the proceeds of which financed certain capital improvements in the County set forth in the County’s five-year capital improvement plan for the years 2011 through 2015 pursuant to the CIP Act, the acquisition of certain capital equipment pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 373.01, subdivision 3 and Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 475, and for the purpose of funding projects under the County’s program for the acquisition, improvement, protection, and preservation of open space, parks and public water, wetlands and woodlands, and other certain natural resources (the “Land and Water Legacy Program”) pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 475, as amended including in particular Section 475.52, subdivision 3 (the “Conservation Act”), and which are subject to optional redemption on or after February 1, 2020.
2. The County Board finds it is necessary and expedient to the sound financial management of the affairs of the County to issue its General Obligation Bonds, Series 2017A (the “Bonds”), in the proposed aggregate principal amount of $44,575,000, to: (i) refund on a current refunding basis on January 18, 2018, the February 1, 2027 and February 1, 2028 maturities of the Series 2007A Bonds; and (ii) to refund on an advance refunding basis on February 1, 2020 the February 1, 2021 through February 1, 2032 maturities of the Series 2011A Bonds.
3. Sale of Bonds. To provide money to finance the current refunding of the Series 2007A Bonds and the advance refunding of the Series 2011A Bonds, the County will therefore issue and sell the Bonds, in the original aggregate principal amount estimated not to exceed $44,575,000, pursuant to the Refunding Act, the CIP Act, and the Conservation Act (collectively, the “Act”), which amount is subject to adjustment in accordance with the official Terms of Proposal (the “Terms of Proposal”) attached hereto as EXHIBIT A. The Bonds will be issued, sold and delivered in accordance with the Terms of Proposal.
4. Authority of Municipal Advisor. The County is authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.60, subdivision 2(9) to negotiate the sale of the Bonds, it being determined that the County has retained an independent municipal advisor in connection with such sale. Springsted Incorporated, as municipal advisor to the County, is authorized and directed to negotiate the sale of the Bonds in accordance with the Terms of Proposal. The County Board will meet on Tuesday, November 14, 2017, to consider proposals on the Bonds and take any other appropriate action with respect to the Bonds.
5. Authority of Bond Counsel. The law firm of Kennedy & Graven, Chartered, as bond counsel for the County (“Bond Counsel”), is authorized to act as bond counsel and to assist in the preparation and 258 October 17, 2017
review of necessary documents, certificates and instruments relating to the Bonds. The officers, employees and agents of the County are hereby authorized to assist Bond Counsel in the preparation of such documents, certificates, and instruments.
6. Covenants. In the resolution awarding the sale of the Bonds to be considered by the County Board on November 14, 2017, the Board will set forth the covenants and undertakings required by the Act.
7. Official Statement. In connection with the sale of the Bonds, the officers or employees of the County are authorized and directed to cooperate with Springsted Incorporated and participate in the preparation of an official statement for the Bonds and to execute and deliver it on behalf of the County upon its completion.
Commissioner Bigham seconded the motion and it was adopted 5-0 with a Roll Call vote as follows: Ayes, Commissioners Weik, Kriesel, Karwoski, Bigham and Miron; Nays, none.
PUBLIC WORKS
Approval of Contract No. 11249 and Contract No. 11250 with Kraus-Anderson Construction Company for the Washington County Wildwood and Park Grove Library Projects
Commissioner Bigham moved to approve Contract No. 11249 and Contract No. 11250 with Kraus- Anderson Construction Company for the Washington County Wildwood and Park Grove Library Projects. Commissioner Karwoski seconded the motion and it was adopted unanimously.
GENERAL ADMINISTRATION
Resolution of Appreciation for Michele Bachmann
Commissioner Kriesel moved to adopt Resolution No. 2017-220 as follows:
RESOLUTION OF THANKS AND APPRECIATION TO MICHELE BACHMANN ON HER ASSISTANCE IN CREATING THE ST. CROIX RIVER CROSSING
WHEREAS, Michele Bachmann has been a devoted servant to the betterment of the lives of residents in St. Croix Valley, and
WHEREAS, Michele Bachmann has committed her life to public service, and began a public life in the Stillwater school district and continued that service in the Minnesota Senate for seven years; and
WHEREAS, Michele Bachmann continued her public service as a member of the United States House of Representatives for six years; and
WHEREAS, during those six years, Michele Bachmann was a tireless champion of a new St. Croix River Crossing; and
259
October 17, 2017
WHEREAS, Michele Bachmann worked across partisan lines and with other members of the U.S. House and Senate to receive an exemption to the Wild and Scenic River Act, signed into law Feb. 14, 2012, to allow the bridge to be built; and
WHEREAS, Michele Bachmann worked across partisan lines and with other members of the U.S. House and Senate to fund the $650 million project; and
WHEREAS, with the leadership of Michele Bachmann and other St. Croix Valley leaders, the bridge has come to fruition, and residents from across the region are now experiencing the free flow of traffic between neighboring Minnesota and Wisconsin,
THEREFORE, let it be resolved that the Washington County Board of Commissioners wishes to express its sincere appreciation for all the work that Michele Bachmann did to bring about the St. Croix River Crossing, and further,
THEREFORE, let it be resolved that we say a heartfelt thank you to all that Michele Bachmann has done to bring about this long-sought river crossing to our communities.
Commissioner Miron seconded the motion and it was adopted 5-0 with a Roll Call vote as follows: Ayes, Commissioners Bigham, Karwoski, Weik, Miron and Kriesel; Nays, none.
General Reports
Molly O’Rourke, County Administrator, thanked the County Board for its participation in the Employee Recognition Breakfast, which honors employees who have completed 20, 25, 30, 35, and 40 years of service.
COMMISSIONER REPORTS
Commissioners reported on meetings and other events that they attended. Please see archived web streaming of the board meeting for full commissioner reports at www.co.washington.us, under “County Board.”
BOARD CORRESPONDENCE
Board correspondence was received and placed on file.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Board, Commissioner Bigham moved to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Karwoski, and it was adopted unanimously. The Board meeting adjourned at 11:10 a.m.
260 October 17, 2017
REGIONAL RAILROAD AUTHORITY WORKSHOP – PUBLIC WORKS
The Board met in workshop session to discuss Washington County Regional Railroad Authority right of way. Present for the workshop session were: Commissioners Bigham, Weik, Miron, Kriesel, and Karwoski. Also present were Molly O’Rourke, and county staff.
Lisa Weik, Chair County Board
Attest: Molly F. O’Rourke County Administrator BOARD MEETING DATE: Request for Board Action November 07, 2017 AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: Commissioner's Report 3B Department Information
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: REQUESTOR: REQUESTOR PHONE: Administration Melinda Kirk 651-430-6024 PRESENTER(S): MEDIA CONTACT: MEDIA CONTACT PHONE: n/a Wayne Sandberg 651-430-4339
Agenda Item Details
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF YOUR REQUEST: Approval to set December 12, 2017 as the date for a public hearing on the final 2018-2022 Washington County Capital Improvement Plan (CIP).
AGENDA YOU ARE REQUESTING TIME ON: ARE YOU SEEKING APPROVAL OF A CONTRACT? Consent No IS THIS MANDATED? EXPLANATION OF MANDATE: Yes MN Statute 373.40 Subd. 3(b) states: "The capital improvement plan and annual amendments to it are not effective until approved by the County Board after public hearing".
BACKGROUND/JUSTIFICATION: As required by statute, the County Board will hold a public hearing on the 2018-2022 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) at the December 12, 2017 County Board meeting. During the public hearing, the County Board will hear public comments, consider any recommended changes to the draft CIP, and take action to adopt the 2018-2022 CIP, pending any final changes.
PREVIOUS ACTION ON REQUEST / OTHER PARTIES INVOLVED? Yes 10.12.17 Board workshop held to review the major CIP projects. 10.12.17 Draft CIP released to communities for review and comment.
Budget Information
FUNDING: NA
Approvals
COUNTY ATTORNEY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR: George Kuprian Molly O'Rourke
RECOMMENDATIONS: Approved RECOMMENDATIONS: Approved COMMENTS: COMMENTS: BOARD MEETING DATE: Request for Board Action November 07, 2017 AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: Commissioner's Report 3C Department Information
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: REQUESTOR: REQUESTOR PHONE: Administration Alyssa Soderlund 651-430-6015 PRESENTER(S): MEDIA CONTACT: MEDIA CONTACT PHONE: Yvonne Klinnert 651-430-6026
Agenda Item Details
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF YOUR REQUEST: Approval to reappoint Edward Marachan, Stillwater, to the Valley Branch Watershed District to a three-year term expiring November 13, 2020.
AGENDA YOU ARE REQUESTING TIME ON: ARE YOU SEEKING APPROVAL OF A CONTRACT? Consent No IS THIS MANDATED? EXPLANATION OF MANDATE: Yes Minnesota Chapter 103D.311 requires the County Board to appoint watershed district managers.
BACKGROUND/JUSTIFICATION: The County Board recommends the reappointment of Mr. Marchan, to the Valley Branch Watershed District Board of Managers.
PREVIOUS ACTION ON REQUEST / OTHER PARTIES INVOLVED? Yes Letter to municipalities within the Valley Branch Watershed District - 8/28/17; Legal Notice requesting applications for the opening on the Valley Branch Watershed District - 9/7/17. Letter from West Lakeland Township supporting reappointment.
Budget Information
FUNDING: NA
Approvals
COUNTY ATTORNEY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR: George Kuprian Molly O'Rourke
RECOMMENDATIONS: Approved RECOMMENDATIONS: Approved COMMENTS: COMMENTS: BOARD MEETING DATE: Request for Board Action November 07, 2017 AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: Commissioner's Report 3D Department Information
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: REQUESTOR: REQUESTOR PHONE: Community Services Rebecca Conroy 651-430-6483 PRESENTER(S): MEDIA CONTACT: MEDIA CONTACT PHONE: Kathy Mickelson 651-430-6532
Agenda Item Details
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF YOUR REQUEST: Approval of contract #11239 with Sheryl and Paul Nickle to provide short-term foster care to individuals working with Washington County Adult Mental Health Case Management .
AGENDA YOU ARE REQUESTING TIME ON: ARE YOU SEEKING APPROVAL OF A CONTRACT? Consent Yes IS THIS MANDATED? EXPLANATION OF MANDATE: No BACKGROUND/JUSTIFICATION: Individuals working with Washington County Adult Mental Health Case Management require short- term foster care in urgent situations that arise from time to time. Sheryl and Paul Nickle are licensed providers of Adult Foster Care Services in Washington County and will reserve one bed in their foster care facility for use as short-term foster care. Short-term care is a time-limited foster care placement, lasting no longer than thirty days, that allows individuals to have a stable living environment while they address their mental health. Short-term foster care is paid through the use of Adult Mental Health Initiative grant funds, Housing Support funding and Community Alternatives for Disabled Individuals (CADI) Waiver funding if a person is receiving CADI services. Housing Support is a state-funded income supplement program that pays for room and board costs for low-income adults with a disabling condition. The CADI Waiver provides funding for home and community-based services for adults who would otherwise require the level of care provided in a facility. Washington County Community Services recommends approval of the Nickle Short-Term Foster Care Contract #11239.
PREVIOUS ACTION ON REQUEST / OTHER PARTIES INVOLVED? No
Budget Information
FUNDING: EXPLANATION OF FUNDS: Combo Adult Mental Health Initiative Grant, CADI Waiver and Housing Support
Approvals
COUNTY ATTORNEY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR: George Kuprian Molly O'Rourke
RECOMMENDATIONS: Approved RECOMMENDATIONS: Approved COMMENTS: COMMENTS: BOARD MEETING DATE: Request for Board Action November 07, 2017 AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: Commissioner's Report 3E Department Information
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: REQUESTOR: REQUESTOR PHONE: Human Resources Melanie Ault 651-430-6078 PRESENTER(S): MEDIA CONTACT: MEDIA CONTACT PHONE: Jan Webster 651-430-6075
Agenda Item Details
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF YOUR REQUEST: Approve memorandum of agreements for the 2018 county contribution for health insurance for each of the following union/employee groups: American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Exempt and Non-Exempt units; Correctional Officer/911 Dispatchers represented by Minnesota Public Employees Association (MNPEA); Probation Officers represented by Teamsters; Attorney's Association; Deputies represented by Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc. (LELS); and Deputy Sheriff Sergeants represented by Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc. (LELS).
AGENDA YOU ARE REQUESTING TIME ON: ARE YOU SEEKING APPROVAL OF A CONTRACT? Consent Yes IS THIS MANDATED? EXPLANATION OF MANDATE: Yes Minnesota Statutes Section 179A BACKGROUND/JUSTIFICATION: Through collective bargaining, Washington County and the Unions have reached tentative agreements for sharing the cost of 2018 health insurance premiums. The agreements follow this uniform schedule: Distinctions II, $900 Deductible, $35 Office Visit Copay Single $ 649.63/month Employee + Child(ren) $ 779.72/month Employee + Spouse $1,054.72/month Family $1,240.00/month Open Access, $900 Deductible, 75% Coverage Single $ 584.67/month Employee + Child(ren) $ 779.72/month Employee + Spouse $1,054.72/month Family $1,240.00/month Open Access, High Deductible Health Plan, 90% Coverage with Health Savings Account (HSA) Single $ 562.82/month Employee + Child(ren) $ 779.72/month Employee + Spouse $1,054.72/month Family $1,240.00/month The contribution structure makes the High Deductible Health Plan a very attractive option for employees, and is beneficial to the County overall by encouraging smart "consumerism" in how health care is accessed. The Human Resources Department recommends approval of the Memoranda of Agreements. PREVIOUS ACTION ON REQUEST / OTHER PARTIES INVOLVED? Yes Board closed sessions on August 1, 2017 and August 15, 2017.
Budget Information
FUNDING: EXPLANATION OF FUNDS: Combo Contributions toward employment benefits are funded by a combination of revenue sources including state and federal revenue and fees for service.
Approvals
COUNTY ATTORNEY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR: George Kuprian Molly O'Rourke
RECOMMENDATIONS: Approved RECOMMENDATIONS: Approved COMMENTS: COMMENTS:
BOARD MEETING DATE: Request for Board Action November 07, 2017 AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: Commissioner's Report 3F Department Information
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: REQUESTOR: REQUESTOR PHONE: Library Keith Ryskoski 651-275-8501 PRESENTER(S): MEDIA CONTACT: MEDIA CONTACT PHONE: Keith Ryskoski Keith Ryskoski 651-275-8501
Agenda Item Details
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF YOUR REQUEST: Approval of resolution for a request from the City of Marine for $6,000 from the Jordan bequest to be used for materials and services at the Marine Community Library.
AGENDA YOU ARE REQUESTING TIME ON: ARE YOU SEEKING APPROVAL OF A CONTRACT? Consent No IS THIS MANDATED? EXPLANATION OF MANDATE: No BACKGROUND/JUSTIFICATION: In 2001, Elizabeth Jordan, made a bequest in her will to the Washington County Library to be used for the Marine Library branch. When the branch was closed by the county in 2012, an agreement was reached between the City of Marine and the county that upon request of the city, the county would disperse funds from the bequest to support the Marine Community Library. Through a joint powers agreement between the city and the county, the city residents have maintained access to the county library system and continue to pay the county library tax. A separate non-profit organization, the Marine Library Association (MarLA) maintains a small community library which includes privately purchased materials as well as materials and services provided by the county library. This request from the city follows directives related to disbursements made to the Jordan bequest as specified in the joint powers agreement.
PREVIOUS ACTION ON REQUEST / OTHER PARTIES INVOLVED?
Budget Information
FUNDING: NA
Approvals
COUNTY ATTORNEY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR: George Kuprian Molly O'Rourke
RECOMMENDATIONS: Approved RECOMMENDATIONS: Approved COMMENTS: COMMENTS: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO.
DATE November 7, 2017 DEPARTMENT Library MOTION SECONDED BY BY COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER
Transfer of $6,000 from the Jordan Bequest to the City of Marine
Whereas, Chapter 13, Laws of Minnesota 2005, gives the Washington County Board of Commissioners the authority to direct, operate and manage the Washington County Library System; and,
Whereas, Washington County has entered into a Joint Powers Agreement with the City of Marine that includes a process for transferring funds from the Elizabeth Jordan bequest to the City of Marine; and
Whereas the City of Marine has requested by letter dated October 17, 2016 that a transfer be made to the City of Marine of 2% of the value of the “Jordan bequest” or $6,000 whichever is greater for the purchase of library resources which is a lawful purpose under the Joint Powers Agreement; and,
Whereas the value of the Jordan bequest on October 11, 2017 was $280,700; and,
Whereas 2% of the Jordan bequest is $5614.00;
Therefore, be it Resolved that, the Washington County Board of Commissioners hereby authorizes the transfer of $6,000 to the City of Marine for the purchase of library resources.
ATTEST: YES NO
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR MIRON KRIESEL
WEIK COUNTY BOARD CHAIR BIGHAM KARWOSKI
Updated: December 2016
BOARD MEETING DATE: Request for Board Action November 07, 2017 AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: Commissioner's Report 3G Department Information
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: REQUESTOR: REQUESTOR PHONE: Property Records & Taxpayer Nancie Schwintek 651-430-6758 Services PRESENTER(S): MEDIA CONTACT: MEDIA CONTACT PHONE: Nancie Schwintek 651-430-6758
Agenda Item Details
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF YOUR REQUEST: Approval of the plat of Basswood Grove in Denmark Township.
AGENDA YOU ARE REQUESTING TIME ON: ARE YOU SEEKING APPROVAL OF A CONTRACT? Consent No IS THIS MANDATED? EXPLANATION OF MANDATE: Yes By state law, county board approval is required on plats located within townships.
BACKGROUND/JUSTIFICATION: Basswood Grove in an Abstract plat located in Denmark Township East of St. Croix Trail (CSAH 21) and north of 87th Street South. It is a 5 lot plat.
PREVIOUS ACTION ON REQUEST / OTHER PARTIES INVOLVED? Yes Approved by Denmark Township
Budget Information
FUNDING: NA
Approvals
COUNTY ATTORNEY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR: George Kuprian Molly O'Rourke
RECOMMENDATIONS: Approved RECOMMENDATIONS: Approved COMMENTS: COMMENTS: BASSWOOD GROVE
BOARD MEETING DATE: Request for Board Action November 07, 2017 AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: Commissioner's Report 3H Department Information
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: REQUESTOR: REQUESTOR PHONE: Public Health & Environment Jill Timm 651-275-7286 PRESENTER(S): MEDIA CONTACT: MEDIA CONTACT PHONE: Jill Timm 651-275-7286
Agenda Item Details
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF YOUR REQUEST: Ratification of the Maintenance and Support Agreement between Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc. and the Minnesota Counties Computer Cooperative (MCCC).
AGENDA YOU ARE REQUESTING TIME ON: ARE YOU SEEKING APPROVAL OF A CONTRACT? Consent No IS THIS MANDATED? EXPLANATION OF MANDATE: No BACKGROUND/JUSTIFICATION: Washington County is a part of an existing Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) between County governments and MCCC. Through this JPA, authority is delegated to the JPA entity to enter into master data processing agreements that counties may access. The Department of Public Health and Environment (PHE) is seeking ratification of the Maintenance and Support Agreement between MCCC and Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc. This will allow the Community Health Services (CHS) application to be utilized in the PHE Department for nursing documentation and data collection purposes. The documentation application is PHDoc.
PREVIOUS ACTION ON REQUEST / OTHER PARTIES INVOLVED? Yes The current JPA agreement (attached) was processed in 2007. The county uses several MCCC applications in various departments.
Budget Information
FUNDING: NA
Approvals
COUNTY ATTORNEY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR: George Kuprian Molly O'Rourke
RECOMMENDATIONS: Approved RECOMMENDATIONS: Approved COMMENTS: COMMENTS: BOARD MEETING DATE: Request for Board Action November 07, 2017 AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: Commissioner's Report 3I Department Information
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: REQUESTOR: REQUESTOR PHONE: Public Works Rita Conlin 651-430-4354 PRESENTER(S): MEDIA CONTACT: MEDIA CONTACT PHONE: Kevin Peterson 651-430-4330
Agenda Item Details
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF YOUR REQUEST: Approval of Cooperative Cost Share Agreement No. 11261 between Independent School District (ISD) #832 and Washington County for the County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 12 at Mahtomedi Middle School Traffic Signal Project, and authorize its execution pursuant to Minn. Stat. 373.02.
AGENDA YOU ARE REQUESTING TIME ON: ARE YOU SEEKING APPROVAL OF A CONTRACT? Consent Yes IS THIS MANDATED? EXPLANATION OF MANDATE: No BACKGROUND/JUSTIFICATION: On June 27, 2017, the County Board approved the construction of a traffic signal at the Mahtomedi Middle School entrance. This project serves as the first phase of the planned CSAH 12 corridor improvements. Construction includes a traffic signal, trail, signing, striping, and American with Disabilities Act (ADA) improvements at the intersection of CSAH 12 and the Mahtomedi Middle School entrance. This project is undertaken in conjunction with the reconstruction of the Mahtomedi middle and high school's internal traffic circulation and parking. Before the County Board for approval is the cooperative cost share agreement with ISD #832 (Mahtomedi Middle School) that provides the terms and conditions and cost participation for construction of the CSAH 12 improvements. Project cost is a budgeted expense funded by a combination of highway state aid and school district funds as identified in the cooperative agreement. The School district is in full support of this traffic signal, and will continue to be a partner on the CSAH 12 Corridor Improvement Project.
PREVIOUS ACTION ON REQUEST / OTHER PARTIES INVOLVED? Yes 12/16/14 - Board adopted the 2015-2019 Capital Improvement Plan that identifies this project. 12/15/15 - Board adopted the 2016-2020 Capital Improvement Plan that identifies this project. 3/15/16 - Board approves a cooperative cost share agreement with the City of Mahtomedi for design and construction of CSAH 12. 11/8/16 - Board approves a consulting contract for the CSAH 12 Corridor Study. 6/27/17 - Board awards bid to Peoples Electric Company for CSAH 12 at Mahtomedi Middle School Traffic Signal Project.
Budget Information
FUNDING: EXPLANATION OF FUNDS: Combo Highway State Aid, ISD #832 Cooperative Agreement FINANCIAL IMPACT:
YEAR:2017 AMOUNT: $28,000 BUDGETED: Partial
EXPLANATION OF BUDGET CHANGES: Budget increase needed for project costs the responsibility of ISD #832. The increase is funded by ISD #832. The budget amendment request is for the Budget (BA) and Job Cost (JA) ledgers.
Approvals
COUNTY ATTORNEY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR: George Kuprian Molly O'Rourke
RECOMMENDATIONS: Approved RECOMMENDATIONS: Approved COMMENTS: COMMENTS: BOARD MEETING DATE: Request for Board Action November 07, 2017 AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: Commissioner's Report 3J Department Information
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: REQUESTOR: REQUESTOR PHONE: Sheriff's Office Jill Zenzola 651-430-7978 PRESENTER(S): MEDIA CONTACT: MEDIA CONTACT PHONE: Dan Starry 651-430-7602
Agenda Item Details
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF YOUR REQUEST: Adopt a resolution authorizing the Washington County Sheriff's Office to accept a donation from Target Corporation in the amount of $1,500.
AGENDA YOU ARE REQUESTING TIME ON: ARE YOU SEEKING APPROVAL OF A CONTRACT? Consent No IS THIS MANDATED? EXPLANATION OF MANDATE: No BACKGROUND/JUSTIFICATION: Target Corporation has donated $1,500 to the Washington County Sheriff's Office. The donation will be used to support the community engagement event, Shop with a Cop, put on by the Washington County Sheriff's Office. The County Sheriff's Office recommends acceptance of the donation.
PREVIOUS ACTION ON REQUEST / OTHER PARTIES INVOLVED? No
Budget Information
FUNDING: EXPLANATION OF FUNDS: Other Donation FINANCIAL IMPACT:
YEAR:2017 AMOUNT: $1,500 BUDGETED: No
EXPLANATION OF BUDGET CHANGES: Donation from Target Corporation will be used to help offset the costs related to Shop with a Cop. This will increase revenue and expenditures by $1,500.
Approvals
COUNTY ATTORNEY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR: George Kuprian Molly O'Rourke
RECOMMENDATIONS: Approved RECOMMENDATIONS: Approved COMMENTS: COMMENTS: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO.
DATE November 7, 2017 DEPARTMENT Sheriff MOTION SECONDED BY BY COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER
Target Corporation Donation
WHEREAS, Washington County gratefully accepts donations, gifts, and bequests from public and private sources to enhance the programs and services it provides; and
WHEREAS, Any gift, donation, or bequest becomes the property of Washington County; and
WHEREAS, The Washington County Board is authorized to approve donations, gifts, and bequests.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the Washington County Board of Commissioners does hereby approve the donation in the amount of $1,500.00 from Target Corporation for the Washington County Sheriff’s Office.
ATTEST: YES NO COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR MIRON KRIESEL WEIK COUNTY BOARD CHAIR BIGHAM KARWOSKI
Revised: December 2016
BOARD MEETING DATE: Request for Board Action November 07, 2017 AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: Commissioner's Report 3K Department Information
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: REQUESTOR: REQUESTOR PHONE: Sheriff's Office Jennifer Flores 651-430-7844 PRESENTER(S): MEDIA CONTACT: MEDIA CONTACT PHONE: Dan Starry 651-430-7602
Agenda Item Details
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF YOUR REQUEST: Approve a grant agreement between the State Court Administrator's Office and Washington County in the amount of $6,604 for the period of November 1, 2017 through April 1, 2018, and authorize its execution pursuant to Minn. Stat. 373.02.
AGENDA YOU ARE REQUESTING TIME ON: ARE YOU SEEKING APPROVAL OF A CONTRACT? Consent Yes IS THIS MANDATED? EXPLANATION OF MANDATE: No BACKGROUND/JUSTIFICATION: The Washington County Court Security Unit (CSU) screens approximately 110,000 visitors and 84,000 bags/parcels annually. This screening process is conducted by Court Security Unit deputies at our secure entrance checkpoint. The deputies utilize walk through magnetometers, x-ray baggage scanners as well as hand held metal detectors. Through this screening process, deputies locate approximately 2,000 prohibited items each year. We have recently installed a remote door release to secure our only public entrance should a threat arise. Although this is a needed first step, our front entrance is comprised largely of glass doors and walls. Should a threat be armed with a firearm or explosive device, the courthouse entrance is very vulnerable to a forced entry. Many instances of active shooter scenarios begin with the actor gaining entrance to the facility by shooting and thus shattering a glass door or sidelight. In order to address this vulnerability, the Safe and Secure Courthouse Initiative grant will fund a portion of the installation cost of 3M Scotchshield safety and security window film to the glass surrounding the public entrance/checkpoint area as well as the glass walls separating the secure courthouse from the public corridor. The total cost of this project is $13,761. The grant will fund $6,604 of the project cost, requiring a county match of $7,157. The county match is budgeted in the Court Security Unit's 2017 budget.
PREVIOUS ACTION ON REQUEST / OTHER PARTIES INVOLVED? No
Budget Information
FUNDING: EXPLANATION OF FUNDS: Combo County match in the amount of $7,157 is budgeted in the court security unit's 2017 budget. Grant funds in the amount of $6,604 are not budgeted. FINANCIAL IMPACT:
YEAR:2017 AMOUNT: $13,761 BUDGETED: Partial
EXPLANATION OF BUDGET CHANGES: Increase state grant revenue by $6,600 and increase court security equipment repair and maintenance expenditure budget by $6,600. County match is already accounted for in the court security unit's budget.
Approvals
COUNTY ATTORNEY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR: George Kuprian Molly O'Rourke
RECOMMENDATIONS: Approved RECOMMENDATIONS: Approved COMMENTS: COMMENTS: BOARD MEETING DATE: Request for Board Action November 07, 2017 AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: Commissioner's Report 4 Department Information
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: REQUESTOR: REQUESTOR PHONE: Community Services Sarah Tripple 651-430-6480 PRESENTER(S): MEDIA CONTACT: MEDIA CONTACT PHONE: Sarah Tripple Sarah Tripple 651-430-6480
Agenda Item Details
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF YOUR REQUEST: Board presentation will give an update on the Transit Needs Study Draft Report and seek approval to release the report for public comment.
AGENDA YOU ARE REQUESTING TIME ON: ARE YOU SEEKING APPROVAL OF A CONTRACT? Board No TIME NEEDED: 10 min IS THIS MANDATED? EXPLANATION OF MANDATE: No BACKGROUND/JUSTIFICATION: This presentation will give an update on the Transit Needs Study and seek approval to release the draft report for public comment. The presentation will focus on:
• Evaluation approach to addressing the service alternatives • Proposed strategies that were considered in the Transit Needs Study • Implementation recommendations
PREVIOUS ACTION ON REQUEST / OTHER PARTIES INVOLVED? Yes 7/28/15 - Board approved the Section 5310 grant application. 6/21/16 - Board Workshop to update the Board on the process of grant application. 11/22/16 - Board Workshop to update the board on the consultant selection process, scope of work, and a preliminary timeline. 12/6/16 - Approval of the Transit Needs Study consultant contract with Nelson Nygaard. 4/18/17 - Workshop updating Board on work to date and discuss next steps. 9/12/17 - Workshop updating Board on engagement efforts and service alternatives. 10/24/17 - Worshop updating the Board on the Transit Needs Study Draft Report.
Budget Information
FUNDING: NA
Approvals
COUNTY ATTORNEY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR: George Kuprian Molly O'Rourke
RECOMMENDATIONS: Approved RECOMMENDATIONS: Approved COMMENTS: COMMENTS: Washington County Transit Needs Study Board of Commissioners Presentation
November 7, 2017 Agenda
. Study Purpose . Update on Services and Gaps . Community Priorities . Alternatives Evaluation . Proposed Strategies . Implementation Consideration
2 Outcome: Approaches to Address Transportation Needs
Internal . County resources being used to provide transportation services . Staff are transporting clients places where they have difficulty traveling
External . Current state of transportation for people with disabilities and older adults, as well as individuals with low incomes . Barriers to mobility that people with disabilities, older adults, and individuals with low incomes encounter in the county . Future transportation needs
3 3 Demographics
• 14.4% live in poverty • 8.4% have a disability • 13.4% are 65 or older (By 2040 this population is projected to increase by 150%, from 25,000 to 62,000) • 9% of the population speaks a language other than English at home • Veterans represent 8% of the total countywide population, almost half are 65+ • 25% of Washington County residents are under 18
4 9 Key Destinations
• Medical facilities in Saint Paul, Minneapolis, Maplewood, Wyoming, Stillwater, and Woodbury • County facilities in Stillwater, Cottage Grove, Forest Lake, and Woodbury • Resource centers and food pantries countywide • Day Training & Habilitation (DT&H) centers countywide • Supermarkets and retailers
5 5 Transit Needs
• Composite shows: – Older adults – Youth – People with disabilities – Residents living in poverty – Zero-vehicle households – Veterans – Limited English Proficiency households
6 1 Gaps in Service
• Limited fixed route service • Metro Mobility does not serve the entire county • Limited evening and weekend hours for dial-a-ride service • Current dial-a-ride services are not easy to access or may not be able to meet the needs of the individual
7 Priority in Developing Alternatives
Stakeholders overwhelmingly acknowledged that the purpose of transit in Washington County should be to serve the markets with the greatest need: investments should be made that target people without other transportation options
8 Community Priorities • Centralized and easy-to-access information • Easier travel across the region • New and expanded scheduled bus routes – More bus routes – Midday and weekend service • Improvements to Transit Link, Metro Mobility – Improve reliability – Improve affordability – Operate evenings and weekends – Improve pick-up and drop-off windows and vehicle travel times • For-hire service and ride sharing – Support for expanding taxi and ride-hailing services (Uber and Lyft) • More specialized service for older adults and people with disabilities 9 1 Service Alternatives
Services alternatives are broken into four categories • Transit Service – Services available to the general public • Employer Sponsored – Strategies led by employers, public-private collaboratives, or by a public entity with significant involvement and support from private organizations • Personal Mobility – Services that do not require use of a vehicle or can be carried out through an unscheduled or informal arrangement • Mobility Management – Options designed to maximize resources through collaboration and coordination
10 Criteria for Evaluating Strategies
• Transportation benefit – Number of beneficiaries, problems solved, needs addressed, and ease of use • Community Support – Level of community support, public interest, potential for community funding, and accepted by target population • Financial – Overall cost, cost per beneficiary, and funding availability • Implementation – Time frame, complexity, and coordination
11 Tier I Strategies
. General Public Dial-A-Ride: increase use of demand-response service . Community Circulator: support local transit for shopping, commuting and participating in community activities
. Site-Specific Shuttle: support last-mile connections for major employers, institutions, or retail destinations
. Travel navigation/Information and Referral: compile and provide travel information & referral services, conduct educational marketing campaign . Volunteer Driver Program: volunteer reimbursement and driver incentives . Subsidize Taxi or Ride-Hailing Service: implement program for use of vouchers or subsidies for taxis and other transportation services . Trip Brokerage: centralize scheduling of transportation services to maximize efficient use of resources and provide more choices for consumers
12 Tier II Strategies
• On-Demand Bus or Van Service: support new publicly operated same-day service in specific communities
• Carpool: implement, expand, and promote carpool programs • Accessible Infrastructure Investments: plan, design, and construct accessible infrastructure improvements
• Vanpool: promote Metro Vanpool as a cost-effective commute strategy
13 Implementation: Administrative Framework • A coordinated mobility management approach is proposed – Long term, the study recommends advancing toward a brokerage model – Washington County could serve as the broker or another provider such as Newtrax, Community Thread, a different agency, or a for- profit contracted provider – Near-term: Mobility Manager • Build partnerships to match potential service users and providers; facilitate conversations with partners • Develop approaches for coordinated public information and distribution of that information • Support implementation of Transportation Consortium • Represent county’s interests related to transportation
14 Implementation: Advisory Framework
• Washington County Transportation Consortium – Provides a forum for coordination and to advise the County Board
15 Action Requested
Approve the release of the draft report for a 60-day public comment period
16 Thank You
Sarah Tripple [email protected] 651-430-6480
17 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Washington County Transit Needs Study DRAFT REPORT
October 31, 2017
In association with
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | i TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Table of Contents
Study Overview ...... 1-1 Relevant Studies and Planning Efforts ...... 1-2
Introduction ...... 2-1 Demographic Overview ...... 2-2 Transit Propensity Index...... 2-15 Trip Generators in Washington County ...... 2-18
Public Transportation Services ...... 3-1 Private Transportation Services ...... 3-10 Human-Service and Nonprofit Transportation Providers ...... 3-12
Stakeholder Input ...... 4-2 Community Feedback ...... 4-9 Conclusion ...... 4-14
Methodology ...... 5-1 Best Practice Examples ...... 5-2 Program Overview and Comparison ...... 5-6
Introduction ...... 6-1 Strategies for Washington County ...... 6-4 Evaluation of Strategies ...... 6-7 Transit Service Strategies ...... 6-15 General Purpose Dial-a-Ride ...... 6-15 Community Circulator ...... 6-19 Scheduled Intra-County Bus Service ...... 6-26 On-Demand Bus or Van Service ...... 6-29 Employer-Supported Strategies...... 6-32 Vanpool ...... 6-33 Site-Specific Shuttle ...... 6-35 Subscription Bus Service ...... 6-38 Personal Mobility Strategies ...... 6-41 Carpool ...... 6-41 Active Transportation ...... 6-44 Accessible Infrastructure Investments ...... 6-46 Mobility Management Strategies ...... 6-49 Trip Brokerage ...... 6-49
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | i TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Volunteer Driver Program ...... 6-52 Subsidized Taxi or Ride-Hailing Service ...... 6-56 Travel Navigation, Information and Referral Services ...... 6-60 Conclusion ...... 6-63
Introduction ...... 7-1 Confirming Priorities ...... 7-2 Implementing the Strategies ...... 7-6 Conclusion ...... 7-15
Existing Cost Allocation to Transportation ...... 8-7 Conclusion ...... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Table of Figures Page Figure 2-1 Population Density in Washington County, 2015 ...... 2-3 Figure 2-2 Employment Density in Washington County, 2015 ...... 2-4 Figure 2-3 Projected Population Growth by Age Group, 2015-2050 for Washington County ...... 2-5 Figure 2-4 Older Adults 65 and Over in Washington County, 2015...... 2-6 Figure 2-5 Youth Under 18 in Washington County, 2015 ...... 2-7 Figure 2-6 Individuals with Disabilities in Washington County, 2015 ...... 2-10 Figure 2-7 Residents Living in Poverty in Washington County, 2015 ...... 2-11 Figure 2-8 Zero-Vehicle Households in Washington County, 2015...... 2-12 Figure 2-9 Veterans in Washington County, 2015 ...... 2-13 Figure 2-10 Limited English Proficiency Households in Washington County, 2015 ...... 2-14 Figure 2-11 Transit Propensity Index for Washington County, 2015 ...... 2-16 Figure 2-12 Metropolitan Council Transit Market Areas ...... 2-17 Figure 2-13 Land Use and Zoning in Washington County, 2015 ...... 2-19 Figure 2-14 Commute Trips to Work Starting in Washington County (Washington County Residents) ...... 2-21 Figure 2-15 Commute Trips to Work Ending in Washington County (Originating Outside Washington County) ...... 2-22 Figure 2-16 County of Destination for Commute Trips Starting in Washington County (7 Primary Destination Counties, Including Washington) ...... 2-23 Figure 2-17 County of Origin for Commute Trips Ending in Washington County (10 Primary Counties, Excluding Washington) ...... 2-23 Figure 2-18 Daily Commute Trips to Work: Washington County to Ramsey County ...... 2-24 Figure 2-19 Commute Trips to Work Ending in Ramsey County (Originating in Washington County) ...... 2-25 Figure 2-20 Commute Trips to Work: Ramsey County to Washington County ...... 2-26 Figure 2-21 Commute Trips to Work Ending in Washington County (Originating in Ramsey County) ...... 2-27 Figure 2-22 Major Employers in Washington County, 2015 ...... 2-28
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | ii TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Figure 2-23 Colleges and Universities in Washington County ...... 2-29 Figure 2-24 Major Retail Centers in Washington County ...... 2-29 Figure 2-25 Major Medical Centers Serving Washington County ...... 2-29 Figure 2-26 General Destinations for Washington County Residents ...... 2-30 Figure 2-27 Residential Facilities for Groups with Special Needs in Washington County ...... 2-32 Figure 2-28 Resource Centers & Government Centers in Washington County ...... 2-33 Figure 2-29 Day Training & Habilitation (DT&H) Centers in Washington County ...... 2-34 Figure 3-1 Existing Public Transportation Services in Washington County ...... 3-2 Figure 3-2 List of Metro Transit Routes Serving Washington County ...... 3-3 Figure 3-3 Span and Frequency of Metro Transit Routes Serving Washington County ...... 3-4 Figure 3-4 Metro Transit Fares ...... 3-4 Figure 3-5 Metro Mobility Service Area ...... 3-6 Figure 3-6 Transit Link Fares ...... 3-7 Figure 3-7 Metropolitan Council Transit Market Areas within Washington County, Aligned with Jurisdictional Boundaries ...... 3-9 Figure 3-8 Summary of Taxicab Services Operating in Washington County ...... 3-11 Figure 3-9 Specialized Human Services, Private, and Nonprofit Transportation Providers .... 3-13 Figure 4-1 Stakeholder and Community Member Engagement Overview ...... 4-1 Figure 4-2 Stakeholder Comments about Transportation Issues ...... 4-6 Figure 4-3 Voting Station Results ...... 4-9 Figure 4-4 Community Meeting Summary ...... 4-11 Figure 4-5 Existing Mode of Travel: Overall ...... 4-14 Figure 4-6 Transportation System Improvement Priorities: Overall ...... 4-14 Figure 5-1 Summary of Best Practices Examples for Washington County ...... 5-9 Figure 6-1 Summary of Primary Needs, Potential Alternatives, and Primary Beneficiaries of Addressing the Needs ...... 6-5 Figure 6-2 Evaluation of Alternatives to Address Washington County Transit Needs ...... 6-11 Figure 6-3 Summary of General Purpose Dial-a-Ride Scenario ...... 6-18 Figure 6-4 Summary of Community Circulator Scenario ...... 6-22 Figure 6-5 Summary of Express Bus/Park-and-Ride Service Enhancements ...... 6-25 Figure 6-6 Summary of New Intra-County Bus Service ...... 6-28 Figure 6-8 Summary of Vanpool ...... 6-35 Figure 6-9 Summary of Site-Specific Shuttle ...... 6-38 Figure 6-10 Summary of Subscription Bus Service ...... 6-40 Figure 6-11 Summary of Carpool ...... 6-43 Figure 6-12 Summary of Active Transportation ...... 6-46 Figure 6-13 Summary of Accessible Infrastructure Investments ...... 6-48 Figure 6-14 Summary of Trip Brokerage ...... 6-52 Figure 6-15 Summary of Volunteer Driver Program ...... 6-56 Figure 6-16 Summary of Subsidized Taxi or Ride-Hailing Service ...... 6-59 Figure 6-17 Summary of Travel Navigation, Information and Referral Services ...... 6-63 Figure 7-1 Summary of Highest Priority Strategies ...... 7-3 Figure 7-2 Assets and Organizations: Potential Brokerage Leaders among Washington County Organizations ...... 7-10
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | iii TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Figure 7-3 Conceptual Implementation Steps and Timeline for Washington County for (Tier I and II Strategies) ...... 7-12 Figure 8-1 Metropolitan Council Regional Solicitation Funding Allocations ...... 8-2 Figure 8-2 FTA Grant Programs ...... 8-3 Figure 8-3 Minnesota Department of Human Services Transportation Funding ...... 8-4 Figure 8-4 Description of Potential Local Funding Sources ...... 8-6 Figure 8-5 Base Data Using Sampling Methodology ...... 8-8 Figure 8-6 Variance by Week in Sample ...... 8-8 Figure 8-7 Estimated Direct Transportation Costs Paid by Washington County: 2014 and 2017...... 8-9
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | iv TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Washington County faces several challenges in achieving an efficient and cost-effective public transportation network. The county has suburban and rural populations. Many cities serve as bedroom communities for Minneapolis and Saint Paul, while also containing important local trip generators such as shopping centers, schools, hospitals, community centers, government services, manufacturing facilities, and job sites. A demographic analysis illustrates that traditionally transit-dependent markets are not concentrated wholly in the more urban areas with better access to transit: older adults, individuals with disabilities, Veterans, low-income households and non-English speakers can be found throughout the county, suggesting the need for a comprehensive approach to mobility in the county that addresses these population clusters in urban, suburban, and rural contexts. The Washington County Transit Needs Study examines the challenges Washington County faces in providing transportation services. It also prioritizes a series of strategies that can be implemented within the short term. A primary outcome of the study is a recommendation for a coordinated approach to supplementing existing transit services by collaborating with human service agencies, cities, employers, and other entities to centralize travel planning, information, and the scheduling of trips. Existing Conditions
Located on the eastern edge of the Twin Cities metropolitan area, Washington County includes a mix of suburban, small-town, and rural populations. According to the Metropolitan Council’s population projections, the countywide population is expected to grow from 251,000 residents in 2017 to 330,000 residents by 2040 (more than 30% increase). The population of Washington County is predominantly concentrated in the western portion of the county, which is within short commuting distance to Minneapolis and Saint Paul. Woodbury, Cottage Grove and Oakdale are the three most populous cities. Combined, they account for 50% of the total countywide population. For the most part, employment density in Washington County follows a similar pattern to population density. Employment is generally clustered in areas with higher population densities, such as Oakdale, Landfall, Newport, and Cottage Grove. Overall, Washington County’s employment density (concentration of jobs in specific areas) is relatively low, which presents a challenge to planning adequate transportation access to worksites around Washington County. Older adults (65 years and older) are the fastest growing age group in Washington County. This population is projected to increase by 150% between 2010 and 2040 (from 24,984 to 62,309). This means that Washington County has a growing need for services and resources – including transportation services – that target older adults. Currently, 13.4% of Washington County
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | ES-1 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
residents are 65 or older, just below the statewide average of 14.7% and the national average of 14.9%. Using a measure of 185% of the federal poverty level as representing poverty, 14.4% of Washington County’s total population is living in poverty. The highest concentration of people living in poverty is in Landfall, where 65% of the population lives in poverty. Over 20% of the population in Newport, St. Paul Park, Bayport, Hastings, Oakdale, White Bear Lake, and Forest Lake is living in poverty. Overall, Washington County residents are more affluent than residents of other Minnesota counties. The median household income in Washington County is $83,700, compared to the statewide average of $63,500 and the national average of $53,900 (in 2015 dollars). More than eight percent (8.4%) of Washington County residents have a disability. 8% of Washington County residents age 18 or over are Veterans, on par with both statewide and national averages. Nearly one-half (48%) of Washington County Veterans are age 65 or older; 7% of Veterans are under the age of 35.
The majority of Washington County residents leave the In some portions of Washington County, the county for work: out of 124,977 total daily commute trips, proportion of senior residents is as high as 39%. 30,445 end in Washington County (24%) while 94,532 trips end at work destinations outside of the county (76%). The predominant commute destinations for Washington County residents are Ramsey County, which accounts for 42,546 commute trips (34%), and Hennepin County, which accounts for 32,024 commute trips (26%). Existing Service Coverage Washington County’s existing transit service illustrates a somewhat piecemeal approach to providing services to individuals with specialized needs, with much of the service provided by private, nonprofit and for-profit transportation operators and human service agencies, and organizations seeking to address their clients’ needs. As a result, there is also a great deal of duplication of service. x Most communities have no regular fixed-route bus service. Only thirteen of the thirty- three cities and townships within Washington County are served by fixed commuter routes. Nearly one-quarter (24%) of Washington County residents work within the county, yet there are no local fixed-route circulator services within or between Washington County communities. The commuter routes run between select communities and employment hubs in both Saint Paul and Minneapolis. x Washington County has limited fixed-route transit service compared to services in Ramsey or Hennepin County and some of the other suburban counties. Existing fixed- route services are generally restricted to peak commute periods, with routes between
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | ES-2 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Minneapolis-Saint Paul and key cities such as Cottage Grove, Mahtomedi, Stillwater, Oak Park Heights, Forest Lake, and Maplewood. Thus, regularly scheduled transit services are not available to meet transit demands in most of Washington County’s cities and towns. However, Washington County is also less dense than many other portions of the metropolitan area, which limits the feasibility of fixed-route transit solutions. x The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires paratransit service that complements fixed routes (excluding express routes) for certified riders. In the metro area, this complementary service is known as Metro Mobility. Because of the limited fixed-route network, there is limited ADA Metro Mobility service in the county, though nearly all communities have general public demand-based service available through the Transit Link program, which serves primarily transit-dependent individuals. However, Transit Link is neither convenient nor reliable for all Washington County trips. x Transit Link has some capacity constraints and has to turn away riders. Although a review of 2016 data found some months where trip requests in Washington County were denied as much as 9% of the time, 2017 data shows very few denials during summer months with winter and spring months averaging a 4% to 6% overall denial rate due to capacity limitations. Long travel times and advanced scheduling requirements make demand- response services a challenge for many residents’ daily travel needs. The result is that Washington County has an unreliable transit safety net that cannot meet many travel demands, including daily commutes. x A lack of weekend service on Metro Transit and Transit Link limits mobility for individuals seeing access to recreation, training, and certain jobs both within and outside of Washington County. x Human service agencies and nonprofit organizations often provide or sponsor transportation services such as shuttles, non- emergency medical transportation, and dial-a- ride services. However, these programs are often limited to specific groups (e.g., older adults and individuals with disabilities) or trip purposes (e.g., rides to a medical facility). x A lack of coordination between these disparate services means that residents may not have comprehensive information to help them
understand eligibility requirements, fares, payment methods, and eligible trip types and Other organizations provide transportation services in Washington County. A Newtrax bus travels to pick up a client. destinations. Public Input on the Role of Transit in Washington County Through a series of meetings, outreach events, comment forms, and workshops, members of the public and stakeholders provided feedback. Stakeholders overwhelmingly acknowledged that the purpose of transit in Washington County should be to serve the markets with the greatest need. New services designed to lure drivers out of their cars would not meet the intent of this study: investments should be made that target people without other transportation options.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | ES-3 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Existing public transit investment in Washington County by Metro Transit specifically targets commuters, including those who drive to a park-and-ride lot to ride to jobs outside of the county. While this service design approach focuses on offering the most productive services (highest passengers per hour) on fixed-route buses, the investment does little to address the priorities identified by stakeholders. Stakeholders’ priorities generally mirrored the general public’s preferences for comprehensive and easy-to-access information on available transportation services, improved coordination among providers, the capability of taking a same-day trip (not needing to reserve a ride at least one day in advance), improving volunteer driver coordination, and promoting employer participation. A primary preference for individuals who provided input into the study was for improved transit services, including an expansion of bus routes, the elimination of capacity constraints (and improvements to reliability) for Transit Link, expanded service hours and shorter travel times. Addressing issues of costs and affordability was also identified by stakeholders and users alike, including strategies to subsidize the fares on existing services like taxis and ride-hailing services.
Participants from a variety of organizations – employers, cities, medical centers, and Washington County staff talk with two people at the Newport Transit nonprofit service providers – expressed an Station about their transportation priorities. interest in and willingness to participate in an effort to coordinate services and to contribute toward funding coordinated services. Examples from Elsewhere To inform potential strategies to address the identified gaps and needs, it is valuable to consider practices from elsewhere in the metropolitan area and from around the US. Several examples highlight different approaches to addressing mobility needs through the direct provision of service, coordination, and mobility management: SouthWest Transit—a comprehensive local transit system, including several service types (express fixed routes that provide some local circulation and on-demand service for the general public) DARTS LOOP—local circulator routes for the general public and flex services and a more limited span of days and hours of service
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | ES-4 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Pomona Valley Transportation Authority—a number of service types in cities the size of several Washington County communities, including shared-ride taxi for the general public scheduled in advance or with same-day service for older adults and individuals with disabilities, and a volunteer driver program Lake County, Illinois—primarily demand- response services provided in a county that is part of a large urbanized area that includes small
urban, suburban, and rural communities Transit providers in other communities offer lessons Tompkins County and South Central New for Washington County. York Mobility Management—mobility management services and activities coordinated in one instance by a county department and in another by a nonprofit organization Dakota County – development of the Dakota County Transportation Coordinating Collaborative (DCTCC) and hiring of a transportation coordinator Scott and Carver Counties – development of joint demand-response service and creation of a brokerage operating a one-call/one-click center, known as SmartLink Mobility Management Evaluating and Defining Potential Service Strategies The project team prepared an evaluation and prioritization process that considered (1) transportation benefits for older adults, people with disabilities, and low-income residents, (2) community support, (3) financial feasibility, and (4) implementation feasibility. Evaluation criteria were developed with input from key stakeholders and Washington County staff. The project team identified 26 transportation service alternatives that could potentially address the various mobility needs of Washington County residents. The list of alternatives was refined to a set of 14 strategies after review and input from staff, stakeholders, and the general public, categorized by four classifications: Transit service strategies, which focus on providing new or expanded transit services for the general public, including operating buses or other vehicles to pick up and drop off individuals, either along routes or following a demand-response model. Employer-supported strategies, which are either led by employers (or major public or private organizations that attract consumers, students, or employees directly to their site), public-private collaboratives such as a Transportation Management Association, or by a public entity with significant involvement and support from private organizations. Personal mobility strategies, which do not require the use of a vehicle or which can be carried out though an unscheduled or informal arrangement. Mobility management strategies, designed to maximize resources through collaboration and coordination of transit providers and human service agencies, with a focus on meeting user needs and pooling resources.
Washington County’s short-term focus should be on providing a safety net – a basic level of transportation to address the needs of older adults, people with disabilities and low-income
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | ES-5 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Washington County residents. To do this successfully, Washington County will need to enlist the participation of select cities and both public and private human service agencies, as well as private transportation providers, both for-profit and nonprofit. Based on the evaluation, the following alternatives are identified as Tier 1, or preferred, strategies: General purpose dial-a-ride: increase use of demand-response service Community circulator: local transit for shopping, commuting and participating in community activities Site-specific shuttle: last-mile connections for major employers, institutions, or retail destinations Participants at a Transit Needs Study Stakeholder Forum in Subsidized taxi or ride-hailing service: September 2017 provide their input on strategies. implement program for use of vouchers or subsidies for taxis and other transportation services Volunteer driver program: volunteer reimbursement and driver incentives Travel navigation and information & referral services: compile and provide travel information & referral services, conduct countywide educational marketing campaign Trip brokerage: centralizing the scheduling of transportation services to maximize efficient use of resources and provide more choices for consumers Other strategies were deemed to be Tier 2 or 3 strategies, meaning they could be carried forward but offer fewer benefits for the target markets, have higher projected costs, or are more complex to implement in the short term. Implementation While some of the strategies can be implemented individually by a single agency or organization — or group of several organizations — one of the essential elements of a successfully coordinated transportation approach is that Washington County staff working with a Washington County Transportation Coordinating Consortium should guide programming and service implementation efforts. Some key recommendations include the following: Policy oversight is essential for formal decision making about where resources should be focused and coordinated efforts should be directed. The Washington County Board of Commissioners should continue to serve in the overall transportation policymaking capacity for the county and each jurisdiction that opts to provide its own service would maintain a policy role for its local service. A joint powers authority (JPA) may be an appropriate governance structure in the event one or more city and the County itself were to implement new service in a specific area or set of communities within Washington County, or if Washington County plans to coordinate its services with one or more neighboring counties. An official Washington County Transportation Coordinating Consortium would ideally be added to advise the County Board. Composition of the committee should be considered
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | ES-6 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
carefully to ensure equitable representation from elected officials, as well as organizations or jurisdictions serving or seeking to address the needs of older adults, people with disabilities and low-income residents in Washington County. Based on input and interest from stakeholders, and the potential to create a coordinated strategy to address transportation gaps and service needs, a coordinated mobility management approach is proposed, with a goal of developing a brokerage approach, whereby Washington County’s existing providers would make their services available to a larger share of the eligible population through coordinated scheduling and/or dispatch of trips across multiple providers. Washington County could serve as the broker, or another Washington County provider such as Newtrax or Community Thread, or a provider outside of the county, including the potential of a contracted provider. An implementation schedule would be based on several factors including, importantly, the availability of funding to advance the preferred strategies, continued leadership on the part of Washington County, partnerships with other entities or organizations that have a significant stake in transportation coordination and expansion, the success of programs underway, the demand for new services and programs, and changes in transportation technology which would allow Washington County to fast-track some strategies that are assumed to take place longer term. Some of the strategies could be initiated within a six-month timeframe if staffing and funding are available. Others may take several years to develop. Funding County staff are well versed in state and federal funding programs and at locating a variety of funding sources to supplement local funding sources. The county should continue to pursue all traditional funding programs. Both national and state legislative support for transit funding is dynamic and transit finance will likely change in the future. Because of the changing landscape for transit funding, the county should employ a diverse range of funding and implementation strategies. In general, this means: Local leaders should continue to seek new and innovative forms of non-local assistance, and support legislation that will generate additional transportation funding assistance. Public-private partnerships should be considered as an appropriate way to equitably distribute costs resulting from development. Agencies may need to partner, pool resources, and jointly lobby for outside funding assistance for major projects that could provide significant long-term benefits to Washington County. Washington County should continue to pursue regional transportation funds (Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ), Surface Transportation Program (STP), Transportation Enhancement (TE), etc.) through grant applications to the Metropolitan Council. Potential federal funding may come in the form of major infrastructure investment. It remains to be seen how much this will impact transit and whether it will be strictly capital investment or whether funds will be made available for operations. Historically, specialized federal funding has resulted in capital programs, but has not always supported operating costs. Infrastructure investment could benefit transitways such as the Gold Line, park-ride facilities, and transit hubs. It would likely have little benefit for demand-responsive services or services for individuals with disabilities, though monies could be used for investment in accessible infrastructure.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | ES-7 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Washington County collects a 0.25% transportation sales and use tax. Revenue from the tax may be used for transportation capital and operating expenses within the county, including transit capital and operating expenses. The expense must be part of a project listed in the county’s adopted transportation sales and use tax plan. Changes to the plan may be made following a public hearing and must be approved by the Washington County Board of Commissioners. The strategies listed in this report are not included in the plan and therefore are currently not approved for funding under this tax. The county could consider amending the plan in the future for specific transit projects that have a capital and/or operating component. Regardless of which combination of funding sources are pursued, Washington County will likely be challenged to implement all of the preferred strategies identified in this study.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | ES-8 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
INTRODUCTION STUDY OVERVIEW The Washington County Transit Needs Study focuses on the current and future travel needs of transit-dependent persons (older adults, individuals with disabilities and low-income individuals). The study assesses existing conditions in Washington County, identifies available transportation services, and develops options for new, improved, and better-coordinated services based on various funding scenarios. Washington County leads this study with participation and guidance from various partner agencies including Metro Transit, the Metropolitan Council, and the Minnesota Department of Transportation. The Washington County Transit Needs Study provides findings and recommendations based on a variety of sources, including demographic and commute trip data, stakeholder interviews and group meetings, comments from members of the community, and feedback from members of a technical advisory committee (TAC) comprised of representatives from several Washington County departments, the Metropolitan Council, Metro Transit, and the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Staff from Washington County’s Department of Public Works and Department of Community Services served as the project managers for this study, responsible for implementing the scope of work, monitoring progress of consultant activities, and serving as a liaison between the consultant team and other county departments and community partners. This report is organized as follows: Chapter 1 introduces the study and summarizes relevant studies and planning efforts in Washington County and the metro area. Chapter 2 provides demographic data, including identifying where concentrations of the targeted populations reside. This information provides a basis for identifying where services may be needed or enhanced in Washington County. Chapter 3 describes existing transit services, such as public transit services and social service transportation providers. This information allows for an understanding of where services operate today, whether services might be modified or coordinated to serve additional needs, and the capacity of the existing services to accommodate unmet transit needs and travel demands. Chapter 4 summarizes stakeholder input and includes a synthesis of comments and concerns from representatives of Washington County’s departments and diverse organizations, including human service providers, businesses, and advocacy organizations. Chapter 5 looks at examples from other communities and regions that have addressed transportation needs for older adults, individuals with disabilities, and low-income residents through different types of programs, providing examples for alternative
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 1-1 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
approaches to service and organizational frameworks for transportation in Washington County. Chapter 6 summarizes key needs and presents an identification and detailed evaluation of alternative transportation strategies considered for application in Washington County. Chapter 7 provides a review of the highest-ranking strategies, along with a set of recommendations and considerations for oversight, administration and coordination as part of an implementation approach for Washington County. Chapter 8 discusses funding opportunities for Washington County to carry forward the strategies identified in this study. Overview of Existing Transit Conditions Located on the eastern edge of the Twin Cities metropolitan area, Washington County includes a mix of suburban, small-town, and rural populations. Due to the variety of communities located in the area, Washington County faces several challenges in achieving an efficient and cost-effective public transportation services network. Most communities within the county have no local scheduled bus service. Regular fixed-route bus service (service that operates along scheduled bus routes) operated by Metro Transit serves limited portions of the westernmost cities. Peak-hour or peak-period express routes, which operate during the morning and afternoon-evening commute periods with the most traffic congestion, serve only thirteen of the 33 cities and townships within Washington County. These express routes run between select communities and employment hubs in both Saint Paul and Minneapolis. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires paratransit service that complements fixed routes (excluding express routes) for certified riders. In the metro area, this complementary service is known as Metro Mobility. Because of the limited fixed-route network, there is limited ADA Metro Mobility service in the county, though nearly all communities have general public demand-based service available through the Transit Link program, which serves primarily transit-dependent individuals. Various human service agencies either directly provide or sponsor transportation for their clients, but such services tend to be limited to a particular client group or for specific trip purposes (e.g., people with a disability who are served with a specific program). The Metropolitan Council, the planning organization for the Twin Cities metro area, expects the county’s population to grow from about 251,000 residents in 2017 to 299,000 in 2030 and 330,200 by 2040, a more than 30% increase over 2017. Given the limited travel services particularly for individuals most dependent on transit, demand for more options is increasing as the county’s population grows. RELEVANT STUDIES AND PLANNING EFFORTS In developing this study, the consulting team reviewed a number of existing plans and policies that provide context for future transportation planning efforts in Washington County and throughout the region. The purpose of this review is to provide relevant background information on regional and countywide priorities for housing, land use, and transportation, and to describe specific policies or projects that may impact transportation planning efforts in Washington County. These planning and policy documents are summarized briefly below.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 1-2 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Thrive MSP 2040 Metropolitan Council, May 2014 Thrive MSP 2040, developed by the Metropolitan Council, is the latest long-range policy plan for the Twin Cities region. This document focuses on five key outcomes: stewardship, prosperity, equity, livability, and sustainability. It also establishes community designations and land use policies to guide regional growth. The Metropolitan Council develops a new long-range policy plan every ten years. Thrive MSP 2040 sets forth five Community Designations that are based on development patterns and other characteristics: Urban Center, Urban, Suburban, Suburban Edge, and Emerging Suburban Edge.1 These Community Designations help to guide appropriate levels of investment in transportation, parks, wastewater, and other services throughout the region.
2040 Transportation Policy Plan (TPP) Metropolitan Council, January 2015 The 2040 Transportation Policy Plan (TPP) builds upon the regional long-range policy plan (Thrive MSP 2040). This document focuses on transportation policy strategies, land use and local planning, and modal plans for transit, bicycles, pedestrians, freight, and aviation. The Metropolitan Council develops a new TPP every four years. The 2040 TPP establishes five Transit Market Areas that encompass the greater Twin Cities metropolitan area.2 These Transit Market Areas are similar to the Community Designations established in Thrive MSP 2040. Per the Metropolitan Council’s methodology, Transit Market Areas are assessed using a Transit Market Index that is based on population density, intersection density, employment density, and availability of automobiles.3 Each of these variables is weighted based on their impact on potential transit demand. Further information on Transit Market Areas is presented in Chapter 3 of this report. The 2040 TPP sets forth a Current Revenue Scenario that anticipated $84 billion in transportation revenue between 2015 and 2040.4 The plan also establishes an Increased Revenue Scenario, should additional revenue sources become available. The following major capital investments are included in the Current Revenue Scenario and have been updated to reflect revised plans: METRO Orange Line: a 17-mile highway bus rapid transit system on I-35W south from Minneapolis to Burnsville with 12 stations ($150 million). METRO Green Line Extension: a 14.5-mile light rail extension of the Green Line from Minneapolis to Eden Prairie with 15 stations ($1.858 billion). METRO Blue Line Extension: a 13-mile light rail extension of the Blue Line from Minneapolis to Brooklyn Park with 11 stations ($1.5365 billion).
1 Thrive MSP 2040, page 94. Metropolitan Council, May 2014. 2 2040 Transportation Policy Plan, page 6.16. Metropolitan Council, January 2015. 3 2040 Transportation Policy Plan, page G.1. Metropolitan Council, January 2015. 4 2040 Transportation Policy Plan, page 5. Metropolitan Council, January 2015.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 1-3 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
METRO Gold Line: 9-mile dedicated bus rapid transit line from Saint Paul to Woodbury with 11 stations ($420 million) METRO Red Line Extension: 3-mile extension of the Red Line from Apple Valley to Lakeville. 5 Under an Increased Revenue Scenario, several proposed locations would be considered for additional transitways, including, but not limited to, the following: The Rush Line Corridor between downtown Saint Paul and Forest Lake. The Red Rock Corridor along Highway 61 between downtown Saint Paul and Hastings Highway 36 between downtown Minneapolis and Stillwater. I-35W North from downtown Minneapolis to Forest Lake Midtown from the existing METRO Blue Line Lake Street Station to the planned METRO Green Line West Lake Station. 6
Transportation Planning and Programming Guide for the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Metropolitan Council, November 2013 This guide describes the role of state, regional, countywide, and local entities that provide transportation services in the Twin Cities metropolitan area, from the Minnesota Department of Transportation down to local transit providers. It also provides an overview of state and federal transportation revenue sources that have traditionally been allocated throughout the region. Finally, the guide presents an overview of mandated state and federal planning and programming requirements, such as the Congestion Management Process (CMP), and describes which entities are responsible for meeting these requirements.
Washington County Strategic Plan Washington County, September 2013 The Washington County Strategic Plan identifies six strategies for supporting future growth and enhancing quality of life for Washington County residents. These strategies are designed to address public services, workforce and employees, communication, technology, infrastructure, and the county’s financial health. Of relevance to this study, Strategy 5 is to “plan, prioritize, and commit to high priority capital improvements needed to protect assets, improve efficiency, and maintain affordability.”7 This strategy encompasses three actions, listed below: Develop guiding principles and long range plans for capital improvements that includes initial construction and on-going operation costs; Identify the costs and benefits to alternative energy strategies for large capital projects; Pursue improvements in public transportation for citizenry and clients.
5 2040 Transportation Policy Plan, page C.18. Metropolitan Council, January 2015. 6 2040 Transportation Policy Plan, page 88. Metropolitan Council, January 2015. 7 Washington County Strategic Plan, page 40. Washington County, 2013.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 1-4 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Washington County 2030 Comprehensive Plan Washington County, September 2010 The Washington County 2030 Comprehensive Plan guides the physical growth of Washington County. The plan addresses seven specific areas: land use, transportation, parks and open space, natural resources and environmental protection, housing, county facilities, and historic resources. Planning is currently underway for the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, which is expected to be complete by mid-2018. The 2030 Comprehensive Plan sets forth the following goals for the transportation network: Goal 4-1 Develop and maintain a roadway system that accommodates the safe and efficient movement of people and goods. Goal 4-2 Promote the development and utilization of a transit system that meets existing and future travel needs of the public. Goal 4-3 Use effective transportation planning to accommodate existing and planned land uses, while preserving natural, cultural, and historic resources. Goal 4-4 Develop a non-motorized transportation system to provide mobility and recreational options to the public. 8
8 Washington County 2030 Comprehensive Plan, page 4-2. Washington County, 2010.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 1-5 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
This page intentionally left blank
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 1-6 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
COMMUNITY OVERVIEW INTRODUCTION This chapter focuses on demographic groups that tend to have limited mobility options and a higher propensity to use public transit services. Specific demographic characteristics such as age, income, and disability status can tell a story about the complex travel needs of residents and employees, especially as they relate to the use of transit services. This section also provides a spatial analysis of key trip generators such as hospitals and medical centers, food banks, Veterans Administration centers, and other destinations that are critical to the livelihood of many Washington County residents. Relevant demographic characteristics are illustrated via maps and tables to present a picture of transit-dependent populations in Washington County. The specific demographic groups that are highlighted in this chapter include: x Older adults (age 65+) x Individuals with disabilities x Youth (age 18 and under) x People in poverty x Zero-vehicle households x Veterans x Limited English Proficiency households
Data Methodology and Prison Populations The demographic characteristics of Washington County are primarily based on data from the US Census American Community Survey (ACS). Unless otherwise noted, all ACS data is from the 2011-2015 5-Year Estimates. It should be noted that some cities in Washington County have prisons, including Oak Park Heights and Bayport. Deriving whether or not specific ACS data sets include prison populations is a complicated issue. Prisons are categorized as Group Quarters by the US Census (according to the US Census, Group Quarters include college residence halls, residential treatment centers, nursing facilities, group homes, military barracks, correctional facilities, and workers’ dormitories).9 The ACS was expanded to include Group Quarters in January 2006. Vehicle data (percentage of zero vehicle households) and English proficiency data (percentage of Limited English Proficiency households) do not include Group Quarters, as these
9 American Community Survey and Puerto Rico Community Survey 2015 Subject Definitions, page 8. United States Census Bureau.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 2-1 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
data sets are based on occupied housing units and not individuals. Furthermore, the disability data included in this report is based on a sample of the Civilian Non-Institutionalized Population, which does not include correctional facilities. The remaining ACS data sets (older adults, youth, individuals in poverty, and Veterans) do include people living in prisons and other Group Homes. County Overview Washington County is located to the east of the Minneapolis-Saint Paul metropolitan area. With a population of 251,000, it is the fifth most-populous county in Minnesota. Washington County is predominantly rural, with access to iconic natural landmarks such as the St. Croix River, the Mississippi River and numerous lakes, state parks and nature preserves. The county’s larger cities serve as bedroom communities for Minneapolis and Saint Paul, as well as growing cultural, commercial and employment destinations in their own right. DEMOGRAPHIC OVERVIEW
Population Figure 2-1 illustrates that the population of Washington County is predominantly concentrated in the western portion of the county, which is within short commuting distance to Minneapolis and Saint Paul. Woodbury, Cottage Grove and Oakdale are the three most populous cities. Combined, they account for 50% of the total countywide population. Other notable population clusters include: x Forest Lake, the fourth most populous city in the county, has a total population of 19,200 (7.8% of the countywide population). x Stillwater, the fifth most populous city in the county, has a total population of 18,700 (7.6% of the countywide population). x Hugo, the sixth most populous city in the county, has a population of 14,100 (5.7% of the countywide population). x The lakeside communities around White Bear Lake, including Dellwood, Mahtomedi, Willernie, and Birchwood Village, have a combined population of approximately 10,600 (4.3% of the total countywide population). Outside of these population clusters, Washington County is predominantly made up of agricultural land combined with parks and open space, with a notable concentration of manufacturing and heavy industry along the Mississippi River on the county’s southern border.
Employment Figure 2-2 shows the distribution of jobs countywide by census block group. For the most part, employment density in Washington County follows a similar pattern to population density. Employment is generally clustered in areas with higher population densities, such as Oakdale, Landfall, Newport, and Cottage Grove. It is important to note that overall employment density is lower than population density: whereas some cities have a population density greater than 5.75 persons per acre, the greatest employment density is just over 1.41 persons per acre. Low employment density represents a challenge to planning adequate transportation access to worksites around Washington County.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 2-2 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Figure 2-1 Population Density in Washington County, 2015
Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2011-2015
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 2-3 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Figure 2-2 Employment Density in Washington County, 2015
Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2011-2015
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 2-4 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Older Adults Figure 2-3 shows the growth in Washington County’s population by age group for 2015-2050. Older adults (65 years and older) are the fastest growing age group in Washington County. This population is projected to increase by 150% between 2010 and 2040 (from 24,984 to 62,309). This means that Washington County has a growing need for services and resources – including transportation services – that target older adults. Figure 2-4 shows the geographic distribution of older adults in Washington County. 13.4% of Washington County residents are 65 or older, just below the statewide average of 14.7% and the national average of 14.9%. Oak Park Heights has a population of older adults that exceeds 30%, and over 18% of residents in Afton, Grant City and White Bear Lake are older adults.
Youth Figure 2-5 shows the geographic distribution of youth under 18 in Washington County. Washington County has a slightly above-average youth population compared to both statewide and national averages: 25% of Washington county residents are under 18, compared to 23.4% and the national average of 22.9%. Over 27% of residents in Woodbury, Cottage Grove, Forest Lake, and Hugo are under 18. The Minnesota State Demographic Center projects that the percentage of Washington County residents age 19 or under will effectively plateau over the next few decades, growing just one percent between 2015 and 2050. 10
Figure 2-3 Projected Population Growth by Age Group, 2015-2050 for Washington County
350,000
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
0 - 19 20 - 64 65 +
Source: Minnesota State Demographic Center
10 The Minnesota State Demographic Center tracks youth at 19 and under, which differs slightly from the presentation of US Census data above and on the map in Figure 2-5.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 2-5 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Figure 2-4 Older Adults 65 and Over in Washington County, 2015
Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2011-2015
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 2-6 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Figure 2-5 Youth Under 18 in Washington County, 2015
Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2011-2015
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 2-7 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Individuals with Disabilities Figure 2-6 shows the distribution of Washington County residents with a disability. The American Community Survey, which provides most of the demographic data for this report, defines an individual with a disability as someone with one or more of the following characteristics: x Hearing difficulty: deaf or having serious difficulty hearing. x Vision difficulty: blind or having serious difficulty seeing, even when wearing glasses. x Cognitive difficulty: difficulty remembering, concentrating, or making decisions due to a physical, mental, or emotional problem x Ambulatory difficulty: difficulty walking or climbing stairs. x Self-care difficulty: difficulty bathing or dressing. x Independent living difficulty: difficulty doing errands alone such as visiting a doctor’s office or shopping due to a physical, mental, or emotional problem. More than eight percent (8.4%) of Washington County residents have a disability. Over 10% of residents in Oak Park Heights, Hastings, White Bear Lake, Mahtomedi, and Bayport have a disability.11
Poverty and Income For this report, poverty is defined as anyone making up to 185% of the federal poverty level. Using this metric accounts for households on the margins of the federal poverty level, as well as the higher cost of living in Washington County compared with other regions across the United States. Several public and some nonprofit organizations (e.g., Metropolitan Council and Washington County Community Corrections) use 185% of the federal poverty level for measuring poverty levels and determining eligibility guidelines for assistance programs. Washington County’s Department of Community Services uses a variety of guidelines for its programs, some of which include households making up to 200% of the federal poverty level. Figure 2-7 the distribution of Washington County residents living in poverty. According to Office of the Federal Register, 185% of the federal poverty level for 2016 was $21,976 for an individual and $44,955 for a family of four. On average, 14.4% of Washington County’s total population is living in poverty. The highest concentration of people living in poverty is in Landfall, where 65% of the population lives in poverty. Over 20% of the population in Newport, St. Paul Park, Bayport, Hastings, Oakdale, White Bear Lake, and Forest Lake is living in poverty (additionally, over 20% of the population in Oak Park Heights is living in poverty, however, the presence of multiple prisons within the city may skew this data). In should be noted that overall, Washington County residents are more affluent than residents of other Minnesota counties. The median household income in Washington County is $83,700, compared to the statewide average of $63,500 and the national average of $53,900 (in 2015 dollars).
11 The higher percentage of residents in Oak Park Heights with a disability may include the incarcerated population.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 2-8 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Zero-Vehicle Households Figure 2-8 shows the distribution of Washington County residents who do not own a vehicle. People living in households without access to a vehicle are generally more likely to ride transit than those with vehicle access. Individuals in these households may be unable to afford a vehicle, may be unable to drive, or may prefer not to drive, all of which greatly increase the likelihood of transit use. 4% of Washington County residents do not have access to a vehicle. Over 6% of residents in Bayport and White Bear Lake do not have access to a vehicle. More than 6% of Oak Park Heights residents also do not have access to a vehicle. Communities with low vehicle ownership rates may need expanded public transit services to access local destinations.
Veterans 8% of Washington County residents age 18 or over are Veterans, on par with both statewide and national averages. Nearly one-half (48%) of Washington County Veterans are age 65 or older; 7% of Veterans are under the age of 35 Figure 2-9 shows the distribution of Veterans across Washington County. Cities with a higher concentration of Veterans (between 10%-12%) include Lake St. Croix Beach, Birchwood Village and White Bear Lake. Cities with a lower concentration of Veterans (between 6%-7%) include Mahtomedi, Bayport, Lake Elmo, and Dellwood.
Limited English Proficiency Households Figure 2-10 below shows the distribution of limited English proficiency households across Washington County. Countywide, 9% of the population speaks a language other than English at home, and 3% speak English “less than very well.” The most commonly spoken languages other than English are Spanish, Hmong, Somali, and Chinese, all of which have more than 1,000 speakers countywide. As Washington County diversifies over the next few decades, the percentage of people with limited English proficiency is likely to increase. The Minnesota State Demographic Center anticipates that the percentage of non-white residents in Washington County will increase from 15% in 2015 to 22% in 2050. Asian, Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander residents will increase from 5.8%-8.7% by 2050, and Hispanic and Latino residents will increase from 3.6%-5% by 2050. Transit services should take these demographic shifts into consideration by ensuring that ridership information is available in multiple languages.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 2-9 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Figure 2-6 Individuals with Disabilities in Washington County, 2015
Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2011-2015
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 2-10 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Figure 2-7 Residents Living in Poverty in Washington County, 2015
Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2011-2015
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 2-11 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Figure 2-8 Zero-Vehicle Households in Washington County, 2015
Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2011-2015
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 2-12 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Figure 2-9 Veterans in Washington County, 2015
Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2011-2015
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 2-13 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Figure 2-10 Limited English Proficiency Households in Washington County, 2015
Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2011-2015
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 2-14 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
TRANSIT PROPENSITY INDEX Figure 2-11 presents a composite Transit Propensity Index that was created by combining the individual demographic factors that were explored in detail above, including older adults, youth, individuals with disabilities, residents living in poverty, zero-vehicle households, Veterans, and Limited English Proficiency households. Taken together, these factors help determine which areas of Washington County present the highest demand for transportation services. Areas with high transit propensity are concentrated around Newport, St. Paul Park, Cottage Grove, Woodbury, Landfall, Oakdale, Pine Springs, Mahtomedi, Stillwater, Bayport, and Forest Lake. The Rush Line Corridor between Forest Lake and Saint Paul along Highway 61 displays lower transit propensity, as does Baytown, Lakeland, and pockets around Lake Elmo. The Transit Propensity Index map can be compared to the Transit Market Areas assessment from the 2040 Transportation Policy Plan (TPP). Figure 2-12 shows a map of Transit Market Areas for the Twin Cities metropolitan area.12 Areas with dark shading in the Transit Propensity Index map (Figure 2-11) generally correspond with areas designated as Market Area III or Market Area IV in the 2040 TPP (Figure 2-12). According to the 2040 TPP, the recommended transit services for Market Area III is commuter express bus, limited local bus service, and general public dial-a-ride; the recommended transit services for Market Area IV is commuter express bus and general public dial-a-ride.13 Further information on Transit Market Areas is presented on page 3-7.
12 2040 Transportation Policy Plan, page 6.18. Metropolitan Council, January 2015. 13 2040 Transportation Policy Plan, page G.5. Metropolitan Council, January 2015.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 2-15 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Figure 2-11 Transit Propensity Index for Washington County, 2015
Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2011-2015
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 2-16 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Figure 2-12 Metropolitan Council Transit Market Areas
Source: Metropolitan Council 2040 Transportation Policy Plan, page 6.18
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 2-17 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
TRIP GENERATORS IN WASHINGTON COUNTY Land Use As shown in Figure 2-13, Washington County is primarily made up of low-density residential areas, with large swaths of agricultural land and designated parks and open space. Even the county’s largest population centers, such as Woodbury, Oakdale, Cottage Grove, Forest Lake, and Stillwater, are predominantly categorized as either low and very low residential or low density mixed residential, with some pockets of higher-density residential or more urbanized areas. Commercial and retail centers are primarily located along major highways, including Interstates 94 and 494 on the outskirts of Woodbury; Highway 61 (also known as Highway 10) between Newport and Hastings; and Highway 36 in Oak Park Heights and Stillwater. Retail clusters represent important transportation destinations, both as job sites and commercial destinations. There is a strong concentration of heavy industry along the Mississippi River in southern Washington County. The 3M Cottage Grove plant is a 1,750-acre facility located along the banks of the Mississippi, which contains over 1,500,000 square feet of buildings, a wastewater treatment plant, and multiple manufacturing plants. Cottage Grove is the location for other employers like Renewal by Andersen and Werner Electric. The St. Paul Park Refinery, operated by Western Refining, is another large industrial center, occupying a 170-acre site between Newport and St. Paul Park. Other businesses include the Gerdau-Ameristeel Saint Paul steel mill, mining sites, and lighter industries such as automotive repair. There are additional pockets of manufacturing and heavy industry elsewhere in Washington County. The Andersen Corporation, a global supplier of windows and doors and the largest employer in Washington County, has a manufacturing plant in Bayport. Other manufacturing and resource extraction companies are located along Highway 61 outside of Hugo, and along Interstate 94 outside of Lakeland.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 2-18 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Figure 2-13 Land Use and Zoning in Washington County, 2015
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 2-19 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Commute Trips to Work A robust and detailed picture of travel patterns is provided by analyzing commute trips to work for Washington County residents, as well as for residents of other counties accessing jobs in Washington County. The commute trip data included in this chapter is based on Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD), which is provided by the US Census Bureau. Figure 2-14 shows the primary commute destinations for Washington County residents. The majority of Washington County residents leave the county for work: out of 124,977 total daily commute trips, 30,445 end in Washington County (24%) while 94,532 trips end at work destinations outside of the county (76%). The predominant commute destinations for Washington County residents are Ramsey County, which accounts for 42,546 commute trips (34%), and Hennepin County, which accounts for 32,024 commute trips (26%). Dakota County accounts for an additional 10,734 daily trips (9%). Transportation solutions that cater to Washington County commuters will need to focus on providing access to Minneapolis and St. Paul. Figure 2-15 presents the flow of workers commuting to job sites within Washington County from outside the county. Almost half of people traveling to jobs in Washington County are Washington County residents: out of 67,057 daily commute trips, 30,445 both start and end in Washington County (45%), while 36,612 are commuters from neighboring counties (55%). Ramsey County generates 18% of commute trips to Washington County. Dakota County and St. Croix County each generate 8% of total commute trips, while Hennepin County and Anoka County each generate 6% of total commute trips. Transportation solutions for employers in Washington County will need to cater to a more dispersed pool of workers traveling from Ramsey, Dakota, St. Croix, Hennepin, and Anoka Counties, in addition to accommodating the nearly 50% of workers who travel within the county for work.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 2-20 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Figure 2-14 Commute Trips to Work Starting in Washington County (Washington County Residents)
Source: Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD), 2014
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 2-21 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Figure 2-15 Commute Trips to Work Ending in Washington County (Originating Outside Washington County)
Source: Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD), 2014
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 2-22 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
The graphics below present the commute data shown in Figure 2-14 and Figure 2-15 in a pie-chart format. Figure 2-16 shows the breakdown of work destinations for commute trips that start in Washington County. As was stated above, most Washington County residents travel to either Ramsey or Hennepin Counties for work, while the third-largest work destination is jobs within Washington County, and the fourth-largest destination is Dakota County. Figure 2-17 shows the breakdown of commute origins for people working in Washington County. As described above, nearly half of people working in Washington County also live within the county borders. Ramsey County is the second most prominent county of origin, with Dakota, St. Croix, Hennepin, and Anoka Counties relatively evenly represented.
Figure 2-16 County of Destination for Commute Trips Starting in Washington County (7 Primary Destination Counties, Including Washington)
St. Croix County, WI, 2% Chisago Anoka County, MN, 4% County, MN, 1% Dakota County, MN, 9%
Ramsey County, MN, 34%
Washington County, MN, 24%
Hennepin County, MN, 26%
Figure 2-17 County of Origin for Commute Trips Ending in Washington County (10 Primary Counties, Excluding Washington)
Pierce County, WI, 2% Scott County, MN, 1% Polk County, WI, 4% Carver County, MN, 1%
Chisago County, MN, 6%
Anoka County, MN, 6%
Hennepin County, MN, Ramsey County, MN, 8% 45%
St. Croix County, WI, 8%
Dakota County, MN, 18%
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 2-23 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Commute Trips To and From Ramsey County A special focus is made on commute patterns between Ramsey and Washington counties. For the sake of simplicity, commute origins and destinations are shown at the city level for Ramsey County and at the county level for Washington County. This provides a concise overview of commute patterns between the two counties. As noted above, Ramsey County is a primary commute destination for Washington County residents: 34% of commute trips made by Washington County residents are to jobs in Ramsey County. Saint Paul is the most popular destination in Ramsey County for Washington County commuters, followed by Maplewood, White Bear Lake (which straddles Washington and Ramsey counties), and Roseville. Figure 2-18 lists commute destinations in Ramsey County for Washington County residents, in order of popularity. These commute patterns are further illustrated in Figure 2-19. Note that cities with fewer than 500 daily commute trips are not included.
Figure 2-18 Daily Commute Trips to Work: Washington County to Ramsey County Commute Trip Origin Commute Trip Destination Total Commute (County) (City) Trips Washington County Saint Paul 21,717 Maplewood 9,650 White Bear Lake 4,146 Roseville 3,511 Vadnais Heights 1,888 Arden Hills 1,505 Blaine 1,455 Shoreview 1,256 Little Canada 994 North Saint Paul 983 New Brighton 813
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 2-24 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Figure 2-19 Commute Trips to Work Ending in Ramsey County (Originating in Washington County)
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 2-25 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Ramsey County is also a prominent home location for people commuting to jobs in Washington County. The City of Saint Paul in particular has 6,544 daily commute trips to jobs in Washington County. White Bear Lake and Maplewood are also predominant commute origins, with 2,917 and 2,378 daily commuters, respectively. Figure 2-20 below lists commute origins in order of popularity for Ramsey County residents commuting to jobs in Washington County. These commute patterns are further illustrated in Figure 2-21. Note that cities with fewer than 500 daily commute trips are not included. Figure 2-20 Commute Trips to Work: Ramsey County to Washington County Commute Trip Origin (City) Commute Trip Destination (County) Total Commute Trips Saint Paul Washington County 6,544 White Bear Lake Washington County 2,917 Maplewood Washington County 2,378 North Saint Paul Washington County 871 Blaine Washington County 851 Shoreview Washington County 684 Vadnais Heights Washington County 668 Roseville Washington County 653
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 2-26 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Figure 2-21 Commute Trips to Work Ending in Washington County (Originating in Ramsey County)
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 2-27 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Key Trip Generators
General Destinations It is important to understand key trip generators in Washington County. The following tables provide detail on major trip generators in Washington County, including major employers (Figure 2-22), colleges and universities (Figure 2-23), retail centers (Figure 2-24), and medical destinations (Figure 2-25). Figure 2-26 includes community destinations such as retail centers, recreational facilities, libraries, medical centers, activity centers, and colleges and universities. The majority of these destinations are clustered in portions of the county with above-average population and employment densities, specifically in the southwest portion of the county and in Stillwater, Oak Park Heights, and Forest Lake.
Figure 2-22 Major Employers in Washington County, 2015 % of Total Countywide Company Location Employees Employment Andersen Corporation Bayport, Cottage Grove 5,700 4.24% Independent School District Cottage Grove, Newport, St. Paul 833 Park, Woodbury 2,500 1.87% Bailey Nurseries, Inc. Newport 1,800 1.34% Independent School District North St. Paul, Maplewood, Oakdale 622 1,600 1.15% Imation Corporation Oakdale (Note: No longer in business) 1,500 1.12% Wal-Mart Forest Lake, Oak Park Heights, Woodbury and Cottage Grove 1,200 0.87% Washington County Various Government 1,100 0.84% Independent School District Forest Lake 831 1,100 0.81% Independent School District Stillwater 834 1,000 0.77% Target Cottage Grove, Forest Lake, Stillwater, Woodbury, Oakdale 900 0.66% Total (among these employers) 18,400 9.43% Source: Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for Washington County, Minnesota, December 2015
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 2-28 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Figure 2-23 Colleges and Universities in Washington County Name Location Enrollment Century College White Bear Lake 10,100 N/A (campus is closing September Globe University Woodbury 2017) Rasmussen College Lake Elmo 2,169 5,900 enrollment overall, limited St. Mary's University of Minnesota Oakdale activity in Oakdale
Figure 2-24 Major Retail Centers in Washington County Name Location Retailers Tamarack Village Woodbury 60 TH 36 Commercial 75 (combination of various shopping centers Strip Oak Park Heights and freestanding stores) Valley Creek Mall Woodbury 25 Woodbury Lakes Woodbury 55 Woodbury Village Woodbury 55
Figure 2-25 Major Medical Centers Serving Washington County Annual Outpatient Name Location Beds Admissions Visits (2016) Fairview Lakes Medical Wyoming 49 2,864 91,187 Center
Lakeview Hospital Stillwater 54 3,736 61,852 Maplewood VA clinic Maplewood N/A N/A 21,752 Minneapolis VA Health Minneapolis 309 8,689 776,958 Care System Regions Hospital Saint Paul 463 25,350 140,201 St. Joseph’s Hospital Saint Paul 234 11,492 54,651 United Hospital Saint Paul 370 22,251 174,345
Woodwinds Health Woodbury 86 7,829 60,164 Campus Source: Health Forum, LLC, the American Hospital Association; VA Medical Center provided data for VA facilities.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 2-29 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Figure 2-26 General Destinations for Washington County Residents
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 2-30 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Residential Facilities and Essential Services A number of trip generators provide essential services to transit-dependent populations in Washington County. Many of these are located in rural parts of the county with no access to fixed- route transit. For those services that are close to transit lines, it is important to note that many clients cannot travel within the limited peak-period service windows typical of Metro Transit routes in Washington County. Many of these services are also located outside of the Metro Mobility service area, which may present further barriers for people with disabilities. Figure 2-27 shows the location of housing support facilities for older adults, individuals with disabilities, youth and adult foster care recipients, individuals experiencing homelessness, and others with special needs. Several of these facilities are located in low-density areas of Washington County, such as Scandia. Transportation is an important quality-of-life factor for residents who need to access jobs, health services, educational opportunities, and other services. Transportation for employees is also a concern, especially in remote areas where employees may have to commute from elsewhere in the county or metro area. Figure 2-28 maps the location of resource centers, food shelves, and government centers in Washington County. Specific services include the Cottage Grove Government Center, Headwaters Service Center, and the WorkForce Center in Woodbury, as well as nonprofit and faith-based food shelves. Some of these services are in locations with limited fixed-route transit access (such as Stillwater, Cottage Grove, Oakdale, and Woodbury), while others are in remote parts of Washington County with no access to fixed-route transit. Figure 2-29 shows the locations of Day Training and Habilitation (DT&H) centers in Washington County. Most of these services are located in cities with all-day or peak-only fixed-route transit access, such as Stillwater, Cottage Grove, Oakdale, and Woodbury.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 2-31 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Figure 2-27 Residential Facilities for Groups with Special Needs in Washington County
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 2-32 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Figure 2-28 Resource Centers & Government Centers in Washington County
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 2-33 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Figure 2-29 Day Training & Habilitation (DT&H) Centers in Washington County
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 2-34 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SERVICES PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SERVICES Public transportation in Washington County (and through much of the metro area) is administered by the Metropolitan Council, which is the regional policy and planning agency for the Minneapolis-Saint Paul area. The Metropolitan Council is responsible for overseeing housing, parks, transportation, wastewater and water, community development, and general planning activities within the Twin Cities region. It also a federally designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), and thus is responsible for managing transportation funding from many state and federal sources. The Metropolitan Council’s Transportation Division is divided into two bodies: 1. Metro Transit operates fixed-route transit services in the Twin Cities area, including bus and passenger rail, and oversees Metro Vanpool 2. Metropolitan Transportation Services (MTS) conducts long-range transportation planning, develops the short-range capital improvement program, and operates demand- responsive transportation services such as Metro Mobility and Transit Link. Specific information regarding these services and their impact on Washington County is described below. This chapter also provides context for funding of transit services in Washington County and summarizes information about private and nonprofit providers in the county.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 3-1 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Figure 3-1 Existing Public Transportation Services in Washington County
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 3-2 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Metro Transit
Fixed Route Service Metro Transit is the regional transit provider for the Minneapolis-Saint Paul metropolitan area. Metro Transit operates fixed-route bus services, park-and-ride facilities, and regional commuter rail. Figure 3-2 lists the Metro Transit routes that serve Washington County, which includes two local bus routes and thirteen commuter express bus routes. All routes connect Washington County to Saint Paul and Minneapolis; Metro Transit does not provide any local circulator service exclusively within Washington County. Figure 3-3 shows the span and frequency of Metro Transit routes in Washington County. Due to the limited number of local routes, service is concentrated in the morning and evening commute periods, with limited service spans (typically 3-4 hours) and limited frequency (typically every 30 minutes). Only three routes — 70, 74, and 219 — provide all-day service on weekdays, as well as some weekend service. The remaining twelve routes serving Washington County only provide peak-hour commuter service during weekdays. A summary of Metro Transit fares is shown in Figure 3-4 below. It should be noted that weekday rush-hour express bus service, which is the predominant form of bus service in Washington County, is not discounted for youth or older adults; it is discounted for Medicare cardholders and individuals with a state-issued disability ID. Non-rush hour express bus service, local bus, A-Line, and METRO fares are discounted for youth, older adults, Medicare cardholders, and individuals with a state-issued disability ID.
Figure 3-2 List of Metro Transit Routes Serving Washington County
Route From To 70 Saint Paul Maplewood 74 Minneapolis Maplewood 219 Saint Paul Maplewood 270 Downtown Minneapolis Mahtomedi 275 Downtown Saint Paul Forest Lake 288 Downtown Minneapolis Forest Lake 294 Downtown Saint Paul Oak Park Heights 350 Saint Paul Maplewood 351 Saint Paul Woodbury 353 Downtown Minneapolis Woodbury 355 Downtown Minneapolis Woodbury 361 Saint Paul Cottage Grove 364 Saint Paul Newport/Saint Paul Park 365 Downtown Minneapolis Cottage Grove 375 Downtown Minneapolis Oakdale
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 3-3 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Figure 3-3 Span and Frequency of Metro Transit Routes Serving Washington County
Frequency (minutes) Route Weekday Saturday Sunday Weekday Weekday Rush Hour Midday 70 4:26:00 AM - 9:49 PM 6:26 AM - 8:51 PM 9:34 AM - 6:35 PM 30 30 74 3:28 AM - 11:43 PM 3:29 AM - 11:43 PM 3:33 AM - 11:34 PM 15 - 20 30 219 5:52 AM - 9:42 PM 6:15 AM - 7:15 PM -- 30 30 270 5:20 AM - 8:20 PM -- -- 10 -- 275 3:38 PM - 5:10 PM -- -- 30 -- 288 3:00 PM - 5:45 PM -- -- 30 -- 294 5:24 AM - 8:14 AM, 5:04 PM - -- -- 30 - 60 -- 6:33 PM 350 5:32 AM - 7:14 AM -- -- 20 - 40 -- 351 6:19 - 7:48 AM, 4:11 - 5:12 PM -- -- 20 -- 353 5:41 AM -- -- (one trip) -- 355 6:04 AM - 8:10 AM -- -- 10 - 15 -- 361 6:16 AM - 7:39 AM, 3:45 PM -- -- 30 (AM only) -- 364 5:53 AM - 7:05 AM -- -- (three trips) -- 365 5:38 AM - 8:01 AM -- -- 10 - 20 -- 375 5:51 AM - 7:41 AM -- -- 10 --
Figure 3-4 Metro Transit Fares Rush Hours: Local Bus, A Line & METRO Fares Non-Rush Hours Weekdays 6-9 AM &
3-6:30 PM Regular Adult Fare Adults Local Bus / A Line / METRO $1.75 $2.25 (ages 13 to 64) Express Bus $2.25 $3.00 Downtown Zone (Transfers Not $0.50 $0.50 Available) Bus/Metro Only Reduced Fares Seniors (ages 65+) Local Bus / A Line / METRO $0.75 $2.25 Express Bus $0.75 $3.00 Youth (ages 6 to 12) Local Bus / A Line / METRO $0.75 $2.25 Express Bus $0.75 $3.00 Medicare card holders Local Bus / A Line / METRO $0.75 $2.25 Express Bus $0.75 $3.00 Mobility Fare (state-issued Local Bus / A Line / METRO $0.75 $0.75 disability ID with an "A" or "L") Express Bus $0.75 $0.75
Persons with Disabilities Local Bus / A Line / METRO $0.75 $0.75 Express Bus $0.75 $0.75 Ages 5 and under ride free (limit 3) and must ride with a fare-paying customer.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 3-4 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Metro Vanpool Metropolitan Transportation Services oversees a vanpool program that is available to all residents of Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott, and Washington Counties. This regional program is subsidized by the Metropolitan Council to provide additional transportation options for those who do not live within close proximity to Metro Transit fixed-route service. Metro Vanpool provides 7-, 9-, 12-, or 15-person vans, depending on individuals’ needs. The cost of participating in a vanpool is on-average $110 per month for each participant. Rates fluctuate depending on regularity, distance of trip, and number of participants. Vans are leased directly to the primary volunteer driver, and the primary driver rides free in exchange for driving and coordinating services. Rideshare by Enterprise leases all vans and the service includes insurance, maintenance, repairs, and 24-hour roadside assistance. Currently, 70 active Metro Vanpool vans originate in Washington County and an additional 20 active Metro Vanpool vans originate in various cities and rural townships in western Wisconsin and travel via either Highway 61 or Interstate 94 via Washington County (without stopping) to employment locations throughout the Twin Cities.
Metropolitan Transportation Services (MTS) Metropolitan Transportation Services (MTS) is a department within the Transportation Division of the Metropolitan Council. MTS is responsible for conducting short-range and long-range transportation planning within the Twin Cities area and operated fixed-route services, demand- response services, and the Metro Vanpool program. Within Washington County, MTS administers two demand-responsive transportation services, which are described below.
Metro Mobility Metro Mobility provides demand-responsive transit service for eligible riders within the Minneapolis-Saint Paul metropolitan area. Eligibility is determined by Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) guidelines, and includes those individuals who are unable to ride fixed- route transit services due to a disability. Figure 3-5 shows the Metro Mobility service area, which does not cover all of Washington County: coverage is provided to cities that are included within the 2006 transit-taxing district. The Metro Mobility service area covers most of Washington County’s larger cities, including Cottage Grove, Woodbury, Oakdale, and Stillwater. Several communities in Washington County with larger populations of individuals with disabilities are not covered by the Metro Mobility service area. Forest Lake (population 19,000) has a population of individuals with disabilities of 9.9%, and Afton (population 2,900) has a population of 9.8%; neither are served by Metro Mobility because they are outside the transit- taxing district. A one-way trip fare is $3.00 during the off-peak period and $4.00 during the peak period. Peak- period service hours are between 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and between 3:00 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. Monday-Friday. In 2014, a downtown zone was established within Minneapolis-Saint Paul, and trips that begin and end in the downtown zone were reduced to $1.00 each way.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 3-5 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Figure 3-5 Metro Mobility Service Area
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 3-6 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Transit Link Transit Link is a demand-responsive dial-a-ride service available to all residents of the Minneapolis-Saint Paul metropolitan area. Riders must call ahead to reserve a ride for any trip that cannot be accommodated by regular fixed-route transit (such as local or express bus services); riders can use Transit Link to connect to another transit service. Transit Link riders are instructed to reserve trips one week in advance. The Transit Link service area covers all of Washington County, as well as the following communities in Ramsey County: Gem Lake, Little Canada, Maplewood, North Oaks, and North St. Paul, St. Paul, Vadnais Heights, White Bear Lake, and White Bear Township.14 Service hours are Monday-Friday from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. To ensure that Transit Link does not duplicate fixed-route service, each trip is analyzed for eligibility. Trip requests are not considered eligible if they start and end within ¼ mile of a transit stop in winter, or ½ mile of a transit stop in summer. Transit Link is a curb-to-curb service, though ADA-eligible riders qualify for door-to-door assistance upon request. All riders are eligible to request assistance with up to four grocery-sized bags when accessing Transit Link. Figure 3-6 below shows Transit Link one- way fares. Figure 3-6 Transit Link Fares Trip Distance Fare (One-Way) <10 Miles $2.25 10-20 Miles $4.50 >20 Miles $6.75
Transit Market Development Implications for Washington County The 2040 Transportation Policy Plan, adopted by the Metropolitan Council in January 2015, established five Transit Market Areas that encompass the greater Twin Cities metropolitan area.15 These Transit Market Areas were assessed using a Transit Market Index that is based on population density, intersection density, employment density, and availability of automobiles. Each of these variables is weighted based on their impact on potential transit demand.
14 “Washington County Transit Link Service." Washington County Transit Link Service - Metropolitan Council. Web. 22 June 2017. 15 2040 Transportation Policy Plan, pages 6.16-6.18, G.1-G.6. Metropolitan Council, January 2015.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 3-7 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Figure 3-7 shows a map of Transit Market Areas for the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Washington County is predominantly categorized as Market Area V, with some areas categorized as Market Area III and IV. Washington County also contains two Freestanding Town Centers, which are defined as areas with dense urban form that could support high transit use, but are geographically isolated from other urbanized areas. According to the Metropolitan Council’s service standards, the recommended transit services for Market Areas III-V are: Market Area III: Commuter express bus, limited local bus service, general public dial-a- ride Market Area IV: Commuter express bus, general public dial-a-ride Market Area V: General public dial-a-ride (not well suited for fixed-route service) According to the 2040 TPP, the Metropolitan Council’s recommended service span for commuter express routes is peak-period weekday service only. The recommended service span for suburban local routes is weekday peak-period, midday, and limited evening service (with no late-night or weekend service). The minimum recommended frequency for commuter express routes in Market Area III-IV is three trips per peak period. There is no minimum recommended frequency for suburban local routes.16 In assessing productivity, the Metropolitan Council evaluates each route based on average passengers per in-service hour.17 The Metropolitan Council’s recommended ridership metrics for commuter express routes and suburban local routes are stated below: Commuter express bus (peak): ≥20 (average), ≥15 (minimum per trip) Commuter express bus (off-peak): ≥10 (average), ≥5 (minimum per trip) Suburban local bus: ≥10 (average), ≥5 (minimum per trip) The Metropolitan Council’s recommended route types, service standards, and evaluation metrics for low-density and urban-fringe communities (such as those found in Market Areas III-V) are on par with industry standards. However, the Metropolitan Council’s market areas assessment does not take into consideration the prevalence of transit-disadvantaged populations in Washington County, including older adults, individuals with disabilities, low-income individuals, and Veterans. It also does not account for the location of key transit destinations, such as hospitals, foodbanks, Veterans Administration (VA) hospitals and clinics, senior and group housing facilities, and corporate foster care facilities. Within Washington County, many key destinations for transit-dependent individuals are located in areas of the county that are designated as Market Area V, and therefore would not merit fixed-route service based on Metropolitan Council guidelines. Looking ahead, a key consideration of this study will be to identify transportation solutions for individuals accessing these destinations.
16 2040 Transportation Policy Plan, pages G.12-G.13. Metropolitan Council, January 2015. 17 2040 Transportation Policy Plan, pages G.15-G.16. Metropolitan Council, January 2015.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 3-8 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Figure 3-7 Metropolitan Council Transit Market Areas within Washington County, Aligned with Jurisdictional Boundaries
Source: Adapted from Metropolitan Council 2040 Transportation Policy Plan, page 6.18
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 3-9 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
PRIVATE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES Washington County has limited transportation services from private and national operators. x Amtrak does not operate any bus or rail stations within Washington County. The closest Amtrak train station is the Saint Paul Union Depot in downtown Saint Paul, which serves trans-continental train routes such as the Empire Builder from Chicago to Seattle. x Greyhound Lines operates one bus station in Washington County, which is located in Forest Lake close to the Headwaters Service Center. There is also a Greyhound station in Hastings (located in Dakota County), as well as several stations in Minneapolis and Saint Paul. Many taxicab companies operate in Washington County. Figure 3-8 below provides a summary of the primary taxicab companies serving Washington County (note that this is not a complete list). Many of these companies provide school transportation, wheelchair accessible vans, and non-emergency medical transportation in addition to standard taxi trips.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 3-10 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Figure 3-8 Summary of Taxicab Services Operating in Washington County Cost Company Name Service Area Services Offered Flag per Mile Forest Lake and Anna's Taxi surrounding areas Taxi, airport service NA NA
A-Taxi Minnesota and $3.00- $2.50- (ataximn.com) Wisconsin Taxi, group vans, airport service $4.00 $3.30 Minneapolis-Saint Blue and White Taxi Paul metropolitan Taxi, corporate accounts, airport (blueandwhitetaxi.com) area service NA NA Non-emergency medical transportation, children’s Care Cab Minnesota transportation, Type III school bus (caretransportation.com) (statewide) transportation NA NA Taxi, corporate accounts, airport service, pre-paid taxi service (‘ridecards’), Type III school bus Minneapolis-Saint transportation, non-emergency medical Minneapolis Yellow Cab Paul metropolitan transportation, wheelchair van service, (yellowcabmn.com) area package delivery, special events $2.50 $2.50 Taxi, corporate accounts, school accounts, medical accounts, airport Suburban Taxi Green and Minneapolis-Saint service, non-emergency medical White Taxi Paul metropolitan transportation, wheelchair van service, (suburbantaxi.com) area package delivery, special events $2.50 $2.50 Minneapolis-Saint Taxi, airport service, Type III school Paul metropolitan bus transportation, non-emergency Town Taxi (towntaximn.com) area medical transportation, child seats $2.50 $2.50 Woodbury Airport Taxi Woodbury and Taxi, corporate accounts, airport (woodburyairporttaxi.com) surrounding areas service, flat rate airport trips NA NA Woodbury Taxi Woodbury and Taxi, corporate accounts, airport (taxiwoodbury.com) surrounding areas service $2.50 $2.75
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 3-11 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
HUMAN-SERVICE AND NONPROFIT TRANSPORTATION PROVIDERS A variety of community-based and nonprofit organizations operate transportation services in Washington County. These include dial-a-ride services, shuttles, and volunteer driver programs. Some services are limited to certain eligible populations, such as individuals with disabilities, older adults, Veterans, or medical patients and their families, while other services are available to the public-at-large. Organizations providing these transportations services are listed in Figure 3-9. Newtrax and Canvas Health, which are two of the most prominent nonprofit transportation service providers in Washington County, are discussed in more detail below.
Newtrax Newtrax is a nonprofit transportation provider that primarily serves older adults and adults with disabilities in the northeast Twin Cities metropolitan area. Trips are provided to member organizations such as Day Training and Habilitation (DT&H) facilities, older adults or individuals with disabilities residential facilities, local employers, and faith-based organizations. Newtrax was founded in 2011 by PAI and Merrick, both of which are DT&H providers with clients in Washington County. Today, Newtrax operates a fleet of over 40 vehicles and serves an average of 600 people per day, including 400-450 trips within Washington County (primarily on the northern and western parts of the county). During an informational meeting with project staff, Newtrax staff expressed that transportation needs should be considered for the northeast metropolitan area as a whole, including both Washington and Ramsey counties, as their clients’ transportation needs frequently transcend county borders. Newtrax staff identified the following key areas of concern: Transportation to and from jobs for individuals with physical and cognitive disabilities. Many organizations focus on providing employment opportunities for adults with disabilities, but transportation to access these jobs is still a key concern. Transportation for older adults who live in their own residences. Transportation after dark, especially for older adults and individuals with disabilities. Transportation services to and from independent living and group living sites. Newtrax is interested in growing and taking a lead role in mobility management for the northeast metro area. They are currently expanding their role in workforce development and are looking to provide additional transportation services for major employers (e.g., they have recently begin providing services for FedEx). Because Newtrax focuses on weekday peak-period services, they have additional service capacity during the midday period and weekends. Newtrax is also currently initiating a volunteer driver program that would be operated in conjunction with local organizations. Other potential new services under consideration by Newtrax include local circulator services in key cities and non-emergency medical transportation in coordination with hospitals and care facilities.
Canvas Health Canvas Health provides group transportation for older adults in Washington County. Canvas Health maintains two sixteen-passenger buses, both of which are equipped with wheelchair lifts. This service is available to groups of older adults either on a one-time basis or for regularly scheduled trips. Trips cost $70 per hour (based on a two-hour minimum).
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 3-12 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Canvas Health staff participated in outreach events that were hosted as part of the Washington County Transit Needs Study, and provided valuable feedback that contributed to the findings detailed in this report.
Summary of Transportation Service Providers The table below provides an overview of community-based and nonprofit organizations that operate transportation services in Washington County. Figure 3-9 Specialized Human Services, Private, and Nonprofit Transportation Providers
Service Service Name Fleet Eligible Riders Eligible Trips Service Area Type(s) Span Older adults, Wheelchair Medical and 7 days a Allegiance Veterans, Demand accessible non-medical Twin Cities Metro Area week 7am to Transportation individuals with Response vehicles trips 7pm disabilities Bayport, Circle Pines, Always Best Care Wheelchair Hugo, Lake Elmo, 7 days a Demand for Senior accessible Older adults All trips Marine on Saint Croix, week, 8am to Response Services vehicles Scandia, Stillwater and 8 pm Afton M-TH 8am to American Cancer Cancer Patients Medical Demand 5:30pm and F NA NA Society who are ambulatory appointments Response 8am to 4:30pm One time special outing Older adults and Washington County; 2 Sixteen- or regularly individuals with Demand trips outside of M-F 8am to Canvas Health passenger scheduled disabilities (groups Response Washington County 4:30pm buses group trips as well) can also be scheduled (shopping etc.). Riders with no other M-F 8am to means of Volunteer Residents within the Community Medical 4pm (pending Car transportation (must Demand Stillwater School Thread appointments driver pass a pre-screen Response District availability) process to qualify) Western Washington Medical Disabled Veterans with VA Volunteer County (Oakdale, appointments M-F 9am to American Car Medical Center Demand Woodbury, White Bear (VA Medical 1pm Veterans of MN appointments Response Lake, St. Paul Park, Center) Cottage Grove) Medical Demand M-F 9am to Discover Ride NA NA Twin Cities Metro Area appointments Response 1pm Older adults or Driving Miss Demand M-F, 6am to Car or Van individuals with All trips NA Daisy Response 6pm disabilities
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 3-13 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Service Service Name Fleet Eligible Riders Eligible Trips Service Area Type(s) Span Medical and 7 days a Home Instead Demand Washington County NA Older adults non-medical week 24 Senior Care Response and surrounding areas trips hours a day Medical and 7 days a Maximal Care Demand Dakota, Ramsey, and NA NA non-medical week, 5am to Mobility Response Washington Counties trips 10pm DT&Hs, Residential 15- facilities for older passenger adults and buses (most Northeast Twin Cities Newtrax individuals with All trips Shuttle NA vehicles are Metro Area disabilities, wheelchair employers, faith accessible) organizations M-F 5:30am Wheelchair Premier Handicap Individuals with Demand to 6pm accessible All trips Twin Cities Metro Area Services special needs Response Saturday 6am vans to 12pm Medical or TLC Special Car, Bus, or other activities Demand M-F 5:30am NA Twin Cities Metro Area Transportation Van (group trips Response to 5pm included) M-TH 5am to Wheelchair Those who cannot 8pm Saturday Medical and Travelon accessible drive (older adults, Demand 5am to 5pm non-medical Washington County Transportation vans and individuals with Response Sunday if trips minibuses disabilities) drivers are available Wheelchair Medical and Individuals with Demand 24 hour Twin City Mobility accessible non-medical Twin Cities Metro Area disabilities Response service vehicles trips Wheelchair Older adults, Medical Twin City Demand 7 days a accessible individuals with appointments Twin Cities Metro Area Transportation Response week vehicles disabilities or school
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 3-14 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
STAKEHOLDER AND PUBLIC INPUT The community engagement process was organized into two phases, with Phase 1 early in the study process (January – April 2017) and Phase 2 later in the project (May 2017 – September 2017).
The purpose of Phase 1 was to gain high-level input on existing transportation services, common destinations, and gaps and needs. In Phase 2, the focus was to prioritize proposed improvement strategies. Figure 4-1 includes a description of stakeholder and public engagement activities, by phase. Refer to the separate Technical Appendix for detailed meeting notes from the stakeholder and community listening sessions. Figure 4-1 Stakeholder and Community Member Engagement Overview
Activity Description Topics Addressed Listening Sessions Multiple meetings with groups of people Travel priorities representing various stakeholder groups (e.g., Existing services and gaps older adults, Veterans, housing providers, Transportation needs workforce development, older adults, etc.). Opportunities and priorities Stakeholder interviews Phone or in person interviews with Travel priorities transportation providers, employers, and other Existing services/services provided key stakeholders. Transportation needs Opportunities and priorities Agency interviews Phone meetings with representatives of key Agency function and priorities agency partners (e.g., MnDOT, MN Services provided/resources Department of Human Services, Metro available Transit, etc.). Transportation needs/gaps
Phase 1 Employer and transit Separate questionnaires sent to major Business location user questionnaires Washington County employers and their Number of employees and work employees. shift times Role of transportation in employee retention Transportation challenges Opportunities and priorities Transportation Forum 1 Workshop with a range of stakeholders (e.g., County demographics and travel older adults, Veterans, service and housing profiles providers, employers, Washington County Existing services cities, health care providers, etc.). Transportation needs Priorities for strategies
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 4-1 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Pop-up meetings and A table or a booth at popular community event Identify preferences of potential community events or destination, such as a farmer’s market, art users festival, or a grocery store entrance, as well as Review and prioritize potential locations at senior centers, food shelves, etc. strategies
Transportation Forum 2 Workshop with a range of stakeholders (e.g., Confirm the findings of the existing older adults, Veterans, service and housing needs assessment Phase 2 providers, employers, Washington County Review and prioritize potential cities, etc.). strategies Identify preferred investments to carry forward in Washington County
STAKEHOLDER INPUT As an initial step in the Washington County Transit Needs Study, the project team developed a stakeholder engagement strategy to get input from key stakeholders including groups and individuals representing specific interests related to transit service options in Washington County. Target stakeholder groups include individuals with disabilities, older adults, and other transit-dependent populations. The following is a list of intended audiences for engagement activities: Older adults Individuals with disabilities and related services providers Veterans Jobs and workforce Housing providers and services Existing transportation providers (public and private) County staff (e.g., Community Corrections, Community Services, Libraries, Public Health and Environment, Public Works, Veterans Service Office, etc.) Agency partners (e.g., Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), Metro Transit, Metropolitan Council, and Washington County cities) General public
The following sections summarize the results of the stakeholder engagement activities. Transportation Destinations During the listening sessions and interviews, stakeholders described the reasons people need to travel, and identified common origins and destinations. People need to travel for a wide array of purposes to stores, jobs, schools, job training, recreational facilities, medical facilities, social services, meal programs, etc. Transportation needs are geographically dispersed throughout the county: people live, work, and play in all areas of the county and metro area. However, there are some common destinations such as medical facilities and clinics (i.e., Maplewood, Stillwater, Saint Paul, and Minneapolis) and population centers such as Stillwater, Woodbury, and Cottage Grove (e.g., for jobs, shopping, etc.). The following are the most common trip types and destinations identified: Hospitals and clinics: Many people throughout the county — older adults in particular — need to make regular trips to and from medical appointments. Common destinations
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 4-2 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
include the Health East Campus (e.g., St. John’s Hospital) in Maplewood and Regions Hospital in Saint Paul. People also need to get to and from doctors’ offices, clinics, and specialty care providers, which tend to be more localized within the major population centers in Washington County, such as Woodbury, Cottage Grove, Forest Lake, Wyoming, and Stillwater. One care provider noted that figuring out how to “get mom to the doctor” can “tear families apart.” Veteran’s Administration medical facilities: Many Veterans need rides to and from the VA hospital in Minneapolis, or the VA clinic in Maplewood. Occasionally, Veterans need transportation to a specialist who could be located elsewhere in the region. One participant reported needing to get to a specialist as far away as Duluth (approximately 130 miles from the northern part of Washington County). Community centers, recreation, and shopping: There is a need for rides to and from community facilities, such as community centers, libraries, and other gathering places. There is also a need for “quality of life” trips within the county, such as to shopping, recreation and social destinations, and to faith-based organizations. These types of trips are especially important for older adults and individuals with disabilities who may have limited personal mobility. Common destinations include local grocery stores, retailers such as Target and Walmart, Mall of America, and the MSP International Airport. Schools and colleges: People need transportation to and from schools and colleges. Children have regular transportation to school, but extracurricular activities are difficult. Parents also have difficulty getting to and from schools for special events. People also need transportation to colleges and universities, such as the University of Minnesota campuses in Saint Paul and Minneapolis, Metro State University in Saint Paul, and Century College in White Bear Lake. Government Services: People need to get to and from county government centers in Stillwater, Cottage Grove, Forest Lake, and Woodbury, as well as local city offices. These trips are particularly important for people visiting individuals who are incarcerated at the prisons in Oak Park Heights and Bayport and for individuals when they are released. Individuals previously incarcerated may have no personal transportation and must travel to court-mandated appointments at government centers. Employment Centers: People require reliable transportation options to get to and from work. Major employers include Andersen Windows in Bayport and Cottage Grove (Renewal by Andersen), 3M in Cottage Grove and Maplewood (just outside of Washington County), and FedEx in Mahtomedi. Many people also commute to and from employment in Saint Paul and other parts of the metro area. Existing Transportation Services People were asked to share their opinions on the transit services currently available in Washington County, including bus service provided by Metro Transit, and curb-to-curb demand responsive service provided by Metro Mobility and Transit Link.
Metro Transit Bus Service According to stakeholders, existing fixed-route bus service within Washington County tends to be commuter focused, providing trips to and from Saint Paul and Minneapolis, during the morning and evening peak-periods (i.e., rush hour). This type of service works well for those traveling to
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 4-3 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
and from the metro area during typical commute hours, but is challenging for many of the types of trips required by transit-dependent populations (e.g., older adults, individuals with a disability, working families, etc.), such as trips for medical appointments or part-time employment, which are often happen during times with no service (i.e., midday, evenings, or the weekend). Fixed- route bus service is particularly challenging for older adults and individuals with disabilities with limited personal mobility as they may need additional assistance to get out of their home, in a vehicle, and into a building.
Transit Link and Metro Mobility Metro Mobility and Transit Link provide door-to-door and door-through-door transportation services. These services are well used by some stakeholder groups. Transit Link and Metro Mobility do not work for all users or all types of trips. According to stakeholders, some people do not have the option to take Transit Link or Metro Mobility because they live outside of service areas, the limited hours of availability, or because the advanced scheduling requirements do not meet their needs. For example, a person who has a car break down on the way to work and needs a same-day trip would not be readily served by Transit Link. Participants reported that, in their personal experience, Transit Link and Metro Mobility seem to have capacity limitations and long pick-up windows (stakeholders reported passengers being picked up after the 30-minute window provided by Transit Link). In addition, some stakeholders indicated that they believe travel times for Transit Link are excessive. One participant stated, “You could be on the bus for a really long time to get where you need to go. Sometimes more than an hour to go 20 miles,” which may speak more to a lack of understanding of the nature of a shared-ride regional service. Even still, these real or perceived shortcomings make it difficult for individuals to consider using Transit Link to commute to work when they expect reliable, scheduled service. Participants also expressed dissatisfaction at being denied ride requests. In response to this feedback, staff from the Metropolitan Council responded that Transit Link denies approximately 3 to 5% of ride requests.
Other Services Stakeholders were asked to describe any additional formal or informal transportation services that are currently being used in Washington County. Volunteer Drivers. There are some volunteer driver services within the county, primarily serving Veterans. Many local Veteran organizations, such as American Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFWs) posts, coordinate volunteer driver programs to provide trips for Veterans traveling to and from VA medical facilities in Minneapolis and Maplewood. The Washington County Veterans Service Office helps to provide referrals to these organizations, but cannot administer a formal volunteer driver program. According to stakeholders, there are also informal trips taking place for older adults and individuals with disabilities. This type of transportation is often provided by staff of service providers (such as Day Training and Habilitation centers), family and friends, or faith-based organizations. Vehicle insurance and personal liability are a concern for volunteer drivers, when personal vehicles are used. Service Providers. Many care providers, such as senior living centers, corporate foster care and day programs, and some Day Training and Habilitation programs, have private vans or shuttles, which are used for the transportation needs of clients. Many of these organizations prioritize medical trips, with social and shopping trips only as time allows.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 4-4 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
There are also some private and nonprofit transportation providers, such as Newtrax and Canvas Health that provide transportation to certain types of service providers on a contract basis. Taxi and Rideshare. Taxi, rideshare, and ride-hailing services like Lyft and Uber are available in the more urbanized and suburban areas in the western portion of the county (e.g., Woodbury, Oakdale, Cottage Grove, etc.), but do not provide regular service in Stillwater, Forest Lake, or the more rural areas of the county. Transportation Issues Stakeholders were asked to share their perspectives on major transportation issues and challenges facing Washington County. The issues or themes identified most often are listed below. Typical comments relating to these themes are listed in Figure 4-2 and are noted as follows: Expand existing services Consider cost and affordability Better serve transit-dependent populations Provide options for employers and employees
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 4-5 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Figure 4-2 Stakeholder Comments about Transportation Issues Issue Stakeholder Comments Existing Services Some participants expressed a general lack of understanding around the availability and use of existing transportation services provided by Transit Link and Metro Mobility. Many expressed the desire for a comprehensive, easy to access, and easy to understand resource to explain existing transportation options. Others noted that eligibility requirements to use existing services (i.e., Metro Mobility) are confusing and the application process is difficult to navigate. There is a perceived challenge of being a somewhat rural county adjacent to the Twin Cities Metro Area, where there is a more limited understanding of best practices for providing rural and regional services, so existing service are not as effective as they could be. There is a desire for more inter-county, city-to-city public transportation within Washington County. There is a need for better sidewalks and more bike infrastructure in many areas. There is demand for transportation services to and from Hudson, WI, but the St. Croix River is a barrier and there are few crossing opportunities. There is a need for better sidewalks and more bike infrastructure in many areas. Cost and Affordability Some participants noted that Washington County needs to be mindful of the economics of public transportation. Local resources are spread thin already and any new services would need new funding sources. Some participants noted that maintaining the affordability of transit service is critical. At least one participant felt that there is no need for additional investment in transportation service, since there is already door-to-door service in Washington County (i.e., Metro Mobility and Transit Link). Transit-Dependent Many participants felt that there is a general lack of good transportation options for individuals Populations with disabilities and there is a need for education on how to use public transportation (e.g., for older adults, for individuals with visual and hearing impairments, etc.). Older adults also need comprehensive transit information. Unreliable transportation leads to clients missing medical care appointments, which in turn leads to additional costs for both clients and providers. Some individuals with a disability who could work do not work because they do not have reliable transportation. This results in people staying in service programs such as Day Training and Habilitation, when they could be out and more independent. Employers/Employees Employers care about transit. There are jobs available, but without reliable transit options, employers cannot hire people without cars. Employers consider this when siting new facilities. There are large employers who would like to stay in Washington County when expanding, but transportation for employees is an issue. Existing services do not work well for employers with multiple shifts. Andersen Windows has approximately 1,600 employees working in three shifts at their Bayport facility. Shift start and end times vary and limit options for shuttling or van pooling. FedEx has between 500-600 people at their facility in Mahtomedi who work during three shifts (two during the day and one overnight). Existing transportation services do not align well with existing shift start and end times, and there are no options for the overnight shift. FedEx is developing a partnership agreement with Newtrax, a private transportation provider, to provide transportation services for its night shifts at its Mahtomedi location.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 4-6 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Opportunities Stakeholders were asked to share ideas and suggestions for potential transportation improvements for Washington County. Most participants generally agreed that there is a need for improved public transportation within the county. Common suggestions are listed below: Provide comprehensive and easy to access information on existing transportation services Increase coordination and resource sharing for privately owned transportation, such as vans at corporate foster care, day programs, etc. Explore opportunities for a public ridesharing application or program such as Lyft or Uber Improve volunteer driver coordination and address insurance and liability issues Procure county-owned vehicles to serve Veterans, as is done in counties that are more rural Consider implementing local circulator services in population centers like Stillwater and Woodbury Support opportunities for additional funding for transit Provide new mobility options for low-income communities Promote employer participation and special training programs for individuals with special needs Provide special event services for downtown Stillwater Co-locate multiunit housing near transit Engage employers in transportation conversations (e.g. Andersen Windows, 3M, others). Hire dedicated staff to help coordinate transportation resources System Improvement Priorities
Input Provided Spring 2017 Participants in the April 2017 Stakeholder Forum were asked to complete an exercise designed to show the tradeoffs in decision making that are required when making investment decisions. The exercise allowed participants to choose select preferences for competing investment strategies on a spectrum, to illustrate priorities. Please refer to the separate Technical Appendix for detailed meeting notes from the stakeholder listening sessions. Preferences among the participants were diverse, but tended to be grouped toward the following: Service for people with limited transportation options over getting drivers onto public transportation (there was strong consensus on this tradeoff) Later weekday service over weekend daytime service All-day service within Washington County over commute-hour service to Saint Paul Investment in public transportation over pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure There was no clear group consensus on the following: Local service vs. regional service Demand-response service vs. fixed-route service
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 4-7 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Stakeholders overwhelmingly expressed that the purpose of transit in Washington County should be to serve individuals with the greatest need, including older adults, individuals with disabilities, youth, low-income residents, and Veterans. Rather than focusing on services that would help to lure drivers out of their cars, stakeholders expressed that transit investments should target people without other transportation options. Current public transit investment in Washington County by Metro Transit specifically targets commuters, including those who drive to a park-and-ride lots and then take transit to jobs outside of the county. While this service design approach focuses on offering the most productive services (highest passengers per hour) on fixed-route buses, it does little to address the priorities identified by stakeholders. Future transit investments should focus on the needs of transit-reliant individuals, including increased mobility options for accessing destinations within Washington County.
Input Provided Fall 2017 Many of the same stakeholders reconvened in September 2017 for a second Stakeholder Forum. The purpose of the meeting was to present draft study findings and to solicit input on the prioritization of strategies to address existing transit needs. Meeting participants included approximately 20 representatives from a range of stakeholder groups including seniors, veterans, employers, housing providers, community services staff, health care professionals, and city administrators. Participants were given an opportunity to prioritize their investments in different types of transit service alternatives, discussed in Chapter 6. As shown in Figure 2-1, there was strong preference for Travel Navigation and Referral Services, General Purpose Dial-a-Ride, Subsidized Taxi or Ride-Hailing Service, and Trip Brokerage strategies. Participants preferred On-Demand Bus or Van Service, Volunteer Driver Program, Active Transportation, and Scheduled Intra-County Bus Service strategies. There was little preference for Site-Specific Shuttle, Community Circulator, Accessible Infrastructure Investments, Workplace Vanpool, and Carpool strategies and no preference for Subscription Bus Service or Express Bus or Park-&-Ride Service Enhancement strategies.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 4-8 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Figure 4-3 Voting Station Results
General Purpose Dial-A-Ride Community Circulator Express Bus or Park-&-Ride Service Enhancements On-Demand Bus or Van Service Scheduled Intra-County Bus Service Workplace Vanpool Site-Specific Shuttle Subscription Bus Service Carpool Active Transportation Accessible Infrastructure Investments Trip Brokerage Volunteer Driver Program Subsidized Taxi or Ride-Hailing Service Travel Navigation & Referral Services
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
These preferences are generally reflected in the evaluation presented in Chapter 7, highlighting community support for these types of alternatives. COMMUNITY FEEDBACK In addition to the stakeholder meetings, outreach to the community included a public and employer comment form and a series of community meetings, which were held in July and August 2017 to solicit feedback on the Washington County Transit Needs Study. Comment Forms Washington County used two separate questionnaires for the Washington County Transit Needs Study. The first questionnaire targeted employers and the second focused on the general public. The purpose of the questionnaires was to collect information on how people walk, bike, and use existing public transportation services, as well as where gaps exist. The questionnaires were distributed via direct invitation to employers (e.g., Anderson Corp., FedEx, 3M, etc.) and organizations serving the public in Washington County (e.g., Corporate Foster Cares, Day Training and Habilitation, Assisted Living, housing, and homeless service providers). This included both email and phone invitations to a representative group of participants in April and May 2017. A total of 49 members of the public and employers completed the questionnaire. This includes 32 participants who identified as members of the public, and 17 who identified as employers or organizations.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 4-9 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
A summary of the results from both the employer and the consumer questionnaires, including highlights, metadata, and a tabulation of the full results by question is available in the Technical Appendix. Overall, employers provided useful feedback. When employers were asked what kind of transportation-related issues employees face, examples of some of their comments include the following: “Some clients do not have vehicles and cannot access Transit Link rides when they need them. Low income clients cannot afford car repairs so will drive cars when they are not safe to be driving.” “Our clients use Metro Mobility, although if a bus services was available, 2 or more would be willing to use public transportation.” “Clients with disabilities often struggle with transportation. Metro Mobility is not always reliable.” “Situations vary, but could have to do with not being able to drive (such as age), distance, time, do not own a vehicle, locations not connected to trails or sidewalk systems.” “I work with Veterans with barriers and often times those barriers are transportation. Some Veterans have driver’s license issues and use their service connected disabilities for transportation with Metropolitan Transit. When it does not go into Washington County it makes it hard for my clients to meet or travel to possible job opportunities.” “Some students cannot attend classes because we don't offer transportation in their location (outside of school district) or we don't offer it at a convenient time.” In an open-ended question, employers were asked: What public transportation services or improvements would best serve your organization? Common suggestions were reliable evening and late-night transportation services, a bus stop near commercial and manufacturing areas, and public transportation that does not only connect people within Washington County, but across county boundaries and even state lines. Consumers also made valuable comments. Among the input provided were the following comments: “I want more options. I don't always want to use Transit Link.” “I would like to see more bus service. It would be nice if Transit Link had more availability (longer hours, weekend hours). I would use the bus to medical appointments versus taxi (if Newport had more bus service) because the Taxi has left me in NSP [North St. Paul] without picking me up again.” “The very last thing this county needs is more sidewalks, cross walks etc.... This county needs more transportation options for the less fortunate, for years this county has limited opportunities for people to live in this county because of the lack of transportation. The question everyone should be asking themselves is: How would you be able to sustain employment or access services such as grocery store, department store or your children's school if your car broke down and you were unable to fix it or could not afford to replace the vehicle? Statistics have shown that majority of the people are just a paycheck away from being homeless; if family was unable to access alternative transportation they would lose their job and most likely end up homeless moving to a different county which would cause additional barriers as well as maintain housing and/or employment. Washington County used to have much more busing options in the 80's. What happened to that?”
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 4-10 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
“I work for the Stillwater Senior Center. Many of the residents of Stillwater area would like to attend our programs, but are unable due to the lack of transportation. These are active seniors, but no longer own a car or drive.” Community Meetings The purpose of the meetings was to target both general travelers and traditionally transit- dependent populations (e.g., older adults, people with disabilities and lower-income families, etc.) in a conversation about transportation needs, existing transportation options, and preferences for transportation improvement strategies. In total, there were eight meetings with approximately 240 people engaged. A summary of the meetings conducted is shown in Figure 4-4. Figure 4-4 Community Meeting Summary Approx. No. of Name Date Participants Target Populations 1 Boutwells Landing, Oak Park Wed, Jul 12 40 Older adults Heights 2 Valley Friendship Club, Oak Park Fri, Jul 14 20 People with disabilities Heights 3 Hardwood Creek Library, Forest Tues, Jul 18 30 General public Lake 4 Family Pathways Food Shelf, Forest Thurs, Jul 20 20 Lower income families & Lake individuals 5 Community Dinner at St. Andrew’s Thurs, Jul 27 20 Lower income families & Lutheran Church, Mahtomedi individuals, general public 6 Senior Citizen’s Day at the Wed, Aug 2 65 Older adults, general Washington County Fair, Stillwater public 7 WIC Clinic, Cottage Grove Mon, Aug 21 10 Lower income families & individuals 8 Newport Transit Station (MN State Thurs, Aug 31 35 General public Fair Park and Ride)
Meetings were conducted in a “pop-up” style: the project team staffed a table, provided information about the study, and engaged passersby in conversation and two activities. In the first activity, people were asked about their existing travel mode. Participants were presented with a board that asked, “How do you travel where you want to go?” and instructed to place a ‘dot’ sticker under each applicable heading: Drive myself Get a ride from friends or family Walk or bike Regularly scheduled bus service Pre-scheduled curb-to-curb service (Transit Link or Metro Mobility) Private bus or van
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 4-11 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
In the second activity, people were asked to prioritize among different types of transportation service options. Participants were presented with a board that asked, “How should Washington County prioritize transportation system improvements?” and were instructed to a place ‘dot’ sticker along a spectrum (high, medium, low, or not a priority) to indicate how they would prioritize the following: Pre-scheduled curb-to-curb service (Transit Link or Metro Mobility) Vanpool Taxi, Uber, or Lyft or another for-hire service Better options for walking and biking Regularly scheduled bus service Other Staff incentivized people to participate in activities and conversation by offering games, healthy snacks, and small toys. They also took notes on the conversations they had about participants’ transportation needs.
Outcomes Key points and outcomes from the community meetings are summarized by theme: Centralized and Easy-to-Access Information Both transit users and non-users emphasized a lack of readily available information regarding transportation services. Participants expressed a need for better and more centralized information on existing transit services. Some people were generally aware that services exist, but were unaware of how to use them or where to look for more information. There was no consensus with regard to how people would prefer to get their information. Some people said they would like the information available at a central place on the internet while others want the information to be available in print. Still others said they would like to be able to call and ask for the information. New and Expanded Regularly Scheduled Service (Bus Routes) Participants at all of the events discussed a preference for better geographic coverage and improved frequency of regularly scheduled bus services. Many people requested that regularly scheduled bus service be expanded to include more trips, including during non-commute midday hours, evening, and weekends. Participants prioritized regularly scheduled bus services over other transportation system improvements. Improvements to Prescheduled, Curb-to-Curb Service Participants at several meetings said pre-scheduled transit options must become more reliable, more affordable, and should serve an extended geographic area (compared with where they currently operate). They also said times at which the pre- scheduled services operate should include evenings and weekends. Many people commented that pick-up and drop-off windows and vehicle travel times are prohibitively long for their needs. Parents and guardians of people with disabilities said that those in their care experience difficulties getting to and from work, and they desire more transportation
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 4-12 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
independence. They were most focused on improving reliability and affordability of pre-scheduled services. Preferences for Walking and Biking Participants at several meetings indicated that they prefer either not to walk or bike or are unable to walk or bike very far. Many of these participants were older adults or people with disabilities. People who walk and bike generally like dedicated walking and biking facilities and hope to see more of those facilities in Washington County. Private Transportation Services are Well Used Some of the larger senior living communities in Washington County offer private bus and van transportation to their residents and employees. Private transportation service is used by people at the senior living communities for daily shopping needs, medical services appointments, and recreation, and by employees to get to and from work. For-Hire Service and Ride Sharing Many people expressed support for expanding taxi and ride-hailing services such as Uber and Lyft throughout Washington County, especially for trips not well served by existing transportation options. Many low-income individuals and families said they rely on a network of ridesharing with family and friends to get places they need to go. Both the people who give the rides and the people who receive the rides said that more regularly scheduled transit is needed to supplement their formal or informal ridesharing.
Activity Results The “existing mode of travel” and “transportation system improvement priorities” activities, as described above, had mixed success, with many participants choosing to engage in informal conversation with study team representatives rather than participate in the activity. As a result, the activity outcomes are not fully reflective of the comments received. For example, several residents of one senior community acknowledged using private buses to get where they need to go, but many of these people did not place a sticker under private bus or van on the dot activity. Subsequently, “private bus or van” usage is likely higher than what is indicated in the activity results. The figures below show the combined results of the “existing travel mode” and “transportation system improvement” activities. The largest group of participants drive to get where they need to go. Many people get a ride from friends and family, or walk and bike. Very few reported using existing transportation services (e.g., regularly scheduled bus, pre-scheduled service, or private transportation).
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 4-13 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Figure 4-5 Existing Mode of Travel: Overall
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Drive Myself Get a ride from Walk or bike Regularly Pre-scheduled Private bus friends or family Scheduled Bus service or van
Participants most often ranked regularly scheduled bus service as a high priority for potential transportation system improvements in Washington County. Improvements to pre-scheduled service was also a high priority, followed by better options for walking and biking, and for-hire services. Interest in prioritizing vanpool services was lower than the other options presented. Figure 4-6 Transportation System Improvement Priorities: Overall
40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Pre-scheduled Van Pool For-hire service Better options for Regularly service walking and biking scheduled bus
High Medium Low None
CONCLUSION The purpose of stakeholder and public engagement was to connect with a diverse range of stakeholders and community members and to develop a general understanding of community attitudes towards transportation issues. Overall input was thoughtful and useful in the evaluation process. Stakeholders offered a wide array of ideas and suggestions about Washington County’s transportation future. Community members were happy to be asked to share their opinions. A key message from this participant
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 4-14 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
engagement process was that transportation investments must focus on expanding services for those with limited options, including older adults, individuals with disabilities, youth, low-income residents, and Veterans. Strategies that focus on coordination-based solutions are critical for Washington County, because stakeholders acknowledge there is little funding for new transportation services.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 4-15 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
This page intentionally left blank
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 4-16 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
BEST PRACTICES Most of this report focuses on Washington County’s internal factors: travel demands, demographics, and existing transportation providers. To gauge how other regions with characteristics similar to Washington County addressed travel demands, this chapter looks externally to examples of specialized transportation programs and mobility management efforts. Mobility management is a broad term that is used to cover a number of activities, including comprehensive coordination efforts at the city, county, or regional level. Mobility managers can be individuals who help customers identify transportation options and plan trips, or entities that have a wider range of responsibilities aimed at improving coordination among transportation programs and services across a specified jurisdiction. Typical areas of focus include identifying the most appropriate provider for an individual’s trip, facilitating access to that provider’s services, and developing a family of services to meet the widest possible range of transportation needs. Examples of best practices are presented in this report to acquaint stakeholders in Washington County with approaches that are considered successful in other parts of the country for coordinating and managing transportation services. METHODOLOGY A variety of transit service approaches exist for addressing local transportation needs, including fixed bus routes and their variations in communities with higher densities of people and jobs, demand-response services, and complementary services such as volunteer driver programs and voucher programs to provide subsidized rides. This best practices review aimed to identify a manageable number of successful examples of the following types of services: Fixed routes following a set schedule and route Circulator routes that provide direct connections between neighborhoods and key destinations Destination-specific routes and group trips that focus on key destinations and rider groups Deviated or flexible services that combine a regular schedule (either stops or timepoints) and possibly a regular route; deviations off-route can be scheduled on-demand or in advance Demand-response service that offers scheduled in advance, door-to-door or curb-to-curb shared rides Same-day or on-demand demand-response services Voucher programs that provide subsidized rides provided by public, private, or volunteer drivers (recruited by rider) Stand-alone, organized volunteer programs
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 5-1 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Subsidies provided to riders for services like Uber or Lyft The review also sought to find practices that are in use in areas that are similar to Washington County in terms of total populations (257,900), contain communities similar in size to the more populated Washington County communities such as Cottage Grove, Forest Lake, Stillwater, and Woodbury, or both. Best practices were also selected to illustrate a range of operating environments: Suburban portion of a large urban area Small urban communities Rural communities BEST PRACTICE EXAMPLES The best practices examples described below illustrate the following approaches to addressing transportation needs: SouthWest Transit—a comprehensive local transit system, including several service types (express fixed routes that provide some local circulation and on-demand service for the general public) DARTS LOOP—local circulator routes for the general public and flex services and a more limited span of days and hours of service Pomona Valley Transportation Authority—a number of service types in cities the size of several Washington County communities, including shared-ride taxi for the general public scheduled in advance or with same-day service for older adults and individuals with disabilities, and a volunteer driver program. Lake County, Illinois—primarily demand-response services provided in a county that is part of a large urbanized area that includes small urban, suburban, and rural communities Tompkins County and South Central New York Mobility Management— mobility management services and activities coordinated in one instance by a county department and in another by a nonprofit organization SouthWest Transit: Chaska, Chanhassen, and Eden Prairie, MN The communities of Chaska (Carver County), Chanhassen (Carver and Hennepin Counties), and Eden Prairie (Hennepin County) withdrew from the Metropolitan Transit Commission in 1986 and formed SouthWest Metro Transit through a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA). Services are now provided under contract to the City of Carver. The SouthWest Transit Commission, composed of one elected official and one appointed individual from each city plus one appointed rider representative, provides policy guidance and oversight. Total population of this service area is 113,049. Chaska and Chanhassen are comparable to Forest Lake in terms of population; Eden Prairie is similar in size to Woodbury. SouthWest Transit (SWT) provides commuter bus service and an innovative on-demand, shared-ride, demand- response service for the general public known as SW Prime, which serves part of Shakopee as well as the other three communities. Fixed-route service is operated by First Transit. Regional Transit Link service (like the service in Washington County) is also available throughout the SouthWest Transit service area.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 5-2 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
SW Prime operates on weekdays from 6:30 AM to 6:00 PM. Using the SWT website, a smartphone, or a landline, riders request trips and are notified when the trip is assigned to a vehicle. Estimated vehicle arrival times are provided when the trip request is placed. The one-way fare for the general public is $3.00. Transfers between the three SW Prime zones are free of charge; transfers to SWT bus routes cost $1.00. In 2016, SW Prime service provided 25% of the total revenue hours for SouthWest Transit but at $470,000 only represented 4% of the agency’s operating costs. The average subsidy per passenger was $6.50. Due to growth in ridership, operating costs in 2017 are expected to be approximately $750,000. DARTS: Hastings, West St. Paul, and South St. Paul, MN DARTS is a nonprofit organization that offers programs and services for older adults, including transportation. Local circulator routes known as LOOP services operate in the communities of Hastings, West St. Paul, and South St. Paul. Open to the general public, the routes offer scheduled stops at key residential, shopping, medical, and community destinations. Door-to-door service is available on request. Service operates one day a week in each community in the morning and early afternoon. LOOP fare is $5 for unlimited rides throughout the day. Pomona Valley Transportation Authority (PVTA) PVTA coordinates and oversees transportation services for the cities of Pomona, Claremont, La Verne, and San Dimas, CA. These cities are all between Stillwater and Cottage Grove in terms of population. PVTA’s services include the Get About demand-response service and the Community Connections volunteer driver program for older adults and individuals with disabilities in all four cities. Get About offers door-to-door service on weekdays and weekends for a fare of $1.00. Same-day service is available from Get About Ready Now during the same days and hours of service for a fare of $4.50. Get About One Step Over the Line, also available on weekdays and weekends, provides trips for people with disabilities to a neighboring county for a fare that ranges from $2.50 to $12.00. Shared-ride taxi service for the general public is available in Claremont (Claremont Dial-A-Ride) and San Dimas (San Dimas Dial-A-Cab). Group van service is also available as part of Claremont Dial-A-Ride. In Claremont, service is available Monday through Saturday, and 24/7 for older adults and individuals with disabilities, at a fare of $2.50-$4.00. In San Dimas, service is available 24/7. PVTA collaborates with Community Senior Services to offer volunteer rides for older adults and individuals with disabilities. Community Senior Services handles user registration. Riders identify their own drivers, who are reimbursed for mileage through the program. Lake County, Illinois Division of Transportation Lake County, with a population of 703,462, is located northwest of Chicago and is part of the urbanized area. As such, it receives commuter rail service, express bus service, some local bus routes, and ADA paratransit service from the region’s commuter rail and suburban bus providers, Metra and Pace. Yet most Lake County communities are small urban, suburban, and rural in nature.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 5-3 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Many municipal demand-response services are available to meet local travel needs. Groups of those communities in several parts of the county have joined to provide coordinated services in an effort to reduce service overlaps and serve needs more efficiently. Ride Lake County Central covers Fremont, Libertyville, and Shields Townships and the Villages of Libertyville and Mundelein. Curb-to-curb service is available for residents aged 60 and over and individuals with disabilities on weekdays from 5:30 AM to 6:45 PM. Service is provided within member communities and to specific medical, shopping, and education destinations outside of that area. The fare for a trip under 10 miles is $3.00; for a trip over 10 miles, the fare is $6.00. Ride Lake County West provides service in Antioch, Grant, Lake Villa, Avon, Wauconda, and Fremont Townships (Fremont is part of both Ride Lake County West and Ride Lake County Central). Days and hours of service and fares are the same as those of Ride Lake County Central. However, service is open to the public and a reduced fare of $3.00 for older adults and individuals with disabilities is available. Both systems contract with Pace for operation of service and a coordinated call center. Pace in turn contracts with First Transit for service and call center operation. Mobility Management in Minnesota Two county-focused mobility management programs in the Twin Cities metro area are described below.
Dakota County Dakota County, population 417,486, is located adjacent to the southwest portion of Washington County. Dakota County is also part of the transit-taxing district and receives a level of transit service similar to that in Washington County—some Metro Transit fixed bus routes and Metro Mobility service, and Transit Link, plus fixed route service in four communities provided by the Minnesota Valley Transit Authority. Human service agencies provide some transportation services, but stakeholders in a recent human service transportation coordination study reported a number of geographic and temporal service gaps.18 One of the recommendations of the human service transportation coordination study was the creation of a group to move coordination forward. In 2015, the county and a variety of stakeholder partners formed the Dakota County Transportation Coordinating Collaborative (DCTCC). The goals of the DCTCC include improving transportation for older adults, individuals with disabilities, and individuals with lower incomes in the county, and pursuing coordination of transportation services as a means of improving access for all residents to services and activities. The county, on behalf of the DCTCC, applied to MnDOT for section 5310 funding to support a transportation coordinator position and the activities of the DCTCC, and received a $160,000 grant. The fulltime Transportation Coordinator was hired in 2015, and is part of the Community Services Administration in the Community Services Division. Work of the Transportation Coordinator and the DCTCC in 2016 included DCTCC meetings, planning and research, and initial work on a pilot travel training program. In 2016, the collaborative continued its research by completing two surveys to identify service gaps and
18 Dakota County Human Services Research and Transportation Planning: Strategic Action Plan, Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, March 2014.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 5-4 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
opportunities for coordination and refine target populations, implemented the travel-training pilot, and began planning for a vehicle sharing initiative. Youth age 14-22 with a disability and older adults were identified as key target populations.
Scott and Carver Counties Scott and Carver counties, located to the west of Dakota County, have populations of 143,680 and 100,262, respectively. Mobility management efforts in these two counties, which have been working together since 2009, focus on a one-call/one-click center. The two counties formed a joint demand-response service, SmartLink Transit, in 2009 to provide trips for the general public (Dial-A-Ride) and human service agencies. (MVTA provides express fixed-route service between several Scott County communities and downtown Minneapolis.) State legislation that changed the administration of non-emergency medical transportation (NEMT) to a county-based system was the impetus for the creation of the one-call/one-click center, known as SmartLink Mobility Management, to centralize requests and scheduling for Dial-A-Ride, human service agency clients, and NEMT trips. Trips with volunteer drivers are also offered. Trips may be provided by SmartLink or contracted service providers. Call takers identify the most appropriate and cost-effective provider for each trip. Vehicle schedules are prepared using SmartLink’s scheduling system (Trapeze). A data warehouse was created to automate the production of driver manifests, reporting, and tracking of trips by funding source. New software was developed to connect the SmartLink trip database with the two counties’ accounting systems to facilitate more timely and accurate billing. SmartLink is currently planning an expansion of Dial-A-Ride service and provision of volunteer trips to reduce trip denials. Plans for contracted on-demand service are also under development. Scott and Carver counties receive Section 5310 funding through MnDOT to support a coordination group and a mobility manager. User and provider groups have also been formed to discuss service and coordination issues. County transportation sales tax revenues are a major funding source. Mobility Management in Upstate New York A number of counties in upstate New York have developed mobility management programs. As described above, mobility management is a broad term that is used to cover a number of activities, including comprehensive coordination efforts at the city, county, or regional level. Mobility managers can be individuals who help customers identify transportation options and plan trips, or entities that have a wider range of responsibilities aimed at improving coordination among transportation programs and services across a specified jurisdiction. Two mobility management efforts are described below.
Tompkins County Tompkins County, population 101,564, is located in New York’s Finger Lakes region and includes the City of Ithaca. Mobility management is coordinated by the Tompkins County Department of Social Services (DSS). A chief transportation planner acts as the mobility manager. Key partners include Cornell University, the Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council (the area’s MPO), and Tompkins Consolidate Area Transit (TCAT), the county’s public transit system.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 5-5 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Way2Go Program DSS utilizes the Way2Go program to administer many of its mobility management strategies, including: A one-call/one-click transportation repository to connect transportation providers, information services and support functions in an integrated system that allows individuals to conveniently find transportation information and support A car share membership program through Zimride, called the Tompkins Rideshare Program, that has 19,000 enrolled users and partners with 100 employers in the region A program to pay for taxi rides or car share to transport clients to job interviews Additionally, DSS oversees a volunteer driver program that connects people with transportation options to regional medical centers An employer education program and partnerships with employers to reduce transportation as a barrier to employment Transportation outreach activities at Cornell University, that include community education, implementation of a rideshare program and a carshare program A program to educate older adults about transportation resources and ensure safe travel Travel training to ensure that older adults and individuals with disabilities who can are able to use fixed route services Transportation for School Success works with school districts to promote awareness and use of transportation strategies Regional mobility manager outreach to support coordinated transportation education and marketing across counties in upstate NY to reduce regional transportation needs Mobility Management of South Central New York (MMSCNY) Mobility management services for five counties in South Central New York are provided through the Rural Health Network of South Central New York (RHNSCNY), a nonprofit organization. The total population of Broome, Tioga, Delaware, Chenango, and Otsego Counties is 407, 897. Broome County is the largest partner, with a population of 197, 349 and the City of Binghamton; other counties are primarily rural in nature with small urban communities in some. MMSCNY’s mobility management services include: GetThere call center, which is staffed by mobility and transportation advocates to provide information about transportation options and assist callers with trip planning Connection to Care, which identifies and facilitates the most cost-effective means of trips to medical facilities for older adults, individuals with disabilities, and individuals with lower incomes. Rides are provided through volunteer drivers, fuel cards, bus passes, and taxis. New pilot transportation voucher program for Medicaid recipients’ non-medical trips Partners include a robust group of 20 local and seven regional public, private, and nonprofit organizations. PROGRAM OVERVIEW AND COMPARISON Figure 5-1 summarizes key characteristics about each of these best practice examples.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 5-6 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Governance/Administration Both public and nonprofit organizations are represented in Figure 5-1, showing that there are a number of ways to structure local transportation services. SouthWest Transit and PVTA are joint efforts by groups of cities to develop and implement the type and level of transportation services that best complement or replace transit services that are available in their areas. SouthWest Transit is governed by a formal JPA between its three member cities, while PVTA’s services are provided as a result of a less formal agreement among its four member cities. Both organizations receive guidance and oversight from a board composed of representatives of their members. DARTS and RHNSCNY are nonprofit organizations that have missions that are broader than transportation, but provide transportation, mobility management services, or both that benefit not only their own clients, but also residents of the community at large. Both organizations are guided by a Board of Directors that includes representatives of community organizations. Two counties are included in the best practices list: Lake County, Illinois and Tompkins County, New York. The Lake County Division of Transportation (DOT) performs a number of administrative and coordination functions for the municipalities that provide demand-response services for their residents, either as part of the two coordinated systems or individually. Lake County DOT: Applies for Section 5310 funds from the Regional Transportation Authority for the coordinated systems Represents Lake County on the RTA’s Section 5310 advisory committee Handles grant reporting and billing to the regional service provider (Pace Suburban Bus) Disseminates public information about available demand-response services in the county Provides staff assistance to the Lake County Coordinated Transportation Services Committee Facilitates payment of Lake County’s contribution of funds to match Section 5310 grants
Tompkins County is the lead agency in the county’s mobility management program. Through a mobility manager housed in the Department of Social Services, the county develops and implements mobility management services, recruits partner organizations, applies for and administers grants from a wide variety of sources, provides leadership to the Mobility Management Network of New York, and facilitates Tompkins County’s contributions to the mobility management program. Coordination and Partnerships Regardless of administrative structure and lead agency, partnerships with other organizations are important to the success of each of these transportation systems. Partner organizations serve on advisory boards, administer programs and services, and contribute funding to the systems. Partners include: Local human service organizations—public and nonprofit—whose areas or populations of focus include older adults, individuals with disabilities, people with lower incomes, and health care, employment, funding, and community services of all types Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs)
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 5-7 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Local transit authorities Local governments—counties and municipalities Employers Universities Transportation Services The types of transportation services provided by these best practice systems include: Local fixed-route services and flexible services that include door-to-door deviations on request Express commuter services to large urbanized areas Demand-response services, either for the general public or specific user groups, such as older adults or individuals with disabilities Transportation voucher or subsidized taxi programs Volunteer driver programs Mobility management programs and services The levels of service available from these systems represent a range of options. SouthWest Transit operates a comprehensive local transit system. DARTS offers more limited fixed route services together with demand-response services. Lake County coordinates extensive traditional demand- response services. PVTA coordinates several types of shared-ride and demand-response services and volunteer rides. Dakota County mobility management activities focus on travel training and developing a vehicle sharing initiative. Scott and Carver counties operate demand-response services and administer a volunteer driver program, and centralize transportation information, trip reservations and scheduling, reporting, and billing. Tompkins County and the Mobility Management of South Central New York provide mobility management services that include some of the types of services available in other areas, as well as centralized transportation information. Costs and Funding Annual costs for each system are shown in Figure 5-1. These range as high as $3 million for PVTA’s Get About services. Funding sources are numerous and varied. Primary sources include the FTA Section 5310 and 5311 programs; state, regional, or local sales tax revenues; state transit operating assistance; contributions from county and municipal general funds; contributions from local transit systems; and contributions from private and nonprofit partner organizations. Section 5310 is a primary funding source for mobility management activities, including the hiring of staff to coordinate programs and services and serve as mobility specialists. Ridership Annual ridership numbers for those systems that operate services are also shown in Figure 5-1.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 5-8 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Figure 5-1 Summary of Best Practices Examples for Washington County
Organization Program or Service Service Area Population and Lead Agency/ Name and Community Administrative Days/Hours of Estimated Annual Location Type Structure Name Type of Service Eligible Users Service One-way Fare Operating Costs Primary Funding Sources Annual Riders Notes SouthWest Transit 109,325 SouthWest Transit SW Prime On-demand General public Weekdays $3.00 $470,000 MN Motor Vehicle Sales 56,250-62,500 SouthWest Transit also Commission formed by 6:30 AM - 6:00 PM Tax operates commuter bus three communities Regional Allocated MVST service to Minneapolis and Chaska, (Chaska, through Joint Powers Fares local circulator routes Chanhassen, and Chanhassen, Eden Suburban/ Agreement in 1986, after Contract service revenues Eden Prairie, MN Prairie, Carver, and small urban opting out of Metropolitan Advertising revenues parts of Shakopee) Transit Commission services
DARTS 62,088 Private non-profit LOOP Local circulator fixed routes General public One day a week on $5 for unlimited Section 5310 for vehicle Scheduled stops at key organization primarily each LOOP, rides all day purchases residential and community serving older adults operating in destinations; door-to-door Hastings, West St. Suburban/ morning and early service available on Paul, South St. Paul small urban afternoon hours request. DARTS also offers group trips and individual demand-response rides. Pomona Valley 256,680 Voluntary agreement Dial-A-Ride and Shared-ride taxi General public Weekdays 6:00 AM $2.50-$4.00 $450,000 Proposition A local sales 47,000 Claremont Transportation between four cities; Dial-A-Cab - 7:00 PM Claremont tax revenues from four Authority (PVTA)1 Board of Directors Claremont DAR also Sat 7:00 AM - 6:00 cities 26,000 San Dimas (Claremont and San includes two Dimas) includes group van service PM $350,000 San FTA Section 5310 for representatives from each 24/7 for older Dimas capital and mobility Claremont, city adults, individuals management expenses Pomona, LaVerne, with disabilities and and San Dimas, CA, Suburban/ in San Dimas east of Los Angeles small urban Get About Door-to-door service (in Older adults Weekdays 6:30 AM $1.00 $2.95 M 138,000 Get About advance and same-day) and individuals - 7:30 PM $4.50 Get About Ready Now with disabilities Sat 8:30 AM - 5:00 $2.50-$12.00 same-day service
PM Get About One Step Over Sun 7:30 AM - 5:00 the Line for out-of-county PM trips Community Volunteer driver program Older adults 24/7 $.40-$.52/mile PVTA 72,000 - 84,000 in Riders identify their own Connections and individuals About $5/trip Los Angeles County MTA 16 cities in 2 volunteer drivers with disabilities OmniTrans counties Valley Transportation Services Community Senior Services Section 5317
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 5-9 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Organization Program or Service Service Area Population and Lead Agency/ Name and Community Administrative Days/Hours of Estimated Annual Location Type Structure Name Type of Service Eligible Users Service One-way Fare Operating Costs Primary Funding Sources Annual Riders Notes Lake County, IL 703,462 Lake County Division of Ride Lake County Demand-response Residents age Weekdays 5:30 AM $3.00 < 10 miles Section 5310 Pace, the Chicago Division of Transportation Central 60 and older, - 6:45 PM $4.00 > 10 miles Lake County general funds metropolitan area's transit Transportation coordinates with individuals with General funds from agency, also provides fixed (3 townships, 2 municipalities. villages, plus key disabilities municipalities route, ADA paratransit, Municipalities contract Pace Suburban Bus other local Dial-A-Ride, and Outside Chicago medical, shopping, Small urban with service provider and education flexible services in Lake
Suburban (Pace). destinations) County Rural Lake County Coordinated Transportation Services Ride Lake County Demand-response General public Weekdays 5:30 AM $3.00 < 10 miles for Section 5310 Committee (LCCTSC) West - 6:45 PM seniors, disabled Lake County general funds provides coordination, (6 townships plus $4.00 < 10 miles General funds from .guidance and facilitation key medical, general public municipalities shopping, and $6.00 > 10 miles Pace Suburban Bus education destinations) Dakota County, 413,486 Dakota County Dakota County Mobility management Older adults, NA NA $160,000 Section 5310 MN Transportation Transportation Travel training individuals with Coordinator provides Coordinating disabilities, Vehicle sharing (under support to Dakota County Collaborative individuals with development) Suburban Transportation lower incomes Small urban Coordinating Rural Collaborative
Scott and Carver 143,680 SmartLink Mobility Joint transportation Mobility management General public, Weekdays 6:00 AM Dial-A-Ride $2.25- $336,817 Section 5310 Counties, MN 100,262 Management service and mobility Centralized call center human service - 9:00 PM $6.75 County transportation sales management agency clients, Centralized scheduling, Weekends 7:30 AM ADA $2 - $3 tax revenues activities provided NEMT reporting, and billing - 4:00 PM Group trips $2.25 - by two counties customers Volunteer driver program $4.50 per person
Tompkins County, 101,564 County Dept. of Social Way2Go Mobility management: General public NA NA $790,150 Section 5307 NA County contribution of NY Services houses mobility One-call/one-click center, includes demand- Section 5310 $104,000 leverages funding manager travel training, carshare, response and Section 5311 from many other sources
Ithaca-Thompkins County voucher program for job volunteer ride FHWA flex funds through In NY's Finger Small urban Transportation Council interviews, outreach and subsidies MPO Lakes region, Rural (ITCTC) and Cornell education, Cornell Tompkins County includes City of University are partners University TDM services Ithaca
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 5-10 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Organization Program or Service Service Area Population and Lead Agency/ Name and Community Administrative Days/Hours of Estimated Annual Location Type Structure Name Type of Service Eligible Users Service One-way Fare Operating Costs Primary Funding Sources Annual Riders Notes Rural Health 407,897 RHNSCNY houses Mobility Mobility management: General public Call center in NA Section 5310 Network of South Mobility Manager Management of GetThere call center, operation weekdays Section 5311 Central NY Local and regional South Central New Mobility and Transportation 7:00 AM - 6:00 PM NYSDOT State Operating
(RHNSCNY) partners include over 25 York Advocates, trip planning, Assistance public, nonprofit, and information and referral, NYS Office of Rural Health Small urban private organizations travel training, education Robert C. Smith Foundation Broome, Tioga, Rural and outreach , Connection Tioga County Delaware, to Care United Health Services Chenango, and Hospitals Otsego counties in United Way of Delaware south central NY; and Otsego Counties includes cities of County contributions Binghamton and Cooperstown
1PVTA is a mobility manager that coordinates providers and funders, develops and implements programs and services, and uses 5310 funds to provide the mobility management services.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 5-11 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
This page intentionally left blank
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 5-12 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIES FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY
INTRODUCTION Washington County faces several challenges in achieving an efficient and cost-effective public transportation network. The county has suburban and rural populations. Many cities serve as bedroom communities for Minneapolis and Saint Paul, while also containing important local trip generators such as shopping centers, schools, hospitals, community centers, government services, manufacturing facilities, and job sites. The demographic data illustrates that traditionally transit- dependent markets are not concentrated wholly in the more urban areas with better access to transit: older adults, individuals with disabilities, Veterans, low-income households and non- English speakers can be found throughout the county, suggesting the need for a comprehensive approach to mobility in the county that addresses these population clusters in urban, suburban, and rural contexts.
According to the Metropolitan Council’s population projections, the countywide population is expected to grow from 251,000 residents in 2017 to 330,000 residents by 2040 (more than 30% increase). The population of Washington County is also aging, and the percentage of older adults countywide is expected to reach 19% by 2050 (compared to 13.4% today). New transportation services should account for this overall population growth, as well as the specific mobility needs of a growing older adult population.
The first five chapters of this report provide background information for the development of alternatives for Washington County. Key considerations in assessing alternatives are described in the following sections. Existing Service Coverage Washington County’s existing transit service illustrates a somewhat piecemeal approach to providing services to individuals with specialized needs, with much of the service provided by
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6-1 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
private, nonprofit and for-profit transportation operators and human service agencies, and organizations seeking to address their clients’ needs. As a result, there is also a great deal of duplication of service. x Most communities have no regular fixed-route bus service. Only thirteen of the thirty- three cities and townships within Washington County are served by fixed commuter routes. Nearly one-quarter (24%) of Washington County residents work within the county, yet there are no local fixed-route circulator services within or between Washington County communities. x Washington County has limited fixed-route transit service compared to services in Ramsey or Hennepin County and some of the other suburban counties. Existing fixed- route services are generally restricted to peak commute periods, with routes between Minneapolis-Saint Paul and key cities such as Cottage Grove, Mahtomedi, Stillwater, Oak Park Heights, Forest Lake, and Maplewood. Thus, regularly scheduled transit services are not available to meet transit demands in most of Washington County’s cities and towns. However, Washington County is also less dense than many communities in other parts of the metropolitan area, which limits the feasibility of fixed-route transit solutions. x Demand-response services such as Metro Mobility and Transit Link help to fill some of gaps left by limited fixed-route services. However, these options are not available or convenient for all Washington County residents. x Transit Link struggles with capacity constraints and has to turn away riders. Although a review of 2016 data found some months where trip requests in Washington County were denied as much as 9% of the time, 2017 data shows very few denials during summer month with winter and spring months averaging a 4% to 6% overall denial rate due to capacity limitations. x Long travel times and advanced scheduling requirements make demand-response services a challenge for many residents’ daily travel needs. The result is that Washington County has an unreliable transit safety net that cannot meet many travel demands, including daily commutes. x A lack of weekend service on Metro Transit and Transit Link limits mobility for individuals seeing access to recreation, training, and certain jobs both within and outside of Washington County. x Human service agencies and nonprofit organizations often provide or sponsor transportation services such as shuttles, non-emergency medical transportation, and dial- a-ride services. However, these programs are often limited to specific groups (e.g., older adults and individuals with disabilities) or trip purposes (e.g., rides to a medical facility). x Lack of coordination between these disparate services means that residents may not have comprehensive information to help them understand eligibility requirements, fares, payment methods, and eligible trip types and destinations. The Role of Transit in Washington County Stakeholders overwhelmingly acknowledged that the purpose of transit in Washington County should be to serve the markets with the greatest need. New services designed to lure drivers out of their cars would not meet the intent of this study: investments should be made that target people without other transportation options.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6-2 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Existing public transit investment in Washington County by Metro Transit specifically targets commuters, including those who drive to a park-and-ride lot to ride to jobs outside of the county. While this service design approach focuses on offering the most productive services (highest passengers per hour) on fixed-route buses, the investment does little to address the priorities identified by stakeholders. It will be appropriate for Washington County to identify policy-level priorities for how its limited resources should be invested in transit services. Transportation Needs Demands exist for transportation throughout the county and to locations elsewhere in the metro areas. Based on stakeholder feedback, key destinations that Washington County residents need to access on a regular basis include: Hospitals and clinics Veterans Administration (VA) medical facilities Community centers, recreation, and shopping Schools and colleges Government services Employment centers Commute trips to work are particularly challenging for low-income Washington County residents. Individuals with disabilities in particular lack accessible services transportation to and from worksites. Employment opportunities for individuals with disabilities are dispersed throughout the county, making it difficult to provide access through traditional fixed-route services. Potential solutions include accessible employment or subscription routes that could provide a combination of fixed-route and flexible commute services, employer support of specialized services for employees, volunteer carpools, etc. One of the challenges in Washington County is that some employment centers are not necessarily in areas that are convenient to serve by transit, including manufacturing jobs along the St. Croix and Mississippi rivers. Job openings exist in warehousing, shipping, and manufacturing positions that have a mix of work shifts and are often in facilities that offer employees ample free parking. For employers in Washington County, nearly one-half of their workforce lives within the county limits, while the rest of their employment base is in Ramsey, Dakota, St. Croix, and other nearby counties. Providing reliable access to local jobs is a key concern for major employers, as well as city and county officials. Opportunities for Coordination The various transportation providers in Washington County tend to focus on specific markets, and there are few avenues for information sharing, comingling riders, or developing other approaches to providing services that are more efficient. Opportunities for coordination exist within Washington County, and some mobility management approaches may be effective to address the challenges related to limited coordination. The eventual implementation of strategies, depending on the preferred approaches, may require consensus-building and extensive coordination, and the acknowledgement that some responsibilities for providing certain types of transportation services in Washington County could be shifted to other or new entities to better serve the needs of the local and regional populations.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6-3 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
The case studies included in Chapter 5 illustrate other approaches that have been taken to address similar needs in other communities. STRATEGIES FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY The project team identified 26 transportation service alternatives that could potentially address the various mobility needs of Washington County residents. The list of alternatives was refined to a set of 14 strategies after review and input from staff, stakeholders, and the general public. The remainder of this chapter focuses on defining and evaluating alternatives, all of which could be appropriate for implementation in Washington County. These include transit service strategies, employer-supported strategies, personal mobility strategies, and mobility management strategies. Figure 6-1 shows a list of needs identified in the first phase of the project, along with potential alternatives to address these needs, which are discussed in this chapter. Based on the evaluation and feedback from Washington County staff, elected officials, and stakeholders, implementation considerations are discussed in Chapter 7.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6-4 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Figure 6-1 Summary of Primary Needs, Potential Alternatives, and Primary Beneficiaries of Addressing the Needs
Primary Needs Identified Alternatives to Address Identified Needs PrimaryPrimary Beneficiaries Employer-Supported Transit Strategies Personal Strategies Mobility Management Strategies UsersUsers O Organizationsrganizations Strategies
y s
s
s
Hailing
s
- encie
g Public Agencies A -County s/ -Specific -Specific -A-Ride -A-Ride Demand Bus Demand Bus abilitie - encie s lder Adult i onprofits/ Human itie vc. ow Income ow Service or Van Service General Public Dial Community Circulator Express Bus/Park & Ride Service Enhancements Intra Service On Vanpool Site Shuttle bus Subscription services Carpool Active Transportation Alternatives Accessible Infrastructure Investments Trip brokerage Driver Volunteer Program Taxi Subsidized or Ride Travel navigation/ and Information referral OlderO Adults with with People People Disabilities D Low IncomeL PrivatePrivate Industry Industr Human Nonprofits/ N Svc. S Cities/PublicC Agencies Ag Service Quality Gaps (of existing transportation providers) Reduced time to travel on vehicle ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Guaranteed trips; reduced service denials ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Accessible bus stops/accessible path of access to bus ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● stops Affordable transportation services ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Transportation options ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Better and more reliable information and referral ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Spatial Gaps (service not provided where it is needed) Service to entry-level job sites/major retail centers ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Limited coverage of existing Metro fixed-route services ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Lack of circulation for local trips within a community (e.g., ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● within Stillwater) Scheduled service to major employers in Washington ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● County Limited accessible/pedestrian/bicycle infrastructure ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Service to dialysis clinics ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Service to major medical facilities and Veterans facilities ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Service from Washington County to Twin Cities ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Temporal Gaps (service not provided when it is needed) Weekend service not provided on Transit Link ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Service during various shift times (e.g., graveyard) ● ● ● ● ● ● Midday bidirectional express bus service ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Nighttime service (after 7:00 p.m.) ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Same day service (reserve and take a trip the same day) ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Organizational Gaps Single place for consumers and/or agencies to get ● ● ● ● ● ● ● transportation information Dedicated staffing for transportation in Washington County ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Local accountability and involvement in prioritizing transit ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● investment
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6-5 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
This page intentionally left blank
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6-6 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
EVALUATION OF STRATEGIES Criteria for Evaluating Potential Service Strategies The alternatives were subject to an evaluation and prioritization process that considered (1) transportation benefits, (2) community support, (3) financial feasibility, and (4) implementation feasibility. Evaluation criteria were developed with input from key stakeholders and Washington County staff.
1. Transportation Benefits The Transportation Benefits criterion is based on the following: Beneficiaries served among Older Adults, People with Disabilities and Individuals and Households with Low Incomes (measured at 185% of the federal poverty level). This factor looks at the number of individuals likely to be served, and is based on the findings of the demographic analysis conducted during the first phase of the study. Problems solved. This factor considers the number of gaps addressed, based on the analysis of existing transportation services that identifies areas with service limitations. These findings are also verified by stakeholders, employers and members of the public, and collected via the stakeholder forum and from comment forms. Needs addressed. This factor considers how well the stated needs are addressed, based on the input from stakeholders, employers and members of the public, and collected via the stakeholder interviews, public outreach efforts, the stakeholder forums and from comment forms. Ease of use. This factor reflects that some alternatives are a better fit for the ridership markets being targeted. It considers the characteristics of the strategy and the complexity of making a trip. Growth potential. This factor reflects that some services have the potential to expand to new markets and can offer additional benefits though service enhancements. Ratings for this criterion reflect the following:
Moderate number Large number of Small number of of residents benefit residents benefit residents benefit Some problems Addresses multiple Few problems solved solved concerns May be more complex Addresses multiple Easy to use Addresses one concern concerns Growth potential
1 2 3 4 5
TRANSPORTATION BENEFITS CRITERION
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6-7 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
2. Community Support The Community Support criterion uses the following as the basis for evaluation: Community support. This factor reflects the level of support for various alternatives among Washington County residents, based on feedback from stakeholders (interviews and the stakeholder forums), community outreach events, and comments collected via the electronic comment form. Public interest. This factor looks at the level of interest among members of the public to apply this strategy to address the identified needs. It is based on feedback from stakeholders, comments at community outreach events, and comments collected via the electronic comment form. Interest does not always match support: while the public has an interest in a robust transit system in the county, many community members support smaller scale efforts to target the needs in this study. Community funding. This factor considers the potential for new locally generated funding. Some cities and stakeholders said they would consider funding certain types of strategies that benefit their constituents, clients, etc. with support from Washington County. It is based on feedback from stakeholders, as well as comments collected via the employer comment form. Accepted by the target populations. Public interest and community support for some strategies may differ from the priorities of the target populations. This factor balances the willingness of the target markets to use the strategy with general public interest or community support. It is based on best practices that consider patronage levels of various strategies in other communities, as well as input from stakeholder meetings, community forum, comment forms, Washington County Board of Commissioners input, and the study’s Technical Advisory Committee.
For this criterion, the following ratings were applied:
High community Little community Moderate community support, public support, public support, public interest, or interest, or interest, or acceptance acceptance by target acceptance by target by target populations populations populations Limited prospects for Modest prospects for Best prospects for community funding community funding community funding
1 2 3 4 5
COMMUNITY SUPPORT CRITERION
3. Financial The Financial criterion is based on overall costs and costs per beneficiary of the strategy. The following serve as the basis for evaluation: Overall cost. This factor looks at projected costs for the strategies, relying on data from peers, the Metropolitan Council, and Metro Transit. Cost per beneficiary. This factor balances overall cost with cost-effectiveness, in terms of cost per beneficiary, making general assumptions about costs on a per-user basis. It is
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6-8 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
based on existing costs, information from peers, and current unit costs of services operated by the Metropolitan Council and Metro Transit. Funding availability and sustainability. This broad factor considers the likelihood of existing public funding for ongoing operation of the strategy, and is based on operating and capital cost assumptions, Metropolitan Council funding priorities, and the potential for funding services (see Chapter 8).
For this criterion, the following ratings were applied:
Medium cost to implement Low cost to Highest cost to High cost to ($100K-$200K) implement Lowest cost to implement (>$750K) implement ($50K-$100K) implement (<$50K) ($200K-$750K) Moderate cost Highest cost per per beneficiary Low cost per Lowest cost per High cost per beneficiary beneficary beneficiary Moderate beneficary Lowest likelihood of Low likelihood of likelihood of High likelihood Highest likelihood of public funding public funding public funding of public funding public funding
1 2 3 4 5
FINANCIAL CRITERION
4. Implementation The Implementation criterion is based on the following: Implementation timeframe. This factor considers the length of time it may take to implement the strategy, based on data from peers, proposed program characteristics, and potential leadership capacity within Washington County. Complexity of implementation. A strategy with multiple players, a lack of existing service in place, or few potential service providers may require high upfront investment, and may come with sensitivities that are more political. This factor considers this, based on information from peers, the Metropolitan Council, Metro Transit, and Washington County staff. Coordination. Strategies that invite higher levels of coordination are more likely to maximize existing resources, serve more markets, and ensure partnerships are in place to implement the strategy. This factor considers the potential for coordination, based on feedback from stakeholders, likely lead and support agencies, and staffing potential at Washington County.
For this criterion, the following ratings were applied:
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6-9 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Short term (1-3 years) Longer term for effective to initate fully or implementation (5+ Medium term (3-5 capable of being years) years) for effective implemented in stages May require high implementation Low complexity upfront investment or Modest complexity Potential for complex systems Modest coordination increases Lowest coordination coordination likelihood of potential potential implementation
1 2 3 4 5
IMPLEMENTATION CRITERION
Alternatives Evaluation Summary Each of the alternatives was reviewed based on the evaluation criteria. Figure 6-2 summarizes the evaluation process and shows the compatibility of each service alternative with regard to the Metropolitan Council’s designated Transit Market Area classifications, as described in Chapter 3. See Figure 3-7 for a map of the corresponding Transit Market Areas. A low number (1 or 2, red or orange) indicates that the strategy receives a lower ranking; a higher number (4 or 5, chartreuse or green) indicates that a strategy receives a higher ranking. A number in the middle (3, yellow) means that strategy may not be ideal, but could be successful under certain circumstances, and therefore receives a medium ranking. These medium rankings also suggest that the strategy could potentially be implemented longer term because it may require baseline data, improved coordination, a longer lead time, or additional funding to be successful. It should be noted that the lowest ranking strategies are those deemed not appropriate for implementation in Washington County at this time due to high overall costs or cost per beneficiary, limited public support, or complexity of implementation. They could, however, be appropriate strategies in the future. It is important to bear in mind that transit services can evolve along with the communities they serve. As an example, a vanpool program that is constrained by its own success can be converted into a subscription bus service. Conversely, a fixed-route bus service that is failing to meet ridership goals could be transformed into a route deviation service (also known as a flexible route) to widen its coverage area. Some strategies require supportive infrastructure such as bus stops, park-and-ride lots, crosswalks, paved sidewalks, or signals. The strategies in this report are designed to be implementable in the near-term, and to provide opportunities for expansion or growth in the future.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6-10 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Figure 6-2 Evaluation of Alternatives to Address Washington County Transit Needs
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6-11 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Evaluation of Alternatives to Address Washington County Transit Needs (Continued)
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6-12 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Evaluation of Alternatives to Address Washington County Transit Needs (Continued)
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6-13 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
This page intentionally left blank
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6-14 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
TRANSIT SERVICE STRATEGIES These strategies focus on providing new or expanded transit services for the general public — operating buses or other vehicles to pick up and drop off individuals, either along routes or following a demand-response model.19 GENERAL PURPOSE DIAL-A-RIDE Increase Use of Demand Response Service Community Older Adults 5 Support 5 Overall Score People with 4.2 5 Financial 2 (Tier 1) Disabilities Low Income 5 Implementation 3
Concept Dial-a-ride is a shared, curb-to-curb transportation service and is available to either the general public or is eligibility based. Both of these options are currently operating in Washington County. Complementary Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) paratransit is not addressed in this section since new fixed-route services are unlikely to be implemented in most Washington County communities and existing Metro Mobility service is operated to comply with ADA regulations. Overview Demand-response services, such as general public dial-a-ride, are public transportation services that provide rides based on passenger requests. Passengers schedule their trip in advance and travel between pre- determined, requested locations. Dial-a-ride services are frequently successful in suburban and rural areas where demand is too low to justify fixed-route services (regular bus services that operate along a route on a specific schedule). Given the relative low density and the lack of adequate fixed-route transit coverage through most of Washington County, dial-a-ride service is a good fit for much of the county and this is why the Metropolitan Council provides Transit Link demand-response service in Washington County. In dial-a-ride service, vehicle routing is determined entirely or primarily in response to passenger requests. Typically, passengers may request to be picked up from and taken to any location within the defined service area. Dial-a-ride services are called “door-to-door” if drivers assist passengers
19 Summary tables in this section include addition information about headways, vehicle requirements, and revenues that are not included in later sections.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6-15 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
between vehicles and the front door of pickup and drop-off locations; otherwise, the service is called “curb-to-curb.” In a large dial-a-ride system, with multiple vehicles operating throughout a large service area, trips must be requested through a call center where vehicles are scheduled and dispatched, as is currently the case with the Transit Link. Service areas may be designed to serve local trips, although provision can be made for intercity and inter-county trips on an exception basis. In smaller settings, it is common to have a single vehicle providing dial-a-ride service with all requests received and scheduled by the driver. Expanding dial-a-ride services in Washington County means expanding the capacity of the service to improve availability and reliability, which will address the transportation demands expressed by individuals with low incomes, older adults, and people with disabilities, as well as the general public. Expanded demand-response service will support the most transit-dependent residents and create a safety net for members of the community, especially for people traveling occasionally, but will still not easily support ongoing and regular needs, such as commute trips. Background and Need Several justifications exist for the expansion of dial-a-ride service in Washington County. According to project stakeholders, many Transit Link riders in Washington County currently experience a lack of reliable availability, the need for advance planning, and long travel times, all of which limit the service’s effectiveness for daily commuting or other regularly scheduled trips. Community feedback collected as part of this study indicates that riders in Washington County report high trip denial rates. The Metropolitan Council increased investment in Transit Link in 2016 to help address capacity issues throughout the metro area.20 As a result, capacity denials have been reduced to about 5% of trip requests. Furthermore, the Metropolitan Council has expanded service in select areas. For example, the Metropolitan Council recently collaborated with Ramsey County Workforce Solutions and the airport to add three new Transit Link buses in service between 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. to serve people working at the airport.21 Similar service expansions or partnerships could be implemented to meet demand in Washington County. Needs Addressed by Strategy Dial-a-ride services provide a very basic level of mobility coverage, usually in low-density environments with dispersed destinations. Dial-a-ride services allow for coverage of a large geographic area. Development of this strategy may lead to reduced travel times, fewer service denials, an expansion of affordable transportation, and better service options. Expected Benefits Provides service throughout county or within specific sections of the county Operates in Washington County as Transit Link and Metro Mobility (for ADA-eligible individuals) services
20 2016 Unified Budget, Metropolitan Council, Adopted December 9, 2015. Page C-5. 21 Committee Report Business Item No. 2017-116, Metropolitan Council Transportation Committee, June 14, 2017. Page 1.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6-16 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Provides local and regional door-to-door travel to destinations within Washington County; allows connections to services outside of Washington County Facilitates a connection to social services and other programs for people who need it most Meets basic mobility needs of transit-dependent members of the community and lays the foundation for a community-based transportation network Supports other human service and health agencies by helping them find transportation for their clients and patients Potential Obstacles Service needs lead agency to operate Transit Link may not expand in Washington County Funding formula for cities and county to share in the cost of the service needed for a new service Vehicles and support equipment plus capital funds may be required to pay for these investments Program managers must work to sustain the interest of stakeholders to ensure that the service is valued by the broader community Dial-a-ride trips provide a high level of service to individuals that need it, but are expensive services to provide, especially in terms of cost per trip. The high cost of dial-a- ride service (the 2015 cost per rider in the metropolitan area was $17 for Transit Link and $28 for Metro Mobility)22 may eventually require managing demand, especially for people who do not need a higher level of service and particularly if other services are introduced in Washington County. Operating Characteristics and Outcomes Dial-a-ride service is highly personalized. Once consumers understand how to make reservations and standing appointments, this service can be particularly valuable for people without other transportation options. Critical decisions for a dial-a-ride service include the size of the area to be served, how far in advance requests will be taken, whether requests will be phoned directly to the driver (which could be appropriate for a very small operation) or through a dispatcher, and whether unscheduled boardings will be allowed at a transfer point with a fixed-route service. A large service area may generate high levels of demand, but also limits the number of trips that can reliably be served with each vehicle, since each trip is likely to be longer than in a smaller service area. Estimated Costs Expanding dial-a-ride service in Washington County would require both capital and operating expenses. Capital expenses include the purchase of vehicles, information technology equipment, and dispatcher software, among other costs. Operating expenses would include driver wages and
22 2016 Transit Report: A Guide to Minnesota’s Public Transit Systems, Minnesota Department of Transportation, February 2016. Page 124.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6-17 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
a dispatcher to take trip requests, schedule rides, and coordinate with the driver on the road. Vehicles also need to be cleaned and maintained. In order to expand the existing services in Washington County, additional vehicles will need to be placed into operation. Transit Link service is currently operating at or near capacity within Washington County, and any changes to improve service availability will require additional vehicles and staff. Annual operating costs for three to six vehicles operating during current Transit Link service hours are projected at $580,000 to $1.46 million. If the service were to be operated (using a third-party contractor) by Washington County, a .5 full-time equivalent (FTE) would be required to manage the contract, market the service, and manage the funding at an additional cost of approximately $45,000. Figure 6-3 Summary of General Purpose Dial-a-Ride Scenario
Early Implementation Full Implementation Opportunities Elements (Within 1-3 Years) (Within 3-5 Years) (Longer Term or Phase 2) Service Design Curb-to-curb, shared ride Additional vehicles, expanded service based on pre- service area, longer service scheduled trips. hours. Service Hours Currently, Transit Link Longer hours: from about Service could begin operating operates from about 6:00 AM 6:00 AM to 8:00 PM on at 4:30 AM and end operations to 7:00 PM on weekdays. weekdays and weekends. after 10:00 PM on weekdays and operate on weekends, too. Headways N/A N/A N/A Vehicle Generally smaller vehicles Need for additional vehicles Requirements (typically up to 27-foot buses). will depend on service expansion. Annual Operating $60-$75 per hour, based on With a similar range of Will depend on service Costs (estimated) current operating costs for hourly costs, 3 to 6 expansion. Metro Mobility and Transit vehicles operating longer Link. For an additional 3 to 6 weekday service hours vehicles operating weekdays and 8 daily weekend only, annual operating costs, hours would cost including administrative costs, approximately $775,000 are assumed at $580,000 to to $1.94 million. Capital $1.46 million. Capital costs will costs will depend on need depend on need for vehicle for vehicle acquisition. acquisition. Annual Farebox Farebox revenues will vary Farebox revenues Will depend on service Revenues depending on level of service. between $100,000 and expansion. (estimated) Based on current Transit Link $200,000. farebox recovery of 12.7%, incremental revenues would range from $73,000 to $185,000. An increased fare (planned for Transit Link in October 2017) may result in increased revenues.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6-18 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Early Implementation Full Implementation Opportunities Elements (Within 1-3 Years) (Within 3-5 Years) (Longer Term or Phase 2) Annual Ridership Annual ridership will vary Increased ridership Will depend on service (estimated) depending on level of service. ranges from 34,000 to expansion. Under these scenarios, 70,000. assuming efficient operation of the service in accordance with current Transit Link performance, 2.7 passengers per hour, increased ridership ranges from 26,000 to 52,000. Administrative Metropolitan Council, Additional jurisdictions or a Responsibility Washington County, a city in consolidated single Washington County, or a administrative agency. nonprofit organization or human service provider.
COMMUNITY CIRCULATOR Local Transit for Shopping, Commuting and Participating in Community Activities Community Older Adults 5 5 Support Overall Score People with 4.3 5 Financial 3 (Tier 1) Disabilities Low Income 5 Implementation 3
Concept Community shuttles can be fixed-route or demand-response services in urban, suburban, or rural communities that provide a lifeline operation, operating a minimum of 1 to 3 days a week, and preferably more often. This was among the services most frequently identified by stakeholders to fill gaps in Washington County where local services do not exist. Overview A community shuttle is typically a small passenger bus or van that connects important community destinations, either travelling within the community or linking the community with a key destination. Traditional fixed-route service is designed to serve population and activity centers along set corridors and with a pre-set schedule, and provides ADA-compliant services. However, the effectiveness of fixed-route service can be somewhat limited in low-density suburban environments or very small communities, as residents are often not within reasonable walking distance of major arterials, and retail and activity centers are designed with large parking lots separating the destination from the adjacent roadway (e.g., Tamarack Village in Woodbury).
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6-19 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
A route-deviation service could provide a viable alternative to fixed-route bus service in Stillwater, Woodbury, and other communities that are designated as Transit Market Areas III and IV. Such a service would operate along a designated route, but buses can leave the route upon request to pick up a passenger within certain parameters, and then return to the point of deviation so that no stops are missed. Stops could be widely spaced in some areas to allow deviations to occur between particular stops. Route deviation service combines the accessibility features of dial-a-ride service with the scheduled reliability of fixed-route service, and is thus able to attract commuters and other users who would not generally consider dial-a-ride service. Background and Need Community circulators address the need for local circulation as identified by stakeholders. Data in Chapter 2 shows high levels of potential transit demand in some Washington County cities that are not currently served by fixed routes. Metro Transit has implemented community circulators in the past that, according to staff, have not met regional performance standards. Although local circulators in Washington County would ideally have a unique set of performance standards, this is challenging under the regional Metropolitan Council umbrella standards. However, small urban transit providers outside the metro area, many of which are similar in size to some of Washington County’s cities, average eight passengers per hour.23 This suggests that a different set of standards could be appropriate for community circulators operating in Washington County compared to other parts of the Metro Transit service area. Needs Addressed by Strategy Few transportation options are available for people with limited mobility. There is demand for a low-cost to consumer option where transit is not readily available. Expected Benefits Offers a low-cost option to address some transportation needs Provides service linking major activity centers, including, retail stores, medical facilities and social service agencies Increases traveler independence Reduces demand for paratransit and demand response services in some instances Potential Obstacles Secure funds for capital, administrative, and operating expenses Need to develop service, implementation and marketing plan Challenge to develop specific local routes
23 2015 Transit Report, Minnesota Department of Transportation Office of Transit, Operating Statistics, Page 126.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6-20 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Operating Characteristics and Outcomes A route deviation service operates along a specific path. A bus may deviate up to ½ mile or more from the fixed route on some systems before returning to the route to continue the service. Route deviation service could also allow the vehicle to follow a regular route and then deviate to any number of locations within an allotted period at specific locations/the route terminus. It is expected that any new deviated routes in Washington County cities would be available to the general public, and could deviate for the general public, although some systems deviate only for eligible riders, usually people with disabilities, youth, or older adults, and some systems charge higher fares for route deviations. An alternative to a deviated flex route is a point deviation service, which operates within a defined service area and incorporates a series of designated locations (such as key landmarks) where the bus will arrive at designated times. However, the bus can circulate along any streets between those stops to pick up riders who have requested door-to-door service. Point deviation services in small cities are usually able to operate at a productivity level that exceeds dial-a-ride productivity, and have the added benefit of being able to serve a subset of the ridership in front of their homes and destinations. One variation on this alternative would be that while there are designated stops in the area, the bus would only travel to specific stops upon request of a general public rider (walk-on riders can only get off at certain locations); if the request is made by an individual who is ADA-eligible, then the driver would take that person to their destination. Trip requests can be either to a call center or directly to a driver’s cell phone. For a deviated service in any of Washington County’s cities, expectations are that the service should carry at least five passengers per hour, which reflects the Metropolitan Council’s minimum for a small bus fixed-route service, with a short-term goal of achieving an average of 7 to 10 or more passengers per hour. In portions of Stillwater, Mahtomedi, Woodbury, and Cottage Grove, ridership greater than five passengers per hour may be anticipated, based on transit demand estimates. For comparative purposes, the Metro Transit’s standard for a large-bus fixed-route service is 20 passengers per hour. To be cost-effective, general public flex or deviated services may operate at 60-minute headways during off-peak hours (ideally 30 minutes or better during peak commute hours), and all services may be increased to 30-minute headways or better if ridership growth occurs and additional funding becomes available. A baseline sample service assumes operations from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on at least three weekdays, with the potential for limited evening, nighttime, and weekend service. General public service in most communities would likely require as few as two vehicles, depending on the comprehensiveness of service implementation. Estimated Costs Operating costs — including administrative, fuel, and labor costs— are likely to range between $60 and $110 per hour, based on existing costs for transportation providers in the metro area. Total annual operating costs will vary depending on the level of service implemented, but a few examples to illustrate the range of costs can be provided. For example, two vehicles operating 12 hours on weekdays, 8 hours Saturday and 6 hours Sunday might cost between $440,000 and
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6-21 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
$815,000, whereas a larger operation with five vehicles could cost as much as $2 million annually. If the service were to be operated (using a third-party contractor) by a city within Washington County, up to .5 FTE may be required at the local level to manage the operation, market the service, and oversee the funding at an additional cost of approximately $40,000. Figure 6-4 Summary of Community Circulator Scenario
Early Implementation Full Implementation Opportunities Elements (Within 1-3 Years) (Within 3-5 Years) (Longer Term or Phase 2) Service Design Flex routes - deviated services Additional vehicles, expanded developed in Washington service area, longer service County cities hours Service Hours 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM, a Expanded hours - 6:00 Service could begin as early minimum of three days per AM to 6:00 PM Monday as 4:30 AM to allow for week in selected cities. through Friday, reduced connections to express bus Ideally, services would be hours on Saturday and services, and end operations available all weekdays and Sunday; later evening after 10:00 PM on weekdays some weekend hours. hours could be provided if and operate on weekends, too. appropriate. Service hours will ultimately depend on ridership during earlier implementation phases. Headways 30-60 minutes, depending on 15-30 minutes, depending 15-30 minutes, depending on run times on run times run times Vehicle 2-5 in most small cities (or Need for additional vehicles Requirements groupings of adjacent cities) will depend on service expansion. Annual Operating Will depend on service level With a similar range of Will depend on service Costs (estimated) implemented. For a weekday- hourly costs, 2 to 5 expansion. only service operating two vehicles operating longer hours per day with two weekday service hours vehicles at approximately and 8 hours on weekends $60/hour, costs range from would range from $220,000 (3 days) to $516,000 to $2.36 million. $360,000 (5 days). Full weekly Capital costs will depend service (7 days) is estimated on need for more at $445,000 to $2.04 million. vehicles. Depending on city and provider, hourly costs range from $60 to $110.
Annual Farebox Will depend on service level Will depend on service Revenues implemented. General public expansion. (estimated) one-way fares on similar services can cost around $1.50+. Annual Ridership Will depend on service level Will depend on service (estimated) implemented. expansion.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6-22 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Early Implementation Full Implementation Opportunities Elements (Within 1-3 Years) (Within 3-5 Years) (Longer Term or Phase 2) Administrative Cities that undertake this Additional jurisdictions or a Responsibility service would have primary consolidated single administrative responsibility. administrative agency. Washington County would have key role in coordinating services. Day-to-day operations could be led by a human service provider or turnkey contractor.
EXPRESS BUS/PARK-AND-RIDE SERVICE ENHANCEMENTS Expanded Express Bus Service and a Midday Trip Option Community Older Adults 2 3 Support Overall Score People with 2.7 3 Financial 2 (Tier 3) Disabilities Low Income 4 Implementation 2
Concept Express bus/park-and-ride service is a nonstop or very limited-stop commuter service that operates in heavily traveled, congested corridors. This strategy generally provides a compelling alternative to private automobile travel. In Washington County, express bus service is currently provided by Metro Transit on limited corridors for commute hours only. Overview Express bus service is a tool used to facilitate transit travel between suburban areas and urban centers and to reduce congestion. Express bus service currently serves select park-and-ride lots in Washington County and offers a time-sensitive commute. While there are many benefits to express bus service as a strategy, it would meet only a small subset of travel demands for older adults and people with low incomes. However, enhancements to these services could create additional opportunities for these groups. For example, expanding service times beyond peak commute hours could better serve reverse-commute workers (people who travel into Washington County from Ramsey County and elsewhere for work) and those who need transportation for appointments or other non-work-related needs. Express or limited-stop service is designed to serve key regional destinations only, rather than to provide broad coverage and many local stops. This service type works best where there are other complementary services such as local routes or circulators to provide access within a single area in addition to a commuter link between two places. Furthermore, route modifications could attract additional riders by transferring the focus from park-and-ride lots. Express bus service allows residents to travel between nearby communities to
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6-23 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
access retail, educational, healthcare, or employment opportunities that may not be available in each of Washington County’s cities. In most cases, enhancements to express bus service that currently operates only during peak periods would mean additional regional travel opportunities along the existing established transit routes. Background and Need Transit service between Washington County and other metro area destinations is limited. Stakeholders — particularly those representing Veterans and employees traveling for work outside of Washington County — expressed strong demand for service to Saint Paul, Minneapolis, and other key activity centers. Given the suburban and rural nature of Washington County, express bus service is a reasonable solution for members of the general public, but has been limited in meeting the needs of this study’s target populations, namely older adults, people with disabilities, and low-income individuals. Investment in midday services and structuring express routes so that they not only serve existing park-and-ride facilities but also urban parking lots and denser, lower income communities can help to address some of the limitations of the existing express bus services. Needs Addressed by Strategy This service provides for a reduced commuting cost compared to driving alone, especially for long commutes. There is potential for significant timesavings where HOV lanes are available. This service could provide for regional travel outside of Washington County to destinations in the Twin Cities. Expected Benefits Enhances commuting alternatives for Washington County residents Allows travelers to go shopping or doctor’s appointment when midday link is available and does not require a full day in Saint Paul or elsewhere in the Twin Cities Supplements existing resources and services Increases traveler independence Potential Obstacles Funds must be secured for additional administrative and operating expenses Mechanism for purchase of services from Metro Transit for additional operations not readily available Service, implementation, and marketing plan must be developed Operating Characteristics and Outcomes Traditional express bus services offer nonstop or limited stop service between a suburban or small urban park-and-ride facility and a major regional employment destination. However, they require individuals to have access to park-and-ride facilities. This can be challenging for low-income residents, older adults, and people with disabilities, many of whom would not have automobile
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6-24 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
access to reach a park-and-ride facility. With implementation of local circulator service in select cities, however, more Washington County residents could have access to the express bus system. This strategy has long-term potential to provide better regional transit links between Washington County and other locations in the metro area. Providing additional express bus routes is not a cost-effective solution for meeting the needs identified by stakeholders. However, small-scale improvements to existing routes could possibly improve their utility for older adults and individuals with low-incomes. These improvements could include adding a midday run (that is extensively promoted) to allow for non-work-related travel or off-peak period commutes. Transit agency staff can also evaluate options for modifying existing routes to add local circulation at the end of the route with additional stops adjacent to areas with greater levels of demand for transit, as is done by Metro Transit in Stillwater and Oak Park Heights on Express Bus Route 294. Any improvement to express bus routes would need to be paired with other strategies to for our target populations to use the service. Estimated Costs Adding midday trips on just three routes, weekdays only, could cost as much as $370,000. Expansion of existing routes would incur additional costs.
Figure 6-5 Summary of Express Bus/Park-and-Ride Service Enhancements
Early Implementation Full Implementation Opportunities Elements (Within 1-3 Years) (Within 3-5 Years) (Longer Term or Phase 2) Service Design Addition of a midday trip on Expansion of express Further expansion; potential existing express routes routes to provide for additional midday express operated by Metro Transit. additional runs, earlier bus runs. Implementation of and later based on user METRO Gold Line may needs. address some of the needs identified in the short term. Service Hours Additional midday trip 5:30 AM to 9:00 AM and To be determined based on 3:30 PM to 7:00 PM expansion needs. Monday through Friday Headways N/A 45-60 minutes during To be determined based on peak hours. expansion needs. Vehicle 3 1-2 depending on route Need for additional vehicles Requirements requirements. will depend on service expansion. Annual Operating Approximately $370,000 for Will depend on service Will depend on service Costs (estimated) one midday trip on three expansion. expansion. express routes serving Washington County, at an hourly cost of $210.
Annual Farebox $65,000. Will depend on Will depend on service Will depend on service level Revenues selected route and fare policy level implemented. implemented. (estimated) for midday trips.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6-25 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Early Implementation Full Implementation Opportunities Elements (Within 1-3 Years) (Within 3-5 Years) (Longer Term or Phase 2) Annual Ridership 26,000 riders on additional Will depend on service (estimated) services. expansion.
Administrative Metro Transit, Washington Same Responsibility County
SCHEDULED INTRA-COUNTY BUS SERVICE New Scheduled Bus Routes Community Older Adults 3 5 Support Overall Score People with 2.8 3 Financial 1 (Tier 3) Disabilities Low Income 4 Implementation 1
Concept
A new network of bus routes within Washington County would provide reliable, regularly scheduled bus service, which is not currently provided in most of the county. These could be operated as fixed or deviated routes to meet local mobility needs and connect to regional networks. Overview Most of the population centers in the Twin Cities region are served by regular bus routes, typically operating as fixed routes (following a predetermined route and operating at a regular schedule). In lower-density communities throughout Minnesota, local and regional bus services operate as both fixed routes and deviated routes, often to eliminate a requirement for a separate ADA complement to the fixed route service. Intra-county bus service refers to the expansion of the existing bus routes that operate on the western side of Washington County, adding routes or extending services to adjacent cities and across the county to serve other population centers. Intra-county bus service would be the available to the general public and would operate with consistent schedules and operating hours. Many of the intra-county routes would provide connections between cities, operating at relatively high speeds and using direct routes, which may offer limited stops in rural areas. Stops are typically provided in urbanized areas and/or at locations where passengers can transfer to other services. In some cases where no connecting service is available, the service can deviate within a predetermined flex area within range of an established bus stop to provide service to passengers who request it.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6-26 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Background and Need By implementing this strategy, Washington County would effectively be prioritizing transit investment throughout the county, highlighting the value of regularly scheduled transit service as a t0ol to link the cities whose general populations are currently served only by Transit Link. Intra-county service would provide a connection for residents who desire a reliable, scheduled option for regional travel: it allows for a commute, or travel from one city to another to go to the doctor or purchase specialized goods or services not available in their own community. Currently, Metro Transit operates only a few fixed-route services on the western edge of Washington County, leaving approximately 90% of the county’s geography without all-day fixed- route bus service. Stakeholders prioritized all-day bus routes in Washington County in discussions and stakeholder forums, and it is common for regional bus services to operate in counties like Washington. For example, to the north in rural Chisago and Isanti counties, Heartland Express, the public transit provider operates regional deviated routes that serve most of the populated areas in the two-county system. This type of operation may serve the demands of residents in Washington County. Needs Addressed by Strategy Provides reliable, regularly scheduled intercity service within Washington County where it does not exist today Affords same-day travel without advanced reservations or scheduling (except in event of a deviation) Expected Benefits Increases traveler independence Provide consistent and reliable service with scheduled departures and arrivals Attracts commute-oriented travel demand Addresses basic mobility needs of transit-dependent population Provides connections to major ridership generators Flexible service to provide curbside pick-ups and drop-offs when needed Potential Obstacles Funds must be secured for administrative and operating expenses Mechanism for purchase of services from Metro Transit for additional operations not readily available May be challenging to provide a reliable and consistent schedule, especially with deviations Official bus stops and amenities (some capital costs) will need to be planned and sighted May not achieve Metro Transit ridership standards given existing lack of service between these cities
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6-27 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Operating Characteristics and Outcomes It is assumed that in the short term, intra-county bus service would likely operate on weekdays only, with scheduled services based on passenger demand. A baseline service hours minimum is recommended at 10 hours, but could be extended based on ridership. Headways should be scheduled to allow for connections to existing scheduled routes and longer term, to provide connections to the Gold Line. Costs savings may be generated by operating intra-county service initially as a supplement to the express services, but then extending the routes to provide better local circulation where community circulators are not present. An ADA-complementary demand-response service would not be required where Metro Mobility service already exists, and route deviations could be limited to communities where the ADA paratransit service is not available. The service(s) could be branded as Washington County-specific routes to attract new markets wishing to travel to locations around the county. Round trips between some cities may require long deadhead distances, which should be considered in operating the service. Implementation of intra-county bus routes may allow resources to be shifted away from Transit Link services in some corridors, using the new routes to serve current paratransit riders. In most cases, however, it should allow Transit Link to provide more of the curb-to-curb services it offers, allowing resources to be redirected to reduce denials and improve on-time performance. Estimated Costs Estimated costs depend on the level of service implemented, the corridors where service is provided, and the service provider (e.g., Metropolitan Council, Metro Transit, or another operator like Heartland Express). For a comparative estimate, four routes operating with two buses for 10 hours a day, weekdays only at an hourly cost of $75 (based on Metropolitan Council contracted hourly cost) would be approximately $1.5 million.
Figure 6-6 Summary of New Intra-County Bus Service
Early Implementation Full Implementation Opportunities Elements (Within 1-3 Years) (Within 3-5 Years) (Longer Term or Phase 2) Service Design Implement fixed or deviated- Expansion of routes as Further expansion route service to local service demand grows, destinations within implementation of new Washington County routes Service Hours Hourly service during Extended morning/ To be determined based on weekdays with more frequent evening service, extended expansion needs. service during peak commute midday service, weekend hours (morning and evening) service Headways 60 minutes off-peak, 30 30-60 minutes all day To be determined based on minutes peak expansion needs; some routes may be able to operate at 15- 20 minute frequencies. Vehicle To be determined based on To be determined based Need for additional vehicles Requirements planned routes. on planned routes. will depend on service expansion.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6-28 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Early Implementation Full Implementation Opportunities Elements (Within 1-3 Years) (Within 3-5 Years) (Longer Term or Phase 2) Annual Operating Approximately $385,000 for Will depend on service Will depend on service Costs (estimated) one route operated by two performance and performance and expansion. buses for 10 hours a day, expansion. weekdays only, at an hourly cost of $75 (based on Metropolitan Council contracted hourly cost). Four routes with these characteristics is approx. $1.5 million.
Annual Farebox Will depend on fares, routes Will depend on fares, Will depend on fares, routes Revenues and fare policy. routes and fare policy. and fare policy. (estimated) Annual Ridership For four routes, assumes Will depend on service Will depend on service (estimated) annual boardings of 100,000 expansion. expansion. to 185,000, based on minimum 5 passengers/hour standard to average 9 passengers/hour standard
Administrative Washington County in Same Responsibility cooperation with the Metropolitan Council, Metro Transit, or another service provider such as Heartland Express
ON-DEMAND BUS OR VAN SERVICE New Publicly Operated Same-Day Service in Specific Communities Community Older Adults 4 4 Support Overall Score People with 3.3 4 Financial 2 (Tier 2) Disabilities Low Income 4 Implementation 2
Concept
An on-demand bus or van service is a dedicated shared-ride public transit service that allows for same-day trip requests, typically for trip pickup and drop-off locations within a specified area. On-demand service often provides a local connection (sometimes called first- or last-mile service) to or from a regional transit hub, park-and-ride lot, or express bus route for trips beyond the dedicated service area, but can also be an effective way to serve local trips.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6-29 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Overview The purpose of this strategy is to address mobility needs in specific medium-density or small urban areas by offering shared-ride, curb-to-curb, demand-response service that is requested in real time or at short notice on the day of the trip within a specified service zone. Service is used for local trips within the service zone (or between multiple service zones) and for first- or last- mile connections to local or express bus services. Customers use a smartphone app, web-based interface, or a direct phone line to a dispatcher (or to the bus driver) to request a pick-up. Customers can also request a trip in person at a transit hub or transfer center. Trips may be requested in real time, as a taxi would be, or within specified limits on the day of the trip (such as no less than one hour in advance). Based on data from on-demand bus services in Carver and Hennepin Counties, as well as from the greater Chicago area, fares for this type of service are typically similar with fixed route bus fares in the service area. Transfers between service zones may be provided free of charge; transfers to a bus route are generally free or at a minimal cost. In Washington County, on-demand service could be overseen by a mobility manager (or other county staff) employed by the county and operated through a new service contract with an existing private provider. Alternatively, the service could be piloted by the Metropolitan Council and operated by one or more of its contractors. Background and Need Existing fixed route transit service in Washington County, due to low population density in many areas, is limited to thirteen communities. ADA paratransit service is available only for eligible riders, and operates alongside fixed-route transit services (excluding express bus) and in a limited number of communities in Washington County that do not have fixed-route services. Transit Link service operates throughout the county, but struggles with capacity limitations, and may not be available to connect residents with fixed-route services or to serve other local trips. Limitations in service affect Washington County residents’ ability to access jobs both within and outside of the county without driving. In addition, Washington County residents have voiced the need for local options for traveling to key destinations including hospitals and clinics, Veterans Administration (VA) medical facilities, community centers, recreation and shopping destinations, schools and colleges, government services, and employment centers. Ideally, on-demand service would serve communities in which express or local bus service already operates, such as Cottage Grove, Landfall, Mahtomedi, Newport, Woodbury, Lake Elmo, or Oak Park Heights. Connections to these services would allow residents to take full advantage of the existing transit network, in addition to meeting the demand for local trips within and between the specified service zones. On-demand service could also address local trip needs in higher-density communities where stakeholders have repeatedly identified transportation needs, such as Stillwater or Oakdale. Needs Addressed by Strategy Same-day service, origin-to-destination or to transit hub or transfer point within a specific area where mobility needs are not met by existing services.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6-30 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Target market is the general public, including job seekers and commuters, older adults, people with disabilities, Veterans, and other groups. Relatively direct travel compared to services operating countywide (e.g., Transit Link). Expected Benefits Increased mobility options in medium density areas for short-distance trips Improved connections to existing transit services for regional trips Added ability to reserve trips on day of travel, either in real-time or at relatively short notice Potential Obstacles Requires a new provider for Washington County or expansion of service approach for an existing provider Requires investment in technologies and communications equipment to allow for on- demand reservations and trip scheduling
Operating Characteristics and Outcomes Key elements of this program would include the following: Pilot program in one or more communities to test the service concept. Service in designated communities or service zones. Service zones could be individual communities or areas that include parts of multiple communities. Service could initially be provided on weekdays only, for 8 to 12 hours per day. Customers would request trips either in real time or at short notice (up to one hour in advance, for example) via a smartphone app, website, or phone call. Demand-response service reservations and scheduling software could group trips for shared-ride service. Fares could be similar to Metro Transit fixed route fares: $3.25 during peak hours and $2.50 during non-peak hours (based on new fares). Options for management and operation of the services include management by Metropolitan Council and operation by one or more of its service contractors or oversight by a mobility manager with the county or other staff and operation by a contracted service provider. Estimated Costs Annual operating costs would depend on the number of communities in which service is provided. Experience with publicly operated on-demand service in Carver and Hennepin counties and the greater Chicago area suggests that costs might range from $7 to $16 per passenger trip. This type of service could be operated by a transit agency or a contracted provider, at an estimated hourly operating cost of $50-$60. Operation of one vehicle to provide weekday service, 12 hours per day, in one community or service zone would cost approximately $153,000—183,600 annually, minus fare revenues.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6-31 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Figure 6-7 Summary of On-Demand Bus or Van Service
Opportunities Early Implementation (Within Full Implementation (Longer Term or Phase Elements 1-3 Years) (Within 3-5 Years) 2) Service Design Pilot service in one or more Implement service in Implement service in communities, such as Cottage additional communities additional communities Grove, Stillwater, Oakdale, or Woodbury Service Hours Weekdays, 6 AM – 6 PM Add Saturday service for local To be determined. trips. Headways N/A N/A N/A Vehicle 1-2 in most small cities (or Need for additional Requirements groupings of adjacent cities) vehicles will depend on service expansion. Annual Operating Total cost depends on number Expansion to three in-service Will depend on service Costs (estimated) of communities served. vehicles would cost between expansion. National/regional experience $450,000 and $550,000. suggests a cost of $8-16 per passenger trip. Hourly operating costs are likely to be $50-60. Service 12 hours per weekday using only one vehicle would cost roughly $153,000-$183,600 annually. Annual Farebox Will depend on ridership Will depend on service Revenues generated. General public one- expansion. (estimated) way fares would likely be $2.50-$3.25. Annual Ridership Will depend on service level Will depend on service (estimated) implemented. expansion. Administrative Washington County in Additional jurisdictions or Responsibility collaboration with Metro a consolidated single Transit and Metropolitan administrative agency. Council.
EMPLOYER-SUPPORTED STRATEGIES The following strategies are either led by employers (or major public or private organizations that attract consumers, students, or employees directly to their site), public-private collaboratives such as a Transportation Management Association (TMA), or by a public entity with significant involvement and support from private organizations.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6-32 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
VANPOOL Promote Metro Vanpool as a Cost-Effective Commute Strategy Community Older Adults 1 2 Support Overall Score People with 3.3 3 Financial 5 (Tier 2) Disabilities Low Income 4 Implementation 5
Concept
Vanpools offer ridesharing to commuters using a sponsored van. Vanpools are typically used for long-distance commutes, often to destinations outside of the county where they originate. Currently 70 active vanpools administered by the Metropolitan Council vanpool program (Metro Vanpool) originate in Washington County and another 20 operate through Washington County to Ramsey County and others counties in the metro area. Overview Metro Vanpool is subsidized by the Metropolitan Council. It is available to those who live or work in Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott, and Washington Counties. This regional program is intended to provide additional transportation options for those who do not live within close proximity to Metro Transit fixed route. Metro Vanpool provides 7-, 9-, 12-, or 15-person vans, depending on the needs of commuters and employers. Vans must carry a minimum of five people (including the driver) and must operate at least three days a week. Vanpool routes must not duplicate regular fixed routes (including bus, light rail, or the Northstar Commuter Rail Line). Moreover, subsidized vanpools are not permitted to arrive in downtown Saint Paul or downtown Minneapolis between 7-8:30 a.m., or depart between 3:30-5:30 p.m. The cost of participating in a vanpool is on-average $110 per month for each participant. Rates fluctuate depending on regularity, distance of trip, and number of participants. Vans are leased directly to the primary driver (a volunteer member of the vanpool), and the primary driver rides free in exchange for driving and coordinating services. Rideshare by Enterprise leases all vans and the service includes insurance, maintenance, repairs, and 24-hour roadside assistance. Background and Need Not all residents and employers in Washington County are aware of the Metro Vanpool program. Vanpool is especially attractive for residents who commute to other counties or to destinations across Washington County. Promoting Metro Vanpool and helping residents and employers navigate the program will help leverage this resource for Washington County residents. This strategy can also help county staff to build relationships with major employers and organizations, and would provide valuable data on commute needs Needs Addressed by Strategy Transportation option where no others may exist Commuting cost reduced compared to driving alone, especially for long commutes
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6-33 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Timesavings where lanes reserved for carpoolers or toll-payers, such as MnPass lanes, are available Expected Benefits Opens job markets to individuals with low incomes and others who are more likely to be transit dependent Provides opportunities for partnerships with employers to reduce costs in other county programs Increases cost effectiveness due to existing Metropolitan Council subsidies Expands opportunities for county’s role in coordinating vanpool program in the future Reduces transportation costs for Washington County residents Potential Obstacles Vanpools are most successful when they are operated through partnerships with employers or local agencies and organizations Metropolitan Council limits the type of vanpools that are eligible for subsidies (for example, vanpools must have 5 participants and operate 3 days or more per week)
Operating Characteristics and Outcomes The purpose of this strategy is to promote the existing Metro Vanpool program, and to help residents and employers in Washington County understand what it is and how they can benefit. Key elements of this program would include the following: Include detailed information on Metro Vanpool on a forthcoming countywide mobility management website Perform outreach to local employers to identify if their employees would benefit from a vanpool program Track any residents or employees who want to set up a vanpool but are not eligible for a subsidy under the Metropolitan Council’s guidelines Assist residents and employees who are interested in setting up a vanpool with navigating the program Work with local employers to establish a commuter benefits program to further subsidize vanpools (participating in the subsidized Metro Vanpool program costs on-average $110 per month for each participant other than the driver) Estimated Costs This strategy relies on promoting the existing Metro Vanpool program, which is subsidized by the Metropolitan Council. Coordination between local employers, the Metropolitan Council, and Metro Transit would likely account for about 15% of a single FTE per year, or about $10,000 per year.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6-34 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Figure 6-8 Summary of Vanpool
Opportunities Early Implementation (Within Full Implementation (Longer Term or Phase Elements 1-3 Years) (Within 3-5 Years) 2) Service Design A mobility manager with the Further expand Metro County staff may choose county would identify local Vanpool use by local to initiate their own businesses whose employees employers and residents; vanpool program that is may benefit from participating provide additional subsidies not limited by the in the Metro Vanpool program. for small businesses or low- restrictions imposed by A mobility manager would income individuals. Metro Transit. The county work with employers to provide could work directly with additional vanpool subsidies Rideshare by Enterprise via an employer-sponsored or another provider to commuter benefits program, lease vans. and will assist with coordinating the vanpool as needed. Service Hours NA NA NA Annual Operating Approximately $10,000 for NA NA Costs (estimated) staffing to coordinate and market the program. Administrative Washington County Responsibility Community Services Department or other county department coordinating information and mobility management services; would require coordination with Metropolitan Council.
SITE-SPECIFIC SHUTTLE Last-Mile Connections for Major Employers, Institutions, or Retail Destinations Community Older Adults 5 3 Support Overall Score People with 4.3 5 Financial 5 (Tier 1) Disabilities Low Income 5 Implementation 3
Concept
A site-specific shuttle is a jointly funded service designed to provide a last-mile connection to a sponsoring employer, institution, or retail destination. For example, an employer such as Andersen Windows or a combination of employers at a specific office park or retail development might be beneficiaries of a site-specific shuttle.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6-35 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Overview A site-specific shuttle is a service typically funded in part by the private sector (usually an employer) to provide a connection to a sponsoring business or employment center that is beyond walking distance from a regional transit center or station. These connections improve job access for transit-dependent riders, and make transit more competitive for individuals who would otherwise drive alone. These services benefit employers and other retail and commercial destinations by expanding the pool of potential employees, especially when businesses are located beyond a comfortable walk from major transit hubs or fixed-route transit services. In most US cities, successful employer or site-specific shuttles are facilitated by a Transportation Management Association, and are therefore a joint enterprise between the private and public sectors. A TMA is typically a private nonprofit organization run by a board of directors with a small administrative staff. In many cases, their members include employers, developers, building owners, residential communities, and public agencies. There has been a growing interest across the US for the private sector to assume a greater responsibility for transportation improvements. The creation of a TMA would provide opportunities for collecting private funds from individual employers, developers, and other organizations. Background and Need Low-income employees and others benefit from shuttle services that provide connecting services where they do not currently exist. Several major employers, institutions, and retail centers are located within close proximity to transit stations, and would benefit from last-mile shuttles. With major employers located in some of Washington County’s small towns and larger suburban cities, implementation of employer- sponsored site-specific shuttles would provide an alternative for people driving alone to work, and would also provide access to job seekers and others without a car or other form of reliable transportation. These shuttles put some of the responsibility on maintaining a strong, cost- competitive workforce on the employers themselves, allowing them to attract people with the right skills, giving them an advantage in recruiting employees over other businesses or commercial centers that offer no transportation alternative. Needs Addressed by Strategy Transportation option where no others may exist. Job access for low-income and other transit reliant individuals. Off-peak transit for shift workers or those working a non-traditional schedule. Expected Benefits Opens job markets to low income individuals and others who are more likely to be transit dependent Provides opportunities to partner with employers to reduce costs in other county programs Provides opportunity for employers in a single area to coordinate service Shifts transportation behavior away from single-occupancy auto use
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6-36 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Follows a private model where employers are beneficiaries of the service and offer the service as a benefit to their employees for recruitment, retention, and a competitive advantage Offers a low-cost to the consumer solution Complements existing regional investments in transit by facilitating last-mile connections Potential Obstacles Employers must sponsor Destinations must be located within close proximity to a transit center or station Public funding opportunities for transportation strategies focused on work trips limited Site-specific transportation services have difficulty generating demand Limited markets served (e.g., specific employers or commercial or medical developments) Costs may be too high for many employers to rationalize implementation of service
Operating Characteristics and Outcomes The purpose of this strategy is to provide a last-mile connection from transit centers to major employers, institutions, or retail destinations in Washington County. If two major employers opted into a shuttle program, both would presumably serve an existing Metro Transit transfer point, operating a link to their worksite. This shuttle would likely operate during commute hours only, but a shuttle to a major shopping center, for example, could operate all day as a way to serve the commute needs of employees working varied shifts. It could also serve as an economic development tool for a city or developer, allowing patrons to ride to shopping centers. Typically, site-specific shuttles operate on a fixed schedule (such as every 15 minutes) making it easy for commuters to opt to take the shuttle rather than drive all the way to work. Shuttles usually have a unique brand, with a message sign that makes it clear what the purpose of the shuttle is and who is eligible to ride it. Often, if a particular business sponsors the shuttle, the vehicle will be painted with the name of the business. Shuttles could be long-distance operations (e.g., travel to Bayport from Sun Ray Transit Center), or they could provide a local link between a residential neighborhood, downtown, and the employer. Estimated Costs Costs are dependent on a range of factors. Assuming an operating cost of about $75 an hour, a two-to-four-vehicle operation would be between $410,000 and $820,000 annually. Site-specific shuttles have potential for success in Washington County, but identifying sustainable funding sources and an operating structure that will achieve support will likely be a challenge.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6-37 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Figure 6-9 Summary of Site-Specific Shuttle
Opportunities Early Implementation (Within Full Implementation (Longer Term or Phase Elements 1-3 Years) (Within 3-5 Years) 2) Service Design Regular fixed route to be Will depend on expansion Will depend on expansion determined by employer or needs and opportunities. needs and opportunities. facility developing the shuttle. Service Hours Typically during commute and midday hours, from 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM. Employers or facilities like hospitals with extended hours may need longer service hours. Annual Operating 15-minute service or better in Costs (estimated) the peak, or a schedule designed around major employer shift start times. Could be used to provide access during non-peak times for shift workers. A two-to-four- vehicle operation would cost between $410,000 and $820,000. Administrative Employer or facility operator, If multiple sites are Responsibility with coordination and providing shuttles, promotional assistance from development of a TMA or Washington County. other entity to coordinate or consolidate shuttles may be appropriate.
SUBSCRIPTION BUS SERVICE A Reserved Seat on a Regularly Scheduled Commuter Bus Route Community Older Adults 2 3 Support Overall Score People with 2.7 3 Financial 2 (Tier 3) Disabilities Low Income 3 Implementation 3
Concept A subscription bus route is one for which individuals must subscribe, usually by paying in advance. In return, they have a guaranteed seat aboard the vehicle. Subscription bus services are typically used for long-distance commutes, and are often subsidized by a private employer.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6-38 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Overview Subscription bus services, like site-specific shuttles, rely on private investment in transit. An employer-based subscription bus service would transport workers from a meeting point near their home to their place of work. Fares are based on distance or subsidized by the employer or a public entity. Such a service can be operated by a public or private organization. Similar to a carpool or vanpool for commuters, users of an employer-based subscription bus service would pay a weekly or monthly fee to use the program to get to work. The employer, or a third-party organization, would take the lead to purchase the vehicle, arrange for a driver, and set up boarding and alighting times and locations, possibly with financial subsidy, technical assistance, or both from Washington County, a city government within the county, or a transit operator. Employers can also take the additional step of providing pre-tax commuter benefits or free or subsidized subscription bus passes as part of a compensation package or as an incentive (e.g., a monthly awards program), and may be rewarded through employer tax-incentive programs. Employers who may have difficulty maintaining a reliable workforce might be inclined to use the service as an incentive to recruit new workers. Background and Need Although a pre-paid passenger seat on a bus traveling to a major employment site may be a good commute solution for some long-distance commuters, the somewhat greater flexibility offered by vanpools (in terms of the number of participants and employers’ more limited role in provision of vanpools) may make them a better solution in the short term. Subscription buses do little to address the needs of older adults and many people with disabilities, giving these services a more limited role in this plan in the short term. Nevertheless, high numbers of riders to particular destinations could ultimately suggest the need for subscription bus services to those locations. Set work start and end times are necessary to make an employer-based subscription bus work. However, sometimes people must work late or return home before the end of the day (due to illness, illness of a child, or other personal issues). This is one of the challenges of subscription bus service, particularly for individuals with lower incomes. To make the service effective for all riders, subscription buses must operate on an agreed-upon fixed schedule, which may lead some workers to drive alone if they have that option. Needs Addressed by Strategy Long-distance travel to a worksite, especially those that are difficult to access Affordable commute transportation Reliable scheduled transportation to work Expected Benefits Services can become a comfortable, predictable experience for employees, which is usually desirable for commuting to work Services drop passengers off at the doorstep of their workplace unlike transit buses Programs are usually designed to help workers save on commuting costs and would benefit lower-wage earners depending on subsidy and users’ costs
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6-39 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Potential Obstacles Cost must be reasonable for users Travel time between origin and destination must be competitive for an individual vehicle to travel the same distance Participation and potential funding or subsidies required from participating employers
Operating Characteristics and Outcomes The purpose of this strategy is to provide a direct transit trip from an origin to a destination. Subscription buses are especially advantageous to operators because they know in advance how many people will ride and what the vehicle requirements will be. For an employer-based subscription bus service to succeed, it must be competitive compared to a private vehicle in terms of cost and time. Pricing (including cost to the employee and subsidy) would have to be set so that it would be nearly the same or less expensive than for individuals to drive to work. Time may be an even more decisive factor. The bus must serve the times that meet the employees’ needs to be at work and to be at home. Like cost, the travel time between origin and destination must not be much more than what it would take for an individual vehicle to travel the same distance. Time calculations should factor in the time that employees leave or arrive home and the pick-up spot for the subscription bus service. This alternative also depends on the cooperation of the participating employers, the primary entity that would implement a subscription bus service. A public-private partnership would be conducive to maintaining the employers’ interest, especially if a public agency is willing to provide technical or financial assistance. Estimated Costs Costs will vary depending on needs, distances, etc. Based on current hourly operating costs for a full size bus in the metro area, such a service is projected to cost about $65,000 for a trip in the morning and one in the evening along a single route, weekdays only. Although cost would be lower for a smaller vehicle, this is proposed as a longer-term strategy as employers test the success of vanpools.
Figure 6-10 Summary of Subscription Bus Service
Opportunities Early Implementation (Within Full Implementation (Longer Term or Phase Elements 1-3 Years) (Within 3-5 Years) 2) Service Design Major employers or groups of Subscription bus services can Will depend on needs of employers seeking employees be expanded. In many cases, employers; ideally this is from specific areas would tailor it will be appropriate to included as part of a the service to design to meet support vanpooling during the comprehensive the needs of their employees early implementation phase to transportation demand and shift times. Individuals assess demand. If sufficient, management (TDM) plan would purchase a subscription subscription bus services can at the employers to encourage use.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6-40 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Opportunities Early Implementation (Within Full Implementation (Longer Term or Phase Elements 1-3 Years) (Within 3-5 Years) 2) in advance, prepaying for their be developed to replace transit trip. multiple vans. Service Hours Depends on schedule or shifts. Annual Operating Approximately $65,000 for a Costs (estimated) single full-size bus operating one trip in the morning and one in the evening along a single weekday route. Administrative Private employers working with A TMA or other entity may Responsibility private bus operators; could be coordinate/consolidate facilitated a mobility manager subscription bus trips for or other function at multiple employers. Washington County. PERSONAL MOBILITY STRATEGIES Personal mobility strategies are those that do not require the use of a vehicle or which can be carried out though an unscheduled or informal arrangement. CARPOOL Implement, Expand and Promote Carpool Programs Community Older Adults 2 2 Support Overall Score People with 3.3 2 Financial 5 (Tier 2) Disabilities Low Income 4 Implementation 5
Concept
Carpools are defined as ridesharing among commuters using a personal vehicle to access daily commute destinations such as work or school. Carpools are often used for long-distance commutes and can be used to travel to destinations outside of Washington County. Ride matching services can help facilitate and promote carpooling. Such services can be operated by public, private, or nonprofit organizations. In addition to commute carpools, human service agencies and other organizations can encourage occasional carpooling to serve isolated individuals in Washington County. Overview Carpooling is effectively the shared use of a car by the driver—usually the owner of the vehicle— and one or more passengers.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6-41 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Carpooling arrangements and programs involve varying degrees of formality and regularity. Carpools may be formally arranged through an employer, public website, etc., or casual, where the driver and passenger might not know each other or have advanced agreed upon arrangements. Carpools also depend on potential participants to have sufficiently similar commuting patterns. Carpooling has proven to be most successful in areas with little or no transit service, such as portions of Washington County that are not served by Metro Transit fixed routes. Background and Need Carpools can be an effective strategy to meet the needs of Washington County residents commuting to work. However, many variables affect success, including cost to an individual driver or rider, availability of an automobile, scheduling, effectiveness of ride matching programs, and ability to serve non-commute transportation. Carpools can be an effective way of lowering commute costs for low-income residents, and may benefit people with disabilities who do not need ADA-compliant transportation services. However, they are unlikely to meet the needs of some populations of older adults, as many older adults do not make daily commute trips to a place of work. While carpools can be a useful element of an overarching transportation strategy, they do not reliably meet the core transportation needs identified through this study. However, through informal carpools, neighbors might travel together to a common destination. While sharing the ride to the grocery store may not seem to be a critical focus for most carpooling programs, shared travel among older adults, for example, can also help reduce isolation by ensuring that others are aware of an individual’s needs. Needs Addressed by Strategy Transportation options where no others may exist Timesavings where lanes reserved for carpoolers or toll-payers, such as MnPass lanes, are available Lower costs for transportation options where transit is not viable, especially to serve isolated populations in Washington County Expected Benefits Fewer vehicles to contribute to peak-hour congestion Commuting costs reduced for participants Easy to implement and minimal administrative burden Costs lower compared to other strategies Employers assist with the transportation needs of their employees Potential Obstacles Not well suited for most occasional or periodic trips such as shopping or medical appointments Some participants required to own a vehicle, which may be prohibitive for residents with low incomes or those with certain types of disabilities May require partnerships with employers or local agencies and organizations
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6-42 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Can be difficult to maintain due to changing travel patterns and needs Additional burden for drivers of potential legal action from passengers in case of an accident Low density communities can make it more difficult to find carpool partners
Operating Characteristics and Outcomes Ride matching services can help facilitate and promote commuter carpooling. Washington County could work with the Metropolitan Council to develop a campaign specific to Washington County to promote carpooling. The easiest way to implement the effort would be to link from Washington County webpages (or forthcoming mobility management site) to the GreenRide ride matching page via Metro Transit. For non-commuter carpools, human service agencies, churches, and senior centers, can work to promote ride matching for their consumers. Estimated Costs Implementing carpools is inexpensive. Carpools require some initiative by those who need a ride and their success depends on the availability of drivers and other riders who are traveling to the same destinations at the same times. Total operating costs are estimated to be less than $10,000 per year in the short-term based on 15% FTE. Figure 6-11 Summary of Carpool
Opportunities Early Implementation (Within Full Implementation (Longer Term or Phase Elements 1-3 Years) (Within 3-5 Years) 2) Service Design Promotion of carpool Development of a resources and tools for Washington County- commuters and students. specific carpooling Carpool matching for promotion program for occasional trips for older adults commuters and for and other populations with occasional; carpools for limited resources, those risking older adults and others. isolation, could be developed as a supplement. Service Hours Route and schedule developed by participants themselves. Annual Operating Approximately $10,000 for $25,000 for a larger scale, Costs (estimated) staffing for program outreach more robust effort. and development. Administrative Washington County Responsibility Community Services coordinating with Metro Transit or other county department coordinating and overseeing commute information services OR nonprofit organization to
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6-43 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Opportunities Early Implementation (Within Full Implementation (Longer Term or Phase Elements 1-3 Years) (Within 3-5 Years) 2) focus on non-commute carpooling.
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION Promote Biking and Walking, and Investing in Active Transportation Infrastructure Community Older Adults 3 3 Support Overall Score People with 2.7 3 Financial 2 (Tier 3) Disabilities Low Income 3 Implementation 2
Concept Walking and bicycling along appropriate rights of way (sidewalks, bike lanes, and multipurpose paths) constitute an underused option for many Washington County travelers. The first phase of this alternative is to develop marketing and educational campaigns to incentivize biking and walking, and to encourage safe driver behavior. Long-term opportunities include investing in capital improvements to make biking and walking safer and more enjoyable. Overview Whether an individual is walking or using a wheelchair, a well-designed sidewalk is essential for safety and direct access. Making the transition from an automobile-oriented county to one that supports all modes — including transit, bicycling, and walking — requires safe and accessible biking and walking conditions. Significant public and local jurisdictional support is required to define a new approach to integrating pedestrians and bicyclists into the transportation network. Background and Need In most Washington County communities, it is reasonable that individuals might walk or bike to jobs, schools, and services. Unfortunately, many towns and cities lack pedestrian-oriented infrastructure, and there has been resistance in some places to invest limited transportation funding in pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Needs Addressed by Strategy Unsafe walking and biking conditions for children, older adults, and people with disabilities Unsafe walking conditions for people accessing transit Obesity and other public health concerns
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6-44 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Expected Benefits Improved access to local destinations for children, older adults, people with disabilities, and the general public Lowered obesity rates possible by promoting biking and walking as viable transportation options Improved first-last mile access to transit services Potential Obstacles Existing infrastructure in Washington County heavily favors automobile use Limited public demand for investment in active transportation infrastructure compared to other types of investments Many residents perceive this as being a lower priority than increased investment in public transit, especially for older adults and people with disabilities High capital cost to build new infrastructure
Operating Characteristics and Outcomes In the short term, the purpose of this strategy is to promote biking and walking as viable transportation options in communities across Washington County. Key elements of this program would include the following: Developing and maintaining a website with comprehensive information on biking and walking conditions in Washington County Developing maps, pamphlets, and other marketing materials for an educational advertising campaign Distributing printed information about biking and walking options to individuals, agencies, and resource centers that serve transportation-disadvantaged individuals Working with schools and senior centers to develop educational programs that specifically meet the needs of children and older adults Conducting outreach events at key destinations countywide, including senior centers, VA facilities, hospitals and medical centers, colleges and universities, libraries, and food banks Longer-term opportunities include: Identifying low-, medium- and high-priority infrastructure improvements to make active transportation safer and more enjoyable Working with local municipalities to identify potential funding sources Planning, designing, engineering, and constructing new active transportation facilities across the county in conjunction with local municipalities. Infrastructure investments may include, but are not limited to bike paths or lanes; multi-purpose pedestrian/bike paths or lanes; secure bike parking; pedestrian countdown signals; sidewalks; crosswalks; traffic calming improvements such as mid-block crossing islands and corner bulb-outs; improved walking conditions surrounding bus stops and transit stations; improved walking and biking routes to schools, libraries, and other community destinations; lighting; multi-modal signage and wayfinding.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6-45 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Estimated Costs The marketing and educational component of this strategy is included in the cost estimate for Travel Navigation, Information, and Referral Services (page 6-60). Capital improvements range from relatively cost-effective solutions that use paint, planters, and other temporary materials, to high-cost improvements that require concrete (such as grade- separate bike lanes). A full cost estimate for building out biking and walking infrastructure countywide is not included in this transit needs assessment but costs can be high: a quarter mile of new sidewalk can cost $250,000; bikeways can cost between $5,000 and $20,000 per mile; and a new pedestrian signal at an intersection ranges from $8,000 to $12,000.24
Figure 6-12 Summary of Active Transportation
Opportunities Early Implementation (Within Full Implementation (Longer Term or Phase Elements 1-3 Years) (Within 3-5 Years) 2) Service Design As part of Travel Navigation, Identify low, medium and high In conjunction with local Information and Referral priority infrastructure municipalities, plan, Services (page 6-60), promote improvements to make active design, engineer, and biking and walking and provide transportation safer and more construct new active educational materials to enjoyable. Work with local transportation facilities support active transportation municipalities to identify across the county. modes. potential funding sources. Service Hours NA NA NA Annual Operating Costs included in Travel A full cost estimate for Costs (estimated) Navigation, Information and building out biking and Referral Services. walking networks countywide is not included in this study. Administrative Washington County Additional roles and Responsibility (collaborative effort among responsibilities for departments); support from Washington County Public nonprofit and advocacy Works. organizations.
ACCESSIBLE INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS Plan, Design, and Construct Accessible Infrastructure Improvements Community Older Adults 5 3 Support Overall Score People with 3.2 5 Financial 1 (Tier 2) Disabilities Low Income 3 Implementation 2
24 Task Guidebook, Non-Rail Infrastructure Upgrade and/or New Construction Due to Passenger Rail Implementation. National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), Nelson\Nygaard and SRF Consulting, 2012.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6-46 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Concept Street networks need to be easily navigable by people with disabilities, including those who use wheelchairs or other mobility aids, or who have limited vision or hearing. Many Washington County communities do not have complete pedestrian networks, accessible transit stops, audible pedestrian signals, and other essential components of an accessible transportation network. The purpose of this strategy is to make capital improvements that lead to safer access for those with limited mobility options. Overview Pedestrian facilities are necessary to provide paths of access to transit stops and activity centers in Washington County. Much of Washington County’s public infrastructure is focused on streets and roads, but sidewalks and accessible crossings are an increasingly important part of the overall multimodal transportation infrastructure. Land use, transportation, and urban design all affect the effectiveness of a transportation network. Some Washington County cities have accessible sidewalks, ramps and other features, but they are missing other elements. Where pedestrian infrastructure investments are made, sidewalks and crossings are required by the ADA to include accessible pedestrian signals, signage, and markings. With careful planning and prioritized investment, more Washington County cities can support people with disabilities and older adults navigating the pedestrian infrastructure. Background and Need A key challenge for older adults and people with disabilities is being able to participate fully in local and regional events, services, and activities. An accessible infrastructure (and ongoing maintenance of that infrastructure, including during winter months when pathways and roadways can be blocked by snow and ice) can help reduce isolation, promote good health, and allow older adults and people with disabilities to access destinations in Washington County without a car or transit vehicle. Needs Addressed by Strategy Unsafe walking and biking conditions for children, older adults, and people with disabilities Unsafe walking conditions for people accessing transit Obesity and public health concerns Expected Benefits Improve access to local destinations for people with disabilities, older adults, and others with limited mobility options Benefit all pedestrians through investments in universal design Improve first-last mile access to transit services Potential Obstacles High capital cost to build new infrastructure
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6-47 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Availability of funding for infrastructure improvements
Operating Characteristics and Outcomes This is a broad category and defining specific investments to develop and improve accessible infrastructure will require careful analysis and a prioritization of capital improvements based on existing gaps. Key elements of this program would include the following: Identify low-, medium- and high-priority infrastructure improvements to make streets safer for those with limited mobility Work with local municipalities to identify potential funding sources Plan, design, engineer, and construct new accessible transportation improvements across the county in conjunction with local municipalities. Infrastructure investments may include, but are not limited to, the following: ADA-approved accessibility improvements on all sidewalks and pedestrian routes countywide; audible countdown signals; crosswalks; traffic calming improvements such as mid-block crossing islands and corner bulb-outs; accessible routes to bus stops and transit stations; accessible routes to schools, libraries, and other community destinations; lighting; multi-modal signage and wayfinding; tactile paving (especially at transit stations). Estimated Costs Capital improvements will vary significantly in cost based on location and type of application. Maintenance costs must be tracked to ensure the infrastructure remains functional.
Figure 6-13 Summary of Accessible Infrastructure Investments
Opportunities Early Implementation (Within Full Implementation (Longer Term or Phase Elements 1-3 Years) (Within 3-5 Years) 2) Service Design Identify low-, medium- and In conjunction with local Ongoing improvements high-priority infrastructure municipalities, plan, design, and investments. improvements to make active engineer, and construct new transportation safer and more accessible infrastructure enjoyable for people with improvements. disabilities. Identify potential funding sources. Service Hours NA NA NA Annual Operating A full cost estimate for building Costs (estimated) out accessible infrastructure countywide is not included in this study, but capital costs are projected to be high. Administrative Washington County Public Responsibility Works Department; support from Public Health, Community Services and nonprofit and advocacy organizations
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6-48 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Opportunities Early Implementation (Within Full Implementation (Longer Term or Phase Elements 1-3 Years) (Within 3-5 Years) 2) serving older adults and people with disabilities MOBILITY MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES The mobility management strategies are designed to maximize resources through collaboration and coordination of transit providers and human service agencies, with a focus on meeting user needs and pooling resources. Several strategies seek to advance coordination activities and public awareness of transportation programs and services in Washington County. TRIP BROKERAGE Centralizing the Scheduling of Transportation Services to Maximize Efficient Use of Resources and Provide More Choices for Consumers Community Older Adults 5 5 Support Overall Score People with 4.2 5 Financial 3 (Tier 1) Disabilities Low Income 5 Implementation 2
Concept A coordinated mobility management effort in the form of a transportation brokerage can serve as a mechanism for the expansion, administration, and potential funding of transportation services in Washington County. This is a model that can be implemented over time, with the expectation that an effective transportation brokerage may take several years to develop; it could begin incrementally with the implementation of other mobility management strategies discussed in this section. A centralized brokerage would provide a single link to all of the primary transportation services available to older adults, people with disabilities and people with low incomes allowing Washington County residents to schedule trips across providers and service areas by contacting a single agency or nonprofit organization. The primary advantage of a brokerage model is centralization of information, scheduling, operations, and funding. Overview Coordination of transportation services through a transportation brokerage has been shown to increase efficiency and, as a result, improve mobility and cost savings. While brokerages by definition involve the centralization of some or all transportation functions, the role of the broker and the specific functions it performs can be selected to fit the circumstances of each particular situation.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6-49 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
With the goals of maximizing service availability and minimizing duplication and gaps in service, a brokerage provides coordination within and between service providers. A single entity is established or designated to manage the service network and serve as an information clearinghouse and contracting entity. The broker may be a public agency, a private nonprofit organization, or a professional brokerage management firm. The agencies that choose to participate in a brokerage determine the level and quality of service they would like to obtain and establish their own desired service policies regarding such issues as fares, allowable trip purposes, or degree of driver assistance. Because the trips required by a number of agencies are funneled through the broker, more trips can be scheduled on each vehicle than would be possible otherwise; as a result, the cost of providing each trip decreases. However, savings are gained not only from the more efficient scheduling of trips but also from the competitive procurement of contract providers by the broker. Because of the high volume of trips achieved by combining the various agencies’ transportation programs, more providers are likely to be interested in bidding for work. This can result in increased competition among providers, and therefore, lower rates. Background and Need The limits of existing travel information, few providers, and a large county make it difficult for consumers, employers, caseworkers, and others to understand the array of services that are available in Washington County. Furthermore, a good deal of duplication exists among service providers, few of which coordinate any of their services. The largest nonprofit human service transportation provider, Newtrax, has begun to consolidate transportation services for some agencies and employers that purchase services from the organization, but efforts have been modest thus far. Newtrax still has many underused vehicles with excess capacity during midday hours. A brokerage model would be the best way to coordinate the various assets of multiple transportation providers and assemble them as a mobility solution with vehicles and drivers that can be scheduled to maximize efficiency. Through a brokerage, these services could be used by any number of public or nonprofit organizations in Washington County to provide transportation, as well as made available to a segment of the general population for specific types of trips. Successful models around the US have shown that a brokerage model is one of the most successful approaches to fill gaps and maximize resources. Needs Addressed by Strategy x Limited information about available services x Lack of coordination among transportation providers x Complexity of scheduling travel across Washington County or to neighboring counties x Capacity limitations of existing services x Inefficient use of existing resources Expected Benefits Increased awareness of transportation options and use of these options Increased cost-effectiveness of existing services
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6-50 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Improved cost-efficiencies by consolidating trip reservations and scheduling staff Maximized opportunities for ride sharing Improved service delivery and customer satisfaction Maximized federal funding by leveraging multiple funding sources Increased service levels as a result of cost savings Potential Obstacles Requires a champion agency to take the lead on the mobility coordination role Needs lead agency to be respected by partner agencies and have the experience and capacity to lead a brokerage Requires leadership, ongoing attention, and committed staff Includes challenges such as unequal service quality, loss of control, and the role of individual communities in funding service Requires project governance, cost allocation and reimbursement models, and service delivery standards Operating Characteristics and Outcomes While there are many forms of brokerages, core brokerage functions are relatively consistent and typically include: Provider procurement Contract management Customer registration Record keeping and accounting Quality assurance and customer relations The most robust is a centralized brokerage model, where all trip reservations and vehicle scheduling are performed by the broker. Customers of all participating agencies (or agency personnel on behalf of their customers) call the broker to book their trips. The broker then develops schedules for each of the contract providers, choosing the most appropriate and cost- effective provider to serve each trip. In a decentralized brokerage, the broker performs the basic administrative and management functions such as provider procurement, contract management, customer registration, record keeping and accounting and quality assurance and customer relations. Each provider is responsible for performing its own trip reservations and scheduling. A hybrid brokerage combines centralized reservations (performed by the broker) and decentralized scheduling (performed by the providers). The broker is responsible for receiving requests for service from customers and assigning trips to providers, who then develop their own vehicle schedules for those trips. Ultimately, the goal for Washington County may be to move toward a brokerage model, and there are many peer examples of counties that have used a brokerage model to coordinate the various services and underutilized vehicles for the providers in the county. Outcomes of an effort to develop a brokerage in all or part of Washington County would include the following: Updating a centralized list of transportation services
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6-51 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Narrowing transportation options for user through a travel navigator or any number of online or telephone services Developing an approach and set of procedures for trip planning assistance Upgrading the trip planning assistance to a trip-booking function either through transferring calls to various transportation providers or using an online tool or database Implementing a full brokerage function where trips can be assigned via web-based scheduling or direct portals to participating providers’ reservations systems Estimated Costs The cost is heavily dependent on the size of the operation, but is estimated at approximately $140,000 per year for start-up phase (assumes 1 FTE and equipment), and would increase depending on size and structure of the brokerage function. Figure 6-14 Summary of Trip Brokerage
Opportunities Early Implementation (Within Full Implementation (Longer Term or Phase Elements 1-3 Years) (Within 3-5 Years) 2) Service Design Expansion of travel navigation Implementation of a more Further expansion of services; development of a centralized model. brokerage and use of comprehensive set of Development of shared public and private protocols to connect databases and contracts with providers; integration of individuals with the additional providers. multiple mobility transportation provider that management tools. can best meet their needs. Initiate decentralized brokerage model. Service Hours A trip brokerage can operate Expanded service area, daytime hours, with vehicles including potential cross- available at any time, county service depending on participating providers and program rules. Annual Operating Approximately $140,000 per $530,000 for staffing and More than $750,000, Costs (estimated) year for start-up phase staffing equipment; integration depending on size and and equipment. licenses. complexity of approach. Administrative Washington County Remains the same or could Responsibility Community Services be replaced with a contracted Department or by larger trip broker. nonprofit provider such as Newtrax.
VOLUNTEER DRIVER PROGRAM Volunteer Reimbursement and Driver Incentives Community 4.0 Older Adults 4 5 Support
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6-52 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Overall Score People with 4 Financial 5 (Tier 1) Disabilities Low Income 1 Implementation 5
Concept Implementation of a volunteer driver program would be based on a model that allows for volunteer incentives, reimbursement, or both in the recruitment of drivers for people with mobility challenges. Overview Although some small-scale volunteer driver programs that serve Washington County already exist, implementation of a new volunteer driver program (as well as promotion of or support for existing programs) is an appropriate element of a comprehensive coordination effort in an area with limited transportation services. Typically, a volunteer driver program is managed by a county government (or unit thereof, such as a Community Service Department) or a nonprofit human service organization. Identifying the appropriate sponsor agency will depend on the staff’s capacity to administer a volunteer driver program, the potential for the agency or organization to be a recipient of grant funding and donations for the program, an agency’s comfort with the liability exposure related to administering a volunteer driver program (and the ability to possess a minimum level of required insurance), existing volunteer pools or networks for recruiting volunteers, and organizational experience with coordinating volunteers. In Washington County, potential sponsor agencies other than the county itself could include any number of organizations, including senior centers and existing volunteer programs. Volunteer driver programs are often sponsored by nonprofit organizations for several reasons, including the familiarity many nonprofits have with managing volunteer-based activities, funding opportunities available to nonprofits, and the perception that operating a volunteer driver program is riskier for an entity with deep pockets, such as a public entity. Some of the existing volunteer program administrators, such as Community Thread, Disabled American Veterans, and Minnesota Senior Corps could administer and oversee an expanded volunteer driver program in the county, depending on the scope of services and geographic areas covered. Although several different types of models exist for a volunteer driver program, based on some of the input from stakeholders and the most successful approaches elsewhere, a proposed approach addresses issues of volunteer reimbursement, risk management, insurance and other issues. Background and Need A volunteer driver program in Washington County provides an opportunity to serve the most isolated populations who have very limited options, providing a safety net. It offers more flexibility to some of them than Transit Link can offer because trips can take place outside of traditional service hours and a higher level of individualized service can be provided by volunteers. Key objectives identified for such a program would be to provide a service to riders who are in need of companionship or other assistance in addition to a ride, offer a transportation option for isolated older adults and ambulatory people with disabilities, and provide a new or expanded option for making longer-distance specialized trips.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6-53 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Needs Addressed by Strategy Few transportation options for people with limited mobility Need for low cost (to consumer) option where transit is not viable Need for personalized or door-through-door service Expected Benefits Links people with the greatest need to a basic lifeline service Offers a low-cost way to address some transportation needs Facilitates a connection to social services and other programs for people who need them most Potential Obstacles Funding may be required to incentivize volunteers Insurance coverage for volunteer trips can be a concern Limited number of people who can be served by volunteer transportation Potential for unnecessary or fraudulent use of driver incentives Volunteer driver programs are one element of a comprehensive set of transportation programs, but rarely serve as the primary mode
Operating Characteristics and Outcomes The objectives of the program and the constraints and priorities of the sponsoring agency will ultimately determine which model is most appropriate. The “volunteer friends” model pioneered by the TRIP program in Riverside, California was established so that riders recruit their own drivers and schedule rides without involvement of the sponsoring agency. Mileage reimbursement is provided to the riders, who in turn reimburse their volunteer drivers on a monthly basis. This approach is intended to empower riders, reduce operating costs, and limit the sponsor agency’s liability related to recruiting, screening, training and monitoring volunteer drivers. Sponsors implementing programs inspired by the TRIP model often provide coaching to riders about how to identify and recruit volunteer drivers. In other communities, traditional volunteer driver programs exist that recruit, screen, train, and monitor volunteer drivers, as well as match riders with drivers, schedule rides, and reimburse drivers. In these programs, the sponsor agency has a central role in developing and implementing a range of policies and procedures, driver standards, driver screening and training activities, and other measures that reduce risk and liability exposure. Hybrid models also exist that rely on riders to recruit and schedule rides with their own volunteer drivers, but require drivers to pass a basic screening which typically includes verification of a valid drivers’ license, verification of insurance, and Department of Public Safety records checks. A hybrid model may supplement rider-identified volunteers with a pool of volunteers recruited by the sponsor agency. Some volunteer programs do not reimburse or incentivize drivers, but these efforts usually are relatively small, often managed through a church or senior volunteer program. In Washington County, a model that relies on some riders recruiting their own volunteer drivers may be a good starting point. This approach significantly reduces the staff time associated with recruiting, screening and training drivers and scheduling rides, and also reduces organizational
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6-54 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
liability associated with these activities. If this approach is implemented, it is recommended that the sponsor agency provide coaching to riders in recruiting a driver or drivers, as is done in various programs modeled after TRIP.25 While the TRIP program does not vet volunteer drivers, if this program is pursued, it is recommended that volunteer drivers recruited by riders receive a basic level of screening. If there is concern that some riders may be isolated, have difficulty recruiting volunteers for other reasons, or both, or if Washington County stakeholders prefer to adopt a model with a somewhat more centralized approach to volunteer recruitment and oversight, the sponsor agency could implement a hybrid model that provides for a pool of volunteers who are available to riders unable to recruit a driver. Estimated Costs Programs in communities similar to Washington County have budgets ranging from $60,000 to $500,000 annually. Assuming a per-mile reimbursement is the most effective and straightforward means of providing reimbursement in keeping with Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regulations related to non-taxable income, Washington County’s program could follow the Optional Standard Mileage Rates, which are established annually (and sometimes more frequently) by the IRS. As of January 1, 2017, the IRS Optional Standard Mileage Rates are 53.5 cents/mile for business miles driven, 17 cents/mile driven for medical and moving purposes, and 14 cents/mile driven in service of charitable organizations. The business mileage rate is applicable for both for-profit business mileage reimbursement and nonprofit business mileage reimbursement, including volunteer drivers. This does not mean that a volunteer program must reimburse drivers at this level. Several programs currently offer reimbursement in the 20-to-32 cents/mile range. Assuming an average of 20 miles per round trip at a volunteer reimbursement rate of 25 cents/mile, if the service averages only 50 round trips per week, driver reimbursement costs would be approximately $13,000. Even at 300 trips per week, annual reimbursement costs would be less than $78,000. Assuming .25 FTE for staffing, at a cost of about $23,000 annually, total operating costs are likely to be under $100,000 annually at relatively robust ridership compared with ridership on existing volunteer driver services.
25See: http://ilpconnect.org/.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6-55 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Figure 6-15 Summary of Volunteer Driver Program
Opportunities Early Implementation (Within Full Implementation (Longer Term or Phase Elements 1-3 Years) (Within 3-5 Years) 2) Service Design Many models exist. For early A more centralized implementation, it is proposed approach could be that riders recruit their own developed or formalized. volunteers and the sponsor Program could provide agency also recruits vehicles as needed. volunteers; Volunteers are reimbursed at a nominal per- mile rate. Volunteer drivers would furnish their own vehicles Service Hours Flexible: could be available any day, early and late trips if volunteers are available. Annual Operating Approximately $100,000 for Costs (estimated) reimbursements and staff time. Administrative Washington County Responsibility Community Services Department or by nonprofit organizations or any of the existing smaller transportation providers in Washington County
SUBSIDIZED TAXI OR RIDE-HAILING SERVICE Implement Program for Use of Vouchers or Subsidies for Taxis and Other Transportation Services Community Older Adults 4 4 Support Overall Score People with 3.7 2 Financial 4 (Tier 1) Disabilities Low Income 4 Implementation 4
Concept A subsidized taxi or ride-hailing service program typically involves an arrangement between a sponsoring organization and a participating taxi company or companies, limousine operators, ride-hailing services (such as Lyft or Uber), nonprofit organizations that operate transportation services, and transit providers. These programs accept and accommodate requests from sponsored customers, clients, or residents via a mobile phone app platform, accept vouchers provided by the sponsoring organization to riders as full or partial payment for the trip, or both.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6-56 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Overview A subsidized taxi or ride-hailing service program allows people to make a trip that might not be served by transit (without advanced planning) or pay a lower rate than the full price. Under this strategy, riders are issued vouchers (which can be paper tickets, debit cards, or simply a form of identification that allows for direct billing of services provided) or have access to a smart phone app to pay for part of their trip. Typically, an agreement is developed between a sponsoring organization and one or more participating transportation companies. These programs accept and accommodate requests from registered customers, clients, or residents, and accept vouchers or payment subsidies provided by the sponsoring organization to riders as partial payment for the trip. Most programs like this focus on older adults, people with disabilities residing within specific service areas, or both, but some are available to the general public as well, and a number of transit agencies have signed agreements with ride-hailing services to provide service in lower-density suburban areas. Human service agencies that employ this strategy generally limit subsidies to agency clientele or program participants. Numerous taxi providers operate to or from Washington County, and other providers such as Canvas Health, Driving Miss Daisy, Newtrax, Twin City Transportation, etc., are available to contract for services. In addition, ride-hailing services are expanding in the metro area and into Washington County. While the various providers would need to be vetted to ensure they carry appropriate levels of insurance and costs are in-line with expectations for operation of a voucher program, the long list of providers included in Chapter 3 illustrates the array of potential options for contracted service. One of the obstacles noted above — the need for more accessible vehicles — could be overcome if incentives to help transportation providers purchase accessible vehicles could also be used to encourage their participation in a voucher program. Some human service transportation providers that currently serve Washington County have been in discussion with ride-hailing services about strategies to expand the provision of accessible vehicles in the county. In some communities, taxis are contracted to offer after-hours service for the public, or to provide trips in areas where it would not be cost effective for the transit agency to operate (for example, it could be more cost effective for taxi operations in some portions of the county than sending regular Transit Link vehicles to pick up riders). Subsidizing existing transportation providers can be very popular with consumers, so strict limits on trips per month and the amount of the subsidy may be needed to control costs. Background and Need This type of program would serve the populations who have very limited options. Stakeholders reported that many of their clients must use a taxi from time to time and that the costs to do so are high. In some ways, a subsidy program can offer greater flexibility than a countywide dial-a-ride service like Transit Link because trips can take place outside of traditional service hours and a higher level of individual service can be provided by drivers, both of which were identified as needs by stakeholders. A subsidy program is also far less expensive than the cost of operating a transit service and could help communities gauge the actual level of demand for improved public transportation services.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6-57 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Individuals enrolled could be required to affirm that they are unable to drive, at least some of the time, and that they do not have access to a carpool or driver, cannot afford the cost of private transportation, or both. Needs Addressed by Strategy Few transportation options for people with limited mobility Need for relatively low cost (to consumer) option where transit is not viable Need for personalized or door-through-door service General public, including job seekers, older adults, people with disabilities, Veterans, and other groups served Expected Benefits Same-day, if not immediate, service provided Use of existing transportation services maximized Unanticipated travel and evening and weekend hours accommodated Trips outside of service area or underserved areas available Ability to set and control subsidy per trip and overall budget Market of accessible vehicles developed Choice of transportation provider available for users Start-up costs lower Service in both low-density and high-density areas an option Connection to social services and other programs for people who need it most Potential Obstacles Requires well-managed controlled providers or taxi companies Needs taxi service or other for-profit or nonprofit providers within Washington County cities Involves accessible taxicabs and ride-hailing vehicles; neither are currently available Requires good communication among all parties Requires an agency to assume responsibility for day-to-day administration Includes implementing measures to prevent fraud Requires drivers to accept vouchers, which they may be reluctant to do Operating Characteristics and Outcomes Implementation of this strategy would require a mechanism for paying the subsidy. It would also be necessary to make decisions about the amount of subsidy per trip and limits on the number or value of trips that will be provided per month. Some large subsidy programs use automated tools, mobile phone apps, and central call centers, but small-city or community programs usually use coupons or scrip in some form. If a program is limited to one or a small number of selected transportation companies, it may be possible to establish a system administered by the companies themselves with a general level of oversight from the lead agencies. Auditing and fraud control measures would need to be established.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6-58 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
This strategy is most likely to be successful if the area is well served by taxis, shuttles and nonprofit providers with extra vehicles or vehicle capacity. It is also helpful for a public entity to have effective taxi or shuttle regulations in place, and if there is good communication among all parties. Potential providers will be most interested in such a program if it can deliver a steady stream of business, and where the administrative requirements are not overly cumbersome for the driver and the company. Ride-hailing services will prefer to use their publicly available platform, although some have tailored their platform for specific client agencies. As part of such a program, Washington County or another lead organization may wish to acquire accessible vehicles and provide them to the companies that agree to participate in the program. Estimated Costs The cost to administer a voucher program would vary significantly depending on the number of participants, which would depend on where the service is operating and who is eligible for it. For example, if it were a countywide service and an average taxi subsidy of $20 per ride is established, and if an average of 100 one-way trips are provided per day (assuming seven-day service), the annual operating cost alone could be $750,000, in addition to substantial administrative costs. A smaller program operating in a limited number of communities and providing a $10 per-user subsidy for 50 one-way trips each day, could be as little as $220,000, including administrative costs. The total available budget for taxi, shuttle, or ride-hailing service subsidies can be controlled with a daily ceiling, allowing trips on a “first-come, first-served” basis or by limiting the number of vouchers provided to participants.
Figure 6-16 Summary of Subsidized Taxi or Ride-Hailing Service
Opportunities Early Implementation (Within Full Implementation (Longer Term or Phase Elements 1-3 Years) (Within 3-5 Years) 2) Service Design Determined by driver based on Expansion of program to Development of a single passenger request when using addition providers. payment platform for a taxi, shuttle or ride-hailing multiple providers and service. Could be implemented direct billing of in select portions of the county participating agencies and with existing taxi providers. organizations. Service Hours 24 hours/7-day service could be available. Annual Operating Varies depending on size of To be determined based on Costs (estimated) program; $220,000-$750,000 program needs. for implementation in selected areas with specific providers. Administrative Washington County, working Responsibility with taxi providers, human service agencies, ride-hailing services.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6-59 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
TRAVEL NAVIGATION, INFORMATION AND REFERRAL SERVICES Compile and Provide Travel Information & Referral Services, Conduct Countywide Educational Marketing Campaign Community Older Adults 3 5 Support Overall Score People with 3.7 3 Financial 4 (Tier 1) Disabilities Low Income 3 Implementation 4 Concept Travel navigation and information and referral are different functions, but would have a common purpose in Washington County. Travel navigation, particularly for older adults and persons with disabilities, relies on individuals who are subject matter experts on the full range of transportation services, including public, nonprofit, for-profit, and volunteer options. Information & referral specialists are subject matter generalists who address questions and concerns to identify services for which a caller is eligible, and to provide them with the necessary information to make use of the available services. Both are key components of providing comprehensive information about a variety of services to ensure that people who are in need of assistance can access the array of services available to them. In Washington County, 2-1-1 offers regional information and referral services, including contacts at transportation providers. Metro Transit’s Transit Information Center provides limited travel navigation services for the general public seeking information on how to travel from one location to another in the metro area via public transit. The Transit Information Center does not offer personalized service to people with disabilities to assess services for which an individual might be eligible or provide guidance on coordinating trips that involve multiple providers. These are the types of services that could be offered through a comprehensive travel navigation program in Washington County. Overview Washington County is in need of a centralized source for transportation information. Due to the overlapping nature of many transit services throughout the county, it can be difficult for users to navigate inconsistent eligibility requirements, service areas, and schedule information. This strategy entails developing a public-facing website that would serve as a “one-stop shop” for transportation information, creating a staffed telephone hotline, and conducting a comprehensive transportation marketing effort. The website would provide essential information (e.g., schedules, eligibility information, etc.) for public transit, dial-a-ride programs, subsidized taxis, and transit services provided by non-profits and human services agencies. The telephone hotline should provide an automated directory (with general information) and the option to speak to a trained staff-person who can answer individual questions. Marketing efforts should include developing transportation resources, such as maps and pamphlets, which include an array of transportation services available in Washington County.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6-60 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
These resources should be distributed at shopping centers, grocery stores, senior centers, VA facilities, hospitals and medical centers, colleges and universities, food banks, and other key destinations throughout the county. Marketing efforts should also include in-person outreach at key destinations to encourage transit ridership and distribute up-to-date rider resources. Background and Need Many Washington County residents have difficulty learning about or understanding the transportation resources available to them. This need has been consistently highlighted at public outreach meetings and stakeholder events. Stakeholders identified a lack of understanding of the existing transportation services as a major obstacle to mobility in Washington County, particularly for older adults and others who may have difficulty navigating multiple web-based information sources. This service could be helpful to many consumers, and its services could be flexible and targeted to high-need issues and areas. The information provider would know the available resources, issues, and local culture and take part in targeted marketing efforts to make the program successful. Needs Addressed by Strategy These are intended to address a gap in navigating the array of mobility services available in Washington County and the metro area This service is valuable for the general public and agency representatives, and particularly for older adults, people with disabilities and people with lower incomes Expected Benefits Increase awareness of transportation services (this is especially valuable for persons who may have a high risk of isolation and may not know how to get information about the programs and services that would benefit them) Increase utilization and cost-effectiveness of existing services Increases mobility for the general population Increases mobility for transportation-disadvantaged individuals, such as older adults, youth, people with disabilities, low-income individuals, and Veterans Provide single point of information in multijurisdictional transportation environment Potential Obstacles Requires champion agency to promote public awareness of transportation services Requires leadership, committed staff, and ongoing support to keep informational resources up to date Makes promoting and marketing services to a wide audience difficult in low-density communities Makes combining information from multiple sources challenging to navigate and keep updated
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6-61 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Operating Characteristics and Outcomes The purpose of this strategy is to increase awareness of existing services and to provide a one-stop shop for transportation information that users can easily check for service changes and schedule updates. Advertising alone may not necessarily lead to an increase in ridership. Nevertheless, information, visibility and tools to debunk misinformation and build support for transportation services in rural and suburban areas has tended to lead to an increased willingness to value transit, talk about transit, and ride transit. Key elements of this program would include the following: Develop and maintain a website with comprehensive information on transportation services in Washington County (a “one-stop shop” information center) Establish a telephone hotline to provide transportation information both via an automated directory and a live staff person who can answer individual questions Develop and maintain an internal database of transportation programs and services in Washington County for the purpose of updating the public-facing website Provide trip planning, scheduling and other travel navigation services via a staffed telephone hotline Provide assistance to older adults, people with disabilities, caregivers, and others requesting information about eligibility-based transportation programs Offer assistance and referrals to agency representatives, program providers, human services providers, and others Develop maps, pamphlets, and other marketing materials for an educational advertising campaign Distribute printed information about transportation programs to individuals, agencies, and resource centers that serve transportation-disadvantaged individuals Conduct outreach events at key destinations countywide, including senior centers, VA facilities, hospitals and medical centers, colleges and universities, libraries, and food banks Estimated Costs This program assumes 1 FTE for initial program implementation, with 3 FTEs at full build out. At full build-out, staffing would increase from 8 hours per day, 5 days per week to 8 hours per day, 7 days per week. Computers, telephones, printers, a fast internet connection, database software and other standard office equipment, which could be furnished by the lead agency, is assumed to cost about $24,000 for initial program implementation, and increase by 25-50% at full program build-out. Printing and distribution costs are assumed at $16,000 annually, with an advertising budget of $10,000 annually. Advertising and printing costs are also anticipated to increase 25-50% at full program build-out. In the future, this function could require the need for dispatch and scheduling software, which has not been reflected in these cost estimates. The estimated annual operating costs are $115,000 per year for initial implementation (1 FTE), $245,000 per year at full implementation (2 FTE), and $348,000 per year for future expansion (3 FTE). These figures assume a $65,000 annual salary per FTE.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6-62 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Figure 6-17 Summary of Travel Navigation, Information and Referral Services
Opportunities Early Implementation (Within Full Implementation (Longer Term or Phase Elements 1-3 Years) (Within 3-5 Years) 2) Service Design A single organization or entity The organization that takes Travel navigation and is responsible for this mobility the lead in this effort might information and referral, management information logically oversee other as well as general function, but works in transportation services or information and outreach, collaboration with several implementation of a voucher serve as a first step for a partners and other information program. comprehensive mobility services in Washington management program that County. could include brokered trips in the future. Service Hours Assumes staffing 8 hours per Assumes staffing 8 hours per Assumes increased day, 5 days per week. day, 7 days per week. staffing 8 hours per day, 7 days per week. Annual Operating Approximately $140,000 per Approximately $312,000 per Approximately $450,000 Costs (estimated) year. year. per year. Administrative Washington County Responsibility Community Services Department or other county department coordinating and overseeing provision of travel navigation/information services in-house; or by organizations such as United Way, Metro Transit, Newtrax, or a nonprofit organization.
CONCLUSION A number of major funding and implementation considerations exist for carrying forward the preferred transportation strategies and maximizing the resources of a mobility management function housed in Washington County. Some of the strategies are longer term, and will require implementation in phases. As new strategies are implemented, some of the other strategies may be determined not to be effective or appropriate, and some may face financial challenges. A discussion of implementation opportunities is included in the next chapter.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6-63 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
This page intentionally left blank
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6-64 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
IMPLEMENTATION INTRODUCTION Multiple players are involved in the provision of transportation services in the metropolitan area. As a result, Washington County faces some challenges in implementing local and countywide transit programs and enhancements. The Metropolitan Council operates a majority of transit services in Washington County – through Metro Transit services, as well as Metro Mobility and Transit Link service. The Metropolitan Council also maintains funding and service allocation oversight responsibilities, and has established transit service design standards for the services it operates. The standards for implementing and operating services have been adopted regionwide and direct investments toward high-ridership areas, which means that Washington County is often not prioritized for fixed-route transit investment through the regional transit funding formula. As a result of the policy framework in the Twin Cities region, Washington County is afforded few options for boosting transit service levels other than through a new dedicated tax (at the county level or municipal level) or through the reallocation of existing funds to transit (see Chapter 8). Given the complexity of doing this, Washington County’s short-term focus should be on providing a safety net – a basic level of transportation to address the needs of older adults, people with disabilities and low-income Washington County residents. To do this successfully, Washington County will need to enlist the participation of select cities and both public and private human service agencies, as well as private transportation providers, both for-profit and nonprofit. In Washington County, human service agencies and cities have identified different levels of need for transit programs. The human service agencies, from very small organizations with only a few employees to larger DT&H facilities and county departments like Community Services or Community Corrections, have a stake in serving their clients or consumers’ transportation needs. Many of their clients or consumers require transportation to access critical services. These organizations, some of which possess funding resources to offer transportation, seek to provide the services as effectively and efficiently as possible in accordance with their organizational mission. Even if their funding is reduced, it will be critical that they continue to provide a basic level of service. Washington County’s cities, on the other hand, see transportation as one of many services they could offer, but have generally identified the provision of transit as a lower priority, especially for the general population. Given competing needs for public safety, housing, schools, economic development, etc., few cities during this study process indicated their intention to develop transportation services at the local level, but some indicated they might
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 7-1 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
be willing to participate in a jointly funded transportation effort that includes both public and private partners. In addition to the challenge of funding transportation, the fact that 33 cities and townships are located within Washington County presents a logistical obstacle for coordinating transportation services if cities were to try to develop independent transit programs. Although Washington County is home to various organizations with specialized interests, few advocates have been able to advance a program of transportation service priorities over decades of conversation. Some organizations like Community Thread have worked to inventory existing services and develop partnerships with other like-minded organizations; these efforts have not yet resulted in substantive or long-term changes to existing services. Washington County has largely taken a background role in these previous efforts, but acknowledges through this study effort that it must assume a more substantial role to influence change and carry forward recommendations to implementation. CONFIRMING PRIORITIES Even faced with the challenging funding and political environment, a number of opportunities exist to implement strategies that improve coordination among agencies and enhance mobility for older adults, people with disabilities and low-income individuals and families. To carry forward the strategies presented in Chapter 6, it is important to prioritize the specific issues to be addressed, who would be involved in implementation, what the costs would be, and where funds might be available. In some cases, implementation efforts may involve pilot projects, or experiments to test various approaches. Figure 7-1 provides a summary of the preferred strategies, based on the evaluation.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 7-2 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Figure 7-1 Summary of Highest Priority Strategies
Implementation Order of Magnitude Costs (Capital or Potential Funding Strategy Administrative Roles Timeframe Staffing Requirements Operating) Sources26 First Tier of Strategies General Purpose Dial-A- Metropolitan Council, 12 months for roll-out of No new staffing for service $60-$75 per hour, based on current FTA 5307 and 5311, FTA Ride Washington County, a city in new service, including expansion; minimum of .5 operating costs for Metro Mobility and 5310, tax revenues from Increase Use of Demand- Washington County, or a planning, eligibility, FTE for a new small-scale Transit Link. For an additional 3 to 6 cities, donations from Response Service nonprofit organization or contracting; expansion of county-led operation plus vehicles operating weekdays only, annual nonprofit agencies, in-kind human service provider. existing service could vehicle operators (assume 4- operating costs, including administrative services and fares occur within 4 months 12 FTE) costs, are assumed at $580,000 to $1.46 million. Capital costs will depend on need for vehicle acquisition. Community Circulator Cities that undertake this For a new service, 18-24 Will depend on level of Will depend on service level FTA 5307 and 5311, sales Local Transit for Shopping, service would have primary months for roll-out in service implemented and in implemented. For a weekday-only service tax revenues from cities and Commuting and Participating administrative responsibility. select Washington County which city/cities. A small- operating two hours per day with two fares in Community Activities Washington County would cities, including planning, scale operation may require vehicles at approximately $60/hour, costs have key role in coordinating procurement, contracting, .5-1.5 FTE for administration range from $220,000 (3 days) to services. Day-to-day and securing start-up and scheduling in addition to $360,000 (5 days). Full weekly service (7 operations could be led by a funding vehicle operators; staffing days) is estimated at $445,000 to $2.04 human service provider or should be scaled to the size million. Depending on city and provider, turnkey contractor. of the operation hourly costs range from $60 to $110.
Site-Specific Shuttle Employer or facility operator, 6-10 months for planning, Staffing needs will be at 15-minute service or better in the peak, or Private funds, contributions Last-Mile Connections for with coordination and procurement, and sponsoring entity; .1 FTE a schedule designed around major from organizations or cities Major Employers, promotional assistance from contracting by employer or from Washington County for employer shift start times. Could be used Institutions, or Retail Washington County. institution promotion and coordination to provide access during non-peak times Destinations for shift workers. A two-to-four-vehicle operation would cost between $410,000 and $820,000.
26 See Chapter 8 for definitions of primary funding sources
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 7-3 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Implementation Order of Magnitude Costs (Capital or Potential Funding Strategy Administrative Roles Timeframe Staffing Requirements Operating) Sources26 Subsidized Taxi or Ride- Washington County, working 12-18 months to develop .25-.5 FTE Varies depending on size of program; FTA 5307 and 5311, FTA Hailing Service with taxi providers, human program, develop billing $220,000-$750,000 for implementation in 5310, tax revenues from Implement Program for Use service agencies, ride-hailing and invoicing procedures, selected areas with specific providers. cities, donations from of Vouchers or Subsidies for services. and sign contracts with nonprofit agencies, in-kind Taxis and Other potential providers services and fares Transportation Services Volunteer Driver Program Washington County 10 months for recruitment .5-1 FTE Approximately $100,000 for Donations, contributions from Volunteer Reimbursement Community Services of new volunteers, reimbursements and staff time. faith-based organizations, and Driver Incentives Department or by nonprofit developing program other donations and in-kind organizations or any of the guidelines and securing services existing smaller transportation additional funding providers in Washington County
Travel Navigation and Washington County 6 months to identify needs 1-2.5 FTE Approximately $140,000-$312,000 per FTA 5310, AAA, Information & Referral Community Services and establish preliminary year contributions from faith- Services Department or other county database; 6 months to based organizations, other Compile and Provide Travel department coordinating and train staff, develop donations and in-kind Information & Referral overseeing provision of travel resources; install services Services, Conduct navigation/information services equipment Countywide Educational in-house; or by organizations Marketing Campaign such as United Way, Metro Transit, Newtrax, or a nonprofit organization. Trip Brokerage Washington County 18 to 24 months to initiate 2.5-5 FTE, depending on the Approximately $140,000 per year for FTA 5310, contributions from Centralizing the Scheduling Community Services brokerage functions scale of operations start-up phase staffing and equipment. faith-based organizations, of Transportation Services to Department or by larger $530,000 annually for staffing and other donations and in-kind Maximize Efficient Use of nonprofit provider such as equipment, integration license, and other services, human service Resources and Provide Newtrax. operations needs, excluding direct costs funding More Choices for for providing transportation services. Consumers Note that this strategy assumes Travel Navigation Purchase of transportation services may and Information & Referral exceed $1 million annually, depending on Services are folded into this extent of program function.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 7-4 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Implementation Order of Magnitude Costs (Capital or Potential Funding Strategy Administrative Roles Timeframe Staffing Requirements Operating) Sources26 Second Tier of Strategies On-Demand Bus or Van Washington County in 12-18 months to develop .25-.5 FTE to administer; 1- Service 12 hours per weekday using only FTA 5307 and 5311, FTA Service collaboration with Metro service plan, software, 15 FTE for operations, one vehicle would cost roughly $153,000- 5310, tax revenues from New Publicly Operated Transit and Metropolitan procure providers, and depending on scale of $183,600 annually. Multiple in-service cities, in-kind services and Same-Day Service in Council. sign contracts to begin service vehicles could exceed $1 million annually. fares Specific Communities service
Vanpool Washington County Ongoing; expanded .15-.25 FTE for expanded The Metropolitan Council’s program FTA 5307, Metropolitan Promote Metro Vanpool as a Community Services outreach campaign could outreach charges different fares to van users, Council, user fees and Cost-Effective Commute Department or other county be implemented within 3 depending on the distance an individual employers Strategy department coordinating months commutes. Costs for additional outreach information and mobility might total $10,000 to $25,000. management services; would require coordination with Metropolitan Council. Carpool Washington County Ongoing; expanded .15-.25 FTE for expanded Approximately $10,000 for staffing for FTA 5307, Metropolitan Implement, Expand and Community Services outreach campaign could outreach program outreach and development. Council, user fees and Promote Carpool Programs coordinating with Metro Transit be implemented within 6 employers or other county department months coordinating and overseeing commute information services or nonprofit organization to focus on non-commute carpooling. Accessible Infrastructure Washington County Public Ongoing Varies depending on level of A full cost estimate for building out Impact fees, special districts, Investments Works Department; support investment accessible infrastructure countywide is FTA capital funds Plan, Design, & Construct from Public Health, not included in this study, but capital Accessible Infrastructure Community Services and costs are projected to be high. Improvements nonprofit and advocacy organizations serving older adults and people with disabilities
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 7-5 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
IMPLEMENTING THE STRATEGIES While some of the strategies can be implemented individually by a single agency or organization — or group of several organizations — one of the essential elements of a successfully coordinated transportation approach is that Washington County staff working with a Washington County Transportation Coordinating Consortium should guide programming and service implementation efforts. For a truly coordinated set of transportation programs, a single mobility management entity is recommended. With a brokerage model as a goal, this can serve as the framework for implementing the various prioritized strategies and setting the stage for the potential implementation of longer-term approaches. Policy Framework: Washington County Board of Commissioners; Potential Joint Powers Agreement(s) Longer Term For a new transit oversight approach, the Washington County Board of Commissioners could continue to serve in the overall transportation policymaking capacity for the county and each jurisdiction that opts to provide its own service would maintain a policy role for its local service. In this short term, this is appropriate. However, depending on the extent of services to be implemented at the local level or if there is a concentration of services to be implemented in only a small number of Washington County cities, longer term other transportation policy approaches could be implemented. For example, a joint powers entity could be created through a joint powers agreement (JPA) to give participating local jurisdictions a greater say in transportation programs that impact them; to define a potential new approach for sharing costs, staffing or equipment; or to limit potential liability risks for any new program or service developed exclusively within Washington County. Likewise, a JPA may be appropriate if Washington County were to enter into an agreement with an adjacent county or counties (such as Dakota or Chisago). JPAs are formal decision-making bodies with a voting board, ruled by majority rather than consensus voting. JPAs often have an assigned staff and an annual operating budget funded by the participating agencies. They are commonly used in Minnesota to implement multijurisdictional services, especially programs designed to service specific cities and/or counties. JPAs protect the participating parties from potential lawsuit. By creating a separate entity, the participating parties are no longer liable for actions made exclusively by the Joint Powers Authority. However, protection from legal action does not apply if the joint powers agreement only commits the parties to working together and not to the creation of a distinct body. Additionally, the parties continue to be responsible for the debts, liabilities and obligations of the JPA unless the agreement specifies otherwise. The joint powers law allows governmental units to cooperate in a wide variety of ways. There are three basic structural models: 1) a consolidated service approach; 2) a service contract approach; and 3) a mutual aid approach, which is rarely used for transit.27
27 League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo, March 1, 2010. www.imc.org
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 7-6 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Under the consolidated service approach, two or more cities or counties agree under the joint powers law to create a joint board consisting of one or more representatives from each of the participating jurisdictions. Each entity provides financial support to the board. In turn, the board employs the necessary staff, owns or leases the equipment (or contracts for it), and manages the operations. Under the service contract approach one city or county maintains and manages the operation and the other entity simply purchases services from the first entity. Typically, the agreement will specify the level and type of service to be provided, performance standards and so on.28 Following the mutual aid approach, individual agencies/jurisdictions provide assistance to each other for a common benefit. Although mutual aid agreements could conceivably be used for transit in Washington County, managing costs would be challenging and the practice is uncommon: most apply to public safety (e.g., rescue, fire, police), but some communities have included agreements for transit providers to work with public safety agencies in emergencies. A JPA may be valuable in the event one or more city and the County itself were to implement new service in a specific area or set of communities within Washington County, or if Washington County plans to coordinate its services with one or more neighboring counties. In the short-term, without a high level of involvement from particular Washington County cities, the Washington County Board of Commissioners would provide policy direction for county transit investments, ideally with input from a countywide Transportation Coordinating Consortium (see next section). Advisory Framework: Washington County Transportation Coordinating Consortium Policy oversight is essential for formal decision making about where resources should be focused and coordinated efforts should be directed. What Washington County has lacked to this point is a formal approach to gathering ongoing and relevant information related to transit service needs and coordination opportunities. Community Thread comes closest to a coalition of individuals and organizations interested in human service transportation, but this study represents the County’s first recent foray into bringing together stakeholders to discuss and prioritize transit needs. Community Thread’s efforts represent a grassroots initiative led by organizations with complementary concerns and priorities, and they address the needs of the markets targeted by this study. The organization-sponsored Transportation Summit held in June 2016 highlighted gaps and demands considered in this study effort. Persons invited to participate included primarily human service organizations. Nevertheless, some stakeholders noted Community Thread is limited in its geographic focus, and therefore its efforts may not necessarily address the demands — and coordination opportunities — identified in other portions of Washington County. Whether building on an existing coordination effort or developing a new one, an effective forum for coordinating transportation services and prioritizing strategies requires an organization perceived as representing all of Washington County, neutral in terms of its approach to funding or piloting projects, and ideally with dedicated staff to ensure a coordinating consortium’s efforts are sustained and ongoing. Participation is recommended from senior centers, colleges, major employers, and representatives from Washington County’s cities.
28 IBID
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 7-7 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Both MnDOT and the Minnesota Department of Human Services, in collaborating with the Metropolitan Council, are working to develop Regional Transportation Coordinating Councils. The Dakota County Transportation Coordinating Collaborative (DCTCC) was one of the pilot efforts developed in the metro area and has been instrumental in advancing a mobility management approach there. Washington County currently has several advisory boards and committees with appointees charged with providing input on issues ranging from groundwater to child protection. An official Washington County Transportation Coordinating Consortium would ideally be added and include no more than about 15 representatives to keep discussions focused and keep the organization nimble. Composition of the committee should be considered carefully to ensure equitable representation from elected officials, as well as organizations or jurisdictions serving or seeking to address the needs of older adults, people with disabilities and low-income residents in Washington County. By assuming oversight of this committee, Washington County can solicit valuable input and seek commitments from potential partners to implement the strategies prioritizes in this study. Administrative Framework: Mobility Management — Moving Toward a Brokerage Model Based on input and interest from stakeholders, and the potential to create a coordinated strategy to address transportation gaps and service needs, a coordinated mobility management approach is preferred. This study assumes that such an approach in Washington County could begin with the provision of integrated information about services and high-touch outreach to assist Washington County residents with travel plans through travel navigation assistance and information & referral services (see 6-60). Putting this into place is seen as a building block toward a trip brokerage approach, whereby Washington County’s existing providers would make their services available to a larger share of the eligible population through coordinated scheduling and/or dispatch of trips across multiple providers (see page 6-49). This is a model that may be implemented over time, with the expectation that a true “one click, one-call” transportation brokerage may not be in effect in Washington County for three years after a decision to implement such an effort. A voucher program (through a subsidized taxi or ride hailing service, described on page 6-56) could be an initial — albeit less efficient — step to allocate trips to multiple providers. Study stakeholders indicated a strong preference for a brokerage model in Washington County. In order to most effectively implement such a model, a brokerage would provide a single link to all of the primary transportation services available to older adults, people with disabilities and people with low incomes. At this time, only a few organizations in the county have the experience, breadth of service, or potential for staffing that would be required of a broker. These organizations include the following: Newtrax Canvas Health Community Thread Washington County United Way
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 7-8 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Other organizations that are not currently headquartered in Washington County might also be potential brokers, as well as private brokerage operators with a presence in the Twin Cities region (such as Medical Transportation Management (MTM) or First Transit, among others) or contracting with a neighboring county or service. Of the various nonprofit organizations in Washington County that are currently providing transportation services, Newtrax is perhaps best positioned to operate supplemental bus services. Newtrax management indicated they have organizational capacity to provide services for other organizations, to serve as a transit contractor to cities (i.e., for local circulators), or to provide special group trips. Newtrax also has the capacity to integrate multiple providers into its service network and act in a mobility management capacity. The organization has shown some success in getting both public and private dollars, and runs a sophisticated scheduling and dispatch program that allows funds to be allocated for trips based on riders’ eligible funding sources. While Newtrax shows potential strength in the administration and the direct provision of bus transportation services, other existing organizations have roles to play in an expanded pool of transportation offerings. For example, with additional funding and staffing, an organization like Community Thread could expand a program of volunteer drivers, providing incentives to aid in recruitment of volunteers and supplemental liability insurance for drivers to ensure their riders’ safety. Canvas Health could also provide transportation services, or offer expanded information and referral services, beyond what is currently provided. In fact, various representatives from employers, medical centers, and local jurisdiction indicated an interest and willingness to consider funding the coordinated transportation solutions identified this study.
Although any number of Washington County organizations could be called upon to offer their talents or share resources with the appropriate lead agencies and organizations to facilitate the implementation of strategies defined in this plan, only some have specific experience that suggests they might be positioned to take the lead role in a coordinated transportation brokerage. Figure 7-2 illustrates the five organizations on the list that have the most relevant experience, based on the types of functions/characteristics needed for a successful brokerage. The figure is neither intended to rule out any organization from assuming the role of broker, nor should it suggest than any of these organizations is interested in assuming a countywide brokerage role at this time, but highlights that even some of the organizations that have been most active in trying to coordinate transportation services in Washington County currently have limited experience with some of the functions that would likely be required of them.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 7-9 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Figure 7-2 Assets and Organizations: Potential Brokerage Leaders among Washington County Organizations
Identified Skill or Characteristic Washington Canvas Community Newtrax United County Health Thread Way
Countywide focus?
Brokers transportation services? Leader in transportation coordination efforts? Organizational focus on transportation services?
Provider of transportation services? Operates call center for scheduling and dispatch? Provides information and referral or /travel navigation service? Provides public information about programs/services? Administers funding for transportation services? Experience with target demographics and constituencies? Experience working with an array of providers? Experience with vouchers/direct payment programs?
Organization has relevant skill or experience in this area
Organization has relevant skill or experience in this area, but this is not a critical role for a broker
Not a typical function for this organization; does not have relevant skill or experience in this area
Figure 7-2 illustrates that Newtrax, as discussed above, has the most relevant set of skills currently for carrying forward a brokerage in Washington County. Washington County submitted a grant application to fund a new mobility manager position and may, in the future, have dedicated staffing that could assume the role of managing a brokerage as a function of the County or providing oversight for a brokerage led by a nonprofit or contracted for-profit organization. It should be noted that some of the other brokerages discussed among the peers in this report started off as small operations serving specific population groups, so any number of existing organizations or a new organization could most certainly initiate a brokerage effort. Some concerns about organizations taking the lead without experience serving the needs of all the markets that are the focus of this planning effort should be considered. In other words, Newtrax’s focus has primarily been on people with disabilities, especially those with intellectual and developmental disabilities, although their outreach efforts to expand their services have focused
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 7-10 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
on other populations. Likewise, Community Thread’s primary market is older adults. Although these organizations work beyond their core mission, there may be some resistance by some agencies or cities to having transportation services brokered by an organization that is perceived to have a narrow focus. Another possible obstacle includes the perception that some organizations may not appear neutral (concerns they may favor their own clients over others, may opt to operate the services in-house that generate higher revenues, etc.). For these reasons, an existing organization might initiate a brokerage, but then transfer it from the original lead agency to create a stand-alone operation or new agency. Some successful brokers do not provide the transportation services that operate as part of the brokerage: they may schedule rides, but assign trips to an array of different providers. For example, Washington County might ultimately broker trips but not operate transportation services, instead assigning them to other agencies, volunteer drivers, taxi providers, etc. Likewise, Washington County could opt to contract with a public or nonprofit entity outside of the county that is currently providing similar services, such as Heartland Express in Chisago and Isanti Counties or Dakota County. Determining which agency might serve as a broker is not imperative at this time, but it is important for Washington County to consider the advantages of particular agencies or organizations that might lead a brokerage. Regardless of which organization ultimately brokers services, any number of partner organizations would likely have key mobility management roles in public awareness, funding, grant writing, and service expansion.
Implementation of Tier 1 and Tier 2 Strategies: Short-Term Steps toward a Brokerage The most successful implementation of strategies will include centralized oversight, but in the initial phase, programs can continue to operate separately as they do today. Even so, setting the stage for a brokerage suggests several efforts would be beneficial. A conceptual flow chart of general implementation steps to advance transportation coordination and the implementation of priorities services in Washington County is shown in Figure 7-3. The intention of this chart is not to proscribe a specific process or set of strategies for Washington County, but to identify how strategies might be carried forward over time. An actual schedule for phasing implementation will be based on several factors including, importantly, the availability of funding to advance the preferred strategies, continued leadership on the part of Washington County, partnerships with other entities or organizations that have a significant stake in transportation coordination and expansion, the success of programs underway, the demand for new services and programs, and changes in transportation technology which would allow Washington County to fast-track some strategies that are assumed to take place longer term. As a result, evaluation of the strategies in operation will be a critical element to assess how far transportation stakeholders in Washington County will be able to carry forward the preferred strategies.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 7-11 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Figure 7-3 Conceptual Implementation Steps and Timeline for Washington County for (Tier I and II Strategies)
Hire mobility manager Discuss potential roles for mobility Initiate travel navigation function Determine advisory framework and management and future brokerage Meet with employers regarding establish Washington County to assess resources opportunities for site-specific Transportation Coordination Develop comprehensive database shuttles Consortium of resources Outreach to cities regarding Plan for implementation of travel opportunities for funding of navigation community circulators
0-6 months 0-6 months 6-12 months
Identify responsibilities and Develop strategies for Implement program for subsidized develop approach for implementing or expanding, taxi or ride-hailing service (if not implementation of community insuring, and improving capacity of feasible, develop RFP for on- circulators volunteer driver program in demand service) Washington County Finalize funding for volunteer Confirm participants for initial driver program and implement Initiate discusions with ride-hailing implementaion of brokerage model and taxi programs regarding Depending on opportunities for and finalize brokerage lead agency opportunities to provide subsidized vouchers or subsidies for taxis and Conduct evaluations of existing services ridehailing services, develop programs approach for implementation of on- demand bus or van service
6-12 months 12-18 months 12-24 months
Conduct regular and ongoing Engage Coordinating Consortium As programs demonstrate meetings of Coordinating to lead efforts on dial-a-ride success, begin integration of Consortium to strengthen improvements,implementation or brokerage for information, brokerage expansion of other communiy dispatch, scheduling, and funding circulators, and building As services are implemented, partnerships for brokerage conduct evaluations of administration, effectiveness and impacts
18-24 months 2-3 years 3+ years
Note: Assumes ongoing progress by a mobility manager in promoting vanpool and carpool programs, developing approaches for accessible infrastrucure investments, and achieving funding for transit service expansion.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 7-12 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Staffing Under a centralized brokerage, staff responsibilities could be consolidated within a single agency or shared among agencies or organizations. It is expected that the primary staff responsibilities would include the following: Management of the program. Oversee elements of management, staff supervision, budgeting, accounting, purchasing, marketing, and payroll. Coordinate with partner agencies. This includes ongoing communication and coordination with agencies that interface with the broker, as well as facilitating information sharing among partners, and program evaluation. Market and distribute public information. Maintain and update travel navigation tools or a special website developed for Washington County. Prepare newsletters and other outreach materials. Implement specialized programs and offer technical expertise. Staff would be responsible for training and serve as a resource for human service providers and cities in Washington County that need technical assistance for grant writing, driver training, registering participants in the brokered service, and outreach. Manage and monitor the transportation provider contracts. This involves oversight of transportation provider contracts including procurement of new providers, quality assurance checks, processing payment, and other day-to-day tasks to ensure contract compliance. Develop, maintain and update a transportation program rider database. Perform trip navigation and scheduling tasks. In the short term, performing ongoing information and referral and trip assistance functions will be a key element of the work responsibilities for the lead agency’s staff. Longer term, additional staff will be required for scheduling trips. Compile operating and financial statistics and prepare performance reports. This function involves gathering all operating and financial data and developing a standard performance report including tables, charts and graphs. The report would be distributed to the Washington County Transportation Coordinating Consortium, the brokerage organization’s governing board, and partner agencies and interested stakeholders. Apply for and coordinate funding. There are a number of opportunities for securing public and private funding sources to help finance programs, as discussed in Chapter 8. Applying for funds; coordinating with other partner agencies and businesses; following through with funding requests; and securing funding agreements are major responsibilities. This also involves cost-sharing among partner organizations and using funds appropriate for the specific services being offered by the broker and for specific rider groups (assigning costs to the appropriate funding sources). Plan, implement and evaluate new types of services. These responsibilities involve detailed planning and implementing of new types of service such as expanded Tier 1 and additional Tier 2 strategies that could be more easily implemented once a centralized brokerage is in place.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 7-13 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Specific staffing requirements are dependent upon the scale of the transportation programs and brokerage, but based on best practices elsewhere, it is assumed that a brokerage would require at least 1 or 2 FTE for management and oversight, program coordination, marketing, and finance. 0.5 FTE is assumed for technology needs. Depending on program size, between 2 and 10 FTE may be required eventually for outreach, scheduling, travel navigation, information and referral, and dispatch (if that responsibility is handled in house). Operations staff – drivers, maintenance personnel – could be in-house employees or contracted staff. An estimated breakdown of these functions is shown in Figure 6-1; with implementation of all of these functions, it is assumed there would be economies of scale allowing some functions to be consolidated under a brokerage.
Evaluation Most successful strategies evolve by tailoring services in response to user and sponsor feedback. Collecting timely information allows a lead agency and program partners to track program progress and refine services as needed. Evaluation results also support marketing and outreach campaigns. Three different types of evaluations are recommended to determine the effectiveness of the strategies implemented in Washington County: from the perspectives of program administration, program efficiency, and program impact. Specific criteria for conducting the evaluations will need to be developed with input from the Washington County Transportation Coordinating Consortium, which should also provide direction to the County Board on actions that would need to be taken if administrative weaknesses are identified or if specific strategies are not meeting the objectives they were indented to meet. Program Administration. An administrative review would focus on the overall administrative function and the performance of the responsible entity, individual and its partners. It should consider the lead agency’s perspective on how well the operational aspects of the program are working, including eligibility and other program requirements, day-to-day procedures and number of staff hours (or FTEs) devoted to administering the service. The evaluation would ideally be conducted both by the lead agency and the Transportation Coordinating Consortium, likely involving feedback from consumers. The purpose of this evaluation is to answer the following types of questions: Were the roles and responsibilities between the program administrator and partners clear, and were they followed? What types of problems did you encounter and how did you address them? Were the established process and procedures followed for expanding transportation services, developing contracts, enrolling eligible individuals in the programs, encouraging partner participation, etc.? Were they easy to understand and administer? Were program policies reasonable and were they consistently applied? Who were the program users or participants? Were all eligibility requirements (if any) met?
Feedback should also be sought on marketing strategies and their effectiveness. Program Efficiency. A program efficiency evaluation should consider quantitative information for each transportation strategy focused on costs. Start-up or initial capital costs should be documented as well as ongoing operating costs including labor (staff time), direct expenses (marketing, printing, etc) and in-kind services. The evaluation should include quantitative benefits such as the number of riders or program participants
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 7-14 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
during the first six and 12 months of operation and compare this program outcome with costs. This information can be useful for expanding the programs and sharing the outcomes achieved with any jurisdictions that may have concerns about participating in any initial strategies or programs, as a way to build valuable support for program expansion in other Washington County cities. Key performance indicators should address: Were the start-up costs in line with initial estimates and benchmarks from other successful programs? Is the trend showing increasing usage or participation over time? What are the operating costs per program participant? Is the cost per participant showing an improving trend over time? If performance standards were recommended, were they met? If not, are they expected to be met in the next six to 12 months? The evaluation should also identify the users of the program or service, communities served, types of trips taken, reasons for using service, etc. This aspect of the evaluation should be tailored to each program element. Based on the outcome of the efficiency evaluation, strategies that enjoy positive data and trends should be considered for expansion and carried forward. Strategies that are determined to be inefficient should be modified (i.e., tighten or loosen eligibility criteria, limit or expand a service area, impose limits on use, etc.) or discontinued. Program Impact Critical to the evaluation process should be feedback directly from program participants on the impact of transportation services. Potential participants were considered carefully in the study process and participated in stakeholder and community outreach efforts as well as via the online comment form. Participant feedback is a valuable tool in evaluating the various strategies and can be used to understand the attractiveness and limitations of each effort and to track impacts in meeting mobility needs. Surveys and/or interviews should be used to solicit information helpful to program and marketing design, such as participant’s reasons for joining or using various services, how they heard about the service, and ideas for making it easier to use. Questions should also address behavioral changes to assess whether people are leaving their home more often, participating in activities/going places they could not before, able to hold a job and reliably travel to that job, and questions can address whether there have been any health impacts. The outcomes should update a demographic analysis. In some cases, a before- and-after survey could be considered to understand if access to activities has been enhanced and how travel patterns have changed. The focus of impact evaluation will be on assessing the impact of transit programs on mental and physical health, overall quality of life and connection to community. CONCLUSION A number of major implementation considerations exist for carrying forward the preferred transportation strategies and working within a mobility management framework to address Washington County’s transportation gaps. Some of the strategies are longer term, and will require
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 7-15 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
implementation in phases. As new strategies are implemented, some of the other strategies may be determined not to be effective or appropriate, and some may face financial challenges. This study identifies potential partners for building a baseline transportation network in Washington County, as well as the strategies that are most likely to be successful. To advance the recommendations, Washington County must convene potential partners — funders, transportation providers, and users (or organizations that need the services) — to consider potential operational approaches and coordination strategies for those who wish to participate. Developing a forum through a Transportation Coordinating Consortium allows county departments, cities, and agencies to focus on transportation at a scale that transcends jurisdictional boundaries. The discussion in this chapter may be used as a starting point for further discussion and development of tools to expand transportation options for Washington County residents. Washington County’s best strategy is perhaps to demonstrate the effectiveness of a limited number of Tier 1 programs, expand them, and implement new alternatives, including Tier 2 programs. At the same time, education and outreach to partners and consumers is important so that the community can better understand the availability and benefits of programs and services. Where successes can be demonstrated and their impacts understood, individuals and organizations may learn that transportation investment can drive healthy economic development in Washington County. They may also see the potential benefit of additional investment.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 7-16 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY Funding
FUNDING STRATEGIES Whether a mobility management approach is carried forward or individual strategies are advanced, securing funding to support these initiatives will be critical for Washington County, and many funding sources come with obstacles. A new grant award for mobility management staffing may provide Washington County with an opportunity to chase some of the other potential funding sources. Existing funding for transit in Washington County comes from a mix of federal, state, and regional sources (including regional sources generated from Washington County local funds). County staff are well versed in state and federal funding programs and at locating a variety of funding sources to supplement local funding sources. The county should continue to pursue all traditional funding programs. Both national and state legislative support for transit funding is dynamic and transit finance will likely change in the future. Because of the changing landscape for transit funding, the county should employ a diverse range of funding and implementation strategies. In general, this means: Local leaders should continue to aggressively seek new and innovative forms of non-local assistance, and support legislation that will generate additional transportation funding assistance. Public-private partnerships should be considered as an appropriate way to equitably distribute costs resulting from development. Agencies may need to partner, pool resources, and jointly lobby for outside funding assistance for major projects that could provide significant long-term benefits to Washington County. Washington County should continue to pursue regional transportation funds (Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ), Surface Transportation Program (STP), Transportation Enhancement (TE), etc.) through grant applications to the Metropolitan Council. Potential federal funding may come in the form of major infrastructure investment. It remains to be seen how much this will impact transit and whether it will be strictly capital investment or whether funds will be made available for operations. Historically, specialized federal funding has resulted in capital programs, but has not always supported operating costs. Infrastructure investment could benefit transitways such as the Gold Line, park-ride facilities, and transit hubs. It would likely have little benefit for demand-responsive services or services for individuals with disabilities, though monies could be used for investment in accessible infrastructure. Federal Funding Federal funding for transit comes primarily from formula funds that are distributed to states and major metropolitan areas to assist in financing the capital and operating needs of public transit systems. The Metropolitan Council is the recipient of these funds for the Twin Cities metropolitan
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 8-1 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY Funding
area, which includes Washington County. The Minnesota Department of Transportation receives and administers these funds for small metropolitan and rural areas (e.g., Chisago County to the north of Washington County). The Council, in turn, allocates these funds to Metro Transit and other transit providers in the region. Formula funds come from several federal sources including 5303, 5304, 5305, 5307, 5311, and 5339 funds. There are also several discretionary federal funding sources that are distributed on a competitive basis. While the following is not a comprehensive list of federal funding sources, these are the primary sources relevant to transit facilities and services in Washington County.
Regional Allocation of Federal Formula Funding Federal transportation funds are allocated to local jurisdictions (i.e., cities, counties, and other qualified agencies) by the Metropolitan Council and the regional Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) through competitive application process, known as the Regional Solicitation Process. There are two primary federal funding programs allocated through the Regional Solicitation Process, as described below. The rules and requirements for the use of these funds are established by the U.S. Department of Transportation and the regional Transportation Advisory Board (TAB). Surface Transportation Block Grants: A flexible program that includes funding for roadways, transit, bridges, and a variety of pedestrian and bicycle features. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ): Funding program with a variety of eligible projects specifically addressing congestion and reducing air pollution. CMAQ grants may be used for any transit capital expenditures otherwise eligible for FTA funding if they have an air quality benefit. Projects funded by the Regional Solicitation Process are grouped into three groups: (1) roadways, (2) bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and (3) transit and travel demand management projects. The general funding allocations for each these categories are shown in Figure 8-1. Figure 8-1 Metropolitan Council Regional Solicitation Funding Allocations
Bicycle and Pedestrian , 15%
Roadways, 58%
Transit and TDM, 27%
In 2016, a total of $204,330,378 in federal funds were awarded to the Twin Cities metro area through the Regional Solicitation Process. Of this, $53,067,509 (26%) was awarded to transit expansion and modernization projects. Only one project was awarded within Washington County – a roadway expansion project in the amount of $7,000,000 (3% of total funds awarded).
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 8-2 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY Funding
Discretionary Federal Funding Sources The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) provides funding to improve mobility, streamline capital project construction and acquisition, and increase the safety of public transportation systems across the country. Figure 8-2 provides a summary of the FTA grant programs most relevant to Washington County. Figure 8-2 FTA Grant Programs
Title Description 5339 – Buses and This is a competitive federal grants program to replace, rehabilitate, and purchase buses and Bus Facilities related equipment and construct bus-related facilities. Only major bus transit systems such as Metro Transit are eligible to compete. The improvements must not be achievable through formula allocations. 5309 – Capital This is a competitive federal grants program to fund major capital transit investments such as Investment Grants heavy rail, light rail, streetcars, and bus rapid transit. This also includes the Expedited Project Delivery for Capital Investment Grants Pilot, which allows up to eight projects to be selected for expedited grant awards if they are supported by a public-private partnership, demonstrate local financial commitment, and meet other requirements. The METRO Gold Line is an example of a project that would be eligible for this funding. 5309 – TOD Planning This competitive program funds land use and transportation planning associated with a transit capital investment that will seek funding under the Capital Investment Grant program. 5310 – Enhanced This formula-based program allocates funding to states to assist private, nonprofit groups in Mobility of Seniors & meeting transportation needs of the older adults and individuals with disabilities. Individuals with Disabilities 3006(b) of FAST Act Recipients of 5310 funds are eligible to compete for this program that provides funding for innovative projects that improve the coordination of transportation services and non- emergency medical transportation services. 5311 – Formula This formula-based program is administered by MnDOT, which provides funding to the Grants for Rural Metropolitan Council to support transit capital and operating costs in the non-urban portions Areas of the Twin Cities metropolitan area. These funds will cover 80 percent of capital costs, 50 percent of operating costs, and 80 percent of ADA paratransit costs (operating on capital). 5312 – Mobility on This competitive program funds projects that promote innovative business models to deliver Demand (MOD) “high quality, seamless and equitable mobility options for all travelers.” Sandbox Demo Program 5312 – Public This competitive program provides funding to develop innovative products and services Transportation assisting transit agencies in better meeting the needs of their customers. Innovation 5312(i) – Transit This is a competitive research grant program that is intended to develop near-term, practical Cooperative solutions such as best practices, transit security guidelines, testing prototypes, and new Research Program planning and management tools. Zero Emission Non-profit organizations may apply for funding to conduct research, demonstrate, test, or Research evaluate zero emission and related technology for public transportation applications. Opportunity (ZERO)
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 8-3 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY Funding
Title Description TIGER This competitive grants program provides funding for innovative, multi-modal, and multi- jurisdictional transportation projects that promise significant economic and environmental benefits to an entire metropolitan area, a region, or the nation.
State Funding At the state level, there does not appear to be current legislative support for state funds for large- scale capital investment in transit facilities, particularly rail transit. This could impact the planned Gold Line and other transitways in or near Washington County such as Red Rock Corridor. There also does not appear to be current legislative support for increasing state funds for transit operations. This will likely result in a need to increase fares and reduce services. This could have an impact on regular route service, as well as Transit Link and Metro Mobility services provided in Washington County. Fare increases would affect people in Washington County using these services.
State General Fund and Motor Vehicle Sales Taxes State transit funding comes from the State General Fund and Motor Vehicle Sales Taxes (MVST). These funds are received by Metropolitan Council and allocated to transit providers in the region. In 2016, MVST accounted for about 53% and the State General Fund accounted for about 10% of revenue for Metro Transit. Overall, about 65% of Metro Transit’s funding is from state and federal sources.
Minnesota Department of Human Services Funding for Non-Emergency Medical Transportation Services (NEMT) is available for qualified recipients through the Minnesota Department of Human Services. The recipient arranges transportation through a certified or common carrier (usually a county or tribal agency). The services may be provided by private automobiles, volunteer drivers, buses, taxicabs, light rail, or other commercial carriers. Reimbursement is based on the specific assistance provided by the driver to the recipient of the services. Non-medical transportation is available through Home and Community Based Services. Figure 8-3 lists common transportation reimbursement models for the Minnesota Department of Human Services. Figure 8-3 Minnesota Department of Human Services Transportation Funding
Program Description Waiver funded Provides transportation for services to qualified recipients in the community (excludes transportation transportation authorized as part of full-day Day Training and Habilitation (DT&H) Programs). Transportation must be necessary to meet individuals’ needs as stated in a support plan. Waiver transportation rates are market rate services, as determined by the lead agency and service provider. Day Training and Transportation services are provided for qualified DT&H participants. Transportation costs are Habilitation (DT&H) added to the service costs and the rates are bundled. DT&H service providers may subcontract with a transportation provider and some subcontract with Metro Mobility and Transit Link. Consumer Directed Consumer directed community support (CDCS) is a service option that gives people flexibility Community Support to direct their own services and supports. People with self-directed CDCS can arrange their
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 8-4 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY Funding
own transportation and determine the payment rate for their rides. Waiver transportation may be used by people with CDCS services.
Regional Transportation Funding Washington County collects a 0.25% transportation sales and use tax. Revenue from the tax may be used for transportation capital and operating expenses within the county, including transit capital and operating expenses. The expense must be part of a project listed in the county’s adopted transportation sales and use tax plan. Changes to the plan may be made following a public hearing and must be approved by the Washington County Board of Commissioners. The strategies listed in this report are not included in the plan and therefore are currently not approved for funding under this tax. The county could consider amending the plan in the future for specific transit projects that have a capital and/or operating component. Local Funding In addition to federal and state funding sources, there is a range of potential funding sources at the local level. Examples of local funding sources include property and sales taxes, fees, incentives, public-private partnerships, and many others. Figure 8-4 includes a description of local funding sources often applied with the metro area that could be used by Washington County to support the recommended strategies.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 8-5 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Figure 8-4 Description of Potential Local Funding Sources
Matching Estimated Annual Name Description/Purpose Allowable Uses Requirements Revenues Process/Eligibility Property Tax Levy The property tax levy is one of the county’s primary revenue The county has wide discretion in the use of levy dollars. The uses of the levy for None High Washington County collects property taxes on over 100,000 sources. It is levied by the County Board, at their discretion. The transportation improvements compete with other desired or potential uses of the parcels each year. The amount of tax each property pays is county’s total levy amount is subject to levy limits as determined annual tax levy. based on valuation and classification information collected by by the State Legislature. the county’s licensed appraisers. County Sales Tax The revenues generated from sales tax imposed by the county The county may use transportation sales tax revenues for capital and operating costs None High/Medium The county sales tax is collected by the Minnesota Department may be levied to fund transportation projects. The current of transportation projects. These revenues could be dedicated to transit if desired by of Revenue, on behalf of Washington County. transportation sales and use tax rate is 0.25%. This tax may be the county. increased to 0.50% without additional legislative authorization. Special Special assessments are a charge imposed on properties for Special assessment bonds can be used for the construction/reconstruction or None Medium/Low Special assessment bonds can be sold (without a vote of the Assessments improvements that benefits owners of selected properties. The improvement of CSAH roads, county roads, or city streets where there is a specific citizens), to finance any infrastructure defined as eligible by state constitution allows the state legislature to give cities and benefit to property owners. State Statutes. The debt service is paid by the special other governmental units the authority “to levy and collect assessment collections. assessments for local improvements upon property benefited thereby.” General Obligation A general obligation bond (GO) is a bond backed by the credit General obligation bonds are eligible to be used for most any improvement project None Medium General obligation bonds require voter approval and the debt Bonds and taxing power of the issuing jurisdiction. such as transit and roadway infrastructure, right-of-way, signals/intersections, service tax levies are spread on a market value basis. trails/pedestrian improvement, and corridor landscaping/lighting. Tax increment Tax Increment Financing is a method of funding infrastructure Tax increment financing is eligible to be used for infrastructure projects, including None Low Tax increment financing requires approval from applicable financing improvements that are needed immediately, using the additional roadways, transit improvements, right-of-way, etc. school districts, municipal, and county agencies. tax revenue to be generated in future years from a specific development to pay off public bonds. Tax Abatement Tax abatements are revenues from a tax collected by the Tax abatement may be used for redevelopment of blighted areas, construction of None Low Counties, cities, and schools may grant abatements of the municipality, county, and schools that are being held for a public infrastructure (including transportation), etc. taxes they impose for a broad range of projects, if the designated purpose. government finds public benefits exceed costs. Wheelage tax Wheelage tax is a per-vehicle tax on automobiles and trucks Proceeds from wheelage tax can be used for a specific transportation project or None Medium The use of wheelage tax requires approval from State (excluding motorcycles, trailers, and buses). improvement, and the taxes must terminate after the project or improvement has been Legislature (currently used in Washington County) completed. Transient Occupancy Transient Occupancy Tax is revenue generated from general Transient Occupancy Tax can be used for capital and operating costs for None Low The state Legislature has approved a tax rate of 3% to be Tax (hotel guest tax) sales tax imposed by local unit of government. improvements that will provide a benefit to a specific area. levied in entertainment districts, as designated by the local taxing authority. Parking Tax Revenues generated from tax on parking. Parking tax can be used for capital and operating costs for improvements that will None Low The use of parking tax requires approval from the State provide a benefit to a specific area. Legislature. Transit Utility Fee Transit Utility fees are fees for public transit that are added to Transit Utility fees can be used for capital and operating costs for improvements that None Low The use of transit utility fees requires approval from the State sewer/garbage bills. will provide a benefit to a specific area. Legislature. Metropolitan Council Funding from the Metropolitan Council helps subsidize the Funding from the Metropolitan Council can be used to subsidize the cost of a vehicle None Low People leasing vanpool vans apply for funding from the Vanpool Subsidies overall cost of leasing a Metro Vanpool van. for an approved vanpool program. Metro Vanpools that operate exclusively within the Metropolitan Council. seven-county metropolitan area receive a 55 percent subsidy on the van lease. Metro Vanpools that start or are traveling to locations outside the seven-county metropolitan area receive a 50 percent subsidy on the van lease.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 8-6 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Public-Private Partnerships Direct or in-kind contributions can provide important marginal support for transit services. It is common, for instance, for retailers and merchants to financially contribute to a community circulator service, and major employers often contribute to transit linking job sites to major rail or bus connections. These contributions can include direct annual contributions for operating costs, or contribution of capital facilities such as passenger benches and shelters. Many examples exist of new JPAs being developed to oversee major public-private partnership efforts. A Transportation Management Association (TMA) is an organized group of entities focused on facilitating the movement of people and goods within an area. TMAs are often legally constituted and frequently led by the private sector in partnership with the public sector to solve transportation problem: transportation, traffic and air quality issues. By working together, participating organizations usually focus on enhancing the local business environment. TMAs are organizations whose members include employers, developers, building owners, residential communities, and public agencies. TMAs are often eligible recipients of several funding programs, allowing for opportunities for private and public funds, which would not otherwise be available to individual employers or developers. EXISTING COST ALLOCATION TO TRANSPORTATION The Washington County Department of Community Services conducted an internal assessment of resources allocated to serving the transportation needs of residents participating in Community Services programs. The assessment originally intended to capture the costs and staff time associated with providing transportation across county departments, but through discussions with other departments, it became clear that only Community Services is regularly providing transportation for county residents. The source of the information discussed in this section is the Washington County Department of Community Services. If abundant transportation services were available in Washington County, it is likely county staff would not need to provide these trips, but without reliable and available same-day transportation in Washington County, the Community Services Department must provide these trips to meet a variety of needs.
Methodology To calculate resources expended on consumer transportation, the Department of Community Services calculated the cost of client travel using two weeks of re-imbursement data as a methodology to estimate monthly and annual costs. The total reimbursement dollar amount for each staff person is summed and then divided by $0.535, the mileage reimbursement cost, to calculate the total mileage driven. In addition to the mileage cost, total staff time spent driving is calculated by looking at total miles driven and dividing by 45, based on an assumption that travel speeds average 45 miles per hour. This number is then multiplied by $40 per hour to arrive at an estimate. The total number of trips was not recorded so the cost per actual trip is unknown. Average weekly distance traveled per staff member in the May 2017 sample is 96 miles, with a range of 2 to 424 miles per staff member. Using this methodology, Figure 8-5 shows the estimates of client travel cost and cost per mile.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 8-7 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Figure 8-5 Base Data Using Sampling Methodology
Two Weeks Two Weeks Two Weeks Two Weeks Mileage Est. Miles Est. Staff Est. Staff Total Cost Staff Cost Cost Traveled Cost Time per Mile per Mile December 2014 $1,057.00 1,887.50 $1,677.78 42 hours $1.45 $.89 Sample May 2017 $2,097.74 3,921 $3,485.33 87 hours $1.42* $.89 Sample *Lower cost is reflected in reduced reimbursement cost per mile (based on IRS standards from $.56 in 2014 to $.535 in 2017
Given that the reimbursement report can be easily generated, using mileage re-imbursement cost to estimate client miles traveled is a simple and practical method. Estimating total annual costs, however, has a degree of uncertainty since the cost formula operates on multiple assumptions that may not reflect actual travel. Breaking the two weeks of sample data for 2017 into single weeks shows that there is some variance between weeks. There was a 33% difference between the mileage costs in the two weeks, as shown in Figure 8-6. Figure 8-6 Variance by Week in Sample
Mileage Reimbursement Cost Estimated Mileage Week of 5/15/2017 $1,257.19 2,350 Week of 5/22/2017 $840.53 1,571
While generating a mileage reimbursement report for the entire year would better illustrate if the two weeks of data are representative of normal travel and verify the accuracy of the cost projection for the mileage traveled, this methodology provides a sufficient snapshot of Washington County’s expenditures to provide transportation services to residents.
Outcomes Figure 8-7 shows the annual estimated expenditures in 2014 and 2017. The cost estimate in 2014 was $71,104; in 2017, the estimated costs increased to $145,159, an increase of 51%, even with the lower mileage reimbursement cost in 2017. Even if there is variation on a weekly basis, as the review of the sample data illustrates, the estimates suggest the County has allocated more resources to providing same-day transportation for residents served by the Department of Community Services. Whether expenditures have fully doubled based on the sample is uncertain, but an equivalent investment of $145,000 would fund full-year weekday operation of a bus or van operating 9.5 hours per day.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 8-8 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
Figure 8-7 Estimated Direct Transportation Costs Paid by Washington County: 2014 and 2017
2014 2017 Percent Increase Month Annual Month Annual 2014-2017 (Estimated) (Estimated) (Estimated) (Estimated)
Mileage Number of Miles 4,089.58 49,075 8,495 101,946 108% Total Mileage Cost $2,290.17 $27,482.00 $4,545.09 $54,541.11 98% Staff Cost
Total Staff Time (hours) 91 1,091 189 2,265 108% Total Staff Cost $3,635.19 $43,622.22 $7,551.56 $90,618.67 108%
Total Costs Estimate $5,925.35 $71,104.22 $12,096.65 $145,159.78 104%
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 8-9 TRANSIT NEEDS STUDY DRAFT Report
This page intentionally left blank
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 8-10 BOARD MEETING DATE: Request for Board Action November 07, 2017 AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: Commissioner's Report 5 Department Information
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: REQUESTOR: REQUESTOR PHONE: Library Keith Ryskoski 651-275-8501 PRESENTER(S): MEDIA CONTACT: MEDIA CONTACT PHONE: Mary Burke Keith Ryskoski 651-275-8501
Agenda Item Details
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF YOUR REQUEST: Consideration of an update provided by the Marine Library Association (MarLA) on the activities and services provided by MarLA at the Marine on St. Croix Community Library.
AGENDA YOU ARE REQUESTING TIME ON: ARE YOU SEEKING APPROVAL OF A CONTRACT? Board No TIME NEEDED: 10 IS THIS MANDATED? EXPLANATION OF MANDATE: No BACKGROUND/JUSTIFICATION: In anticipation of the 6th birthday of the Marine Community Library, highlights of their programs, services and work of the community will be shared with the County Board. The Washington County Library works with the Marine Community Library to maintain and support the community library and to ensure that Marine residents continue to have access to the comprehensive library services provided at the County level.
PREVIOUS ACTION ON REQUEST / OTHER PARTIES INVOLVED? Yes The County Board has received previous updates from Marine Library Association.
Budget Information
FUNDING: NA
Approvals
COUNTY ATTORNEY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR: George Kuprian Molly O'Rourke
RECOMMENDATIONS: N/A RECOMMENDATIONS: Approved COMMENTS: COMMENTS: BOARD MEETING DATE: Request for Board Action November 07, 2017 AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: Commissioner's Report 6 Department Information
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: REQUESTOR: REQUESTOR PHONE: Public Health & Environment Jeff Travis 651-430-4033 PRESENTER(S): MEDIA CONTACT: MEDIA CONTACT PHONE: Jeff Travis Jeff Travis 651-430-4033
Agenda Item Details
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF YOUR REQUEST: Approval of a contract with Dynamic Recycling for the transportation and recycling of waste consumer electronics collected by the county at the Environmental Center and remote collection events.
AGENDA YOU ARE REQUESTING TIME ON: ARE YOU SEEKING APPROVAL OF A CONTRACT? Board Yes TIME NEEDED: 10 IS THIS MANDATED? EXPLANATION OF MANDATE: No BACKGROUND/JUSTIFICATION:
Washington County has been collecting and recycling waste consumer electronics since 2008. In 2017 it is estimated that 1.9 million pounds of waste electronics will be collected from county citizens. Public Health and Enviroment monitors the hazardous waste and recycling markets and recently conducted a Request-For-Proposals process to ensure the county receives the best available rates for recycling waste electronics. The county currently uses Dynamic Recycling under a state contract as its vendor for recycling waste electronics. The new contract, directly with Dynamic, will save the county about $78,000 annually. Under the state contract the 2018 cost for recycling waste electronics was projected to be $345,000. Under the new contract the 2018 cost is projected to be $267,000. The industry and markets for recycling waste electronics continue to evolve and one of the ways the county will save money under the new contract is by receiving credits for laptops and tower computers. The county will be paid per pound for these items, which reflects the valuable recoverable materials contained in these items and helps offset the overall cost of recycling waste electronics. This contract also produces slightly better rates on the recycling fees paid for monitors, televisions, and peripherals.
PREVIOUS ACTION ON REQUEST / OTHER PARTIES INVOLVED? Yes Electronic Recycling Board Action - 09/01/2009
Budget Information
FUNDING: EXPLANATION OF FUNDS: Other County Environmental Charge Approvals COUNTY ATTORNEY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR: George Kuprian Molly O'Rourke
RECOMMENDATIONS: Approved RECOMMENDATIONS: Approved COMMENTS: COMMENTS: Public Health and Environment Electronics Waste Management November 7, 2017 Background on E-waste Collection • 2007: State law making manufacturers and retailers responsible for e-waste recycling • 2008: Washington County begins collection program at Oakdale HHW facility (Saturday only) • 2010: County continues e-waste collection at Environmental Center (all open hours) • 2013: County adds e-waste collection to remote HHW events
2 Types of E-waste Collected
E-waste covered by state law includes: – Televisions – Monitors – Computers (towers and laptops) – Peripherals (printers, scanners, etc.) – Stereos, radios, and other items that contain a circuit board
3 Typical E-waste
Monitors Console Televisions
4 Typical E-Waste
Televisions
5 E-waste Program Data
Pounds of e-waste 2,000,000
1,800,000
1,600,000
1,400,000
1,200,000
1,000,000
800,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Pounds of e-waste
6 Proposed Contract
• Request for Proposals was issued in Summer 2017 and Dynamic Recycling was selected • Pricing, Environmental Management, and Customer Service are key criteria • Contract should save county $78,000 annually in e- waste recycling costs • Projected 2018 cost is $267,000 • Program is funded with County Environmental Charge
7 Questions?
8 BOARD MEETING DATE: Request for Board Action November 07, 2017 AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: Commissioner's Report 7 Department Information
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: REQUESTOR: REQUESTOR PHONE: Public Works Rita Conlin 651-430-4354 PRESENTER(S): MEDIA CONTACT: MEDIA CONTACT PHONE: Kevin Peterson Kevin Peterson 651-430-4330
Agenda Item Details
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF YOUR REQUEST: Adopt a resolution to approve Cooperative Agreement No. 133636 with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) for preliminary and final engineering on the Hadley Avenue (County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 35) and Trunk Highway (TH) 36 Interchange Project.
AGENDA YOU ARE REQUESTING TIME ON: ARE YOU SEEKING APPROVAL OF A CONTRACT? Board Yes TIME NEEDED: 10 IS THIS MANDATED? EXPLANATION OF MANDATE: No BACKGROUND/JUSTIFICATION: The intersection of Hadley Avenue and TH 36 is currently controlled by a traffic signal. This intersection has double the crash and severity rate for similar intersections, operates poorly, and traffic volumes are expected to increase 50% in the next 15 years. The DNR, City of Oakdale, Washington County, and Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT) have partnered to convert this intersection into a grade separated interchange. The project has received a State Transportation and Economic Development grant, a Federal grant, and funding through MnDOT's Cooperative Agreement program showing the importance and benefit of the project. The DNR has also received a Federal Grant to complete an underpass of the Gateway State Trail at Hadley Avenue. Washington County's project team has been working in partnership with the DNR to incorporate this improvement into the Hadley Avenue and TH 36 interchange project. As a result of this collaboration, the attached cooperative agreement outlines the terms and conditions and cost participation the DNR has agreed to for preliminary and final engineering services necessary to develop the plans and specifications for the Gateway State Trail. The DNR's cost share in the amount of $101,000 is included in the project's approved budget.
PREVIOUS ACTION ON REQUEST / OTHER PARTIES INVOLVED? Yes 9/8/15 - Board adopts resolution to apply for the Transportation Economic Development (TED) program for partial funding of this project. 12/15/15 - Board adopted the 2016-2020 Capital Improvement Plan that identifies this project. 8/9/2016 – Board approves preliminary engineering services contract for the Hadley Avenue (CSAH 35) and TH 36 Interchange Project. 8/8/2017 – Board approves final design engineering services contract for the Hadley Avenue (CSAH 35) and TH 36 Interchange Project. Budget Information FUNDING: EXPLANATION OF FUNDS: Other DNR Cooperative Agreement
Approvals
COUNTY ATTORNEY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR: George Kuprian Molly O'Rourke
RECOMMENDATIONS: Approved RECOMMENDATIONS: Approved COMMENTS: COMMENTS: Trunk Highway (TH) 36 & Hadley Avenue (County State Aid Highway 35) Interchange Project
Cooperative Agreement for Preliminary and Final Engineering with the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Washington County Board November 7, 2017 Kevin Peterson Project Manager Current Traffic: TH 36 = 30,700 vehicles per day (vpd) Hadley Ave = 14,500 vpd 2030 Forecasted Traffic: TH 36 = 44,300 vpd Hadley Ave = 17,400 vpd Project Overview • Crash and severity rate double the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) Metro District’s average • Gateway State Trail Underpass • Estimated Total Project Cost – $20M • Programmed 2019 Capital Improvement Project – Road & Bridge Project #2589
Project Schedule
• Aug 2016 to Oct 2017…... Public Involvement and Preliminary Design
• Oct 2017 to Oct 2018…… Final Design and Right- Of-Way
• Fall 2018…………………. Bid Opening
• Winter 2018……………… Begin Construction Partnerships
• Washington County is leading engineering effort – Minnesota Department of Transportation – Federal Highway Administration – City of Oakdale – Minnesota Department of Natural Resources – Fleet Farm Cooperative Agreement with DNR
• DNR Gateway Trail Underpass • $1Million federal grant for trail underpass construction – $101,000 Preliminary and Final Engineering Cooperative Agreement with DNR
• Other Agreements with the DNR: – Temporary Occupancy for Construction – complete – De Minimis Determination – complete – Construction Cost Cooperative Agreement – Construction Engineering Cost Cooperative Agreement – DNR Land Swap and Settlement Cooperative Agreement with DNR
• DNR Land Swap – 3.86 acres permanently impacted by construction – 2.17 acres returned to DNR for new trail alignment – 1.69 acre gap • Engineering fees can be used to bridge gap Board Action
• Recommend Board adopt resolution approving the cooperative agreement with the Department of Natural Resources in the amount of $101,000 to fund the DNR’s portion of Preliminary and Final Engineering of the TH 36 and Hadley Avenue Interchange Project. Questions? BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO.
DATE November 7, 2017 DEPARTMENT Public Works MOTION SECONDED BY BY COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE STATE OF MINNESOTA AND THE COUNTY OF WASHINGTON GATEWAY STATE TRAIL GRADE SEPERATION AND HADLEY AVENUE (COUNTY STATE AID HIGHWAY (CSAH) 35) AND TRUNK HIGHWAY (TH) 36 INTERCHANGE PROJECT
WHEREAS, the State and the County are authorized under Minnesota Statutes Section 471.59 to enter into agreements to jointly or cooperatively exercise common powers; and
WHEREAS, the State and County have determined that the development of a pedestrian tunnel under Hadley Avenue/CSAH 35 in association with the reconstruction of the Hadley Avenue/CSAH 35-TH.36 interchange located in the Community of Oakdale, Washington County is of high priority; and
WHEREAS, the State and the County have determined that the completion of the preliminary and final State Trail Plan, including all required specifications, is most effectively completed in association with the completion of the final design and specifications for the Hadley Avenue/CSAH 35 and TH 36 Interchange reconstruction; and
WHEREAS, the County has agreed to be the lead agency for the completion of the necessary preliminary and final surveys, alignment selections, geotechnical investigations, and preliminary and corridor design, engineering, and the final plans and specifications for State Trail Plan; and
WHEREAS, the State has agreed to provide funding assistance with the completion of the necessary preliminary and final surveys, alignment selections, and preliminary corridor design and engineering necessary to develop the final plans and specifications for State Trail Plan; and
WHEREAS, upon completion of a final State Trail Plan for the development of the State Trail at Hadley Avenue/CSAH 35, the State and the County shall cooperatively develop a separate Agreement for the development, administration, operations and maintenance of the pedestrian tunnel for the Gateway State Trail.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the cooperative agreement between the State and the County be executed through the signatures of the County Board Chair and the County Administrator without further action of the County Board conditioned upon approval as to form by the Washington County Attorney’s office.
ATTEST: YES NO
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR MIRON KRIESEL
WEIK COUNTY BOARD CHAIR BIGHAM KARWOSKI
Updated: December 2016 BOARD MEETING DATE: Request for Board Action November 07, 2017 AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: Commissioner's Report 12 Department Information
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: REQUESTOR: REQUESTOR PHONE: Public Health & Environment Nicole Stewart 651-430-6713 PRESENTER(S): MEDIA CONTACT: MEDIA CONTACT PHONE: Nikki Stewart Nicole Stewart 651-430-6713
Agenda Item Details
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF YOUR REQUEST: Board workshop on the draft Washington County Waste Management Master Plan 2018-2036
AGENDA YOU ARE REQUESTING TIME ON: ARE YOU SEEKING APPROVAL OF A CONTRACT? Workshop No TIME NEEDED: 30 IS THIS MANDATED? EXPLANATION OF MANDATE: Yes Metropolitan counties are required by state law to revise their waste management master plans after adoption of a Metropolitan Solid Waste Policy Plan; a revised Metropolitan Solid Waste Policy Plan was adopted on April 6, 2017. (473.803 Subd. 1)
BACKGROUND/JUSTIFICATION: The first Washington County Waste Management Master Plan (Master Plan) was adopted in 1984, and this will be the sixth county plan. The Master Plan guides county actions in waste management and identifies specific strategies on how to address and provide support on a variety of issues. The workshop will: • Highlight Master Plan requirements • Summarize plan revision process, role of Ad Hoc Waste Plan Committee, and stakeholder engagement • Include overview of changes to plan from previous plan • Provide an opportunity for Board to review and comment on the Master Plan
PREVIOUS ACTION ON REQUEST / OTHER PARTIES INVOLVED? No
Budget Information
FUNDING: NA
Approvals
COUNTY ATTORNEY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR: George Kuprian Molly O'Rourke
RECOMMENDATIONS: N/A RECOMMENDATIONS: Approved COMMENTS: COMMENTS: Washington County Waste Management Master Plan Board Workshop November 7, 2017 County Waste Management Master Plan • Required by state law • Revised every 6 years following Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Policy Plan, April 7, 2017 • Specific waste objectives and expectations by MPCA • Goals: • Prioritize preventing waste in the first place • Foster reuse and recycling opportunities, including organics diversion, and least amount going to land disposal 2 New State Policy Plan Regional Objectives Compared to 2015 Levels
Region Management State Policy Plan Objectives Actual Method 2015 2020 2025 2030 2036 Source Reduction/ N/A 1.5% 3% 4% 5% Reuse Recycling 39% 51% 54% 60% 60% Organics 10% 12% 14% 15% 15% Recovery
Resource 28% 35% 31% 24% 24% Recovery
Landfill 23% 2% 1% 1% 1%
3 Changes Since Last Plan in 2012 • Single sort curbside recycling • Mandatory commercial recycling law • Increased recycling and organics diversion via BizRecycling • 75% state recycling goal • Internal leadership ‐ Divert 70 • Purchase of Recycling & Energy Center (R&E Center), waste designation • More schools with increased recycling • Cities and townships ‐ public space recycling
4 Waste Plan Revision Approach
• New requirements in MPCA policy Plan: • Revised numeric waste objectives & 75% recycling goal • Residential organics • Waste reduction, reuse, including food waste prevention • Direction on joint activities through Ramsey/Washington Recycling & Energy Board (R&E Board) • Ad Hoc Waste Management Planning Committee • Stakeholder engagement process • Input to draft – press release, county website, emails to cities/townships, school districts, waste haulers, businesses, MPCA
5 Revision Process Stakeholder Engagement
• Ad Hoc Waste Plan Committee – 2 meetings • Residents Surveys • City Recycling Coordinators • Waste Haulers • Schools • Multi‐unit Dwelling Property Mgrs. Phone interviews • Key county department staff • Public Works, Building Services Online survey administered by R&E • Businesses Board
6 Ad Hoc Waste Plan Committee
Role: Aid in the preparation of plan by discussing how incorporate findings from the stakeholder engagement activities
Members: Theresa Creighton Resident representative from Woodbury Jackie Garofalo Municipal rep for Stillwater Township John Jacobson Resident rep from Newport Mike Maroney Private waste hauler Maroney’s Sanitation Robert Stewart Private waste hauler Highland Sanitation Stan Karwoski County Commissioner District 2 Peder Sandhei MPCA
7 Plan Outline
Overall Policies Policies: the “why” Governance • Most carried over from Chapters – Polices & Strategies previous plan • Communication & Education • Changes reflect joint areas with Ramsey County or • Cost & Finance new/revised roles such as • Land Disposal & NonMSW in yard waste, system measurement, health (non mixed municipal waste) equity and environmental Management justice • Performance Measurement Strategies: the “how” • Processing – Emerging • Marked as continued, Technologies enhanced, new • Chapter with most • Recycling, Organics, & Yard additions – Recycling, Waste Organics, & Yard Waste • Toxicity Reduction • Waste Reduction & Reuse 8 Existing Policies • Provide environmentally responsible leadership • Affirm an integrated system and follow waste hierarchy • Provide education on sound environmental practices • Recognize everyone is responsible • Coordinate, cooperate, collaborate with others • Give preference to private sector to extent meeting community needs • Environmental programs include solid & hazardous waste management, groundwater protection, and energy management
9 New Policies Overarching
• Move measurement waste diversion • Support MPCA in timely and consistent policy direction related to new technology • Encourage MCPA incentives for counties exceeding objectives for landfill diversion • Support health equity and environmental justice in programming • Governance through R&E Board
10 New Policies in Chapters
• Confirm county versus state role in new MPCA requirements such as in market development • Identify greater coordination in R&E Board and joint activities • Address changes in Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board (SWMCB) i.e. reciprocal use for household hazardous waste services • Include specific county program changes such as yard waste management
11 New Strategies
• Communication – increased collaboration with Ramsey County via R&E Board to stakeholders • Cost & Finance – continue to evaluate amount of County Environmental Charge (CEC) • Processing‐ emerging technologies via R&E Board, considering value from waste through mixed waste processing, anaerobic digestion, and gasification • Lead by example – Divert 70 to all county buildings, events, activities, reuse opportunities and purchase of compostable products, use of compost in county projects • Waste reduction and reuse – sustainable materials management, reuse opportunities such as Fix It Clinic at Environmental Center, school year‐end cleanouts 12 New Strategies
• Recycling, Organics, & Yard waste ‐ • Residential organics, consider residential drop‐off • Program assistance for multi‐unit dwellings • Improvements at special events and county fair • Establish a school performance continuum • Work with cities/townships to require recycling contract or recycling collection on same day as trash • Explore textile reuse options • Expand county municipal recycling grant funding to include community events recycling
13 County Waste Management Master Plan Revision Timeline 2017
Nov: Feb: Draft MPCA May: Aug: plan Co Dec: Final Begin Complete Board Submit Policy public public work‐ plan to Plan input input shop MPCA
Feb: July : Sept: Nov: Co Board Ad Draft Co Board work‐ Hoc plan considers shop on Work public plan revision group input adoption process
14 Questions?
15 WASHINGTON COUNTYY WASTE MANAGEMENTMANAGEM N MASTERMASTER PLANPLAFT DRAFTD2018-2036 DRAFT
Department of Public Health and Environment WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN · 2018-2036
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction 1 Chapter II: County Policies 4 Chapter III: County Strategies 8 Communication & Education 8 Cost & Finance 10 Land Disposal & NonMSW Management 11 Performance Measurement 13 Processing T 16 Emerging Technologies FT 17 Recycling, Organics, & Yard Waste 18 Regulation, Compliance, Assistance, & Outreach AFT 23 Toxicity Reduction 25 Waste Reduction & Reuse RAFTRAF 27 Appendix A: Description of the WasteDRAFTDDRADR Management System 28 Appendix B: County Municipalities by MSW Collection Type 46 Appendix C: County Municipalities by Recycling Collection Type 47 Appendix D: Ordinances 48 Appendix E: Acronyms DR 50 Appendix F: Definitions 51 Appendix G: Ramsey and Washington Counties Joint Waste Designation Plan 60 Appendix H: Amendment to the 2011-2030 Solid Waste Management Master Plan ? Appendix I: Major Milestones, Events & Activities in Washington County Waste Management History 61 Appendix J: County Oversight of the Private Sector/Waste Industry 71 Appendix K: MPCA Policy Plan Strategy Implementation table 74
Acknowledgements 2017 Washington County Board of Commissioners Washington County Ad Hoc Waste Management Plan Committee District 1 Fran Miron Theresa Creighton Resident representative, Woodbury District 2 Stan Karwoski Jackie Garofalo Municipal representative, Stillwater Township District 3 Gary Kriesel John Jacobson Resident representative, Newport District 4 Karla Bigham, Vice-Chair Mike Maroney Private waste management firm, Maroney’s Sanitation District 5 Lisa Weik, Chair Robert Stewart Private waste management firm, Highland Sanitation Stan Karwoski Washington County Commissioner District 2 Peder Sandhei Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 1SFQBSFECZ8BTIJOHUPO$PVOUZ%FQBSUNFOUPG1VCMJD)FBMUIBOE&OWJSPONFOUtXXXDPXBTIJOHUPONOVTQVCMJDIFBMUI
WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN · 2018-2036
Chapter 1: Introduction
5IFNFUSPQPMJUBODPVOUJFTBSFSFRVJSFECZUIF.JOOFTPUB8BTUF.BOBHFNFOU"DU .JOOFTPUB4UBUVUF UPSFWJTFUIFJS waste management plans, following the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s (MPCA) adoption of the Metropolitan Solid Waste .BOBHFNFOU1PMJDZ1MBO 1PMJDZ1MBO 5IF.1$"BEPQUFEUIF1PMJDZ1MBOPO"QSJM 5IF8BTIJOHUPO$PVOUZ8BTUF Management Master Plan 2018-2036 (Plan) is scheduled to be adopted by the Washington County Board of Commissioners in /PWFNCFSBOETVCNJUUFEUPUIF.1$"
Figure 1: Key connections between the Washington County Waste Management Master Plan and other major county plans and efforts
Ram seyW n ash Pla ing ve ton si Land Use R en ec eh Sustainable yc pr li Building ng om Facilities & C E 0 Sustainable Recycling & Energy Center n 3 Parks e 0 Building rg 2 Sustainable Joint Activities y B Less Toxic Cleaners Building o a r Environmentally d Preferable Purchasing Waste Management DRAFTMaster Plan 2018-2036 Waste Reduction & Reuse Promote Healthy Toxicity Reduction Recycling, Organics & Yard Waste Behavior and 0
Hazardous Materials 2 D Communities Processing -
e Management 4 p Land Disposal & Non-MSW 1
a Children’s 0 r Communication & Education Turf Management 2 t m Environmental Regulation n e a l n Health Septic Management Cost & Finance P t r K e e )FBMUI&OWJSPONFOUBM t y a Communications In w i d t n ia u t o iv Hazardous Materials r e G s Management y t n Disaster Debris Management and u o C Recycling
Em ergency Management
WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 1 WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN · 2018-2036
Chapter 1: Introduction
Plan Preparation
The Washington County Waste Management Master Plan 2018-2036 replaces the 2012-2030 1MBOBEPQUFECZUIF8BTIJOHUPO$PVOUZ#PBSEPG$PNNJTTJPOFSTPO.BSDI 5IJT new plan guides waste management activities until 2023 while continuously striving to achieve PROTECTING RVBOUJîBCMFPCKFDUJWFTUPSFEVDFMBOEEJTQPTBMPGXBTUFUISPVHI5IJTJTUIFDPVOUZT OUR COMMUNITIES TJYUIXBTUFNBOBHFNFOUNBTUFSQMBOTJODF1MBOSFWJTJPOTPDDVSFWFSZTJYZFBST
The Plan is an important tool in protecting public health and the environment by establishing The Washington policies and strategies to reduce both the amount and the toxic character of waste which impacts occupational health risks, environmental risks related to the disposal of waste, County Waste BOEIFBMUISJTLTSFMBUFEUPFOWJSPONFOUBMFNJTTJPOT
Management Plan Development and implementation of the Plan includes continued partnership with 3BNTFZ$PVOUZUISPVHIUIF3BNTFZ8BTIJOHUPO3FDZDMJOH&OFSHZ#PBSE 3&#PBSE This partnership brings together the two counties with common goals to collaborate, is an important save financial and staff resources, and to focus efforts in achieving the state’s waste PCKFDUJWFT5IFDPVOUJFTIBWFCFFOXPSLJOHUPHFUIFSTJODFUIFFBSMZTPOTPMJEXBTUF tool in protecting NBOBHFNFOUƵƵ5IJTQBSUOFSTIJQXBTTUSFOHUIFOFEUISPVHIJUTQVSDIBTFPGUIF3FDZDMJOH&OFSHZ Center (R&E Center), a refuse derived fuel (RDF) facility in Newport, MN, and its renewed public health and DPNNJUNFOUUPXBTUFBTBSFTPVSDFƵƵ5IFDPVOUJFTXJMMDPOUJOVFUPQBSUOFSJOFYQMPSJOHUIF potentialDRAFT of emerging technologies to extract additional recyclables from the trash until they UIFFOWJSPONFOU can be separated at the source by the generator (helping the counties move closer to state SFDZDMJOHHPBM ƵƵ*OBEEJUJPO NPWJOHGSPNDPNCVTUJPOPG3%'UPCJPCBTFEGVFMPS DIFNJDBMQSPEVDUJPOIFMQTUIFDPVOUJFTNPWFUPNPSFîOBODJBMMZTVTUBJOBCMFTPMVUJPOT5IF counties monitor these technologies and evaluate the environmental, economic, and social impacts, and expect to move forward with technology decisions during the implementation PGUIJTSFWJTFEQMBO
WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 2 WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN · 2018-2036
Chapter 1: Introduction
Public Participation The Plan was developed with guidance from the 2016-2036 Policy Plan adopted by the The Plan was prepared by staff .1$"JO"QSJM5IF1PMJDZ1MBOJODMVEFTLFZUIFNFT QPMJDJFT HPBMT BOETUSBUFHJFT from the Washington County XJUIOVNFSJDBMPCKFDUJWFT5IFFJHIULFZUIFNFTGSPNUIF1PMJDZ1MBOJODMVEF Department of Public Health 1. Accountability: Everyone is accountable for meeting waste and Environment, with direct PCKFDUJWFT OPUPOMZHPWFSONFOU input through a stakeholder 2. Solid waste management hierarchy: The hierarchy should guide decision FOHBHFNFOUQSPDFTT5IF NBLJOHXJUIFNQIBTJTPOSFEVDUJPOBOESFDZDMJOH engagement effort gathered a 3. Generator responsibility: Responsibility for waste management significant amount of information PDDVSTBUBMMMFWFMT QFSTPOBM DPSQPSBUF HPWFSONFOU GSPNBWBSJFUZPGTUBLFIPMEFST 4. Government as a leader:(PWFSONFOUBUBMMMFWFMTOFFETUPMFBECZFYBNQMF Over 700 stakeholders participated in the outreach 5. Product Stewardship: Producers and users of products accept responsibility FGGPSU/FBSMZSFTJEFOUJBM PGEFTJHOBOEFOEPGMJGFNBOBHFNFOUGPSQSPEVDUT households responded to a 6. Private sector initiative: The private sector has a significant role to survey, and 120 businesses QMBZJOJNQMFNFOUJOHUIFXBTUFQMBOT SFTQPOEFEUPBTVSWFZ'PVSUFFO 7. Environmental benefits: Solid waste management plays an important role in (14) property managers, school reducing environmental impacts such as greenhouse gas emissions, toxicity, districts, and waste haulers, and BOEFOFSHZBOEXBUFSVTFUISPVHINBOBHJOHXBTUFIJHIFSPOUIFIJFSBSDIZ 22 local government recycling The Policy Plan also sets new plan requirements which include: TUBGGXFSFTVSWFZFE"O"E)PD DRAFT Waste Management Planning t8BTUF0CKFDUJWFTThe MPCA set revised quantifiable objectives to reduce land disposal of waste through 2036 for Source Reduction & Reuse, Recycling, Committee (WMPC) was formed 0SHBOJDT3FDPWFSZ 3FTPVSDF3FDPWFSZ BOE-BOEîMMJOH5IFSFWJTFEPCKFDUJWFT for the purpose of the Plan include aggressive targets for source reduction & reuse, recycling, and organics SFWJTJPO5IF8.1$NFUUXJDF SFDPWFSZ in 2017 to provide input on how t4VTUBJOBCMF.BUFSJBMT.BOBHFNFOU 4.. The MPCA envisions SMM to the county could use the findings inform future planning of waste and materials management in the state from the community engagement BOEFOHBHFETUBLFIPMEFST BDUJWJUJFT5IF"E)PD8.1$ was comprised of representatives t3FDZDMBCMFTBOEPSHBOJDTDBQBDJUZ The Policy Plan proposes the MPCA lead an evaluation of capacity over the duration of the plan, which is needed to meet from cities, townships, the waste SFWJTFEXBTUFPCKFDUJWFT industry, the state, and a resident of Newport, which is home to t3FTPVSDF3FDPWFSZ The Policy Plan proposes full use of resource recovery facility capacity even while waste generation is forecasted to go down if waste objectives UIF3&$FOUFS GPSTPVSDFSFDZDMJOHBOESFDZDMJOHBSFBDIJFWFE
WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 3 WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN · 2018-2036
Chapter II: County Policies
Washington County
Vison "HSFBUQMBDFUPMJWF XPSLBOEQMBZyUPEBZBOEUPNPSSPX
Mission Providing quality services through responsible leadership, innovation, and UIFDPPQFSBUJPOPGEFEJDBUFEQFPQMF
Goals To promote the health, safety, and quality of life of citizens To provide accessible, high-quality services in a timely and respectful manner To address today’s needs while proactively planning for the future To maintain public trust through responsible use of public resources, accountability, and openness of government
Values &UIJDBMUPFOTVSFQVCMJDUSVTUUISPVHIGBJSOFTT DPOTJTUFODZ BOEUSBOTQBSFODZ 4UFXBSETIJQUPEFNPOTUSBUFUBOHJCMF DPTUFGGFDUJWFSFTVMUTBOEQSPUFDUQVCMJDSFTPVSDFT 2VBMJUZUPFOTVSFUIBUTFSWJDFTEFMJWFSFEUPUIFQVCMJDBSFVQUPUIFPSHBOJ[BUJPOTIJHIFTUTUBOEBSET ƵƵƵƵƵƵƵƵƵƵƵ 3FTQPOTJWFUPEFMJWFSTFSWJDFTUIBUBSFBDDFTTJCMF UJNFMZ SFTQFDUGVM BOEFGîDJFOU ƵƵƵƵƵƵƵƵƵƵƵ 3FTQFDUGVMUPCFMJFWFJOBOETVQQPSUUIFEJHOJUZBOEWBMVFPGBMMNFNCFSTPGUIJTDPNNVOJUZ ƵƵƵƵƵƵƵƵƵƵƵ -FBEFSTIJQUPBDUJWFMZBEWPDBUFGPSBOEHVJEFUIF$PVOUZUPXBSEBIJHIFSRVBMJUZPGMJGF
Department of Public Health and Environment
Mission 1SPUFDU QSPNPUF BOEJNQSPWFUIFDPNNVOJUZTIFBMUIBOEUIFFOWJSPONFOU
Vision We will be exceptional leadersDRAFT and partners as we engage and inspire others to achieve IFBMUIZDPNNVOJUJFTBOEBTVTUBJOBCMFFOWJSPONFOU
Shared $PMMBCPSBUJPO8FBMXBZTTFFLUPXPSLXJUIPUIFST Values 8FMMJOGPSNFE%FDJTJPOT8FDPOTJEFSBMMBTQFDUTPGUIFJTTVFCFGPSFXFNBLFEFDJTJPOT 2VBMJUZ8FBJNUPNFFUIJHITUBOEBSETPGQFSGPSNBODF *OOPWBUJPO8FVTFDSFBUJWJUZUPNBLFPVSTFSWJDFTCFUUFS *OUFHSJUZ8FBSFQSPGFTTJPOBMTXIPBSFSFTQFDUFE BDDPVOUBCMF BOEUSVTUFE
Goals 1SPNPUFIFBMUIZDPNNVOJUJFTBOEFMJNJOBUFIFBMUIEJTQBSJUJFT "TTVSFUIFRVBMJUZBOEBDDFTTJCJMJUZPGIFBMUITFSWJDFT 1SFWFOUUIFTQSFBEPGJOGFDUJPVTEJTFBTF .BLFFOWJSPONFOUTTBGFBOEIFBMUIZ "TTVSFBTUSPOHQVCMJDIFBMUITZTUFN 1SFQBSFGPS SFTQPOEUP BOEBTTJTUDPNNVOJUJFTJOSFDPWFSZGSPNEJTBTUFST
WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 4 WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN · 2018-2036
Chapter II: County Policies Overarching Waste Management Master Plan Policies
These policies establish the role of the county and primary stakeholders for achieving the objectives in the Policy Plan 2016-2036 BOEJEFOUJGZUIFQSJPSJUZPGDPVOUZFGGPSUTBOEGVOEJOHJOUIFXBTUFNBOBHFNFOUTZTUFN4UBLFIPMEFSTUPUIF1PMJDZ1MBOBOE$PVOUZ 1MBOJODMVEFQVCMJDFOUJUJFT DJUJFT UPXOTIJQT BOETDIPPMT SFTJEFOUT CVTJOFTT BOEXBTUFTFSWJDFQSPWJEFST5IFQPMJDJFTIFMQUP ensure that waste management services are available and accessible to all residents, businesses, and institutions and emphasize QSFWFOUJPOPGGVUVSFFOWJSPONFOUBMBOEîOBODJBMMJBCJMJUJFT
5IFDPVOUZXJMMQSPWJEFFOWJSPONFOUBMMZSFTQPOTJCMFMFBEFSTIJQUISPVHIBWBSJFUZPGFOWJSPONFOUBMQSPHSBNTCZTIPXJOH awareness of environmental consequences in its actions and by seeking to protect land, air, water and other natural SFTPVSDFTBOEUIFQVCMJDIFBMUI 5IFDPVOUZTXBTUFQSPHSBNTXJMMTUSJWFUPNPUJWBUFCFIBWJPSDIBOHFCZSFTJEFOUT CVTJOFTT BOEQVCMJDFOUJUJFTUP NFFUTUBUFXBTUFPCKFDUJWFT 5IFDPVOUZBGîSNTUIFPOHPJOHOFFEGPSBOJOUFHSBUFETPMJEXBTUFNBOBHFNFOUTZTUFNGPMMPXJOHUIFTUBUFTPSEFSPGQSFGFSFODF BXBTUFSFEVDUJPOBOESFVTF CXBTUFSFDZDMJOH DDPNQPTUJOHPGTPVSDFTFQBSBUFEDPNQPTUBCMFNBUFSJBMT JODMVEJOH CVUOPUMJNJUFEUPZBSEXBTUFBOEGPPEXBTUF ESFTPVSDFSFDPWFSZUISPVHINJYFENVOJDJQBMTPMJEXBTUFDPNQPTUJOHPSJODJOFSBUJPO BOE FMBOEEJTQPTBMXIJDIQSPEVDFTOPNFBTVSBCMFNFUIBOFHBTPSXIJDIJOWPMWFTUIFSFUSJFWBMPGNFUIBOF HBTBTBGVFMGPSUIFQSPEVDUJPOPGFOFSHZUPCFVTFEPOTJUFPSGPSTBMF BOE GMBOEEJTQPTBMXIJDIQSPEVDFTNFBTVSBCMFNFUIBOFBOEXIJDIEPFTOPUJOWPMWFUIFSFUSJFWBMPG NFUIBOFHBTBTBGVFMGPSUIFQSPEVDUJPOPGFOFSHZUPCFVTFDRAFTEPOTJUFPSGPSTBMF 5IFDPVOUZXBTUFQSPHSBNJTQBSUPGBDPNQSFIFOTJWFTZTUFNXIJDIVTFTTUSBUFHJFTPGDPPSEJOBUJPO DPPQFSBUJPO BOEDPMMBCPSBUJPO BTBQQSPQSJBUFXJUIPUIFSHPWFSONFOUBMFOUJUJFTBOEUIFQSJWBUFTFDUPS &EVDBUJPOBCPVUTPVOEFOWJSPONFOUBMQSBDUJDFTSFMBUFEUPXBTUFNBOBHFNFOUJTBLFZFMFNFOUPGEFWFMPQJOHBOE NBJOUBJOJOHBTVTUBJOBCMFDPNNVOJUZ 1SFGFSFODFJTHJWFOUPUIFQSJWBUFTFDUPSVOEFSUBLJOHXBTUFNBOBHFNFOUBDUJWJUJFTUPUIFFYUFOUTFSWJDFTBSF NFFUJOHUIFOFFETPGUIFDPNNVOJUZ &OWJSPONFOUBMQSPHSBNTJNQBDUJOHTUBUFXBTUFPCKFDUJWFTJODMVEF CVUBSFOPUMJNJUFEUP solid waste and hazardous waste management, groundwater protection and management, BOEFOFSHZNBOBHFNFOU 5IFDPVOUZTVQQPSUTBQSPEVDUTUFXBSETIJQBQQSPBDIUIBUDSFBUFTFGGFDUJWF ïFYJCMF producer-led reduction, reuse, and recycling programs to deal with a product’s lifecycle impacts from design through end-of-life product management so that state and local HPWFSONFOUTEPOPUIBWFQSJNBSZSFTQPOTJCJMJUZGPSîOBODJOHTVDIFGGPSUT
WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 5 WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN · 2018-2036
Chapter II: County Policies
Overarching Waste Management Master Plan Policies (continued)
5IFDPVOUZBOEQVCMJDFOUJUJFTXJMMDPOTJEFSGBDUPSTTVDIBTIFBMUI TBGFUZ BOEUIF environment when making purchasing decisions and look for opportunities to JODMVEFUIFTFDPOTJEFSBUJPOTJOQVSDIBTJOHEFDJTJPOT
5IFDPVOUZSFDPHOJ[FTUIBUJUJTUIFSFTQPOTJCJMJUZPGFWFSZPOF SFTJEFOUT CVTJOFTTFT BOEQVCMJDFOUJUJFT JOUIFDPVOUZUPBDIJFWFTUBUFPCKFDUJWFT
[N] The county supports moving to a measurement system focused on the goal of waste diversion from land disposal for better alignment with the waste hierarchy in UIF8BTUF.BOBHFNFOU"DUBOEXBTUFTZTUFNQFSGPSNBODF
[N] The county supports the MPCA’s plans to make timely and consistent policy decisions, The policies FTQFDJBMMZSFHBSEJOHOFXUFDIOPMPHZ3BNTFZBOE8BTIJOHUPO$PVOUJFTBSFFYQMPSJOHOFX help to ensure technologies to improve processing operations at the R&E Center where these new that waste UFDIOPMPHJFTDBOQSPEVDFFOFSHZ GVFMT BOEDPNQPTUBOEPSSFDPWFSSFDZDMBCMFT JO BEEJUJPOUPSFEVDJOHHSFFOIPVTFHBTFNJTTJPOT management services are [N] The county encourages the MPCA to consider the county’s contributions to reaching the goals set out in the MPCA Policy Plan and examine possible incentives for counties available and FYDFFEJOHXBTUFPCKFDUJWFTGPSMBOEîMMEJWFSTJPO accessible to [N] The county supports the Minnesota Department of Health’s Triple Aim of Health Equity all residents, and will work to develop waste management programs and services that do not prevent businesses, and JOEJWJEVBMTPSDPNNVOJUJFTGSPNSFBDIJOHUIFJSGVMMIFBMUIQPDRAFTUFOUJBM institutions and [N] The county supports the MPCA’s Environmental Justice policy and will “strive for the fair emphasize treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of prevention FOWJSPONFOUBMMBXT SFHVMBUJPOT BOEQPMJDJFTw of future environmental and financial MJBCJMJUJFT
WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 6 WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN · 2018-2036
Chapter II: County Policies
[N] Governance
3BNTFZBOE8BTIJOHUPODPVOUJFTIBWFXPSLFEUPHFUIFSTJODFUIFFBSMZTPOTPMJEXBTUFNBOBHFNFOUƵƵ5IFDPVOUJFTFOWJTJPO UIJTSFMBUJPOTIJQDPOUJOVJOHBOETUSFOHUIFOJOHUISPVHIUIFJSSFTQFDUJWFXBTUFNBOBHFNFOUNBTUFSQMBOTƵƵ5IJTXJMMJODMVEFXPSL UISPVHIUIF3&#PBSE BTXFMMBTBEEJUJPOBMDPPSEJOBUJPOCFUXFFOUIFDPVOUJFT Recycling & Energy Board Vision Ramsey and Washington counties are working together to find new technologies to use in the coming 20 to 30 years to process what is left in trash from homes and businesses and get the most value out of what is disposed even with increasing SFDZDMJOHBOESFEVDJOHXBTUF"EEJUJPOBMMZ UIFTFOFXUFDIOPMPHJFTDBOIFMQ JODSFBTFHPPEKPCTMPDBMMZBOEQSPUFDUUBYQBZFSTBOEUIFFOWJSPONFOU
$PNNJTTJPOFSTJOCPUIDPVOUJFTSFDPHOJ[FUIFOFFEUPEPCFUUFSBOENPWFUSBTIGSPNCFJOHBESBJOUPJOTUFBEBSFTPVSDFXJUIWBMVF The counties want to do this by extracting more recyclables, and use trash to make energy more efficiently and make materials to be VTFECZPUIFSTUPNBOVGBDUVSFDPOTVNFSHPPET Ramsey and Washington Counties Partnership Policies 1. Shared principles for collaboration or joint administration of waste management programs and activities should: B#FEFTJHOFEBOEDPNNVOJDBUFEJOBNBOOFSUIBUGPDVTFTPOTFBNMFTTTFSWJDFTUIBUBSFOPUDPOGVTJOHUPUIFQVCMJD C#FDPOTJTUFOUXJUICPUIDPVOUJFTWJTJPO NJTTJPO BOEHPBMT D&OIBODF OPUEJNJOJTI UIFRVBMJUZBOEFGGFDUJWFOFTTPGUIFJOEJWJEVBMDPVOUZQSPHSBNT E&OTVSFBDDPVOUBCJMJUZPGUIFUXPDPVOUJFTBOECFDPOTJTUFOUXJUIUIFJSSFTQFDUJWF.BTUFS1MBOT F1SPWJEFHFOFSBMFGîDJFODJFTJOUIFVTFPGDPVOUZSFTPVSDFT G#FïFYJCMFTPUIFQSPHSBNDBOTFSWFVSCBO TVCVSCBO BOESVSBMBSFBT 2. The counties will continue to seek DRAFTopportunities to work together on waste management programming through multiple ways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ƵƵ 5IF3&#PBSEXJMMDPOUJOVFJUTTIBSFEQSPHSBNNJOHGPSUIPTFQSPHSBNTJOQMBDFJO 5IF3&#PBSEXJMMDPOUJOVFUPFWBMVBUFBOEBTTFTTUIFHPWFSOBODFTUSVDUVSFBOETJ[FPGUIF3&#PBSEUPBTTVSFFGGFDUJWFOFTT Regional Focus The county participated in the Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board (SWMCB) from its inception in the early 1990’s to its end JO"UUIFUJNFPGUIFNBTUFSQMBOSFWJTJPO OFXNFDIBOJTNTGPSXPSLJOHUPHFUIFSXFSFFNFSHJOH BOEPQQPSUVOJUJFTDPOUJOVFUP EFWFMPQ5IFDPVOUZXJMMXPSLXJUIPUIFSNFUSPQPMJUBODPVOUJFTPOTPMJEXBTUFJTTVFTXIFOKPJOUFGGPSUTGVSUIFSUIFDPVOUZTJOUFSFTUTJO XBTUFNBOBHFNFOU5XPKPJOUFGGPSUTUIBUUIFDPVOUZJTDPNNJUUFEUPJODMVEF tA regional hauler licensing program t3FDJQSPDBMVTFGPSIPVTFIPMEIB[BSEPVTXBTUFGBDJMJUJFT 3FHJPOBM.1$"SFRVJSFNFOU
WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 7 WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN · 2018-2036
Chapter III: County Strategies
The strategies on the following pages describe the actions needed to reach the Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Management 4ZTUFN0CKFDUJWFTJEFOUJîFEJOUIF1PMJDZ1MBO Throughout the plan, the following symbols are used to note the strategies that are new initiatives the county will address in the next size years versus strategies that will be continued from the previous plan, and those that will be continued, but will CFFOIBODFE [N]: New [E]: Enhanced [C]: Continued In addition, where applicable or required by the policy plan, proposed completion dates over the course of the TJYZFBSQMBOBSFOPUFE
Communication & Education
POLICIES 2017 Collections & Paper Shredding Events Inside 5IFDPVOUZXJMMEFWFMPQBOEQSPWJEFDPVOUZXJEFDPNNVOJDBUJPO and outreach on environmental programs, services, and related XBTUFJTTVFT Going Green -PDBMVOJUTPGHPWFSONFOUTBSFSFTQPOTJCMFGPSUIFEFWFMPQNFOU 2017 Guide to Household Hazardous Waste, Yard Waste, Waste Reduction, and Recycling Resources BOEEJTUSJCVUJPOPGJOGPSNBUJPOPOUIFJSPXODJUZUPXOTIJQXBTUF programs and distribution of county-wideDRAFT messages on county FOWJSPONFOUBMQSPHSBNTBOETFSWJDFT BOESFMBUFEXBTUFJTTVFT
5IFDPVOUZ BMPOHXJUI3BNTFZ$PVOUZ UBLFTBCSPBEFOWJSPONFOUBM view to engage stakeholders about the impact of the solid waste management system on resource conservation, and the quality PGBJS XBUFS MBOE BOEUIFJOEPPSFOWJSPONFOU
www.co.washington.mn.us/publichealth 651-430-6655
WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 8 WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN · 2018-2036
Chapter III: County Strategies
Communication & Education (continued)
STRATEGIES
Washington County will: Environmental Center 8JUI3BNTFZ$PVOUZ QBSUJDJQBUFXJUISFHJPOBMNFTTBHJOHGPSVNTXIFOBQQSPQSJBUF UP Drop it off. ensure messages are compatible and consistent with each county’s efforts and R&E Board QSPHSBNT .$1"SFHJPOBMSFRVJSFNFOU CZ
Hazardous Material 8JUI3BNTFZ$PVOUZ UISPVHIUIF3&#PBSE DPOEVDUƵPVUSFBDI ƵUFDIOJDBMƵBTTJTUBODF consultation, and education for joint programs and services to enhance understanding PGUIFJOUFHSBUFEƵXBTUFTZTUFN JODMVEJOHXBTUFQSPDFTTJOH POHPJOH Recyclables 8JUI3BNTFZ$PVOUZ UISPVHIUIF3&#PBSE DPNNVOJDBUFBOEDPPSEJOBUFXJUIMPDBM IBVMFSTPO3&$FOUFSBDUJWJUJFT POHPJOH Electronics 8JUI3BNTFZ$PVOUZ FYQMPSFPQQPSUVOJUJFTUPEFWFMPQWPMVOUFFSQSPHSBNTUPBTTJTUXJUI
www.co.washington.mn.us 651-430-6655 PVUSFBDIBOEFEVDBUJPO CZ 4VQQPSUDPNNVOJUZCBTFETPDJBMNBSLFUJOHDBNQBJHOTBTBQQSPQSJBUF JODMVEJOH CVU OPUMJNJUFEUP UIF"E$PVODJM/BUVSBM3FTPVSDFT%FGFOTF$PVODJMT4BWFUIF'PPEDBNQBJHO Washington County UPFEVDBUFSFTJEFOUTPOXBZTUPSFEVDFUIFBNPVOUPGGPPEXBTUFE PSHBOJDT.1$"SFRVJSFNFOU %SPQJGPGGHVJEF (by 2020) This community <&>%FWFMPQBOEEFMJWFSDPNNVOJDBUJPOBOEFEVDBUJPOFGGPSUTCBTFEPOCFTUQSBDUJDFTBOEUIBU education resouce are appropriately designed, culturally specific, accountable, effective, and evaluated, and include lists Household a range of tools, including social media, applicable to each stakeholder audience, and coordinate BNPOHEFQBSUNFOUQSPHSBNT POHPJOH DRAFT Hazardous Materials, Recyclables and <$>*OGPSNBOEFEVDBUFTUBLFIPMEFST JODMVEJOHDPVOUZFNQMPZFFT BCPVUDPVOUZQSPHSBNT and services, the County Environmental Charge (CEC), increase knowledge and understanding Electroncs accpeted PGUIFJOUFHSBUFEXBTUFNBOBHFNFOUTZTUFN BOENPUJWBUFCFIBWJPSDIBOHF POHPJOH at the Environmental <$>8PSLXJUIQVCMJDFOUJUJFT DPNNVOJUZHSPVQT PUIFSDPVOUZQSPHSBNT BOEXBTUFIBVMFSTUP $FOUFS develop, distribute, and evaluate county resources to increase awareness and motivate CFIBWJPSDIBOHFJOXBTUFNBOBHFNFOUCBTFEPOCFTUQSBDUJDFT POHPJOH <$>1BSUOFSXJUIPUIFSFOUJUJFTUPDPOEVDUFEVDBUJPOQSPHSBNTUPTDIPPMTBOEDPNNVOJUZ groups and events to teach about the integrated waste management system and SFMBUFEBDUJWJUJFT POHPJOH <$>%FWFMPQBOEQSPNPUFCBTFEPOCFTUQSBDUJDFTUIFVTFPGFEVDBUJPOUPPMTTVDIBT MFBSOJOHLJUT BOEVTFJOUFSBDUJWFJOGPSNBUJPOBMEJTQMBZT QFFSUSBJOJOHBOEPUIFSiUSBJOUIFUSBJOFSw PQQPSUVOJUJFTUPUFBDIBCPVUXBTUFNBOBHFNFOUBOESFMBUFEBDUJWJUJFT POHPJOH <$>$PPSEJOBUFXJUIUIFDPVOUZTHSPVOEXBUFSQMBOUPQSPWJEFUFDIOJDBMBTTJTUBODFBOE education on proper storage, and disposal of lawn chemicals, and provide information on MFTTUPYJDIB[BSEPVTBMUFSOBUJWFTBOECFTUQSBDUJDFTUPNJOJNJ[FPSFMJNJOBUFUPYJDNBUFSJBMT VTFEJOUVSGNBOBHFNFOU BOEPUIFSSFMBUFEJTTVFT POHPJOH
WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 9 WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN · 2018-2036
Chapter III: County Strategies
Cost & Finance
POLICIES 5IFDPVOUZXJMMNBLFFGGFDUJWFVTFPGQVCMJDSFTPVSDFTBOEBMMPDBUFDPTUTFRVJUBCMZUPXBTUFHFOFSBUPST XIJMFBTTVSJOH NBYJNVNFOWJSPONFOUBMQSPUFDUJPO 8BTUFNBOBHFNFOUDPTUTTIPVMECFWJTJCMF CBTFEPOWPMVNF BOECFQBJEEJSFDUMZCZUIFHFOFSBUPS 5IFDPVOUZXJMMDPOUJOVFUPVTFUIF$&$BTBGVOEJOHUPPMGPSFOWJSPONFOUBMFGGPSUTBOEQSPHSBNT Ƶ5IFDPVOUZXJMMDPOUJOVFUPNBOBHFBOEVTFTUBUFGVOEJOHBTBQQSPQSJBUFJOQSPHSBNTSFMBUJOHUPUIF integrated waste management system, including Select Committee on Recycling and the Environment (SCORE), BOE-PDBM3FDZDMJOH%FWFMPQNFOU(SBOU -3%( 5IFVTFPGUIFTPMJEXBTUFGVOESFTFSWFCBMBODFTXJMMCFQVSTVBOUUPTUBUFMBX.JOO4UBUfTVCE5IFGVOECBMBODF will be used for one-time start-up costs, not ongoing operational needs, unless the use of the funds provides a significant PQQPSUVOJUZGPSNFFUJOHFOWJSPONFOUBMHPBMT1SPKFDUTGVOEFETIBMMIBWFBTQFDJîDBOEEFîOFEUSBOTJUJPOBMQFSJPE 5IFDPVOUZXJMMGVOEXBTUFSFHVMBUJPOQSPHSBNTQSJNBSJMZCZMJDFOTJOHGFFT "NFOENFOUTUPUIF4PMJE8BTUF0SEJOBODFUIBUDIBOHFUIF$&$SBUFTXJMMJODMVEFBEBZOPUJDFQFSJPEGPSHFOFSBUPST BOEIBVMFSTCFGPSFUIFSBUFDIBOHFCFDPNFTFGGFDUJWF UPQSPWJEFUIFPQQPSUVOJUZUPBEKVTUCJMMJOHTZTUFNT 5IFDPVOUZXJMMQSPWJEFBQQSPWBMPG+PJOU"DUJWJUJFT#VEHFUBOE$&$GVOETGPSUIF3&#PBSEJOBDDPSEBODFXJUI 3&#PBSE+PJOU1PXFST"HSFFNFOU 4FDUJPO7**BOE#ZMBXT"SUJDMF7 4FDUJPO**
STRATEGIES Washington County will: DRAFT <$>$POUJOVFUPFWBMVBUFUIFBNPVOUPGGVOETHFOFSBUFEBTBSFTVMUPGUIF$&$ POHPJOH Ƶ <&>"MMPDBUFDPVOUZTUBGGUJNFUPSFBDI.1$"QPMJDZQMBOHPBMTGPSSFEVDUJPOBOESFVTFJOBEEJUJPOUPSFDZDMJOH JODMVEJOHPSHBOJDT 4...1$"SFRVJSFNFOU POHPJOH Ƶ *EFOUJGZƵPQQPSUVOJUJFTUPJODFOUJWJ[FTUBLFIPMEFST TVDIBTCVUOPUMJNJUFEUPUBYSFCBUFT SFEVDFEQSPHSBNGFFT JOSFBDIJOHDPVOUZXBTUFNBOBHFNFOUHPBMTJOXBTUFSFEVDUJPOBOESFVTF SFDZDMJOH BOEPSHBOJDTEJWFSTJPO
WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 10 WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN · 2018-2036
Chapter III: County Strategies
Land Disposal & NonMSW Management
POLICIES 5IFDPVOUZXJMMFOTVSFUIBUBMM.48HFOFSBUFECZDPVOUZBDUJWJUJFTJTQSPDFTTFE BOESFRVJSFBMMQVCMJDFOUJUJFTUP QSPDFTT.48HFOFSBUFEBTBSFTVMUPGUIFJSBDUJWJUJFTPSXBTUFBSSBOHFEGPSPOCFIBMGPGSFTJEFOUT 5IFDPVOUZBOEQVCMJDFOUJUJFTXJMMCFMFBEFSTJO/PO.48NBOBHFNFOUBDUJWJUJFTUISPVHIDPOUJOVPVTMZJNQSPWJOH JOUFSOBMPQFSBUJPOTUPFOTVSFQSPQFSNBOBHFNFOUPG/PO.48 5IFQSJWBUFTFDUPSJTSFTQPOTJCMFGPSQSPWJEJOHNBOBHFNFOUGBDJMJUJFTGPS/PO.48 5IFDPVOUZNBZQSPWJEFUFDIOJDBMBOEîOBODJBMBTTJTUBODFUPGBDJMJUBUFBEEJUJPOBMNBOBHFNFOUPQQPSUVOJUJFTGPS/PO.48 5IFDPVOUZXJMMVTFUIF.JOOFTPUB4VTUBJOBCMF#VJMEJOH(VJEFMJOFT PSPUIFSJOEVTUSZCFTUQSBDUJDFTGPSHSFFOCVJMEJOH in all future county building and major renovation projects in order to reduce energy costs, improve indoor air quality, and SFEVDFPSSFDZDMFXBTUFDSFBUFEGSPNDPOTUSVDUJPOBDUJWJUJFT /PO.48.1$"SFRVJSFNFOU Ƶ5IFDPVOUZTVQQPSUTUIFNBOBHFNFOUPGDPOTUSVDUJPOBOEEFNPMJUJPOXBTUFBDDPSEJOHUPUIFXBTUFIJFSBSDIZUP SFEVDFIFBMUI TBGFUZBOEQSPQFSUZSJTLTBTTPDJBUFEXJUIDPOTUSVDUJPOBOEEFNPMJUJPOXBTUF /PO.48.1$"SFRVJSFNFOU
STRATEGIES Washington County will: 8JUI3BNTFZ$PVOUZ BTQBSUPGUIF3&$FOUFSXBTUFDPNQPTJUJPOTUVEJFT NFBTVSFBNPVOUPGDPOTUSVDUJPO EFNPMJUJPO industrial, and bulky waste and possible other NonMSW materials and other materials not diverted from landfills and share UIBUJOGPSNBUJPOUPBTTJTUJOUBSHFUJOHNBUFSJBMTGPSNBOBHFNFOUIJHIFSPOUIFIJFSBSDIZ .1$"/PO.48XBTUFDPNQ measurement requirement) (by 2022)DRAFT <$>&OTVSFBMM.48DPMMFDUJPODPOUSBDUTGPSXBTUFHFOFSBUFEGSPNDPVOUZPQFSBUJPOTSFRVJSFIBVMFSTUPEFMJWFSBMM.48 DPMMFDUFEJOUIFDPVOUZUPBQSPDFTTJOHGBDJMJUZ POHPJOH <$>#BTFEPOFYJTUJOHDPVOUZCPBSESFTPMVUJPO VTFUIF.JOOFTPUB4VTUBJOBCMF#VJMEJOHHVJEFMJOFTPSPUIFSHSFFOCVJMEJOH best practices and identify ways to improve implementation of practices as new construction or remodeling projects are QMBOOFE UBLJOHJOUPDPOTJEFSBUJPOFOFSHZFGîDJFODZ DPOTFSWBUJPO BOEFOWJSPONFOUBMJNQBDUT /PO.48.1$"SFRVJSFNFOU (ongoing) <$>3FRVJSFQVCMJDFOUJUJFTUPNFFU.JOO4UBUf"UPFOTVSF.48JTEFMJWFSFEUPBQSPDFTTJOHGBDJMJUZWJBDPVOUZDPOUSBDU BOEHSBOUSFRVJSFNFOUTBOESFHVMBSDPNNVOJDBUJPO POHPJOH <$>"TTJTUJOUIFNBOBHFNFOUPG/PO.48BOESFMBUFETPMJEXBTUFHFOFSBUFEGSPNFNFSHFODZTJUVBUJPOTJOBDDPSEBODFUPUIF DPVOUZTFNFSHFODZPQFSBUJPOTQMBO POHPJOH
WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 11 WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN · 2018-2036
Chapter III: County Strategies
Land Disposal & NonMSW Management (continued)
STRATEGIES (continued)
8PSLXJUIPUIFSFOUJUJFTUPQSPNPUFQSPQFS DPOWFOJFOU BOEBGGPSEBCMFNBOBHFNFOU JODMVEJOHBQQMJDBCMFSFVTF PQUJPOTƵPGCVMLZNBUFSJBMTJOPSEFSUPSFEVDFJMMFHBMEVNQJOHBOECVSOJOHBOEOVJTBODFTJUVBUJPOT8JUISFHBSEUP bulky waste, the county: (Rec Mgmt MPCA requirement)
B4VQQPSUTBQSPEVDUTUFXBSETIJQBQQSPBDIJOXIJDITPNFCVMLZJUFNTBSFCFTUNBOBHFEUISPVHITIBSFE SFTQPOTJCJMJUZCZNBOVGBDUVSFST EJTUSJCVUPST SFUBJMFST BOEDPOTVNFST POHPJOH C1SPDFTTCVMLZXBTUFJUFNT BTEFMJWFSFECZXBTUFIBVMFST UIBUDBOCFQSPDFTTFECZFRVJQNFOU BUUIF3&$FOUFS POHPJOH D8JMMXPSLXJUIDJUJFTUPXOTIJQTUIBUQSPWJEFDMFBOVQFWFOUTPSTFQBSBUFXBTUFDPMMFDUJPOQSPHSBNTGPSSFTJEFOUT to ensure bulky waste items are separated and managed appropriately and in accordance with the waste NBOBHFNFOUIJFSBSDIZJGSFDFJWJOHHSBOUTGVOET POHPJOH E8JMMXPSLXJUIDJUJFTUPXOTIJQTSFHBSEJOHPQUJNVNNFUIPETGPSDPMMFDUJPOBOEQSPQFSEJTQPTBMPGNBKPS BQQMJBODFT FMFDUSPOJDT UJSFTBOEPUIFSCVMLZXBTUFJUFNTBOEQPTTJCMFSFVTFPQQPSUVOJUJFT BOE POHPJOH F1BSUOFSJOHXJUI3BNTFZ$PVOUZ XJMMXPSLXJUIUIFNBUUSFTTJOEVTUSZ JODMVEJOHNBOVGBDUVSFST XIPMFTBMFST BOESFUBJMFST BTXFMMBTOPOQSPîUFOUJUJFTUPGPTUFSJNQMFNFOUBUJPOPGBNBUUSFTTSFDZDMJOHQSPHSBN Ƶ*ODPPQFSBUJPOBOEQBSUOFSTIJQXJUINVOJDJQBMJUJFT FWBMVBUFEFWFMPQNFOUPGBQSFEFNPMJUJPOJOTQFDUJPOQSPHSBN based on best practices and work toDRAFT ensure building materials containing hazardous properties, including asbestos, BSFQSPQFSMZJEFOUJîFE SFNPWFEBOENBOBHFEGSPNTUSVDUVSFTTMBUFEGPSSFOPWBUJPOPSEFNPMJUJPO (NonMSW MPCA requirement) (by 2018)
WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 12 WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN · 2018-2036
Chapter III: County Strategies
Performance Measurement
POLICIES
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metrics to landfill diversion measures (also known as waste hierarchy measure) as an indicator of progress in meeting statutory goals and will adopt such measures as the primary means of measuring system progress while still working towards prioritizing NBOBHFNFOUPGXBTUFIJHIFSPOUIFIJFSBSDIZ 5IFDPVOUZXJMM XJUI3BNTFZ$PVOUZ SFTFBSDIƵBOEFWBMVBUFBMUFSOBUJWFNFUSJDTUPNFBTVSFCSPBEFSTPMJEXBTUFNBOBHFNFOU QPMJDZHPBMT JODMVEJOHCVUOPUMJNJUFEUPFOWJSPONFOUBMKVTUJDF SFTPVSDFWBMVFBOEUPYJDJUZSFEVDUJPO5IFDPVOUJFTTVQQPSUUIFVTF PGQFSGPSNBODFNFBTVSFNFOUUPNBLFDPOUJOVPVTBOEPOHPJOHJNQSPWFNFOUTJODPOUJOVFTZTUFNTBOEQSPHSBNT
STRATEGIES Washington County will: 8JUI3BNTFZ$PVOUZ UISPVHI 3&#PBSE DPOEVDUXBTUFDPNQPTJUJPOTUVEJFTBUUIF3&$FOUFSUPJOGPSNQSPHSBN improvements (NonMSW MPCA requirement)DRAFT (ongoing) 8JUI3BNTFZ$PVOUZ BMJHOFMFNFOUTPGUIFJSTPMJEXBTUFEBUBDPMMFDUJPOQSPHSBNTXIFSFBQQMJDBCMFBOEJEFOUJGZXBZT UPJNQMFNFOUEBUBDPMMFDUJPOBOEBOBMZTJTUPHFUIFS CZ 1SPWJEFSFRVJSFEEBUBUPUIF4UBUFPG.JOOFTPUBGPSUIFQVSQPTFPGNFBTVSJOHQSPHSFTTUPXBSEBDIJFWJOHUIFPCKFDUJWFTTFU GPSUIJOUIF.1$"T1PMJDZ1MBOBOEEFQFOEPOSFMJBCMFEBUBDPMMFDUFECZUIF.1$"GPSQPSUJPOTPGUIFSFQPSUJOH5IFDPVOUZ will encourage recyclers and haulers to report to the MPCA, and should reliable data not be available from the MPCA, the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îDBOU progress towards enhancing recycling by 2023, Ramsey County and Washington County will jointly explore the local use of SFHVMBUPSZUPPMTUPFOIBODFQSJWBUFTFDUPSSFDZDMJOH 3FD.HNU.1$"SFRVJSFNFOU
WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 13 WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN · 2018-2036
Chapter III: County Strategies
1FSGPSNBODF.FBTVSFNFOU DPOUJOVFE
&WBMVBUFQSPHSFTTJONFFUJOHUIFTUBUFTQPMJDZQMBOPCKFDUJWFTGPSSFTJEFOUJBMPSHBOJDXBTUFNBOBHFNFOUBTXFMMBTUIF level of service availability and the status of the market for organic waste by 2025 and consider local use of regulatory UPPMTJGTJHOJîDBOUQSPHSFTTJTOPUNBEF
3FTFBSDI EFWFMPQ BOEJNQMFNFOUQFSGPSNBODFNFBTVSFTGPSTDIPPMTUPNFBTVSFSFTVMUTPGUIFJSXBTUFNBOBHFNFOU DIBOHFTBOEJNQSPWFNFOUT CZ
<$>5IFDPVOUZTNVOJDJQBMSFTJEFOUJBMSFDZDMJOHDPOUJOVVNBOEUIFJSBOOVBMXPSLQMBOTGPSNVOJDJQBMJUJFTUPNFBTVSF progress toward achieving recycling objectives
3FTFBSDIBOEDPOTJEFSBMUFSOBUJWFTUPUPOOBHFNFUSJDTUPDBQUVSFBMMFOWJSPONFOUBMPVUDPNFTGSPNDIBOHFTJOUIF XBTUFNBOBHFNFOUTZTUFNTVDIBTHSFFOIPVTFHBTFNJTTJPOT CZ <$>6TFEBUBGSPNJUTSFHVMBUPSZDPNQMJBODFQSPHSBNTUPBTTJTUJOSFHVMBUJPOPGTPMJEBOEIB[BSEPVTXBTUF POHPJOH 5IFDPVOUZJTDPNNJUUFEUPJOUFHSBUJOHQFSGPSNBODFNBOBHFNFOUBOEDPOUJOVPVTJNQSPWFNFOUJOUPJUTXBTUFQSPHSBNT Performance management provides a framework for regular collection, analysis, and reporting of performance measures UPUSBDLSFTPVSDFTVTFE XPSLQSPEVDFE BOETQFDJîDSFTVMUTBDIJFWFE The county will utilize Results Based Accounting (RBA) to determine impacts from implementation strategies and programs HFOFSBUFEGSPNUIFQMBO3#"DPOTJEFSTCPUIQPQVMBUJPOBOEQFSGPSNBODFBDDPVOUBCJMJUZ BOEJODMVEFTTQFDJîDNFBTVSFBCMF PVUDPNFT5IFUPPMXJMMCFVTFEXIFSFBQQMJDBCMFBTTUSBUFHJFTBSFJNQMFNFOUFE POBQSPKFDUCZQSPKFDUCBTJTBOEXJMMCF SFWJFXFESFHVMBSMZ DRAFTPERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT TOOL Quantity Quality
)PXNVDIEJEXFEP )PXXFMMEJEXFEPJU Effort What did we do? How well did we deliver service? How much service did we deliver?
*TBOZPOFCFUUFSPGG Effect How much change for the better did we produce? What quality of change for the better did we produce?
Headline Performance Measures 5IPTFNFBTVSFTVTFEUPQSFTFOUPSFYQMBJOBQSPHSBNTQFSGPSNBODFUPQPMJDZNBLFSTPSUIFQVCMJD Secondary Measures "MMPUIFSNFBTVSFTGPSXIJDIEBUBFYJTUT5IFTFNFBTVSFTXJMMCFVTFEUPIFMQNBOBHFUIFQSPHSBN Data Development Agenda .FBTVSFTOPUBWBJMBCMF CVUEFTJSFE MJTUFEJOQSJPSJUZPSEFS
The county will also continue to report on continue county report requirements such as the SCORE Report and other various annual SFQPSUT BOEXJMMQSPWJEFUIFBEEJUJPOBMNFBTVSFNFOUTJEFOUJîFECFMPXUPBTTFTTQSPHSFTTPODPVOUZTUSBUFHJFT
WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 14 WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN · 2018-2036
Chapter III: County Strategies
Key Plan Measurements
County Reporting Requirements By state law, the county is required to submit progress updates to the MPCA through a variety of annual reports. These include:
Select Committee on Recycling and the Certification Report &OWJSPONFOU 4$03& Report/Survey The county is required to annually report the quantity of waste generated in the county that is The county annually provides data on SCORE not processed prior to transfer to a disposal revenues and expenditures, amount of solid waste facility, reasons waste not processed, strategy generated and recycled, and information on for ensuring processing of waste including a SFDZDMJOHBOEXBTUFSFEVDUJPOQSPHSBNT5IJTSFQPSU timeline to implement, and progress by the provides trends as well as measures of the DPVOUZJOSFEVDJOHBNPVOUPGVOQSPDFTTFEXBTUF DPVOUZTSFDZDMJOHFGGPSUTDRAFT
Local Recycling Annual Master Development Grant Plan Report -3%( 3FQPSU A report to support the new objectives in the The county annually must report on expenditures Policy Plan and the county master plans and and activities under the program and any ensure consistency in reporting and tracking proposed changes in its recycling implementation QSPHSFTTUPXBSETUIFPCKFDUJWFT TUSBUFHZPSQFSGPSNBODFGVOEJOHTZTUFNT
WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 15 WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN · 2018-2036
Chapter III: County Strategies
Processing
The Washington County Board of Commissioners approved the following processing polices and strategies on August 16, 2016 in QSFQBSBUJPOGPSUIF3BNTFZBOE8BTIJOHUPO$PVOUJFT+PJOU8BTUF%FTJHOBUJPO1MBO5IFTFQPMJDJFTBOETUSBUFHJFTIBWFCFFONPEJîFE POMZXIFOOFDFTTBSZƵ5IF+PJOU8BTUF%FTJHOBUJPO1MBOBOEUIF"NFOENFOUUPUIFQSFWJPVT4PMJE8BTUF.BOBHFNFOU.BTUFS1MBO JTJODMVEFEBT"QQFOEJY( POLICIES $POTJTUFOUXJUIUIF4UBUFIJFSBSDIZ 8BTIJOHUPO$PVOUZBGîSNTQSPDFTTJOHPGXBTUF GPSUIFQVSQPTFPGSFDPWFSJOHFOFSHZBOE recyclable and other beneficially useful materials, as the preferred MSW and non-MSW management method over landfilling for XBTUFUIBUJTOPUSFEVDFE SFVTFE PSTFQBSBUFMZSFDZDMFEPSDPNQPTUFEƵƵ5IJTQPMJDZBQQMJFTCPUIUPXBTUFHFOFSBUFEUISPVHIPVU UIFDPVOUZBOETQFDJîDBMMZUP.48HFOFSBUFECZQVCMJDFOUJUJFTJODMVEJOHDPOUSBDUTGPSPSHBOJ[FEDPMMFDUJPOPGTPMJEXBTUF Pursuant to State law, public entities in Washington County will assure that MSW that they generate or contract for is processed SBUIFSUIBOMBOEEJTQPTFEƵƵ 8BTIJOHUPO$PVOUZTVQQPSUTUIFQSPDFTTJOHPGXBTUFJOBNBOOFSUIBUFODPVSBHFTXBTUFSFEVDUJPO SFVTF PSSFDZDMJOH JODMVEJOHUIFTFQBSBUFNBOBHFNFOUPGPSHBOJDXBTUF 5ISPVHIUIF3&#PBSE 8BTIJOHUPO$PVOUZTIBMMKPJOUMZPXOXJUI3BNTFZ$PVOUZUIF3&$FOUFSJO/FXQPSU ./ *ONBLJOHEFDJTJPOTVOEFSQVCMJDPXOFSTIJQPGUIF3&$FOUFS 8BTIJOHUPO$PVOUZXJMMBQQMZUIFGPMMPXJOHHVJEJOHQSJODJQMFT B1MBOGPSBƵZFBSIPSJ[PO C#VJMEPOUIFDVSSFOUTZTUFNBOEBMMPXDIBOHFTJOQSPDFTTJOHUPFNFSHFPWFSUJNF D"TTVSFïFYJCJMJUZ E.BOBHFSJTLT BOE DRAFT F1JWPUUIFWJFXGSPNiXBTUFwUPiSFTPVSDFTwUPBEEWBMVFUPUIFMPDBMFDPOPNZBOEFOWJSPONFOU 8BTIJOHUPO$PVOUZXJMMJNQMFNFOUBXBTUFEFTJHOBUJPOPSEJOBODF UPBTTVSFEFMJWFSZPGBMMXBTUFBDDFQUBCMFBUUIF3&$FOUFS UIBUJTHFOFSBUFEJO8BTIJOHUPO$PVOUZ STRATEGIES Washington County will: 8JUI3BNTFZ$PVOUZ DPPSEJOBUFSFTPVSDFSFDPWFSZBDUJWJUJFTUISPVHIUIF3&#PBSE 8JUI3BNTFZ$PVOUZ DPOUJOVFUPXPSLDPPQFSBUJWFMZPOTQFDJîDXBTUFNBOBHFNFOUJTTVFTUISPVHIBKPJOUQPXFSTBHSFFNFOU UPFOIBODFUIFFGîDJFODZPGXBTUFNBOBHFNFOUTFSWJDFTBOEBTTJTUJOBDIJFWJOHSFHJPOBMHPBMTJOQSPDFTTJOHJOUIF&BTU.FUSPBSFB *OGPSNBOEXPSLXJUINVOJDJQBMJUJFT XBTUFHFOFSBUPST BOEIBVMFSTSFHBSEJOHNFUIPETUPSFEVDFEFMJWFSZPGVOBDDFQUBCMFPS OPOQSPDFTTJCMFNBUFSJBMTUPUIF3&$FOUFS
WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 16 WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN · 2018-2036
Chapter III: County Strategies
Processing
8PSLDPPQFSBUJWFMZXJUIUIF.1$"BTUIF4UBUFFOGPSDFTQSPWJTJPOTGPVOEJO.JOO4UBUf SFRVJSJOHXBTUFUPCF QSPDFTTFECFGPSFMBOEEJTQPTBMƵƵ8BTIJOHUPO$PVOUZBEPQUTUIF.1$"DSJUFSJPOGPSEFUFSNJOJOHXIFO.48JTVOQSPDFTTJCMFƵƵ That criterion is found in Appendix D of the Policy Plan, and reads, in part: “TCMA mixed MSW is unprocessible when all SFBTPOBCMZBWBJMBCMFDBQBDJUZXJUIJOUIF5$."QSPDFTTJOHTZTUFNJTGVMMZVUJMJ[FEBUPGJUTPQFSBUJOHDBQBDJUZw $POUJOVFUPJEFOUJGZ FWBMVBUF BOEFYQMPSFOFXQSPDFTTJOHPQQPSUVOJUJFT JODMVEJOHUFDIOPMPHJFTUPFOIBODFSFDZDMJOH 8PSLXJUIQVCMJDFOUJUJFT BTEFîOFECZ.JOO4UBUf" BOEUIF.1$"UPFOTVSF.48JTEFMJWFSFEUPUIF3FDZDMJOH BOE&OFSHZ$FOUFSƵJODMVEJOHFWBMVBUJOHUIFBNPVOUPG.48HFOFSBUFECZQVCMJDFOUJUJFT BOEUIFWPMVNFEFMJWFSFEGPSQSPDFTTJOH 1SFQBSFB+PJOU%FTJHOBUJPO1MBOXJUI3BNTFZ$PVOUZ BOEGPMMPXUIFQSPDFTTTFUGPSUIJO4UBUFMBXUPQMBOGPSBOE JNQMFNFOUEFTJHOBUJPOPGTPMJEXBTUF
EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES 5IF3&#PBSEIBTCFFOFYQMPSJOHOFXUFDIOPMPHJFTUPDPNQMFNFOUQSPDFTTJOHPQFSBUJPOTBUUIF3&$FOUFS5IFTFOFX UFDIOPMPHJFTFYUSBDUNPSFWBMVFPVUPGUSBTIUPJODSFBTFSFDZDMJOHBOESFEVDFUIFBNPVOUPGUSBTIUISPXOBXBZ5IFTFOFX technologies can help produce energy and fuels, make compost or harvest materials that then can be used in the creation PGDPOTVNFSQSPEVDUT/FXUFDIOPMPHJFTDBOIFMQSFEVDFUIFBNPVOUPGDBSCPOBOENFUIBOFHBTQSPEVDFE UIFSFCZSFEVDJOH harmful contributions to climate change
RAMSEY AND WASHINGTON COUNTY EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES POLICIES 3BNTFZBOE8BTIJOHUPO$PVOUJFTXJMMDPOUJOVFXPSLBTJEFOUJîFEJOJUT4DPQFGPS3FTPVSDF.BOBHFNFOU BOJOUFHSBUFEWJTJPO PGSFDZDMJOH PSHBOJDTBOEQSPDFTTJOH5IF4DPQFTUSPOHMZTVQQPSUTUIFXBTUFIJFSBSDIZBOEUIFGPPEXBTUFIJFSBSDIZJO NBOBHJOHXBTUFIJHIFSPOUIFIJFSBSDIZƵƵ"TEFTDSJCFEJOUIF"DRAFTVHVTU.1$"BQQSPWFE8BTIJOHUPO$PVOUZ"NFOENFOU Number 1 to the Solid Waste Master Plan, the Scope for Resource Management includes: B*ODSFBTFETPVSDFTFQBSBUJPOFGGPSUTGPSSFDZDMJOHBOEPSHBOJDTGSPNSFTJEFOUJBMBOEOPOSFTJEFOUJBMXBTUFHFOFSBUPST C5IFVTFPGNJYFEXBTUFQSPDFTTJOHUPSFDPWFSTPNFSFDZDMBCMFTBOEPSHBOJDTUIBUSFNBJOJONJYFENVOJDJQBMTPMJEXBTUF D0SHBOJDXBTUFCFJOHVTFEBTBGFFETUPDLGPSBOBFSPCJDEJHFTUJPO BOE E"USBOTJUJPOGSPNVTJOHSFGVTFEFSJWFEGVFM 3%' GPSFMFDUSJDBMHFOFSBUJPOUPVTJOH3%'GPSHBTJîDBUJPOUPQSPEVDF USBOTQPSUBUJPOGVFMTBOEPUIFSQSPEVDUT 3BNTFZBOE8BTIJOHUPO$PVOUJFTXJMMDPOUJOVFFWBMVBUJPOPGWBSJPVTNJYFEXBTUFQSPDFTTJOHUFDIOPMPHZTPMVUJPOTBT XFMMBTQSPDVSFBOEJOTUBMMUIFNBUUIF3&$FOUFSJGUIFZEFFNUIFQSPKFDUTFOWJSPONFOUBMMZBOEîOBODJBMMZGFBTJCMF 3BNTFZBOE8BTIJOHUPO$PVOUJFTXJMMTIBSFJOGPSNBUJPO MFBSOJOHTBOESFTFBSDIPOFNFSHJOHBOEBMUFSOBUJWFUFDIOPMPHJFT XJUIUIF.1$"BOEPUIFSJOUFSFTUFEQBSUJFTUPIFMQSBJTFVOEFSTUBOEJOH BEESFTTDPODFSOT BOEQSFWFOUSFHVMBUPSZSPBECMPDLT 3BNTFZBOE8BTIJOHUPO$PVOUJFTTVQQPSUUIFVTFPGBOBFSPCJDEJHFTUJPO "% GPSUIFQSPDFTTJOHPGPSHBOJDXBTUFTFQBSBUFE at the source and through mixed waste processing and for the MPCA to quickly develop clear regulatory pathways for its JNQMFNFOUBUJPO"%JNQMFNFOUBUJPOJOUIF5XJO$JUJFTSFHJPOXJMMCFDSJUJDBMGPSFOTVSJOHTVGîDJFOUDBQBDJUZFYJTUTGPSPSHBOJDT QSPDFTTJOHƵ 0SHBOJDTNHNU5SBE3FD.BS&NFSHJOH5FDI.1$"SFRVJSFNFOU
WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 17 WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN · 2018-2036
Chapter III: County Strategies
Recycling, Organics, & Yard Waste
POLICIES Recycling and Organics 5IFDPVOUZQMBDFTBQSJPSJUZPONBYJNJ[JOHSFDZDMJOHBOEPSHBOJDTPQQPSUVOJUJFTJO BMMDPVOUZPQFSBUJPOT5IFDPVOUZBOEQVCMJDFOUJUJFT DJUJFT UPXOTIJQT BOE schools) will be leaders in internal recycling and organics activities through DPOUJOVPVTMZJNQSPWJOHUIFJSPXOPQFSBUJPOT -PDBMVOJUTPGHPWFSONFOUBSFSFTQPOTJCMFGPSSFTJEFOUJBMSFDZDMJOHBOEPSHBOJDT programs including multi-family housing and for assuring the availability of SFDZDMJOHTFSWJDFGPSBMMSFTJEFOUT 5IFDPVOUZTVQQPSUTDJUJFTUPXOTIJQTQBSUOFSJOHUPDPPSEJOBUFPSDPOTPMJEBUF efforts to provide recycling opportunities and increase recycling and organics QBSUJDJQBUJPOBOERVBOUJUJFTDPMMFDUFE 5IFDPVOUZXJMMQSPWJEFQVCMJDFEVDBUJPOBOEJOGPSNBUJPO QMBOOJOHBOEFWBMVBUJPO SFHVMBUJPO î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manner that ensures equity in the provisionDRAFT of service and that all residents paying for service are aware of and have access UPUIFTFSWJDF 5IFDPVOUZTVQQPSUTUIF.1$"MFBEJOHPSHBOJDTBOESFDZDMJOHNBSLFUEFWFMPQNFOUƵƵ 0SHBOJDT.BSLFUEFW 3FDZDMJOHUSBEJUJPOBMNBSLFU.1$"SFRVJSFNFOU Yard waste 5IFDPVOUZXJMMFOTVSFZBSEXBTUFNBOBHFNFOUPQUJPOTBSFDPOWFOJFOUMZBWBJMBCMFGPSSFTJEFOUT STRATEGIES Washington County will: %FWFMPQSFTJEFOUJBMPSHBOJDTESPQPGGTFSWJDFTBOECBTFEPODPVOUZCPBSEBOEDPNNVOJUZTVQQPSU JODPSQPSBUF and implement as part of the county’s current yard waste evaluation or other opportunities, and continue to monitor other SFTJEFOUJBMPSHBOJDTDPMMFDUJPONFUIPET CZ 8JUI3BNTFZ$PVOUZ UISPVHIUIF3&#PBSE DPOUJOVFUPJNQSPWFGPPEXBTUFNBOBHFNFOUCBTFEPOCFTUQSBDUJDFTTVDIBT through food waste prevention, support food-to-people partnerships, and including but not limited to, continued support for local GPPEEPOBUJPOQSPHSBNT PSHBOJDTNHNU.1$"SFRVJSFNFOU43SFRVJSFNFOU CZ
WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 18 WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN · 2018-2036
Chapter III: County Strategies
Recycling, Organics, & Yard Waste
"TQBSUPGBOFWBMVBUJPOPGFGGFDUJWFXBZTUPDPMMFDUPSHBOJDT XJUI3BNTFZ$PVOUZ UISPVHIUIF3&#PBSE BOEQSJWBUF haulers and transfer stations, evaluate residential collection methods based on best practices, such as the use of EVSBCMFDPNQPTUBCMFCBHTDPDPMMFDUFEXJUI.48BTBNFBOTUPDPMMFDUTPVSDFTFQBSBUFEPSHBOJDT PSHBOJDT.1$" requirement) (by 2020) 8PSLXJUI3BNTFZ$PVOUZUPEFWFMPQBQQSPQSJBUFFOHBHFNFOUTUSBUFHJFTBOEJEFOUJGZSFTPVSDFTBOEBTTJTUBODF OFFEFECZNVMUJVOJUEXFMMJOHT .6% UPJODMVEFCVUOPUMJNJUFEUP B*NQSPWFSFDZDMJOHCBTFEPOCFTUQSBDUJDFTGPSSFTJEFOUTMJWJOHJONVMUJVOJUEXFMMJOHT CZXPSLJOHXJUIQSPQFSUZ managers and building owners, to ensure residents have access to recycling and improved management of other wastes, such as reuse options for bulky waste (December 31, 2019) C*EFOUJGZQBSUOFSTIJQPQQPSUVOJUJFTBOEQSPGFTTJPOBMPSHBOJ[BUJPOTUPQBSUJDJQBUFJOUIF3&TCVTJOFTTQBSUOFSTIJQ QSPHSBNBTBXBZUPFOTVSFBMMNVMUJVOJUEXFMMJOHTQSPQFSUZNBOBHFSTBOEPXOFSTBSFSFBDIFEBOETFSWFE POHPJOH D8PSLJOHXJUIDJUJFTUPXOTIJQT EFWFMPQTUBOEBSETBOEFYQMPSFBDFSUJîDBUJPOQSPHSBNGPSNVMUJVOJUEXFMMJOHT CBTFEPOCFTUNBOBHFNFOUQSBDUJDFTGPSSFDZDMJOHTFSWJDFT CZ 8JUIDPVOUZSFHVMBUPSZDPNQMJBODFQSPHSBNT FOHBHFCVTJOFTTFTBOEJOTUJUVUJPOT TQFDJBMFWFOUQMBOOFST BOE CZ B$POOFDUSFTPVSDFTƵƵ BOEJODFOUJWFT POQSPHSBNTBOETFSWJDFTUPBJEFTUBCMJTINFOUTJOXBTUFNBOBHFNFOU SFDZDMJOH waste reduction, reuse, and food waste education on reduction and recycling (including food establishments, schools, special event coordinators and food vendors) C0CUBJOCBTFMJOFJOGPSNBUJPOPOXBTUFNBOBHFNFOUQSBDUJDFTBOEJEFOUJGZCBSSJFSTUPJNQMFNFOUJOHJNQSPWFNFOUT D3FFYBNJOFJODFOUJWFTBOENFUIPETGPSOFXFTUBCMJTINFOUTUPFODPVSBHFFTUBCMJTINFOUPGPSHBOJDTSFDZDMJOHBOEIBWF building designs to include spaceDRAFT and enclosures before permit approve or credit for organics recycling E8PSLXJUIFWFOUPSHBOJ[FSTBOEQVCMJDFOUJUJFTUPFODPVSBHFJNQMFNFOUBUJPOPGCFTUNBOBHFNFOUQSBDUJDFTGPS SFDZDMJOHBOEPSHBOJDTNBOBHFNFOU F$POEVDUPOHPJOHBTTFTTNFOUTUPEFUFSNJOFTVTUBJOBCJMJUZPGJNQSPWFNFOUTNBEFTVDIBTCZTVSWFZTPSTJUFWJTJUT G"TTJTUTDIPPMTJOBXBSFOFTTBOEVOEFSTUBOEJOHPGSVMFTBOESFHVMBUJPOTQFSUBJOJOHUPSFVTFPGVOFBUFOGPPEUP SFEVDFGPPEXBTUF "TTFTTPQQPSUVOJUJFTUPQBSUOFSPSTIBSFJOGPSNBUJPOBOESFTPVSDFTXJUIUIFDPVOUZTDPNNVOJUZEFWFMPQNFOUBHFODZ in engaging businesses, senior housing, multi-unit property developers, owners, and managers (by 2020) <&>3FWJFXDPVOUZEFQBSUNFOUPSEJOBODFTBOEQPUFOUJBMSFHVMBUPSZJNQBDUTTVDIBTUIFDPVOUZGPPEDPEFPSEJOBODFPS IB[BSEPVTXBTUFPSEJOBODFUPDPOOFDUXBTUFBOESFDZDMJOHHPBMTXIFSFBQQMJDBCMFXIFOUIFZBSFSFWJTFE POHPJOH $PMMBCPSBUFXJUIUIFDPVOUZDPNNVOJUZIFBMUIQSPHSBNT 3BNTFZ$PVOUZBTBQQMJDBCMF BOEPUIFSDPNNVOJUZQBSUOFST such as food shelves to: consider how to promote reduction of wasted, unwanted, or surplus food grown in community gardens PSCBDLZBSEHBSEFOTUIBUDBOCFTBGFMZDPMMFDUFEBOETIBSFEUPNFFUMPDBMIVOHFSBOEGPPEJOTFDVSJUZOFFET 43.1$" requirement) (by 2023) 8PSLXJUI.1$" BOEDJUJFTBOEUPXOTIJQT UPGBDJMJUBUFBOEJNQSPWFCVJMEJOHBOE[POJOHDPEFTUPFOTVSFUIFZEPOPU JOIJCJUSFDZDMJOHBOEJEFOUJGZCFTUQSBDUJDFTGPSFODMPTVSFT 3FHJPOBM.1$"SFRVJSFNFOU 1BSUOFSXJUIPUIFSTUPFOHBHFUIF4UBUF#VJMEJOH$PEF3FWJTJPOT$PNNJUUFFGPSDPEFFOGPSDFNFOUXIFOSFUSPîUUJOH commercial and multi-unit dwelling buildings and encourage the Committee to establish minimum enclosure and signage SFRVJSFNFOUTBOETQBDFDSFEJUGPSUIFBEEJUJPOPGSFDZDMJOHDIVUFT GPSFYBNQMFT JOUIFOFYUVQEBUFPGUIFDPEF
WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 19 WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN · 2018-2036
Chapter III: County Strategies
Recycling, Organics, & Yard Waste
Cities/Townships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dwellings (more than four units) either by recycling contracts or by enforced ordinances, and failure to ensure this service will SFTVMUJOJEFOUJGZJOHNFUIPETUPîYHBQTPSBTBMBTUSFTPSU DPVMECFUIFXJUIIPMEJOHPGHSBOUGVOET 1SPWJEFBTTJTUBODFUPIFMQDJUJFTBOEUPXOTIJQTUPFOTVSFUIFGPMMPXJOHNJOJNVNMFWFMTPGTFSWJDFCZ BTEJSFDUFECZUIF MPCA, and will capture all communities in the county with failure to meet goals in good faith will result in identifying methods to fix gaps or as a last resource, withholding of grant funds: B3FDZDMJOHTFSWJDFGPSUSBEJUJPOBMDVSCTJEFSFDZDMBCMFTJTBWBJMBCMFUPBMMSFTJEFOUTBUUIFJSQMBDFPGSFTJEFODF JODMVEJOH multi-unit dwellings (with less than four units and townhome dwellings) C$POUSBDUGPSSFTJEFOUJBMSFDZDMJOHDPMMFDUJPOBOEPSSFDZDMJOHDPMMFDUJPOPOTBNFEBZBTUSBTI $PMMFDUJPO#1 .1$"SFRVJSFNFOU D$PMMFDUJPOPGUIFDPVOUZTTUBOEBSEMJTUPGSFTJEFOUJBMDVSCTJEFSFDZDMBCMF E"EENBUFSJBMTUPUIFJSDPMMFDUJPOTUSFBNTBTNBSLFUTCFDRAFTDPNFBWBJMBCMFBUDVSCTJEFBOENVMUJVOJUEXFMMJOHQSPQFSUJFT F.BLFQSPHSFTTBMPOHUIFDPVOUZTNVOJDJQBMSFDZDMJOHQFSGPSNBODFDPOUJOVVNGPSSFTJEFOUJBMSFDZDMJOHCBTFEPO BOOVBMQSPHSFTTNPOJUPSJOH 8PSLXJUIDJUJFTUPXOTIJQTUP B"EEDPMMFDUJPOPGUFYUJMFTBOEPUIFSSFVTBCMFNBUFSJBMTXIFSFBQQMJDBCMFGPSSFDZDMJOH available to residents through curbside collection, special collection or drop-off (ongoing) C&YQMPSF EFWFMPQ BOETIBSFCFTUQSBDUJDFTXJUIDJUJFTUPXOTIJQTUPJNQMFNFOU PSHBOJDTEJWFSTJPOBUQVCMJDFOUJUZGBDJMJUJFTJOMBSHFFWFOUWFOVFTƵƵ PSHBOJDTNHNU MPCA requirement) (by 2025) 4VQQPSUDJUJFTUPXOTIJQTBOEPUIFSFOUJUJFT TVDIBTUIF8BTIJOHUPO$PVOUZ'BJS Board in creating away-from-home recycling opportunities based on best practices at locations, such as fairs, parks, athletic fields, arenas, and recreation centers and at FWFOUTTQPOTPSFECZDJUJFTUPXOTIJQT POHPJOH <$>'BDJMJUBUFQBSUOFSTIJQTBOEOFUXPSLJOHBOETIBSFESFTPVSDFTBNPOHDJUJFTUPXOTIJQTBOEDPNNVOJUZHSPVQT POHPJOH <&>1FSJPEJDBMMZSFWJFXBOESFWJTFUIF8BTIJOHUPO$PVOUZNVOJDJQBMSFDZDMJOHQFSGPSNBODFDPOUJOVVNGPSSFTJEFOUJBMSFDZDMJOH (ongoing)
WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 20 WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN · 2018-2036
Chapter III: County Strategies
Recycling, Organics, & Yard Waste
<&>&YQMPSFXJUIPUIFSFOUJUJFTTVDIBTDJUJFTUPXOTIJQT DPVOUZDPOTFSWBUJPOEJTUSJDU BOE watershed districts to promote the availability of products such as backyard composting CJOTBOESBJOCBSSFMTBOEQPTTJCMFEJTUSJCVUJPOBUUIF&OWJSPONFOUBM$FOUFSJGBQQMJDBCMF (Ongoing) Schools 1SPWJEFBTTJTUBODFBOEFYQFDUBMMQVCMJDTDIPPMTJOUIFDPVOUZUPIBWFTUSPOHBOETVTUBJOFE SFVTF SFDZDMJOH BOEPSHBOJDTQSPHSBNTBTEFîOFECZBQFSGPSNBODFDPOUJOVVNCZ Sorting table %FWFMPQBOEJNQMFNFOUUIFVTFPGBDPOUJOVVNCBTFEPOCFTUQSBDUJDFTUPFWBMVBUF TFU standards, and measure progress of school districts in the county in meeting reuse and used in school SFDZDMJOHHPBMTBOEBTTFTTBOOVBMMZPOQSPHSFTT CZ cafeterias $PMMBCPSBUFXJUIUIFDPVOUZDPNNVOJUZIFBMUIQSPHSBNT 3BNTFZ$PVOUZBTBQQMJDBCMF BOE other community partners such as schools and food shelves to (by 2023): B*EFOUJGZCBSSJFSTUPGPPEXBTUFSFEVDUJPOBOESFVTF GPPEUPQFPQMF (SR MPCA requirement) C%FWFMPQHVJEFMJOFTCBTFEPOCFTUQSBDUJDFTGPSJNQMFNFOUJOHSFDPWFSZPGXBTUFEGPPE at schools and other locations with surplus food, and establish a pilot program to test NFUIPETPGXBTUFEGPPESFDPWFSZ D"TTJTUTDIPPMTJOBXBSFOFTTBOEVOEFSTUBOEJOHPGSVMFTBOESFHVMBUJPOTQFSUBJOJOHUP SFDPWFSZPGXBTUFEGPPE 8PSLXJUITDIPPMTUPFYQMPSFSFDZDMJOHPQUJPOTCBTFEPODRAFTCFTUQSBDUJDFTBUPVUEPPSBSFBT BOEMBSHFFWFOUT CZ 'BDJMJUBUFQBSUOFSTIJQTBOEOFUXPSLJOHPQQPSUVOJUJFTUPTIBSFSFTPVSDFTBNPOHTDIPPMT BOEBTTJTUXJUIPCUBJOJOHMFBEFSTIJQTVQQPSUGPSFGGPSUT POHPJOH <&>1SPWJEFUFDIOJDBMBTTJTUBODFBTXFMMBTHSBOUTUPJODSFBTFSFDZDMJOHBOEPSHBOJDT diversion, support food waste prevention and donation program participation, and reuse opportunities (ongoing) Businesses <&>8JUI3BNTFZ$PVOUZ ƵVTFPVUSFBDIBOEFEVDBUJPO QMBOOJOHBOEFWBMVBUJPO SFHVMBUJPO financial incentives, technical assistance and consultation in a strategic manner to ensure businesses and institutions take full advantage of organic waste diversion and recycling Recycling, organics opportunities based on best practices, including, but limited to (ongoing): and trash B$POUJOVFUIFCVTJOFTTHSBOUQSPHSBNUISPVHIUIF3&#PBSE JODMVEJOHGPPEXBTUF reduction and food donation, and explore new efforts such as but not limited to cooperative sorting station at QVSDIBTJOHGPSDPNQPTUBCMFNBUFSJBMT PSFTUBCMJTIJOHBCVTJOFTTSFDPHOJUJPOQSPHSBN "GUPO"MQTTLJBSFB C8PSLXJUICVTJOFTTSFDZDMJOHQBSUOFSTIJQFOHBHFNFOUQSPHSBNUISPVHIUIF3&#PBSE and consultants to divert organic materials from business waste streams using a variety PGPSHBOJDTNBOBHFNFOUNFUIPET
WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 21 WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN · 2018-2036
Chapter III: County Strategies
Recycling, Organics, & Yard Waste
#VTJOFTTFT DPOUJOVFE D$POUJOVFJUTCVTJOFTTSFDZDMJOHQBSUOFSTIJQFOHBHFNFOUQSPHSBNUISPVHIUIF3&#PBSE with continued support for a grants program to engage business organizations and to promote business assistance program resources, including recycling education and business partnerships, such as local sports team, and partner with organizations that SFQSFTFOUDVMUVSBM NJOPSJUZBOEPSUSBEJUJPOBMMZVOEFSTFSWFECVTJOFTTFT E*NQSPWJOHSFDZDMJOHPQQPSUVOJUJFTJOQVCMJDBSFBTTVDIBTHBTTUBUJPOTBOETUSJQNBMMT Internal County Operations 1BSUOFSJOHXJUIPUIFSEFQBSUNFOUT UFBNT BOETUBGG JNQMFNFOUCFTUNBOBHFNFOUQSBDUJDFTJOXBTUFSFEVDUJPO SFVTF recycling, and organics diversion and improve toxicity reduction in county- owned and operated facilities including: B*ODPVOUZQBSLT MJCSBSJFT CVJMEJOHFOUSBODFTBOEMPCCJFT UIFDPVOUZKBJM BOEBMMTFSWJDFDFOUFST CZ C"UDPVOUZIPTUFEFWFOUTBOEEFQBSUNFOUBDUJWJUJFT CZ D*ODPSQPSBUJOHJOUPQVSDIBTJOHQPMJDJFTPSQSPDFEVSFTSFVTFDPOTJEFSBUJPOTTVDIBTSFVTBCMFDMFBOJOHDMPUIT and also including compostable products such as dinnerware in county departments, offices, and operations (2019) E%FWFMPQJOHƵƵBOEJODPSQPSBUJOHDPOUSBDUTQFDJîDBUJPOTQFSUBJOJOHUPXBTUFNBOBHFNFOUFYQFDUBUJPOTTVDIBTEPVCMFTJEFE printing, printing using soy-based ink, and electronic communication versus printing (by 2023) F3FHVMBSFWBMVBUJPOBOENFBTVSFNFOUPGQFSGPSNBODFPGDPVOUZQSPHSBNTTVDIBTCZXBTUFBVEJUTPSFNQMPZFF TVSWFZT POHPJOH G&OTVSJOHOFXPSSFNPEFMFEGBDJMJUJFTBSFEFTJHOFEPSSFNDRAFTPEFMFEUPJODMVEFTVGîDJFOUTQBDFGPSDPMMFDUJPOPGSFDZDMJOH BOEPSHBOJDTBOEXBTUFCPUIJOEPPSTBOEPVUEPPST POHPJOH &YQMPSFBEPQUJPOPGDPVOUZQPMJDJFTPSJNQMFNFOUBUJPOQSPDFEVSFTPOVTFPGDPNQPTUJOOFXDPVOUZDPOTUSVDUJPO QSPKFDUTBOEFODPVSBHFQVCMJDFOUJUJFTUPEPUIFTBNF .1$"PSHBOJDTNBSLFU Yard Waste 3FTFBSDIBOEEFWFMPQZBSEXBTUFNBOBHFNFOUPQUJPOTUPîMMTFSWJDFHBQTJODVSSFOUZBSEXBTUFNBOBHFNFOUTZTUFN (by 2020) <$>&OTVSFZBSEXBTUFJTOPUNBOBHFEJOSFTJEFOUJBM.48BOEJTNBOBHFEBDDPSEJOHUPTUBUFMBX
WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 22 WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN · 2018-2036
Chapter III: County Strategies
Regulation, Compliance, Assistance, & Outreach
POLICIES
8JUI3BNTFZ$PVOUZFYQMPSFTUSBUFHJFTCBTFEPOCFTUQSBDUJDFTUPSFEVDF air and water pollutant emissions, such as volatile organic compounds (VOCs), with the regulated business community as part of its overall business recycling BOEQPMMVUJPOQSFWFOUJPOQPSUGPMJPPGTFSWJDFTƵƵ CZ Ƶ<&>"TTFTTUSBJOJOHOFFETPGMJDFOTFEIB[BSEPVTXBTUFHFOFSBUPST QSPWJEF targeted training programs, and provide general business assistance and PVUSFBDIBOEQPTTJCMFKPJOUUSBJOJOHXJUI3BNTFZ$PVOUZ POHPJOH Ƶ<$>-JDFOTFTPMJEXBTUFIBVMFSTBOEGBDJMJUJFTBOEIB[BSEPVTXBTUFHFOFSBUPST BOEJOTQFDUBOENPOJUPSUIFJSPQFSBUJPOTGPSDPNQMJBODFXJUIDPVOUZSFHVMBUJPOT (ongoing)
STRATEGIES Washington County will: 8JUI3BNTFZ$PVOUZFYQMPSFTUSBUFHJFTCBTFEPOCFTUQSBDUJDFTUPSFEVDFBJSBOEXBUFSQPMMVUBOUFNJTTJPOT TVDIBT volatile organic compounds (VOCs), with the regulated business community as part of its overall business recycling and QPMMVUJPOQSFWFOUJPOQPSUGPMJPPGTFSWJDFTƵƵ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î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îMUFST CZ <$>&OTVSFUIBUIB[BSEPVTBOEVOJWFSTBMXBTUFTHFOFSBUFEJODPVOUZPQFSBUJPOTBSFQSPQFSMZNBOBHFE POHPJOH <$>3FWJTFUIF4PMJEBOE)B[BSEPVT8BTUF3FHVMBUJPO0SEJOBODFTBTOFDFTTBSZ POHPJOH <$>$PPSEJOBUFXJUIUIFDPVOUZHSPVOEXBUFSQSPHSBNUPFWBMVBUFBOEQSJPSJUJ[FDPNQMJBODFBDUJWJUJFTGPSIB[BSEPVTXBTUF HFOFSBUPSTUIBUBSFMPDBUFEJOTFOTJUJWFHFPMPHJDBSFBTPSXFMMIFBEQSPUFDUJPOBSFBT POHPJOH
WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 23 WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN · 2018-2036
Chapter III: County Strategies
Toxicity Reduction
POLICIES 5IFDPVOUZXJMMQSPWJEFIPVTFIPMEIB[BSEPVTXBTUF ))8 management services to residents in a cost-effective manner that NJOJNJ[FTSJTLTUPQVCMJDIFBMUIBOEUIFFOWJSPONFOU 5IFDPVOUZXJMMFOTVSFDPOWFOJFOUBOESFHVMBS))8TFSWJDFTBT indicated by customer drive time patterns and other program measurement tools available to assist residents in managing UPYJDNBUFSJBMTPSQSPCMFNNBUFSJBMT 5IFDPVOUZXJMMFOTVSFDPMMFDUJPOBOENBOBHFNFOUPGQSPCMFN materials and recyclables based on community need and PUIFSQSPHSBNNFBTVSFNFOUUPPMT 5IFDPVOUZXJMMDPOUJOVFUPQSPWJEFTNBMMCVTJOFTTIB[BSEPVTXBTUFDPMMFDUJPOPQQPSUVOJUJFTUISPVHIJUT7FSZ4NBMM2VBOUJUZ (FOFSBUPS1SPHSBN 5IFDPVOUZXJMMSFEVDFUIFBNPVOUPGIB[BSEPVTNBUFSJBMTNBOBHFECZQSPWJEJOHUIFPQQPSUVOJUZGPSSFTJEFOUTUPPCUBJO VTFBCMFQSPEVDUTDPMMFDUFEUISPVHIUIFDPVOUZTIPVTFIPMEIB[BSEPVTXBTUFQSPHSBNGPSSFTJEFOUJBMSFVTF 5IFDPVOUZBOEQVCMJDFOUJUJFTXJUIJOUIFDPVOUZXJMMCFMFBEFSTJOUIFJOUFSOBMSFEVDUJPOPGUPYJDIB[BSEPVTXBTUFUISPVHI DPOUJOVPVTMZJNQSPWJOHUIFJSPXOPQFSBUJPOT 5IFDPVOUZFYQFDUTUIFQSJWBUFTFDUPSUPJODPSQPSBUFUPYJDIB[BSEPVTXBTUFSFEVDUJPOBDUJWJUJFTXJUIJOUIFJSPXOPQFSBUJPOT 5IFDPVOUZNBZQSPWJEFUFDIOJDBMBOEîOBODJBMBTTJTUBODFUPDRAFTGBDJMJUBUFPQQPSUVOJUJFTGPSJNQSPWFNFOUPGNBOBHFNFOUPG UPYJDIB[BSEPVTXBTUFT 5IFDPVOUZXJMMQBSUJDJQBUFJOSFDJQSPDBMVTFBHSFFNFOUTXJUIPUIFSDPVOUJFTUPQSPWJEFBHSFBUFSMFWFMPGDPOWFOJFODF GPSSFTJEFOUTUPEJTQPTFPG))8 STRATEGIES Washington County will: 8JUI3BNTFZDPVOUZXPSLXJUIUIF.1$"BTUIFBHFODZGBDJMJUBUFTEFWFMPQNFOUPGBQSPEVDUTUFXBSETIJQSFQPSUJOHTZTUFN BOEXJMMTVCNJUSFQPSUTBTSFRVJSFEGPSNBUFSJBMTDPMMFDUFEBOENBOBHFEUIPSPVHIDPVOUZPXOFEBOEPQFSBUFEGBDJMJUJFT 14.1$" requirement) (by 2020) <&>&WBMVBUF ƵSFDPNNFOE BOEJNQMFNFOUIPVTFIPMEIB[BSEPVTXBTUFDPMMFDUJPOƵTFSWJDFJOUIFQPSUJPOTPGUIFDPVOUZUIBUBSF underserved by the currently available service at the Environmental Center and remote events, including consideration of possible fixed or mobile facilities, and other potential collection methods, as well as possibly coordinating services with 3BNTFZ$PVOUZƵƵ CZ
WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 24 WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN · 2018-2036
Chapter III: County Strategies
Toxicity Reduction
5ISPVHIUIFDPVOUZTIPVTFIPMEIB[BSEPVTXBTUFQSPHSBN XPSLDMPTFMZXJUIUIF3&$FOUFSPOQSPNPUJPOBOE PVUSFBDIUPQSFWFOU))8 TIBSQT BOEQSPQBOFUBOLTGSPNCFJOHEFMJWFSFEUPUIF3&$FOUFS POHPJOH <$>"MMPXGPSUIFNBOBHFNFOUPG))8JOBQQSPQSJBUFMZEVNQFEPSUIBUJTSFDPWFSFEEVSJOHUIFBCBUFNFOUPGOVJTBODF QSPQFSUJFTPSQVCMJDIFBMUIOVJTBODFTUISPVHIUIFDPVOUZT))8QSPHSBN POHPJOH <$>&WBMVBUFBEEJUJPOBMTFSWJDFTBOETFSWJDFEFMJWFSZ JFIPVST ƵƵUIBUDPVMECFQSPWJEFEBUUIF$PVOUZ&OWJSPONFOUBM$FOUFS or other facilities using criteria established by the Department, including cost, policy, market aspects, operational feasibility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Ƶ 14.$1"SFRVJSFNFOU CZ *NQMFNFOUîOEJOHTBOESFDPNNFOEBUJPOTGSPNUIF))8GBDJMJUJFTBTTFTTNFOUTUSBUFHJDQMBOOJOHTUVEZGPSUIF &OWJSPONFOUBM$FOUFSJO8PPECVSZ CZ <$>$PPSEJOBUFXJUIUIFƵ4IFSJGGTƵ%FQBSUNFOUGPSƵUIFDPMMFDUJPOPGƵIPVTFIPMEƵQIBSNBDFVUJDBMT DPOUJOVFUP expand the interdepartmental drug drop-off service, and examine possibilities for public-private cooperation for ESVHDPMMFDUJPO POHPJOH <$>"TTJTUJOUIFNBOBHFNFOUPGIPVTFIPMECVTJOFTTIB[BSEPVDRAFTTXBTUFBOESFMBUFETPMJEXBTUFHFOFSBUFEGSPNFNFSHFODZ situations in accordance with the county’s emergency operations plan, and expand the role of the Environmental Center as a MPDBMEJTUSJCVUJPOOPEFBOECBTFGPSFNFSHFODZPQFSBUJPOT POHPJOH
WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 25 WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN · 2018-2036
Chapter III: County Strategies
Waste Reduction & Reuse
POLICIES 5IFDPVOUZTQSJNBSZXBTUFSFEVDUJPOBOESFVTFSPMFJTQSPWJEJOHQVCMJDFEVDBUJPOBOEJOGPSNBUJPOBOEGPTUFSJNQMFNFOUBUJPO PGXBTUFSFEVDUJPOBOESFVTFBDUJWJUJFTCPUIJODPVOUZPQFSBUJPOTBOEJOUIFDPNNVOJUZ 5IFDPVOUZBOEQVCMJDFOUJUJFTXJMMCFMFBEFSTJOJOUFSOBMXBTUFSFEVDUJPOBDUJWJUJFTUISPVHIDPOUJOVPVTMZJNQSPWJOHUIFJSPQFSBUJPOT GSPN3$ 3FDPHOJ[JOHXBTUFSFEVDUJPOSFTVMUTGSPNTZTUFNJDDIBOHF TVDIBTQSPEVDUTUFXBSETIJQJOJUJBUJWFT TVTUBJOBCMF materials management (SMM) or price signals that favor reduced waste, the county believes the MPCA must lead public sector waste reduction innovations and measurement 5IFDPVOUZFYQFDUTUIFQSJWBUFTFDUPSUPJODPSQPSBUFXBTUFSFEVDUJPOBDUJWJUJFTXJUIJOUIFJSPQFSBUJPOT 5IFDPVOUZXJMMQSPWJEFUFDIOJDBMBOEîOBODJBMBTTJTUBODFUPGBDJMJUBUFXBTUFSFEVDUJPOPQQPSUVOJUJFT 5IFDPVOUZXJMMFODPVSBHFUIFVTFPGSFOFXBCMFFOFSHZ JODMVEJOHUIFSFDPWFSZPGFOFSHZBOEGVFMTGSPNXBTUF
STRATEGIES Washington County will: 8JUI3BNTFZ$PVOUZUISPVHIUIF3&#PBSE FYQMPSFQPTTJCMFKPJOUXBTUFSFEVDUJPOBOESFVTFPQQPSUVOJUJFTBOEJNQMFNFOU JGBQQMJDBCMF BDUJWJUJFTTVDIBT'JYJU$MJOJDT CZ 8JUI3BNTFZ$PVOUZTVQQPSUUIF.1$"UBLJOHUIFMFBEUPGBDJMJUBUFBOEEFWFMPQBTVTUBJOBCMFNBUFSJBMTNBOBHFNFOU 44. BQQSPBDIUPXBTUFNBOBHFNFOU 4..43.1$"SFRVJSFNFOU POHPJOH 8JUI3BNTFZ$PVOUZ FYQMPSFSFVTFPQQPSUVOJUJFT UIBUDPDRAFTVMEJODMVEFTVDIFYBNQMFTBTJODFOUJWFHSBOUT EFWFMPQNFOUPG materials reuse brokerage, promotion of Minnesota Technical Assistance Program materials exchange program or similar business PVUSFBDIBOEBTTJTUBODFQSPHSBN GPSCVTJOFTTFT TDIPPMT JOTUJUVUJPOTBOEDPMMFHFTƵƵ 43.1$"SFRVJSFNFOU POHPJOH 8JUI3BNTFZ$PVOUZXPSLXJUITDIPPMTUPFYQMPSFBOEJNQMFNFOUSFVTFPQQPSUVOJUJFTCBTFEPOCFTUQSBDUJDFTTVDIBTCVUOPU MJNJUFEUPFOEPGZFBSTFBTPOBMTDIPPMDMFBOPVUTUPDBQUVSFNBUFSJBMTGPSSFVTF 43.1$"SFRVJSFNFOU CZ 4USJWFGPS[FSPXBTUFBQQSPBDIUPXBTUFNBOBHFNFOUBTBMPOHUFSNHPBMCZXPSLJOHUPSFNPWFCBSSJFSTJOUIFDPNNVOJUZUP SFDZDMJOHBOEDPNQPTUJOHBTNVDIBTQPTTJCMF BOEFODPVSBHFPQQPSUVOJUJFTUPQSFWFOUHFOFSBUJOHXBTUFJOUIFîSTUQMBDF (ongoing)
WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 26 WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN · 2018-2036
Chapter III: County Strategies
Waste Reduction & Reuse
8PSLJOHXJUIDJUJFTBOEUPXOTIJQT FODPVSBHFSFVTFBOEXBTUFSFEVDUJPOCZTIBSJOHPQQPSUVOJUJFTXJUISFTJEFOUTBOE businesses such as, but not limited to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encouraging at clean up events such as for bulky items, while also providing outreach materials on environmental benefits PGSFVTFSBUIFSUIBOTPMFMZPOEPOBUJPOT 43.1$"SFRVJSFNFOU CZ <$>0QFSBUF QSPNPUF BOEUSBDLVTBHFPGJUT'SFF1SPEVDU3PPNBUUIF&OWJSPONFOUBM$FOUFSƵƵ POHPJOH &WBMVBUFBOEFYQMPSFPQQPSUVOJUJFTGPSXBTUFSFEVDUJPOBOESFVTFCBTFEPOCFTUQSBDUJDFTJODPVOUZPXOFECVJMEJOH and grounds including but limited to: B%FWFMPQJOHQVSDIBTJOHTUBOEBSETPSSFDPNNFOEBUJPOTUIBUNBZJODMVEFMFTTUPYJDQSPEVDUT DFSUJîFEDPNQPTUBCMF QSPEVDUT SFEVDFEQBDLBHJOH SFVTFPQQPSUVOJUJFT FUD CZDRAFT C&WBMVBUJOHSFVTFPQQPSUVOJUJFTGPSMBSHFBTTFUJUFNT CZ D$SFBUJOHBOFOWJSPONFOUBMEBTICPBSEDPOUJOVVNGPSEFQBSUNFOUT CZ E"EEJOHXBTUFSFEVDUJPOBOESFVTFUPUIFDPVOUZTJOUFSOBM%JWFSUQSPHSBN CZ F6UJMJ[JOHBWBJMBCMFTUBUFDPOUSBDUTGPSUIFFOWJSPONFOUBMMZQSFGFSBCMFQVSDIBTJOHJODPVOUZPQFSBUJPOTBOETVQQPSU the MPCA in the development of sustainable state contracts and encourage use in the purchase of materials, QSPEVDUT BOEPSTFSWJDFTGPSDPVOUZPQFSBUJPOT 43.1$"SFRVJSFNFOU CZ
WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 27 WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN · 2018-2036
Appendix A: Description of the Waste Management System
A. Introduction
Washington County is required by state law to produce a waste management master plan that details how it will implement the HPBMT QPMJDJFT BOEPCKFDUJWFTƵPVUMJOFEJOUIF1PMJDZ1MBO5IFGPMMPXJOHTFDUJPOEFTDSJCFTUIFDPVOUZTFYJTUJOHƵ XBTUFƵNBOBHFNFOUTZTUFN QSPHSBNT BOEBDUJWJUJFTUPNBOBHFUIJTTZTUFN BOEUIFîOBODJBMNBOBHFNFOUPGUIFTFQSPHSBNT 5IF.1$"IBTQSJNBSZSFTQPOTJCJMJUZGPSXBTUFNBOBHFNFOUJO.JOOFTPUB$PVOUJFTBSFUIFVOJUTPGHPWFSONFOUDIBSHFEXJUI QMBOOJOHGPSXBTUFNBOBHFNFOUBOECFJOHBDDPVOUBCMFGPSBOVNCFSPGSFTQPOTJCJMJUJFTVOEFSUIFHVJEBODFPGUIF.1$" Metropolitan counties are held to a different standard than non-metropolitan counties and are required to develop plans UIBUJNQMFNFOUUIF1PMJDZ1MBO Washington County carries out waste management responsibilities according to the following principles: tDeveloping sound policy at the state, regional and local level by leading to develop legislation on product stewardship and system funding, developing solid waste management master plans that guide the system, and working with cities BOEUPXOTIJQT tPartnering with cities and townships, school districts, private and non–profit entities, recognizing that the system is PQFSBUFECZBXJEFWBSJFUZPGFOUJUJFT tFinancing the systemVTJOHUIF$&$ EFTJHOFEUPSFïFDUUIFWPMVNFPGXBTUFHFOFSBUFECZVTFSTPGUIFTZTUFN tProviding grantsUPDJUJFT UPXOTIJQT TDIPPMEJTUSJDUT CVTJOFTTFTBOEJOTUJUVUJPOT tRegulation: Adopting ordinances to establish standards, licensing of hazardous waste generators, waste haulers, solid waste facilities, ensuring compliance through training and consultation, and taking enforcement action XIFOOFDFTTBSZ tDirect services: $PMMFDUJOH))8BUUIFDPVOUZTGBDJMJUJFT QSPWJEJOH742(IB[BSEPVTXBTUFDPMMFDUJPO BOE QIBSNBDFVUJDBMDPMMFDUJPOTJOBTTPDJBUJPOXJUIMBXFOGPSDFNFODRAFTU tContracting for services with other counties for reciprocal use of HHW facilities, providers of services for recycling, IB[BSEPVTXBTUFNBOBHFNFOU BOEPSHBOJDTNBOBHFNFOUBOEXJUIIBVMFSTBOEUSBOTGFSTUBUJPOTGPSEFMJWFSZPGXBTUF tProviding education and outreach using a wide variety of methods and tools, with emphasis on reaching everyone JOUIFDPVOUZ BOE tConsulting with and providing technical assistance to cities, townships, school districts, businesses, regulated entities and institutions, through staff and consultants to emphasize pollution prevention, reduction, recycling BOEXJTFXBTUFNBOBHFNFOU 5IJTDPNQSFIFOTJWFBQQSPBDI UBLFOPWFSUISFFEFDBEFT IBTSFTVMUFEJOBOFGGFDUJWFBOEBDDPVOUBCMFTZTUFNJOUIFDPVOUZ General Description of the County 8BTIJOHUPO$PVOUZ MPDBUFEPOUIFFBTUFSOFEHFPG.JOOFTPUB JTPOFPGTFWFO5XJO$JUJFTNFUSPQPMJUBOBSFBDPVOUJFTƵ5IFDPVOUZ has historically played a diverse role in the region, serving the Twin Cities with its commercial, industrial, natural, and agricultural SFTPVSDFT5IFDJUZPG4UJMMXBUFS ƵBMPOHUIF4U$SPJY3JWFS TFSWFTBTUIFDPVOUZTFBU5IFDPVOUZJTDPNQSJTFEPGTRVBSFNJMFT BOEUIFFTUJNBUFEQPQVMBUJPOƵGPSUIFDPVOUZXBTƵ 5IJTSBOLFEUIFDPVOUZBTîGUIƵPVUPGUIF.JOOFTPUBDPVOUJFTƵGPS QPQVMBUJPOƵ5IFDPVOUZTQPQVMBUJPOƵJTFYQFDUFEUPSFBDI CZUIFZFBSBOE CZUIFZFBS According to the Washington County, Minnesota 2017 At-A-Glance prepared by the Washington County Office of Administration, the 2017 estimated median household income of county residents was $87,995, and the median age for both genders in the DPVOUZXBTZFBST*O DPVOUZSFTJEFOUTXFSFFNQMPZFE5IFBWFSBHFVOFNQMPZNFOUSBUFGPSUIFDPVOUZJO XBTQFSDFOU ƵCFMPXUIFTUBUFBWFSBHFPGQFSDFOU BOEUIF64BWFSBHFPGQFSDFOU
WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 28 WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN · 2018-2036
Appendix A: Description of the Waste Management System
B. Waste Generation and Collection MSW Generation
Since the R&E Center began operations in 1988, an integrated solid waste and recycling system has developed in the East Metro area, guided by county solid waste master plans, policies and programs in both Ramsey and Washington counties that has helped BDIJFWFBOJODSFBTFESFDZDMJOHSBUF NPSFSFDPWFSZPGPSHBOJDXBTUF JODSFBTFJOXBTUFQSPDFTTBOEMFTTXBTUFTFOUUPMBOEEJTQPTBMƵƵ #FMPXTIPXTQBTUXBTUFHFOFSBUJPOJO3BNTFZBOE8BTIJOHUPODPVOUJFT
Historical Waste Generation Chart · Historical Waste Management, Processing, Recycling and Landfill Data*
Total MSW Managed 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Ramsey County 710,000 670,000 630,000 630,000 620,000 600,000 620,000 700,000 730,000 Washington County 190,000 190,000 180,000 190,000 190,000 190,000 200,000 220,000 210,000 5PUBM3BNTFZ8BTIJOHUPO
Percent Recycled 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Ramsey County 44% 45% 46% 46% 48% 50% 50% 53% 55% Washington County 47% 47% 44% 47% 47% 53% 50% 50% 52% 5PUBM3BNTFZ8BTIJOHUPO
Total MSW Delivered for Processing 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Ramsey County 240,000 240,000 230,000 220,000 220,000 220,000 240,000 250,000 250,000 Washington County 90,000 90,000 90,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 5PUBM3BNTFZ8BTIJOHUPO DRAFT 5PUBM6OQSPDFTTFE.48-BOEîMMFE Ramsey County 150,000 130,000 110,000 110,000 90,000 70,000 60,000 80,000 90,000 Washington County 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 5PUBM3BNTFZ8BTIJOHUPO *Numbers round to 10,000 place · Weight in Tons
Waste Generation Projections 0OCFIBMGPG3BNTFZBOE8BTIJOHUPODPVOUJFT 3&#PBSEIBTDPOEVDUFEFYUFOTJWFBOBMZTFTPGXBTUFHFOFSBUJPOBOESFDZDMJOH Over the past several years the R&E Board examined the generation rates of MSW in the East Metro and identified a high growth rate PGQFSZFBS UIJTJTUIFBWFSBHFSBUFGPS.48HFOFSBUJPOJODSFBTFGSPNUISPVHIoQPTU(SFBU3FDFTTJPO BOEBMPX HSPXUISBUFPGQFSZFBS UIJTJTUIFBWFSBHFSBUFGPS.48HFOFSBUJPOJODSFBTFGSPNUISPVHIoXIJDIJODMVEFTUIF OFHBUJWFoHSPXUIZFBSTPGUIF(SFBU3FDFTTJPO 1SPKFDUJPOTGPS.48HFOFSBUJPOXFSFQSFQBSFEGPSUIPTFHSPXUISBUFT BTXFMMBTBOBWFS- BHFPGUIFUXPSBUFT QFSZFBS5IFTFQSPKFDUJPOTXFSFDPSSPCPSBUFECZUIF.1$" BOEBQQSPWFEJOUIF3BNTFZBOE 8BTIJOHUPO$PVOUZ+PJOU8BTUF%FTJHOBUJPO1MBO
WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 29 WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN · 2018-2036
Appendix A: Description of the Waste Management System
B. Waste Generation and Collection MSW Generation
Waste Generation for Washington County 5IFDPVOUZSFQPSUFE UPOTPG.48NBOBHFEJO'JHVSFTIPXTUIFCSFBLEPXOPGXBTUFNBOBHFEGSPNCPUI SFTJEFOUJBMƵBOEDPNNFSDJBMHFOFSBUPSTJOUIFDPVOUZJO5IFîHVSFƵJOEJDBUFTUIBUQFSDFOUPGUIFXBTUFXBTSFDZDMFE QFSDFOUXBTQSPDFTTFEBOEVTFEGPSFOFSHZBOEQFSDFOUXBTMBOEîMMFE Figure 1: 2016 Washington County Waste Managed
Landfill in MN 9% Process Residuals 2% Problem Materials 1% Landfill Outside MN 5% Recycled 43%
Resource Recovery 40%
Waste Collection Washington County Solid Waste OrdinanceDRAFT #200 requires that all commercial solid waste haulers operating in the county be MJDFOTFECZUIFDPVOUZ-JDFOTJOHJTBDDPNQMJTIFEUISPVHIBKPJOUSFHJPOBMMJDFOTJOHQSPHSBN The Regional Hauler Licensing Program operates in order to simplify the licensing process and eliminate duplicate applications to FBDIDPVOUZ5PPCUBJOBOPQFSBUJOHMJDFOTF BIBVMFSTVCNJUTPOFBQQMJDBUJPOƵUPƵUIFDPVOUZJOXIJDIUIFIBVMFSJTCBTFE*O the county licensed 17 base solid waste haulers, and 46 additional operating licenses to haulers, based in other counties, to collect TPMJEXBTUF5IFDPVOUZEPFTOPUSFRVJSFBMJDFOTFGPSUIFDPMMFDUJPOBOEUSBOTQPSUBUJPOPGOPO.48 SFDZDMBCMFNBUFSJBMT PSTPVSDF TFQBSBUFEPSHBOJDXBTUFƵ For MSW collection, residents in 9 of the 33 communities in the county are served by one hauler where the city or township contracts PSBSSBOHFTGPSUIFTFSWJDFPOCFIBMGPGUIFSFTJEFOUT5IFSFNBJOJOHDPNNVOJUJFTIBWFPQFO.48DPMMFDUJPO ƵJOXIJDIXBTUF HFOFSBUPSTDIPPTFUIFJSPXOIBVMFSGPSTFSWJDF4FF"QQFOEJY#GPSBNBQJEFOUJGZJOHFBDIDJUZBOEUPXOTIJQT.48DPMMFDUJPOƵ TZTUFN 'PSSFDZDMJOHDPMMFDUJPO ƵDPNNVOJUJFTƵIBWFDPOUSBDUFETFSWJDF XIJMFUIFSFTUIBWFPQFOSFDZDMJOHDPMMFDUJPOƵ"MMIBVMFSTPGGFS TJOHMFTPSUSFDZDMJOH XIJDIIBTCFDPNFUIFEPNJOBOUDPMMFDUJPOƵNFUIPETJODFUIFMBTUXBTUFNBOBHFNFOUNBTUFSQMBO$PNNFSDJBM recycling collection services throughout the county are open, and businesses select their own hauler for recycling or MSW collection TFSWJDF4FF"QQFOEJDFT#$GPSBNBQJEFOUJGZJOHFBDIDJUZUPXOT.48PSSFDZDMJOHDPMMFDUJPOƵTZTUFN .48DPMMFDUFEJOUIFDPVOUZJTIBVMFEUPUIF3&$FOUFS UPBTPMJEXBTUFUSBOTGFSTUBUJPO PSUPBMBOEEJTQPTBMGBDJMJUZ 5IFDPVOUZEPFTOPUIBWFBOZPQFSBUJPOBMƵMBOEEJTQPTBMGBDJMJUJFT
WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 30 WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN · 2018-2036
Appendix A: Description of the Waste Management System
B. Waste Generation and Collection MSW Generation
Facilities and Hauler Rates 5IFƵ3&$FOUFSJOƵ/FXQPSU JTƵDVSSFOUMZƵUIFƵPOMZXBTUFƵGBDJMJUZƵPQFSBUJOHƵJOƵUIFƵDPVOUZƵƵ5IF3&$FOUFSBDDFQUTƵXBTUFTƵGSPNƵBƵ WBSJFUZƵPGƵQSJWBUFIBVMFST5IFƵQVCMJDƵUJQQJOHGFFƵJTƵƵQFSƵUPOƵ$JUJ[FOTƵDBOƵBMTPƵIBVMƵUIFJSPXOXBTUFUPUIFGBDJMJUZ 5IF3&#PBSEQSPWJEFTSFCBUFT JOUIFBNPVOUPGQFSUPO UPIBVMFSTUIBUEFMJWFSXBTUFGSPN3BNTFZBOE8BTIJOHUPO DPVOUJFTUPUIF3&$FOUFSJOBOE5IJTNFBOTUIBUUIFOFUDPTUUPIBVMFSTVOEFSB3BNTFZBOE8BTIJOHUPO8BTUF %FMJWFSZ"HSFFNFOUJTQFSUPOGPS0VUPGDPVOUZXBTUFJTBDDFQUFEBUQFSUPO CVUJTOPUFMJHJCMFGPSUIF SFCBUF5SBOTMPBEBHSFFNFOUTBSFBMTPJOQMBDFXJUIFJHIU USBOTGFSTUBUJPOTBOEUIFZBSFBWBJMBCMFUPIBVMFSTGPSTBNFUJQSBUF BTUIF3&$FOUFS QFSUPO The county does not collect data on rates and charges for licensed waste haulers that serve residential and commercial waste HFOFSBUPST"ƵOPOTDJFOUJîDƵSFWJFXƵGPVOEƵBƵSBOHFƵPGQVCMJTIFEƵTFSWJDFƵSBUFTƵUIBUƵFYJTUƵGPSƵNPOUIMZSFTJEFOUJBMƵ.48ƵBOEƵSFDZDMJOHƵ TFSWJDFT FYDMVEJOHƵ$PVOUZƵ&OWJSPONFOUBMƵ$IBSHF TUBUFUBYFTBOEGFFT 35 gallon: $11 - $19 65 gallon: $14 - $20 95 gallon: $16 -$23 The estimated costs per month for residential recycling in the table below (Policy Plan Table 5: Monthly cost of residential recycling in the TCMA) shows the cost in an organized system (contract for recycling) is on average less (nearly 40%) than the monthly cost PGSFDZDMJOHJOBTVCTDSJQUJPOTZTUFN PSPQFOXJUIPVUBDPOUSBDU
Monthly cost of residential recycling in the TCMA 4VCTDSJQUJPOBWFSBHF DRAFT 0SHBOJ[FEBWFSBHF
The estimated costs per month for residential MSW service in the table below (Policy Plan Table 6: Monthly cost of residential MMSW service in the TCMA) shows the cost by various container size in an organized system (contract for MMSW) is similar in cost for a 90 gallon container in a TVCTDSJQUJPOTZTUFN PSPQFOXJUIPVUBDPOUSBDU CVUMPXFSJODPTUGPSCPUIBHBMMPOPSHBMMPODPOUBJOFSJOBOPSHBOJ[FETZTUFN
Container size 30 gallon 60 gallon 90 gallon 4VCTDSJQUJPOBWFSBHF 0SHBOJ[FEBWFSBHF
WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 31 WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN · 2018-2036
Appendix A: Description of the Waste Management System
1. Toxicity Reduction
3FEVDUJPOƵJOUIFUPYJDIB[BSEPVTDIBSBDUFSPGXBTUFSFGFSTUPFGGPSUTƵXIJDIIBWFUIFVMUJNBUFƵHPBMPGSFEVDJOHQPUFOUJBMƵJNQBDUTUP QVCMJDIFBMUIBOEUIFFOWJSPONFOU5IJTTFDUJPOƵEFTDSJCFTCPUISFEVDUJPOƵPGBOEQSPQFSNBOBHFNFOUPGIB[BSEPVTXBTUFGSPNCPUI SFTJEFOUJBMƵBOEDPNNFSDJBMTPVSDFT Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) Program Washington County has operated an HHW facility since 1994, starting with a small facility in 1994 in Oakdale and expanding UPUIFDVSSFOU&OWJSPONFOUBM$FOUFSJOUIFGBMMPGƵ5IFQSPHSBNƵBMTPƵIPMETƵƵPOFEBZƵDPMMFDUJPOFWFOUTƵJOƵSFNPUFƵ MPDBUJPOTƵPGƵUIFƵDPVOUZƵUPQSPWJEFƵDPOWFOJFOUƵTFSWJDFƵGPSƵUIPTFƵOPUƵMJWJOHDMPTFƵUPƵUIFƵ&OWJSPONFOUBMƵ$FOUFSƵ*OƵBEEJUJPO UIFƵ program has reciprocal use agreements with Anoka, Carver, Chisago, Dakota, Hennepin, and Ramsey counties which allow SFTJEFOUTƵUPEFMJWFSƵ))8ƵUPƵBOZƵGBDJMJUZƵPSƵFWFOUƵJOƵUIPTFDPVOUJFTƵGSFFƵPGƵDIBSHF The number of residents using the Household Hazardous Waste Program as shown in Figure 2 has increased since the opening PGUIF&OWJSPONFOUBM$FOUFS'SPNUP UIF&OWJSPONFOUBM$FOUFSFYQFSJFODFEUIFGPMMPXJOHMFWFMPGHSPXUI t5PUBMOVNCFSPGQBSUJDJQBOUTƵJODSFBTFECZUP WJTJUT t5PUBMBNPVOUPGXBTUFDPMMFDUFEJODSFBTFECZUP QPVOET t5PUBMBNPVOUPGFMFDUSPOJDTDPMMFDUFEJODSFBTFECZUP QPVOET Figure 2. Household Hazardous Waste, Recycling & Electronics Collected 2010-2016
Household Hazardous Waste, Recycling, & Electronics Collected
5,000,000 55,000 4,500,000 DRAFT 4,000,000 45,000 3,500,000 35,000 3,000,000 2,500,000 25,000
Pounds Collected 2,000,000 15,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 5,000 500,000 0 -5,000
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Household Hazardous Waste 1,364,757 1,324,723 1,392,944 1,282,804 1,336,719 1,482,990 1,679,815 Recycling 129,012 249,098 273,908 427,957 561,767 698,104 Electronics Waste 1,634,176 1,675,027 1,613,264 1,609,271 1,501,063 1,382,832 1,945,913 Participants 31,781 33,232 34,300 34,178 38,864 42,209 48,941
Weight in lbs. · Source: Washington County Department of Public Health and Environment
WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 32 WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN · 2018-2036
Appendix A: Description of the Waste Management System
1. Toxicity Reduction
3FTJEFOUTJOUIFDPVOUZIBWFPUIFSPQUJPOTBWBJMBCMFUPUIFNGPSQSPQFSEJTQPTBMPGIB[BSEPVTUPYJDNBUFSJBMTƵƵ5IFZJODMVEF 1) recycling consumer electronics, such as televisions and computers, at several privately- operated recovery operations, 2) drop-off programs at retail locations for Ni-cad and button batteries, 3) lead-acid motor vehicle battery take-back programs at any lead-acid battery retail location, 4) motor oil collection at dozens of service stations and other privately- operated vehicle TFSWJDFFTUBCMJTINFOUT ESPQPGGƵQSPHSBNTGPSïVPSFTDFOUƵMBNQTBUMPDBMSFUBJMTUPSFT SFDZDMJOHPGNBKPSBQQMJBODFT TVDI as dishwashers, refrigerators and air conditioners, at several privately-operated recovery operations, and 7) taking small amounts PGQBJOUUPBQBJOUSFUBJMFSUIBUJTBQBSUJDJQBOUJO1BJOU$BSFUBLFCBDLQSPHSBN County Environmental Center The county currently contracts with Clean Harbors for the operation of the Environmental Center in Woodbury and the one-day DPMMFDUJPOƵFWFOUT5IF))8QSPHSBNBMTPIBTBHSFFNFOUTXJUIBOVNCFSPGDPNQBOJFTGPSUIFEJSFDUNBOBHFNFOUPGWBSJPVTXBTUFT 5IF&OWJSPONFOUBM$FOUFSDPMMFDUT))8 FMFDUSPOJDT BOEDPNNPOSFDZDMBCMFT0UIFSNBUFSJBMTSFDZDMFEJODMVEFQMBTUJDƵCBHTBOE holiday lights scrap metal, wire, and the Environmental Center also holds special events such as the shredding and recycling of DPOîEFOUJBMƵQBQFS5IF&OWJSPONFOUBM$FOUFSIBTBMBSHF'SFF1SPEVDU3PPNXIFSFVTBCMFIPVTFIPMEQSPEVDUTBSFGSFFUPSFTJEFOUT In 2016, the Free Product Room gave away nearly $900,000 worth of useable product to residents and diverted nearly 200,000 QPVOETGSPNEJTQPTBM Small Business Hazardous Waste Collection Program 5IFDPVOUZQSPWJEFTBDPMMFDUJPOƵQSPHSBNUPIFMQCVTJOFTTFTEJTQPTFPGTNBMMBNPVOUTPGIB[BSEPVTXBTUF5IFQSPHSBNXBT JNQMFNFOUFEJOUISPVHIUIFDPVOUZT))8BHSFFNFOUXJUIUIFTUBUF BOEBQQSPWFECZUIF$PVOUZ#PBSEPG$PNNJTTJPOFST 5IFIB[BSEPVTXBTUFJTDPNNJOHMFEXJUI))8BOENBOJGFTUFEGPSEJTQPTBM5IFDPTUPGUIFQSPHSBNJTGVOEFECZBGFFDIBSHFE UPUIFHFOFSBUPSCSJOHJOHXBTUFUPUIF&OWJSPONFOUBM$FOUFS BOEDPWFSTEJTQPTBMDPTUT MBCPS BOEBENJOJTUSBUJWFƵUJNFƵ*O ƵƵƵ CVTJOFTTFTQBSUJDJQBUFE ƵBOEOFBSMZ QPVOETPGIB[BSEDRAFTPVTXBTUFXBTDPMMFDUFEUISPVHIUIFQSPHSBN Abandoned Waste 5IF&OWJSPONFOUBM$FOUFSBMTPUBLFTBCBOEPOFEXBTUFGSPNDJUZBOEUPXOTIJQQVCMJDXPSLTEFQBSUNFOUT*GBDJUZPSUPXOTIJQîOET ))8PSFMFDUSPOJDTBCBOEPOFEPOUIFSPBETJEF UIFZDBOBSSBOHFUPCSJOHJUUPUIF&OWJSPONFOUBM$FOUFSBUOPDIBSHFƵƵ Community Cleanups .VOJDJQBMJUJFTƵQSPWJEFBWBSJFUZPGDMFBOVQFWFOUTUPDPMMFDUQSPCMFNNBUFSJBMTGSPNSFTJEFOUT XJUINPTUIFMEPOBOBOOVBMCBTJT 5IFDPVOUZBTTJTUTJOQSPNPUJPOƵPGUIFTFFWFOUT BOEQSPWJEFTUFDIOJDBMBTTJTUBODFJOUIFNBOBHFNFOUPGUIFTFFWFOUT
2. Waste Reduction & Reuse
8BTUFSFEVDUJPOƵJTUIFNPTUQSFGFSSFEXBTUFNBOBHFNFOUNFUIPEJOUIFXBTUFNBOBHFNFOUIJFSBSDIZ1VCMJDFEVDBUJPOƵBOE information are the county’s primary waste reduction activities, targeting households, businesses, and institutions with waste SFEVDUJPOƵNFTTBHFT Reuse Opportunities *OGPSNBUJPOƵPOSFVTFPQQPSUVOJUJFTƵJTBWBJMBCMFPOUIFDPVOUZTPOMJOF%JTQPTBM%JSFDUPSZ5IJTJODMVEFTPQUJPOTƵTVDIBTEPOBUJPO PQQPSUVOJUJFTƵBOESFTBMFTUPSFT
WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 33 WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN · 2018-2036
Appendix A: Description of the Waste Management System
3. Recycling, Organics Management & Yard Waste
5IFƵDPVOUZƵTVQQPSUTƵSFDZDMJOHƵGPSƵCPUISFTJEFOUJBMƵBOEƵDPNNFSDJBMƵHFOFSBUPST5IJTTVQQPSUJODMVEFTHSBOUTBOEUFDIOJDBM assistance to municipalities for operation of residential recycling programs and providing information and technical assistance UPCVTJOFTTFTƵBOEƵJOTUJUVUJPOTƵPOƵSFDZDMJOHUISPVHIUIF3&#PBSET#J[3FDZDMJOHQSPHSBN0QQPSUVOJUJFTƵUPSFDZDMFQBQFS HMBTT NFUBMT QMBTUJDƵCPUUMFT ƵBOEƵPUIFSƵNBUFSJBMT ƵBSFBWBJMBCMFƵUPƵBMMƵSFTJEFOUT ƵCVTJOFTTFT ƵBOEJOTUJUVUJPOTƵJOƵUIFƵDPVOUZƵ'PPEƵXBTUFƵ SFDZDMJOHJTBOPQUJPOBWBJMBCMFUPDPNNFSDJBMHFOFSBUPSTJONPTUPGUIFDPVOUZ3FDZDMBCMFTNBZCFTFMGIBVMFEPSDPMMFDUFE USBOTQPSUFE BOENBSLFUFECZXBTUFIBVMFSTPSTQFDJBMJ[FESFDZDMBCMFTDPMMFDUPST Residential Recycling .VOJDJQBMJUJFTƵBSFSFTQPOTJCMFGPSFTUBCMJTIJOHBOENBJOUBJOJOHSFTJEFOUJBMƵSFDZDMJOHQSPHSBNT5IFDPVOUZQSPWJEFTFEVDBUJPOBM îOBODJBM ƵBOEUFDIOJDBMBTTJTUBODFUPMPDBMHPWFSONFOUTUPBJEUIFTFQSPHSBNT$VSCTJEFSFDZDMJOHJTBWBJMBCMFJOBMMDPNNVOJUJFTƵJO UIFDPVOUZƵ$VSCTJEFSFDZDMJOHTFSWJDFJTQSPWJEFECZQSJWBUFXBTUFIBVMFSTFJUIFSBTBDPOEJUJPOPGSFDFJWJOHBXBTUFIBVMJOHMJDFOTF PSCZDPOUSBDUXJUIUIFMPDBMHPWFSONFOUXIFSFPOFSFDZDMFSQSPWJEFTDPMMFDUJPOƵTFSWJDFUPBMMSFTJEFOUT*O BQQSPYJNBUFMZ QFSDFOUPGUPUBMXBTUFHFOFSBUFEJOUIFDPVOUZXBTSFDZDMFE'JHVSFTIPXTUIFUZQFTPGSFDZDMJOHJO Figure 3. Types of Recycling 2016
Facility Recycling 2%
Residential Recycling 39% CommercialDRAFT Recycled 59%
The county manages a municipal residential curbside recycling grant program to assist communities with recycling program FYQFOTFT(SBOUGVOEJOHMFWFMTBSFEFQFOEFOUPOSFDZDMJOHQSPHSBNBDUJWJUJFTƵBOEJODMVEFBCBTFBNPVOUUPDPWFSBENJOJTUSBUJWFƵ BOECBTJDSFDZDMJOHQSPHSBNFYQFOTFT"TFDPOEMFWFMJTUBSHFUFEUPTQFDJîDƵQSPKFDUTUIBUBSFSFMBUFEUPCSPBEBOEHFOFSBMSFDZDMJOH HPBMT"UIJSEMFWFM JODFOUJWFƵGVOEJOH JTBWBJMBCMFBOEUJFEƵUPDPVOUZUBSHFUFEQSPKFDUTTVDIBTNVMUJGBNJMZSFDZDMJOHBOECVTJOFTT BTTJTUBODF The county created a residential recycling best practices continuum with basic, improved and advanced recycling and waste SFEVDUJPOQSPHSBNDBUFHPSJFT*OPSEFSUPSFDFJWFSFDZDMJOHHSBOUGVOEJOH DJUJFTBOEUPXOTIJQTNVTUNFFUPSCFNBLJOHQSPHSFTT UPXBSETNFFUJOHUIFQSPHSBNFMFNFOUTVOEFSUIFiCBTJDwDBUFHPSZ5IFDPOUJOVVNBMTPTFSWFTBTBHVJEFUPIFMQNVOJDJQBMJUJFT HFOFSBUFQSPKFDUJEFBTBOEFODPVSBHFNPWFNFOUBMPOHUIFDPOUJOVVN In order to receive funding from the county, community recycling programs collect several categories of materials including newspaper, corrugated cardboard, and magazines, metal cans, and glass containers in their curbside collection and multi-family SFDZDMJOHQSPHSBNT"MMQSPHSBNTBMTPBDDFQU QMBTUJDƵCPUUMFT KVOLNBJM CPYCPBSE BOEUFMFQIPOFCPPLTBTQBSUPGUIF DPMMFDUJPOƵ4PNFQSPHSBNTDPMMFDUUFYUJMFT ƵNPUPSPJM BOEBVUPNPCJMFCBUUFSJFT
WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 34 WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN · 2018-2036
Appendix A: Description of the Waste Management System
3. Recycling, Organics Management & Yard Waste
Drop-off Reuse and Additional Recycling Opportunities *OBEEJUJPOƵUPDVSCTJEFSFDZDMJOHPQQPSUVOJUJFT FJHIUESPQPGGƵTJUFTFYJTUXJUIJOUIFDPVOUZ4UPOF4PVQ5ISJGUƵ4UPSF 4U1BVM1BSL Goodwill Retail Stores (Cottage Grove, Forest Lake, Oak Park Heights, Woodbury) Savers (Woodbury), and Community Helping Hand BOE'BNJMZ1BUIXBZT5ISJGUƵ4UPSF 'PSFTU-BLF 5IFTFTUPSFTBDDFQUEPOBUFEDMPUIJOHBOEIPVTFIPMEJUFNT BOESFTFMMUIFN5IFSF are also organizations such as veterans groups, Lupus Foundation, Courage Center, and others that provide collection of clothing BOETNBMMIPVTFIPMEƵJUFNTGSPNIPVTFIPMETTFWFSBMUJNFTƵQFSZFBS An additional drop-off site located at the Environmental Center accepts the materials typically collected in curbside recycling QSPHSBNT ƵCVUƵEPFTƵOPUƵBDDFQUDMPUIJOHƵPSƵIPVTFIPMEƵJUFNTƵ*UFNTDPMMFDUFEJODMVEFTƵNJYFEƵQBQFSƵBOEƵMPPTFƵDBSECPBSE CPUUMFT DBOT DBSUPOT îMNQMBTUJDBOETDSBQNFUBM Curbside recycling of textiles and small household items exists in 5 municipalities within the county: Lakeland, Lakeland Shores, 4UJMMXBUFS 4UJMMXBUFS5PXOTIJQ BOE8PPECVSZ4JNQMF3FDZDMJOHQSPWJEFTDVSCTJEFDPMMFDUJPOPOUIFTBNFEBZBTSFHVMBSSFDZDMJOH DPMMFDUJPOBOEQBZTUIFDJUZPSUPXOTIJQPOFQFOOZQFSQPVOEPGNBUFSJBMDPMMFDUFE$VSCTJEFUFYUJMFTBSFBMTPDPMMFDUFEJO'PSFTU-BLF BOE4DBOEJBCZ'PSFTU-BLF4BOJUBUJPO Organics Management in Schools The counties provide technical assistance and grant funding to the schools for the implementation of food waste recovery and SFDZDMJOHTZTUFNT'PPEXBTUFSFDZDMJOHDBOSFTVMUJODPTUTBWJOHTXIFODPVQMFEXJUIiSJHIUoTJ[JOHwPGHBSCBHFDPMMFDUJPOUPSFEVDF QJDLVQGSFRVFODZBOEPSDPOUBJOFSTJ[F 5IFPSHBOJDXBTUFSFDZDMJOHXPSLJTOPUBCMFJOUIFQVCMJDBOEQSJWBUFTDIPPMTJO8BTIJOHUPO$PVOUZ*O8BTIJOHUPO$PVOUZQVCMJD BOEQSJWBUFTDIPPMTIBWFGPPEXBTUFSFDZDMJOHQSPHSBNTXIJDIEJWFSUFEPWFSUPOTPGGPPEXBTUFEVSJOHƵƵ Schools provide a multi-purpose approachDRAFT to county waste programs as they provide a great opportunity to educate young community members on waste diversion and recycling while providing hands-on experience, and visible and measurable results PGXBTUFEJWFSTJPOBOESFDZDMJOHFGGPSUT Commercial Recycling & Organics In the commercial sector, recyclables are collected by private entities and delivered to private material recovery facilities for QSPDFTTJOHBOENBSLFUJOH Most large retail businesses, such as grocery and discount stores recycle cardboard, which is shown to be the largest volume NBUFSJBMJOUIFDPNNFSDJBMXBTUFTUSFBN.BOZCVTJOFTTFT TVDIBTSFTUBVSBOUTBOECBST BMTPSFDZDMFHMBTTBOENFUBMDPOUBJOFST "HSPXJOHOVNCFSPGTDIPPMTBOEDPNNFSDJBMFTUBCMJTINFOUTIBWFCFHVOSFDZDMJOHGPPEBOEPUIFSPSHBOJDXBTUFT
WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 35 WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN · 2018-2036
Appendix A: Description of the Waste Management System
3. Recycling, Organics Management & Yard Waste
Joint Activities with Ramsey County Ramsey and Washington counties started BizRecycling to help businesses become more efficient and promoting job growth through QSPUFDUJOHUIFFOWJSPONFOU5IF#J[3FDZDMJOHQSPHSBNJTBOJOJUJBUJWFPGUIF3&#PBSEƵƵ1SJPSUP CPUIDPVOUJFTIBECFFO XPSLJOHKPJOUMZPOTFQBSBUFNBOBHFNFOUPGPSHBOJDXBTUF#FHJOOJOHJO UIFZMBVODIFE#J[3FDZDMJOH BUXPDPVOUZQSPHSBN UPQSPNPUFCVTJOFTTFTBOEJOTUJUVUJPOTTUBSUJOHPSFOIBODJOHSFDZDMJOHBOETFQBSBUFPSHBOJDXBTUFNBOBHFNFOUQSPHSBNT5IF QSPHSBNIBTFWPMWFETJODFUPNFFUUIFVOJRVFOFFETPGUIFCVTJOFTTDPNNVOJUZJOUIFUXPDPVOUJFT5IF#J[3FDZDMJOHQSPHSBN provides free resources and assistance to businesses that want to start or enhance programs for reducing waste, recycling items TVDIBTQBQFS CPUUMFT BOEDBOT BOEPSEJWFSUJOHGPPEBOEPUIFSPSHBOJDXBTUF.BOZHSBOUFFTIBWFEFDSFBTFEUIFJSXBTUFWPMVNFT CZJOJUJBUJOHPSJNQSPWJOHSFDZDMJOHBOEPSHBOJDTQSPHSBNT BizRecycling program goals are to: tProvide valuable technical assistance to businesses and institutions in Ramsey and Washington Counties to help UIFNMPXFSUIFJSUSBTIEJTQPTBMDPTUTPWFSUJNFBOENBOBHFXBTUFIJHIFSPOUIFIJFSBSDIZ t1SPNPUFJUTXFCTJUF #J[3FDZDMJOHDPN BTUIFQPSUBMGPSCVTJOFTTFTBOEJOTUJUVUJPOTUPMFBSOIPXUIFZDBOSFEVDF UIFJSDPTUT CFUUFSNBOBHFXBTUF BOEBDDFTTOFFEFESFTPVSDFT t1SPWJEFHSBOUTUPCVTJOFTTFTBOEJOTUJUVUJPOTUIBUBSFDPNNJUUFEUPTUBSUJOHBOPSHBOJDTDPMMFDUJPOQSPHSBNBOEPS FOIBODJOHBUSBEJUJPOBMSFDZDMJOHQSPHSBN tPerform strong data analysis and performance evaluation to target business outreach efforts to increase tons of SFDZDMJOHBOEPSHBOJDTDPMMFDUFE BOE t%JSFDUMZDPOUSBDUGPSGPPESFTDVF The BizRecycling program expanded inDRAFT 2015 to offer partner grants to Ramsey and Washington County business associations MJLFDIBNCFSTPGDPNNFSDF CVTJOFTTMFBHVFT FDPOPNJDEFWFMPQNFOUDPNNJTTJPOTBVUIPSJUJFTBOEOPOoQSPîUEFWFMPQNFOU corporations) to conduct outreach to member businesses and business audiences about the importance of recycling, including UIFGSFFTFSWJDFTQSPWJEFECZ#J[3FDZDMJOH For nearly 10 years, the R&E Board contracted with Second Harvest Heartland to provide food rescue services to Ramsey and 8BTIJOHUPO$PVOUZCVTJOFTTFTJODMVEJOHHSPDFSZTUPSFT SFUBJMTUPSFTBOESFTUBVSBOUT4FDPOE)BSWFTU)FBSUMBOEJTUIFVQQFS .JEXFTUTMBSHFTUIVOHFSSFMJFGPSHBOJ[BUJPO5IJTQBSUOFSTIJQBMJHOFEXJUIUIFPSHBOJ[BUJPOTNJTTJPOUPFOEIVOHFSUISPVHI DPNNVOJUZQBSUOFSTIJQTBOEQSPWJEFGPPEUPIVOHSZQFPQMFUISPVHIGPPESFTDVFBOEJUTGPPECBOLOFUXPSL Research To more fully understand the opportunities and barriers related to the development of an organics management system, the R&E Board commissioned a number of studies of organic waste generators: tAn Integrated Organic Waste Management System: From the Perspective of Commercial Waste Generators (May 10, 2010), analyzes anaerobic digestion as a new organic waste management concept from the perspective of commercial waste generators located in the Ramsey and Washington Counties by exploring logistics of daily operations, types of upfront DPTUT BOEDIBOHFTJOUIFDPOîHVSBUJPOPGXBTUFNBOBHFNFOUTFSWJDFT tOrganic Materials from Commercial Establishments: A Supply Assessment (June 2010), contains preliminary estimates of quantities of commercial organic materials not currently recovered by other programs that may be available as feedstock GPSBOBOBFSPCJDEJHFTUJPOGBDJMJUZ*UBMTPDIBSBDUFSJ[FTUIFUZQFTPGDPNNFSDJBMFTUBCMJTINFOUTUIBUNBZCFTPVSDFTPG UBSHFUFEPSHBOJDNBUFSJBMTTVDIBTGPPETDSBQTBOEOPOoSFDZDMBCMFQBQFS
WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 36 WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN · 2018-2036
Appendix A: Description of the Waste Management System
3. Recycling, Organics Management & Yard Waste
3FTFBSDI DPOUJOVFE tPreliminary Resource Recovery Feasibility Report (January 2014) address the technologies selected for continued evaluation BTQBSUPGUIFGVUVSFPGXBTUFQSPDFTTJOH tWaste Composition Study (September 2014) determined the composition of waste from residential and commercial HFOFSBUPSTJOPSEFSUPJOGPSNUIFQMBOOJOHFGGPSUTGPSGVUVSFPQUJPOTGPSQSPDFTTJOHBOEEJTQPTBMPGXBTUF "GVMMMJTUPGSFMFWBOUSFQPSUTDBOCFGPVOEBUIUUQNPSFWBMVFMFTTUSBTIDPNEFTJHOBUJPOSFTFBSDIƵ DMJDLPOi%FTJHOBUJPO wUIFO i3FMFWBOU3FTFBSDIBOE'JOEJOHTw R&E Center – recycling The R&E Board has long provided financial support to ensure Ramsey and Washington Counties’ MSW is delivered to the R&E Center XIFSFQSPDFTTJOHSFDPWFSTTJHOJîDBOUBNPVOUTPGNFUBMGPSSFDZDMJOH*O PWFS UPOTPGNFUBM JODMVEJOHGFSSPVTBOE OPOGFSSPVTNFUBMT XFSFSFDPWFSFEBUUIF3&$FOUFSGPSSFDZDMJOH4JOHMFTUSFBNSFDZDMJOHXBTBEEFEUPUIF3&$FOUFSGPS FNQMPZFFTBOEWJTJUPSTJO BGUFSUIF3&#PBSEUPPLPXOFSTIJQ Yard Waste State law prohibits yard waste from being placed with municipal solid waste or being disposed of in landfills or resource recovery GBDJMJUJFTƵFYDFQUGPSUIFQVSQPTFPGSFVTF DPNQPTUJOH ƵPSDPDPNQPTUJOH In the county, yard waste is currently managed by one or more of the following methods: backyard composting or mulching, private PSDPNNVOJUZDPNQPTUTJUFT BOEIJSJOHQSJWBUFIBVMFSTUPDPMMFDUBOENBOBHFZBSEXBTUF 5IFƵDPVOUZƵPGGFSTƵUFDIOJDBMƵBTTJTUBODFƵPOZBSEƵXBTUFƵNBOBHFNFOUƵUPƵSFTJEFOUTƵBOENVOJDJQBMJUJFTƵ$VSSFOUMZ ƵîWFDPNNVOJUJFT BOEƵUISFFƵQSJWBUFƵDPNQBOJFTƵPQFSBUFDPNQPTUƵTJUFTƵJOƵUIFƵDPVOUZ5IFQSJWBUFTJUFTBOETPNFƵDPNNVOJUJFTƵIBWFƵJNQMFNFOUFE DRAFT GFFƵTZTUFNTƵUPƵIFMQƵDPWFSƵTJUFƵDPTUTƵ4JUFTBSFƵMPDBUFEƵJOƵ$PUUBHFƵ(SPWF Ƶ%FONBSL5PXOTIJQ 'PSFTUƵ-BLF )VHP Ƶ.BSJOFƵPOƵ4UƵ$SPJY /FXQPSU Ƶ4U1BVMƵ1BSL ƵBOE8PPECVSZ The County is developing additional opportunities for yard waste management in the North and central areas of the county where ZBSEXBTUFNBOBHFNFOUTFSWJDFTBSFMJNJUFEPSOPOFYJTUFOUƵƵ"EEJUJPOBMMZ UIFDPVOUZJTMPPLJOHUPNBLFSFTJEFOUJBMZBSEXBTUF management more available by partnering with the public and private operators to accept a uniform list of materials, have hours UIBUBSFDPOWFOJFOU BOEFOTVSFTJUFTBSFXJUIJOîGUFFONJOVUFTPSMFTTPGESJWFUJNFPGNPTUSFTJEFOUT 4. Processing/Waste-to-Energy
Consistent with Minnesota’s Waste Management Hierarchy, the county processes waste for the purpose of recovering energy, recycla- CMFTBOEPUIFSCFOFîDJBMMZVTFGVMNBUFSJBMTBUUIF3&$FOUFS8BTUFQSPDFTTJOHJTUIFQSFGFSSFENBOBHFNFOUNFUIPEPWFSMBOEîMMJOH GPSXBTUFUIBUJTOPUSFEVDFE SFVTFE PSTFQBSBUFMZSFDZDMFEPSDPNQPTUFE1VSTVBOUUPTUBUFMBX QVCMJDFOUJUJFTJOUIFDPVOUZFOTVSF .48HFOFSBUFEJOUIFDPVOUZPSUIBUUIFDPVOUZDPOUSBDUTGPSJTQSPDFTTFESBUIFSUIBOMBOEîMMFE5IFDPVOUZTVQQPSUTUIFQSPDFTTJOH PGXBTUFJOBNBOOFSUIBUFODPVSBHFTXBTUFSFEVDUJPO SFVTFPSSFDZDMJOH JODMVEJOHUIFTFQBSBUFNBOBHFNFOUPGPSHBOJDXBTUF Landfill pollution and groundwater contamination are the central reasons why Ramsey County and Washington County has CFFOXPSLJOHUPHFUIFSTJODFPOXBTUFQSPDFTTJOHBOESFDPWFSJOHFOFSHZGSPNUSBTIƵƵ.PSFPGUIJTIJTUPSZJTBWBJMBCMFJO UIF3BNTFZ8BTIJOHUPO$PVOUZ+PJOU8BTUF%FTJHOBUJPO1MBO 4FF"QQFOEJY( *OMBUF UIF3&#PBSEQVSDIBTFEUIFXBTUFQSPDFTTJOHGBDJMJUZOPXDBMMFEUIF3&$FOUFS'PMMPXJOHBOFYUFOTJWFFWBMVBUJPO the counties determined that ownership of the facility and the use of waste designation will provide greater stability to the solid waste management system in the counties, enabling the significant progress in recycling, reduced landfilling of waste and increased SFDPWFSZPGSFTPVSDFTGSPNXBTUF
WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 37 WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN · 2018-2036
Appendix A: Description of the Waste Management System
4. Processing/Waste-to-Energy
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îMM TQBDFFRVBMUPBDSFTXJUIBEFQUIPGGFFU Overall, the R&E Board’s ownership and control over the Facility allows it to: tConsider new technologies to increase energy produced, create fuels, make compost, or provide recyclable NBUFSJBMTGPSNBOVGBDUVSJOH t$POUJOVFUPFOTVSFXBTUFJTNBOBHFEUPQSPUFDUUIFFOWJSPONFOUBOEQVCMJDIFBMUI t.FFU.JOOFTPUBTQFSDFOUSFDZDMJOHHPBM t4VQQPSUMPDBMKPCT BOE t8PSLUPXBSETBNPSFTUBCMF QSFEJDUBCMFXBTUFQSPDFTTJOHTZTUFNUIBUDPOUSPMTDPTUTBOETBWFTUBYQBZFSTNPOFZ Waste Designation *O 8BTIJOHUPO$PVOUZ JODPPQFSBUJPOXJUI3BNTFZ$PVOUZCFHBOUIFQSPDFTTPGJNQMFNFOUJOHXBTUFEFTJHOBUJPO8BTUF EFTJHOBUJPOXJMMSFRVJSFUIBUBMMTPMJEXBTUFHFOFSBUFEXJUIJO3BNTFZBOE8BTIJOHUPO$PVOUJFTCFEFMJWFSFEUPUIF3&$FOUFS#Z implementing waste designation, the counties ensure all waste will now be processed, with metals being removed and recycled, and UIFSFNBJOJOHXBTUFQSPDFTTFEJOUP3%'GPSQSPEVDUJPOPGSFOFXBCMFFOFSHZ5IFUXPDPVOUJFTBOUJDJQBUFUIFVTFPGXBTUFEFTJHOBUJPO BTBDSJUJDBMTUSBUFHZUPBDIJFWFTUBUFXBTUFNBOBHFNFOUHPBMTDRAFT%FTJHOBUJPOJTPVUMJOFEJOUIF1SPDFTTJOHDIBQUFSPGUIJTQMBO BTXFMM BTUIF3BNTFZ8BTIJOHUPO$PVOUZ+PJOU8BTUF%FTJHOBUJPO1MBO 4FF"QQFOEJY( 5. Landfilling & NonMSW Management
5IFSFBSFOPPQFSBUJOHƵ.48MBOEEJTQPTBMGBDJMJUJFTƵJOUIFDPVOUZ*O UPOTPG.48GSPNUIFDPVOUZXBTEFMJWFSFEUP MBOEîMMTƵCZQSJWBUFIBVMFST)BVMFSTUSBOTQPSUFEUIFXBTUFUPBWBSJFUZPGMBOEîMMTJO*OWFS(SPWF)FJHIUT &ML3JWFS #VSOTWJMMF BOE#MVF &BSUI$PVOUZ .JOOFTPUB BOE&BV$MBJSF 8JTDPOTJO5IFTFMBOEîMMTƵBSFPXOFECZQSJWBUFDPNQBOJFT BOEJOEJWJEVBMTPMJE XBTUFIBVMFSTDIPPTFUPUSBOTQPSUUIFDPMMFDUFEXBTUFUPBMBOEîMM /PO.48JTUIFUFSNVTFEUPSFGFSUPUZQFTPGXBTUFUIBUBSFOPUJODMVEFEJO.48PSIB[BSEPVTXBTUF&YBNQMFTPG/PO.48 JODMVEFDPOTUSVDUJPOEFNPMJUJPOƵEFCSJT JOEVTUSJBMXBTUF USFFXBTUF TUSFFUTXFFQJOHT BOEXBUFSUSFBUNFOUMJNFTMVEHF/PO.48 JTQSJNBSJMZNBOBHFECZUIFQSJWBUFTFDUPSTFSWJDFT5IFDPVOUZJTFYQMPSJOHNFUIPETBOEPQQPSUVOJUJFTVTFEUPFODPVSBHF QSPNPUF and expand the separation, reuse and recycling of NonMSW materials from deconstruction, building demolition, and remodeling QSPKFDUTƵƵ5IFDPVOUZDVSSFOUMZMJDFOTFGBDJMJUJFTUIBUDPMMFDU TUPSF PSQSPDFTTDPODSFUFBOEBTQIBMU USFFXBTUF BOEPUIFSOPO.48 PSJOEVTUSJBMCZQSPEVDUTGPSCFOFîDJBMSFVTF SFDZDMJOH QSPDFTTJOH PSEJTQPTBM NonMSW Materials Construction debris - The majority of construction debris generated in the county is hauled to construction and demolition MBOEîMMTƵ(FOFSBUPSTPGEFNPMJUJPOEFCSJTBSFPGUFOƵSFGFSSFEUPUIF4,#3JDI7BMMFZ-BOEîMMƵJO*OWFS(SPWF)FJHIUTBTUIFOFBSFTU GBDJMJUZ HFPHSBQIJDBMMZ UPEJTQPTFPGDPOTUSVDUJPOBOEEFNPMJUJPOEFCSJT%FNPMJUJPOƵEFCSJTJTOPUNBOBHFEBUUIF3&$FOUFS
WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 38 WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN · 2018-2036
Appendix A: Description of the Waste Management System
6. Regulation
Commercial Hazardous Waste 5IFDPVOUZIBTPQFSBUFEBDPNNFSDJBMIB[BSEPVTXBTUFSFHVMBUJPOƵQSPHSBNTJODFBOEJTNBOEBUFECZTUBUFTUBUVUFf TVCEUPSFHVMBUFBOEFOGPSDFTUBUFBOEMPDBMIB[BSEPVTXBTUFSVMFT8BTIJOHUPO$PVOUZ0SEJOBODFBEPQUFEJO EFTDSJCFTUIFDPVOUZSFHVMBUJPOTSFMBUFEUPIB[BSEPVTXBTUFNBOBHFNFOU"OZCVTJOFTTPSOPOIPVTFIPMEFOUJUZƵUIBUHFOFSBUFT IB[BSEPVTXBTUFJTEFîOFEBTB)B[BSEPVT8BTUF(FOFSBUPS BOENVTUDPNQMZXJUIUIFTFSFHVMBUJPOTƵ5IFSFHVMBUJPOTƵBSF designed to be protective of public health and the environment, and focus on preventing hazardous waste releases to the FOWJSPONFOUPSFYQPTVSFUPQFPQMF Generators of commercial hazardous waste are classified in one of three categories, based on amount of waste generated: tLarge Quantity Generators (LQG), produce more than 2,650 gallons of hazardous waste per year, tSmall Quantity Generators (SQG), which produce between 265 and 2,650 gallons of hazardous waste per year, and t7FSZ4NBMM2VBOUJUZƵ(FOFSBUPST 742( QSPEVDFMFTTUIBOHBMMPOTPGXBTUFQFSZFBS *OƵ ƵUIFSFƵXFSFƵƵ-2(T ƵƵ42(T ƵBOEƵ742(TJOUIFDPVOUZ UPUBMJOHHFOFSBUPST Hazardous waste generators are required to obtain a license from the county, submit annual waste generation reports and NBOBHFNFOUƵQMBOTGPSFBDISFHVMBUFEXBTUFHFOFSBUFE.BOBHFNFOUQMBOTJEFOUJGZƵUIFRVBOUJUZƵPGXBTUFQSPEVDFE IPXUIF XBTUFJTNBOBHFE BOEXIFSFUIFXBTUFXJMMCFEJTQPTFE&BDIQMBOJTSFWJFXFECZTUBGGƵUPFOTVSFQSPQFSXBTUFNBOBHFNFOU The county ensures compliance through a variety of methods including technical assistance, training, site visits, inspections, and DJUJOHWJPMBUJPOTBTOFFEFEƵƵ7JPMBUJPOTBSFUZQJDBMMZXSJUUFOPSEFST MFUUFSPGXBSOJOH -08 PSBOPUJDFPGWJPMBUJPO /07 ƵƵ*O FOGPSDFNFOUBDUJPOTXFSFOFDFTTBSZUPHBJODPNQMJBODFƵƵ'PVSUFFODPNQMBJOUTGSPNUIFDPNNVOJUZXFSFJOWFTUJHBUFEBOESFTPMWFE UPQSPUFDUQVCMJDIFBMUIBOEFOWJSPONFOUƵƵ0VUSFBDIBOEFEVDBUJPOBSFUIFQSJNBSZUPPMTGPSNBJOUBJOJOHDPNQMJBODFƵƵ*O OJOF UBSHFUFEUSBJOJOHTXFSFEFMJWFSFEUPPWFS)B[BSEPVT8BTUF(DRAFTFOFSBUPSTUBGG TJYFMFDUSPOJD)B[8BTUF&$MJQTOFXTMFUUFSTXFSFTFOU UPNPSFUIBOTVCTDSJCFST BOEFJHIUZUISFF(FOFSBUPSTSFDFJWFEPOFPOPOFJOQFSTPOUSBJOJOHBOEUFDIOJDBMBTTJTUBODFƵƵ Solid and Hazardous Waste Facilities 5IFDPVOUZBMTPSFHVMBUFTIB[BSEPVTXBTUFGBDJMJUJFTƵUIBUUSFBU TUPSF PSEJTQPTFPGIB[BSEPVTXBTUF5IFSFJTPOFTVDIGBDJMJUZJO UIFDPVOUZ UIF.$PUUBHFƵ(SPWFIB[BSEPVTXBTUFJODJOFSBUPS4VDIGBDJMJUJFTƵBSFTVCKFDUUPBEEJUJPOBMƵSFHVMBUJPOTƵCFZPOEUIPTF GPSHFOFSBUPST CBTFEPOUIFUZQFTPGXBTUFIBOEMFE BOEUIFTJ[FBOEOBUVSFPGUIFJSPQFSBUJPOƵ'BDJMJUJFTƵBSFBMTPSFRVJSFEUPIBWF BQFSNJUGSPNUIF.1$"BOEUIF&1" The county regulates a variety of solid waste facilities, including solid waste transfer stations, recycling facilities, and waste storage, QSPDFTTJOHBOEEJTQPTBMGBDJMJUJFTƵ5IFDPVOUZEFSJWFTJUTSFHVMBUPSZBVUIPSJUZGPSTPMJEXBTUFNBOBHFNFOUBOEQSPUFDUJPOƵPGQVCMJD IFBMUI TBGFUZ BOEUIFFOWJSPONFOUGSPN.JOOFTPUB4UBUVUFTf" f" f f BOEf5IF.1$"4PMJE8BTUF Management Rules adopted November 21, 1988, encourage the cooperation of local units of government in enforcing the rules .JOOFTPUB3VMFT$IBQ .1$"4PMJE8BTUF3VMFTIBWFCFFOBEPQUFECZSFGFSFODFJOUIF8BTIJOHUPO$PVOUZ4PMJE 8BTUF.BOBHFNFOU0SEJOBODF/P In addition to ensuring compliance with state rules, the county implements and ensures compliance with its own Solid Waste .BOBHFNFOU0SEJOBODFTBOE0SEJOBODFFTUBCMJTIFTDPVOUZTQFDJîDƵSFRVJSFNFOUTGPSƵUIFNBOBHFNFOUPGTPMJE XBTUFBOE0SEJOBODFFTUBCMJTIFTUIFQSPDFTTFTBOEQSPDFEVSFTBOEBQQMJDBUJPOPGUIF$PVOUZ&OWJSPONFOUBM$IBSHF $&$ For example, Ordinance #114 sets standards for tree waste management facilities, land application sites, solid waste facilities, XBTUFIBVMFST BOE0SEJOBODFFTUBCMJTIFTXIBUTFSWJDFTUIF$&$BQQMJFTUPBOEUIFSBUFPGUIF$&$ƵƵ
WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 39 WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN · 2018-2036
Appendix A: Description of the Waste Management System
7. County Leadership in Waste Management
Washington County 2030 Comprehensive Plan and 2017 revision The county incorporated sustainability and specific waste management strategies with the goal of preserving, managing and VUJMJ[JOHƵOBUVSBMSFTPVSDFTUPQSPNPUFBIFBMUIZFOWJSPONFOUGPSQSFTFOUBOEGVUVSFHFOFSBUJPOTƵ"SFBTJODMVEFEFYQBOEJOH sustainable building policy to include developing sustainability principles, encourage public entities to incorporate sustainability principles into planning efforts, develop opportunities for community participation, lead by example in county operations to conserve energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, manage waste in an integrated system in accordance to the state hierarchy, and lead by example in county operation to develop and implement innovative waste management solutions and FODPVSBHFQVCMJDFOUJUJFTƵUPEPUIFTBNF The county is currently updating the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and expects to continue aligning waste management goals and TUSBUFHJFTXJUIUIFOFX$PNQSFIFOTJWF1MBO Toxicity Reduction The county strives to lead by example and demonstrate ways to reduce the toxicity of waste generated in county operations BOEFODPVSBHFTPUIFSTUPEPUIFTBNF'PSFYBNQMF UISPVHIUIFDPVOUZTQSFWJPVTXBTUFNBOBHFNFOUNBTUFSQMBO tAll county electronics, beyond computer equipment, are recycled through the county’s electronics vendor, and tThe implementation of the county’s internal waste reduction program, Divert 70, led to an evaluation of cleaning DIFNJDBMT FMJNJOBUJOHPGDIFNJDBMTQSFWJPVTMZVTFE Waste Reduction The county has made significant efforts to lead by example and demonstrate methods to reduce waste in county operations in PSEFSUPFODPVSBHFPUIFSTUPSFEVDFXBTUFHFOFSBUFE&YBNQMFTPDRAFTGUIFTFFGGPSUTƵJODMVEF tThe county’s Information Technology Department purchasing standards that encourage the purchase of printers with duplexing capabilities, t*OTUBMMJOHXBUFSCPUUMFîMMJOHTUBUJPOT FMJNJOBUJOHPWFS P[XBUFSCPUUMFTTJODF tA county-wide paper reduction campaign education employees on ways to reduce paper and obtaining authorization to send annual benefits disclosures electronically, saving over 34,000 sheets of paper annually, and t*NQMFNFOUBUJPOPGSFVTBCMFTQPPOT USBZT BOENJDSPîCFSDMPUIFTJOUIFJONBUFBSFBPGUIFDPVOUZKBJM Office Recycling/Divert 70 Program 5IFDPVOUZIBTIBEBOJOIPVTFPGîDFSFDZDMJOHQSPHSBNTJODF*O UIFDPVOUZJOUSPEVDFEBOFXJOUFSOBMXBTUFEJWFSTJPO QSPHSBNDBMMFE%JWFSUƵƵ4JODFJNQMFNFOUBUJPO XBTUFEJWFSTJPOJOFNQMPZFFBSFBTJTEJWFSUJOHBOBWFSBHFPGPGNBUFSJBMT BXBZGSPNUIFUSBTIUPSFDZDMJOHBOEDPNQPTU Highlights of this program include: t3FNPWBMPGEFTLTJEFUSBTIDBOTBOESFQMBDFEXJUITNBMMiNJOJCJOwBOEEFTLTJEFSFDZDMJOHCPY tCentralized sorting stations located within 40 steps from most employee areas, and tSorting stations comprised of three hands-free, color-coded bins, providing employees with the opportunity to recycling via single sort recycling or commercial composting stream
WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 40 WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN · 2018-2036
Appendix A: Description of the Waste Management System
7. County Leadership in Waste Management
0GîDFŭ3FDZDMJOH%JWFSU1SPHSBN DPOUJOVFE 5IFTVDDFTTPG%JWFSUJOFNQMPZFFBSFBTIBTBMMPXFEGPSFYQBOTJPOJOUPBSFBTPVUTJEFPGFNQMPZFFXPSLTQBDF"EEJUJPOBMƵ Divert 70 efforts to increase recycling include: tDivert 70 sorting stations in large conference & training rooms, Government Center Cafeteria, and building entryways, tPaper towel compost collection pilot in designated bathrooms, tPurchasing change in Government Center cafeteria, eliminating all non-recyclable plates, bowls, cups, silverware, and serving containers, and tDivert 70 presence at county sponsored events NonMSW 5IFDPVOUZIBTUBLFOTUFQTUPCFUUFSƵNBOBHF/PO.48HFOFSBUFEGSPNDPVOUZPQFSBUJPOT5IFTFJODMVEF tCounty Board passed a resolution giving preference to recycled manufactured scrap shingles in hot-mix asphalt when bid requests are issued for county highway projects, and tCounty Board resolution adopting the Minnesota Sustainable Building Design Guidelines for use in county buildings BOESFNPEFMJOHQSPKFDUT5IFHVJEFMJOFTXFSFVTFEJOUIFEFTJHOBOEDPOTUSVDUJPOƵPGUIF4FSWJDF$FOUFSJO$PUUBHFƵ(SPWF BOEUIF4FSWJDF$FOUFSBOE-JCSBSZJO'PSFTU-BLFBOEUIFDPOTUSVDUJPOƵPGUIF&OWJSPONFOUBM$FOUFS5IFDPVOUZUISPVHI DPOUSBDUXJUIUIF6OJWFSTJUZPG.JOOFTPUBT$FOUFSGPS4VTUBJOBCMF#VJMEJOH3FTFBSDIBMTPDPOEVDUFEQPTUPDDVQBODZ FWBMVBUJPOT 10&T POUIFTFSWJDFDFOUFSBOEMJCSBSZJO'PSFTU-BLFBOEUIFTFSWJDFDFOUFSJO$PUUBHFƵ(SPWF 8. Cost and Finance DRAFT
5IJT1MBOBEESFTTFTUIFSFWFOVFTBOEFYQFOEJUVSFTPGUIFDPVOUZTXBTUFNBOBHFNFOUTFSWJDFQSPHSBNT Revenue The primary sources of revenue for the county’s solid waste programs are the County Environmental Charge (CEC), state grants, BOEƵMJDFOTFƵGFFTƵGSPNIB[BSEPVTƵBOEƵTPMJEƵXBTUFƵSFHVMBUJPO'JHVSFTIPXTUIFCSFBLEPXOPGQSPHSBNCVEHFUFESFWFOVF Figure 4: Waste Program Budgeted Revenue Fees 6%
Select Committee on Recycling & the Environment 9% Interest 1% Local Recycling Development (LRDG) 5%
County Environmental Charge (CEC) 79%
WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 41 WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN · 2018-2036
Appendix A: Description of the Waste Management System
8. Cost and Finance
Since 1989, the County has collected a waste management service charge for solid waste management programs such as household IB[BSEPVTXBTUF SFDZDMJOH BOESFTPVSDFSFDPWFSZ5IFDIBSHFXBTPSJHJOBMMZDPMMFDUFEPOUIFQSPQFSUZUBYTUBUFNFOUƵ*O"QSJM UIFDPVOUZJNQMFNFOUFEUIF$PVOUZ&OWJSPONFOUBM$IBSHFXIJDIJTDPMMFDUFECZIBVMFSTBTBQFSDFOUBHFPGUIFHBSCBHFCJMMƵƵ5IF$&$ JTBNPSFWJTJCMFDIBSHFUPHFOFSBUPST BOEQSPWJEFTBOJODFOUJWFƵUPSFEVDFXBTUFBOESFDZDMF*O UIF$PVOUZ&OWJSPONFOUBM $IBSHFXBTQFSDFOUPGUIFBNPVOUPGUIFXBTUFCJMM QFSDFOUJO SFEVDFEUPJOBOESFEVDFEBHBJOUP JO5IFSBUFJTFWBMVBUFEPOBQFSJPEJDCBTJT BOEBEKVTUFEƵBTƵOFFEFEƵ"ƵƵQFSƵQBSDFMƵDIBSHFSFNBJOTPOUIFQSPQFSUZ UBYTUBUFNFOU SCORE and LRDG State Grants The county receives two grants: the SCORE (Select Committee on Recycling and the Environment) derived from the state solid waste management tax on waste management activities and the LRDG (Local Recycling Development Grant) funded by a surcharge POXBTUFMBOEîMMFEƵJOUIF.FUSPQPMJUBO"SFB License Fees Costs associated with the solid and hazardous waste regulation programs, including licensing and inspections, enforcement of the regulations, ordinance amendments and rule changes, are covered by license fees that are paid by the solid waste haulers and the SFHVMBUFEDPNQBOJFTBOEUIF$&$JTBGFFQBJEPOUIFQSJDFPGXBTUFNBOBHFNFOUTFSWJDFT 5IFDPVOUZJTSFJNCVSTFEGPSUIFDPTUPGDPMMFDUJOHƵïVPSFTDFOUƵCVMCTUISPVHIUIFDPVOUZT))8QSPHSBN5IF))8QSPHSBNBMTP SFDFJWFTQBZNFOUGPSTPNFPGUIFNBUFSJBMTNBOBHFEJODMVEJOHƵVTFEPJM CBUUFSJFT ƵQSPQBOFUBOLT FUD5IFDPVOUZQBSUJDJQBUFTƵJOUIF NFUSPQPMJUBOSFHJPOT3FDJQSPDBM6TF"HSFFNFOU XIJDIFOUJUMFTUIFDPVOUZUPCFSFJNCVSTFECZBOPUIFSDPVOUZGPSDPTUTBTTPDJBUFE XJUITFSWJOHBSFTJEFOUPGUIBUDPVOUZ5IFDPTUPGUIF4NBMM#VTJOFTT)B[BSEPVT8BTUF$PMMFDUJPOƵ1SPHSBNGPSCVTJOFTTFTUIBU HFOFSBUFTNBMMBNPVOUTPGIB[BSEPVTXBTUFJTDPWFSFECZUIFGFFTDIBSHFEUPUIFQBSUJDJQBUJOHƵCVTJOFTTFT Expenses DRAFT The county’s primary expenses for waste management programs are resource recovery, household hazardous waste, and community TPMJEXBTUFJODMVEJOHSFDZDMJOHHSBOUTUPNVOJDJQBMJUJFTƵBOESFHVMBUJPO'JHVSFTIPXTUIFCSFBLPVUPGQSPHSBNCVEHFUFEFYQFOTFT Figure 5: 2016 Waste Program Budgeted Expenses
Community Solid Waste Programs 17% Other Grants 1% Regulation 7% 1SPDFTTJOH Waste-to-Energy (SBOUTUP$JUJFT5PXOTIJQT 40%
Household Hazardous Waste 28%
WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 42 WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN · 2018-2036
Appendix A: Description of the Waste Management System
8. Cost and Finance
Resource Recovery 3BNTFZBOE8BTIJOHUPODPVOUJFTPXOBOEPQFSBUFUIF3&$FOUFSJO/FXQPSU 5IF3&#PBSEIBTUXPNBJOCVEHFUT BGBDJMJUZCVEHFUBOEBKPJOUBDUJWJUJFTCVEHFUƵƵ5IFGBDJMJUZCVEHFUJTBOFOUFSQSJTFCVEHFU XJUIUIFUJQQJOHGFFDIBSHFGVOEJOHBMMGBDJMJUZDPTUTƵƵ5IFKPJOUBDUJWJUJFTCVEHFUJTVTFEUPBENJOJTUFSBOEDBSSZPVUKPJOUXBTUF NBOBHFNFOUBDUJWJUJFT BOEJODMVEFTOPOGBDJMJUZSFMBUFEBDUJWJUJFTƵƵ5IFKPJOUBDUJWJUJFTCVEHFUJODMVEFTUIFIBVMFSSFCBUF&BDI PGUIFDPVOUJFTBQQSPWFBOEGVOEUIFJSQPSUJPOPGUIFKPJOUBDUJWJUJFTXJUI$&$5IF8BTIJOHUPO$PVOUZQPSUJPOXBTKVTUPWFS NJMMJPOUPUBMCVEHFUFEJO5IF)BVMFS3FCBUFQBZNFOUXBTUPOJOBOE Household Hazardous Waste 5IF))8QSPHSBNFYQFOTFTJODMVEFPQFSBUJOHUIF&OWJSPONFOUBM$FOUFSJO8PPECVSZ BOEUIFPOFEBZDPMMFDUJPOƵFWFOUT 5IFNBKPSJUZPGGVOETBSFGPSEJTQPTBMBOEDPOUSBDUMBCPS Community Solid Waste 4UBGGƵTVQQPSU ƵPQFSBUJOHƵFYQFOTFT BOEƵPUIFSƵTVQQPSUƵUPƵQSPWJEFƵBƵWBSJFUZPGƵXBTUFƵNBOBHFNFOUƵTFSWJDFT Recycling Grants 5IFTFBSFQBZNFOUTUPNVOJDJQBMJUJFTGPSSFDZDMJOHQSPHSBNT Regulation The commercial hazardous waste and solid waste regulation programs are financed primarily through fees charged to the regulated FOUJUJFTƵ&YQFOEJUVSFTBSFQSJNBSJMZGPSTUBGGƵXIPDPOEVDUUIFMJDFOTJOHBOEJOTQFDUJPOƵBDUJWJUJFT ƵFOWJSPONFOUBMDPNQMBJOUT BOEGPS BTTPDJBUFEBENJOJTUSBUJWFFYQFOTFTUPPQFSBUFUIFQSPHSBN Other Grants DRAFT 0UIFSSFDZDMJOHHSBOUTJODMVEFGVOEJOHUPTDIPPMT DPOUSBDUFETFSWJDFT FUD4JODF 8BTIJOHUPO$PVOUZIBTCFFOQSPWJEJOH HSBOUTUPTDIPPMTUPBTTJTUJOFTUBCMJTIJOHƵGPPESFDZDMJOHQSPHSBNTƵƵ(SBOUGVOETIBWFCFFOVTFEGPSDPOTUSVDUJOHƵGPPEXBTUFTPSUJOH UBCMFTBOEGPSQVSDIBTJOHFRVJQNFOUTVDIBTDBSUTBOEDPOUBJOFSTOFFEFEGPSGPPEXBTUFDPMMFDUJPOƵ 9. Ordinances Local ordinances pertaining to garbage, recycling and other solid waste issues are found in numerous city and county codes and PSEJOBODFT"MJTUJOHPGMPDBMPSEJOBODFTSFMFWBOUUPUIJTNBTUFSQMBODBOCFGPVOEJO"QQFOEJY% 10. Strategic Communication and Education .JOOFTPUB4UBUVUFf" 4VCESFRVJSFTUIBUDPVOUJFTƵiQSPWJEFJOGPSNBUJPOPOIPX XIFOBOEXIFSFNBUFSJBMTNBZ be recycled, including a promotional program that publishes notices at least once every three months and encourages source TFQBSBUJPOPGSFTJEFOUJBM ƵDPNNFSDJBM JOEVTUSJBMBOEJOTUJUVUJPOBMƵNBUFSJBMTw'VSUIFSNPSF UIFDPVOUZJTSFRVJSFEUPIBWFBCSPBE CBTFEQVCMJDFEVDBUJPOƵDPNQPOFOUJOJUTIPVTFIPMEIB[BSEPVTXBTUFNBOBHFNFOUQMBOBDDPSEJOHUP.JOOFTPUB4UBUVUFf" Public education, including both informational and promotional activities, is an important component of the county’s waste NBOBHFNFOUQSPHSBN )PVTFIPMEƵIB[BSEPVTƵXBTUFƵDPNNVOJDBUJPOTQMBO&BDIZFBS TUBGGƵEFWFMPQTƵBƵDPNNVOJDBUJPOTXPSLQMBOƵGPSƵUIFƵQSPNPUJPOƵ PGƵUIFƵZFBSSPVOEIB[BSEPVTƵXBTUFƵGBDJMJUZƵ &OWJSPONFOUBM$FOUFS BOEƵTFBTPOBMƵDPMMFDUJPOƵFWFOUTƵ5IFƵQVSQPTFƵPGƵUIFƵQMBOJTƵ UPƵFTUBCMJTIƵTUSBUFHJDƵDPNNVOJDBUJPOFGGPSUTƵUPƵBDIJFWFƵTUBUFEƵHPBMTƵBOEƵPCKFDUJWFTGPSƵUIFƵIPVTFIPMEIB[BSEPVTƵXBTUFƵQSPHSBNƵ
WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 43 WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN · 2018-2036
Appendix A: Description of the Waste Management System
10. Strategic Communication and Education
A variety of techniques have been used to promote the Environmental Center and collection events including the Going Green Guide, &OWJSPONFOUBMF6QEBUF &OWJSPONFOUBM6QEBUFJOTFSU EJSFDUƵNBJMƵQPTUDBSET SBDLDBSET ESJWFMBOFTJHOT 'BDFCPPL 5XJUUFS BOE QBJEBEWFSUJTFNFOUT Going Green Guide: This is a comprehensive guide, mailed to all households, that provides information on waste management programs in the county including yard waste composting, household hazardous waste reduction and disposal, waste reduction, BOEƵSFDZDMJOHƵ5IFHVJEFƵBMTPƵJODMVEFTƵJOGPSNBUJPOƵPOƵ3FDZDMFE1SPEVDUTƵ,JUT Ƶ$PNQPTUJOHƵ&EVDBUJPOƵ,JUT ƵBOE5SBTIƵ5SVOLTƵ XIJDIƵBSFƵBWBJMBCMFƵGPSƵUFBDIFSTBOEƵDPNNVOJUZƵHSPVQƵMFBEFSTƵUPƵCPSSPXUPƵIFMQƵUFBDIƵPUIFSTƵBCPVUƵUIFTFƵJTTVFTƵ5IF(SFFO(VJEF JTEJTUSJCVUFEJOTQSJOH Environmental UpdateƵoƵ4JODF UIFƵ&OWJSPONFOUBMƵ6QEBUFƵIBTCFFOQVCMJTIFEBOOVBMMZBOENBJMFEUPBMMBEESFTTFTJO 8BTIJOHUPO$PVOUZƵ5IF6QEBUFDPOUBJOTJOGPSNBUJPOƵSFHBSEJOHƵUIFDPVOUZTƵXBTUFƵNBOBHFNFOUƵQSPHSBNT ƵJODMVEJOHZBSEƵ waste composting, household hazardous waste reduction and disposal, hazardous waste management, waste reduction, and SFDZDMJOHƵƵ5IF6QEBUFXBTPSJHJOBMMZBTUBOEBMPOFQVCMJDBUJPOBOEJTOPXJOTFSUFEJOUPUIF4UBZJOHJO5PVDIOFXTMFUUFSQVCMJTIFE CZUIF0GîDFPG"ENJOJTUSBUJPOBOEJTVTVBMMZEJTUSJCVUFEJOMBUFTVNNFSFBSMZGBMM Printed information – Waste management messages are also distributed through other publications such as the Drop It Off CSPDIVSFXIJDIJTHJWFOPVUBUFWFOUTBOEUISPVHIQBSUOFSTTVDIBTDJUJFTBOEUPXOTIJQTƵƵƵ Rack cards have been developed to provide information on specific topics such as unused medication disposal, sharps disposal, BOECVMLZXBTUFƵƵ3BDLDBSETBSFEJTUSJCVUFEGSPNUIF&OWJSPONFOUBM$FOUFSBTXFMMBT$JUJFT 5PXOTIJQT 8BTIJOHUPO$PVOUZ PGîDFT BOEPUIFSQVCMJDCVJMEJOHTTVDIBTMJCSBSJFTƵƵ Articles – Articles and advertisements are submitted for city and township newsletters on the HHW collection schedule, the CBDLZBSEƵDPNQPTUƵCJOƵEJTUSJCVUJPOƵQSPHSBNBOEXBTUFƵSFEVDUJPOƵBOEƵSFDZDMJOH Online Disposal Directory – The CountyDRAFT maintains and annually updates its online disposal directory, which lists disposal PQUJPOTGPSƵNBOZƵIPVTFIPMEƵXBTUFTGPSSFTJEFOUTƵ5IFƵEJSFDUPSZJTƵVTFEƵUPƵSFTQPOEƵUPƵEFNBOEƵGSPNDPNNVOJUZƵJORVJSFTƵPOƵ XBTUFƵNBOBHFNFOUJTTVFTƵBOEƵQSPWJEFTƵTQFDJîDƵDPVOUZƵXBTUFNBOBHFNFOUƵJOGPSNBUJPO Social Media – The use of Facebook and Twitter has grown in use with the county adding a department Facebook page and a UXJUUFSBDDPVOUi8BTI$P3FDZDMFTwUPJOGPSNTUBLFIPMEFSTBCPVUXBTUFQSPHSBNT TFSWJDFT BOEUPJODSFBTFLOPXMFEHFBCPVU XBTUFNBOBHFNFOUJTTVFTBOEFOHBHFCFIBWJPSDIBOHF Presentations – The County has developed three programs addressing the areas of product label reading and household IB[BSEPVTXBTUF ƵQBDLBHJOHSFEVDUJPO ƵBOESFDZDMJOHSFDZDMFEQSPEVDUTBOEDPOUJOVFTUPQSPWJEFƵUIFTFƵFEVDBUJPOBMƵ PQQPSUVOJUJFTUPƵTDIPPMT ƵDPNNVOJUZƵHSPVQT ƵHSBOUFFT BOEPUIFSPSHBOJ[BUJPOT Recycled Products Kit – The County developed award winning recycled products kits that have been distributed in the DPNNVOJUZƵUPƵNFFUHSPXJOHƵEFNBOETƵGPSƵJOGPSNBUJPOƵPOƵSFDZDMJOH5IFƵLJUTƵBSFƵIBOETPOƵMFBSOJOHƵTUBUJPOTƵGPSTDIPPMT Ƶ businesses or community groups, and contain fourteen examples of products made from commonly recycled materials such as plastic lumber made from milk bottles, a notebook made from recycled office paper, and a doormat made from SFDZDMFEƵUJSFTƵ%VFƵUPSFRVFTUTƵGSPNƵLJUƵVTFSTƵGPSƵBEEJUJPOBMƵSFTPVSDFT DPNQPTUJOHƵFEVDBUJPOƵLJUTƵXFSFƵEFWFMPQFEBOEƵBSFƵ OPXƵMPBOFEƵUPƵDPNNVOJUZƵHSPVQT Banned materials – The County provides information on materials banned from the MSW stream such as yard waste, tires, BOEBQQMJBODFT
WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 44 WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN · 2018-2036
Appendix A: Description of the Waste Management System
10. Strategic Communication and Education
Community Inquires – The County responds to a variety of requests for information and technical assistance for specific disposal JTTVFTƵTVDIƵBTƵ))8ƵDPMMFDUJPO ƵDPNQPTUJOH SFDZDMJOH ƵBOEƵIBVMFSƵMJDFOTJOHƵJOGPSNBUJPO Business Assistance Communication The R&E Board began working on source separated organics management in 2003, hiring consultants to work with institutions and businesses that were high–volume generators of food waste and quickly found that engagement with businesses needed to JODMVEFBMMXBTUFNBOBHFNFOUGSPNGPPESFTDVF USBEJUJPOBMSFDZDMJOH PSHBOJDTNBOBHFNFOUBOEUSBTI#VTJOFTTFOHBHFNFOUJT KPJOUMZDPOEVDUFECZ3BNTFZBOE8BTIJOHUPO$PVOUZUISPVHIUIF3&#PBSET#J[3FDZDMJOHQSPHSBN Communications to the approximately 40,000 businesses and institutions in Ramsey and Washington Counties are designed BTCVTJOFTTUPCVTJOFTTDPNNVOJDBUJPOTBOEBSFDBSSJFEPVUJOTFWFSBMXBZT5IF#J[3FDZDMJOHXFCTJUF #J[3FDZDMJOHDPN JT TQFDJîDBMMZBJNFEBUFEVDBUJOHCVTJOFTTFTJOUIFUXPDPVOUJFTPOUIFPQQPSUVOJUJFTGPSBOECFOFîUTPGCFUUFSXBTUFNBOBHFNFOU The website includes a large volume of information, including Minnesota’s commercial recycling legislation, technical assistance BWBJMBCMFGPSCVTJOFTTFT HSBOUHVJEFMJOFTBOEBQQMJDBUJPONBUFSJBMT BOEDPOUBJOFSBOEMBCFMPSEFSJOHGPSNT 5IF3&#PBSETVQQMFNFOUTUIFXFCTJUFXJUIBCMPHBOE5XJUUFSGFFEJOPSEFSUPFOHBHFXJUIUIFDPNNVOJUZPOTPDJBMNFEJB 5IF3&#PBSEVQEBUFTUIFCMPHPODFBXFFLUISPVHIPVUUIFZFBSXJUIQPTUTBOEWJEFPTPOWBSJPVTDPNNFSDJBMSFDZDMJOHJTTVFT The R&E Board aims to publish two social media posts per day that highlight the resources available through the BizRecycling, general recycling education, information on the R&E Board and to acknowledge the successful work of both current and past #J[3FDZDMJOHHSBOUFFT *O UIF3&#PBSEFOUFSFEJOUPBUXPoZFBSQBSUOFSTIJQXJUIUIF4U1BVM4BJOUTUPJODSFBTFUIFWJTJCJMJUZPGSFDZDMJOH PQQPSUVOJUJFTBOEFOTVSFTUBUFPGUIFBSUSFDZDMJOHBU$)4'JFME5IFQBSUOFSTIJQQBDLBHFJODMVEFEBOPOoîFMESFDZDMJOHHBNF between innings that engaged fans, radio commercials during the Saints games, ad space in the team’s annual pocket schedule EJTUSJCVUFEBUBMMQBSUOFSMPDBUJPOT BOEBSPUBUJOHCBOOFSBEPOUIF4BJOUTXFCTJUF#J[3FDZDMJOHBMTPQSPWJEFEUIF4BJOUTXJUI technical assistance via the project consultant,DRAFT MN Waste Wise, to help implement a robust recycling and organics program at their OFXCBMMQBSL $)4'JFME#J[3FDZDMJOHCSBOEFEUSBTI SFDZDMJOHBOEPSHBOJDTMBCFMTBSFBGîYFEUPBMMCJOTUISPVHIPVUUIFCBMMQBSL 5IFîSTUTFBTPOUIF4BJOUTBDIJFWFEOFBSMZBSFDZDMJOHSBUF8JUIVQUP GBOTBUUFOEJOHFWFSZHBNFUIFFEVDBUJPOBMSFBDI PGUIF4BJOUTQSPHSBNTHPFTGBSCFZPOEUIFXBMMTPG$)4'JFME Internal county intranet – the county relies on the county employee intranet, Wash Net, to communicate applicable JOGPSNBUJPOPOƵXBTUFƵNBOBHFNFOUƵ*OGPSNBUJPOƵJODMVEFTXIBUƵUPƵSFDZDMFƵUISPVHIƵUIFƵDPVOUZTƵPGîDFSFDZDMJOHƵQSPHSBN ƵXIBUƵ happens to recyclables, waste reduction tips and examples from county operations, green purchasing, green building, IPVTFIPMEƵIB[BSEPVTƵXBTUFƵSFNPUFƵFWFOUDPMMFDUJPOT ƵBOEƵUIFƵ&OWJSPONFOUBMƵ$FOUFS E-News oƵ5IFƵ&OWJSPONFOUBMƵF6QEBUFƵXBTîSTUƵJTTVFEƵCZƵUIFƵ%FQBSUNFOUƵJOƵ5IFƵF6QEBUFƵJTƵBƵTFNJBOOVBMƵFMFDUSPOJD newsletter to inform residents about environmental news, services, and events happening at the Environmental Center and JOƵUIFJSƵDPNNVOJUZƵ5PQJDTƵJOƵƵJODMVEFEUIFƵSFNPUFƵIB[BSEPVTƵXBTUFƵDPMMFDUJPOT $PNQPTUƵ#JOTƵBOEƵ3BJOƵ#BSSFMƵTBMFT Ƶ BOEƵDBSTFBUSFDZDMJOHPQUJPOT
WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 45 WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN · 2018-2036
Appendix B: County Municipalities by MSW Collection Type
FOREST LAKE SCANDIA
MARINE ON ST CROIX
HUGO City & Township MAY TOWNSHIP 2017 MSW Collection Type
STILLWATER TOWNSHIP DELLWOOD
GRANT
MAHTOMEDI
BIRCHWOOD VILLAGE WILLERNIE STILLWATER
MSW PINE SPRINGS OAK PARK HEIGHTS
Contracted BAYPORT
Open BAYTOWN TOWNSHIP LAKE ELMO DRAFTOAKDALE WEST LAKELAND TOWNSHIP
LAKELAND LANDFALL
LAKELAND SHORES
LAKE ST CROIX BEACH
ST MARY'S POINT WOODBURY AFTON
NEWPORT
ST PAUL PARK
COTTAGE GROVE DENMARK TOWNSHIP
GREY CLOUD ISLAND TOWNSHIP ² WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 46 WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN · 2018-2036
Appendix C: County Municipalities by Recycling Collection Type
DRAFT
WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 47 WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN · 2018-2036
Appendix D: Ordinances
Washington County ordinances related to the plan:
t4PMJE8BTUF0SEJOBODF/PIUUQTXXXDPXBTIJOHUPONOVT%PDVNFOU$FOUFS7JFXƵ t4PMJE8BTUF4FSWJDF$IBSHF0SEJOBODF/PƵIUUQTXXXDPXBTIJOHUPONOVT%PDVNFOU$FOUFS7JFXƵ t)B[BSEPVT8BTUF.BOBHFNFOU0SEJOBODF/PIUUQTXXXDPXBTIJOHUPONOVT%PDVNFOU$FOUFS7JFXƵ t1VCMJD)FBMUI/VJTBODF0SEJOBODF/PIUUQXXXDPXBTIJOHUPONOVT@BTTFUYN[03%QEG t'PPE1SPUFDUJPO0SEJOBODF/PIUUQTXXXDPXBTIJOHUPONOVT%PDVNFOU$FOUFS7JFXƵ Municipal ordinances related to solid waste include:
tAfton: Chapter 18 Solid Waste Management IUUQXXXDJBGUPONOVTWFSUJDBMTJUFT#'#'%%%""%%VQMPBET$)@@ VQEBUFE@QEGƵ tBayport: Chapter 46 Solid Waste IUUQTXXXNVOJDPEFDPNMJCSBSZNOCBZQPSUDPEFTDPEF@PG@PSEJOBODFT OPEF*E .6$0@$)408"ƵƵƵ t#JSDIXPPE1VCMJD)FBMUIBOE8FMGBSF4FDUJPO994PMJEBOE)B[BSEPVT8BTUF.BOBHFNFOU IUUQCJSDIXPPEHPWPGîDFDPNJOEFYBTQ 5ZQF #@#"4*$4&$ \&%#& "#""^%& \%#%'"%$%^ tCottage Grove: Title 4 Public Health and Safety Chapter 2, 4-2-1 through 4-2-21 Mixed Solid Waste and Recycling IUUQXXXTUFSMJOHDPEJîFSTDPNDPEFCPPLJOEFYQIQ CPPL@JE tDellwood: Title 4 Public Works, Garbage, Septic and Storm Sewer Regulations, Chapter 50 Garbage and Rubbish IUUQEFMMXPPEVT0SEJOBODFT5JUMF7QEGƵDRAFT t%FONBSL5PXOTIJQ0SEJOBODF/P IUUQXXXEFONBSLUPXOTIJQPSHJOEFYBTQ 4&$ '#"#%&'&&$"5ZQF #@#"4*$Ƶ tForest Lake: Chapter 50: Collection of Garbage and Waste Materials IUUQMJCSBSZBNMFHBMDPNOYUHBUFXBZEMM.JOOFTPUBGPSFTUMBLF@NODJUZPGGPSFTUMBLFNJOOFTPUBDPEFPGPSEJOBODF G UFN QMBUFTGO EFGBVMUIUNWJE BNMFHBMGPSFTUMBLF@NOƵ tGrant: Chapter 26 Solid Waste IUUQDJUZPGHSBOUDPNEPDDJUZ$PEFIUNMƵ tGrey Cloud Island Township: IUUQXXXOFJHICPSIPPEMJOLDPN(SFZ@$MPVE@*TMBOEQBHFTƵ t)BTUJOHT5JUMF1VCMJD8PSLT IUUQXXXIBTUJOHTNOHPWIPNFTIPXEPDVNFOU JE Ƶ tHugo: Chapter 62 Solid Waste IUUQTXXXNVOJDPEFDPNMJCSBSZNOIVHPDPEFTDPEF@PG@PSEJOBODFT OPEF*E $003@$)408"Ƶ tLake Elmo: Chapter 52 Solid Waste IUUQMJCSBSZBNMFHBMDPNOYUHBUFXBZEMM.JOOFTPUBMBLFFMNP@NOMBLFFMNPNJOOFTPUBDPEFPGPSEJOBODFT G UFNQMBUFTG O EFGBVMUIUNWJE BNMFHBMMBLFFMNP@NO tLakeland: Chapter 50 Garbage and Solid Waste IUUQMJCSBSZBNMFHBMDPNOYUHBUFXBZEMM.JOOFTPUBMBLFMBOE@NODJUZPïBLFMBOENJOOFTPUBDPEFPGPSEJOBODFT G UFN QMBUFTGO EFGBVMUIUNWJE BNMFHBMMBLFMBOE@NO WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 48 WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN · 2018-2036
Appendix D: Ordinances
.VOJDJQBMPSEJOBODFTSFMBUFEUPTPMJEXBTUFJODMVEF DPOUJOVFE
tLakeland Shores: Title 5 Public Works Chapter 51 Solid Waste Disposal IUUQXXXMBLFMBOETIPSFTHPWPGîDFDPNWFSUJDBMTJUFT#"'"#%"&##''&#&%VQMPBET 5*5-&@7@@16#-*$@803,4$)"15&3QEGƵ tLandfall: Chapter 6 Nuisances and Offenses, Section 630 Disposal of Garbage, Rubbish Refuse, Waste Materials IUUQMBOEGBMMBENJOB[VSFXFCTJUFTOFU'JMF6QMPBE$PEFT'-BOEGBMM$JUZ$PEFPG0SEJOBODFTQUQEGƵ tMahtomedi: Chapter 12 Public Health, Safety, and Welfare IUUQXXXDJNBIUPNFEJNOVTWFSUJDBMTJUFT##'$'##$'%"$""''%VQMPBET "EPQUFE@7FSTJPO@PG@$IBQUFS@1VCMJD@)FBMUI@4BGFUZ@BOE@8FMGBSFQEGƵ tMay Township: Chapter 5 Article 507, 508 IUUQXXXUPXOPGNBZPSHWFSUJDBMTJUFT#$&"#&&%"'%VQMPBET.BZ@5XQ@ 5PXO@$PEF@%FD@QEGƵ tNewport: Chapter 24 Solid Waste IUUQTXXXNVOJDPEFDPNMJCSBSZNOOFXQPSUDPEFTDPEF@PG@PSEJOBODFT OPEF*E $003@$)408"Ƶ tOak Park Heights: Chapter 500 Garbage and Rubbish IUUQXXXDJUZPGPBLQBSLIFJHIUTDPNWFSUJDBMTJUFT#&&&#'$#&''%%"#% VQMPBET#&#"''&$%#%%'%1%'Ƶ tOakdale: Chapter 6 Solid Waste and Environment IUUQXXXDJPBLEBMFNOVTWFSUJDBM4JUFT#%"#&'&#$'%VQMPBET$PEFQEGƵ t4DBOEJB0SEJOBODF/VNCFS(BSCBHFBOE3VCCJTIƵƵIUUQXXXDJTDBOEJBNOVTWFSUJDBMTJUFT#'%"%% "&&'%VQMPBET##&"&#'###DRAFT"'""'%1%'Ƶ t4U1BVM1BSL$IBQUFS4PMJE8BTUF.BOBHFNFOU IUUQMJCSBSZNVOJDPEFDPNJOEFYBTQY DMJFOU*% TUBUF*% TUBUFOBNF .JOOFTPUBƵ tStillwater: Chapter 30 Garbage and Rubbish IUUQTXXXNVOJDPEFDPNMJCSBSZNOTUJMMXBUFSDPEFTDPEF@PG@PSEJOBODFT OPEF*E $)("36Ƶ t4UJMMXBUFS5PXOTIJQ0SEJOBODF/P /P /P /P IUUQTUJMMXBUFSUPXOTIJQDPNJOEFYBTQ 4&$ &'"$&'##'#%$&%#%& ###&"''#" #''"&%5ZQF #@#"4*$Ƶ tWest Lakeland Township: Section 13 Environmental Regulations IUUQXXXXFTUMBLFMBOEHPWPGîDFDPNWFSUJDBMTJUFT#'#"&"&""&'%VQMPBET 4FDUJPO@@@&OWJSPONFOUBM@3FHVMBUJPOTQEGƵ tWhite Bear Lake: Article 5, Public Health, Welfare and Sanitation IUUQXXXXIJUFCFBSMBLFPSHJOEFYBTQ 5ZQF #@#"4*$4&$ \$&%&& ##%''^%& \#%'%'&%&#$&^ tWillernie: IUUQXJMMFSOJFPSHPSEJOBODFT$JUZ@0SEJOBODFT"%015*0/@0'@$0%&@0'@03%*/"/$&QEGƵ tWoodbury: Chapter 19 Solid Waste IUUQTXXXNVOJDPEFDPNMJCSBSZNOXPPECVSZDPEFTDPEF@PG@PSEJOBODFT OPEF*E $*$0@$)408"
WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 49 WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN · 2018-2036
Appendix E: Acronyms
AD Anaerobic Digestion
C&D Construction and Demolition Waste
CEC County Environmental Charge
CIIƵƵƵƵƵƵƵƵƵ $PNNFSDJBM*OEVTUSJBM*OTUJUVUJPOBM EPP Environmentally Preferable Purchasing
HHW Household Hazardous Waste
ISWM Integrated Solid Waste Management
LRDG Local Recycling Development Grant
MNTAP Minnesota Technical Assistance Program
MPCA Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
MSW Mixed Municipal Solid Waste
MUD ƵƵ .VMUJ6OJU%XFMMJOH RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RDF Refuse Derived Fuel
R&E Board ƵƵ3BNTFZ8BTIJOHUPO3FDZDMJOH&OFSHZ#PBSE R&E Center Recycling & Energy CenterDRAFT SMM Sustainable Materials Management
SCORE Select Committee on Recycling and the Environment
SWMCB Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds
VSQG Very Small Quantity Generator
WMA Waste Management Act
WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 50 WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN · 2018-2036
Appendix F: Definitions
Acceptable Waste:Ƶ8BTUFUIBUJTBDDFQUBCMFBUUIF3BNTFZ8BTIJOHUPO3FDZDMJOH&OFSHZ$FOUFSJO/FXQPSU .JOOFTPUB *UJODMVEFTBOZUZQFPGTPMJEXBTUFUIBUIBTCFFOEFTJHOBUFECZDPVOUZPSEJOBODFBOEXIJDIJTOPUPUIFSXJTFVOBDDFQUBCMFXBTUF "OBFSPCJD%JHFTUJPO "% A technology that uses microorganisms in the absence of oxygen to convert various types of organic XBTUFTJOUPSFOFXBCMFFOFSHZBOEDPNQPTUPSGFSUJMJ[FS Banned Materials: Wastes that are statutorily banned from disposal with MSW – yard waste, e-waste, HHW, appliances, tires, VTFENPUPSPJM FUD BizAWAREi"EWPDBUFTGPS8BTUFBOE3FDZDMJOH&EVDBUJPOwƵ"QSPHSBNPGUIF3FDZDMJOH&OFSHZ#PBSEGPS3BNTFZBOE 8BTIJOHUPO$PVOUZCVTJOFTTBTTPDJBUJPOTUPEFWFMPQPVUSFBDIQSPHSBNTUPNFNCFSCVTJOFTTFTBCPVUUIFJNQPSUBODFPGSFDZDMJOH BizRecycling: A program of the Recycling & Energy Board to promote businesses and institutions starting or enhancing recycling BOEPSHBOJDXBTUFNBOBHFNFOUQSPHSBNT Bulky Waste: "TVCTFUPG.48 )PVTFIPMEJUFNTBOEPUIFSEJTDBSEFENBUFSJBMTUIBU EVFUPUIFJSEJNFOTJPOBOEXFJHIU BSFUZQJDBMMZ OPUDPMMFDUFEBTQBSUPGUIFSFHVMBSUSBTIBOESFDZDMJOHPSGPSXIJDIUIFSFJTBTFQBSBUFGFF TVDIBTGVSOJUVSF DBSQFUJOHBOENBUUSFTT &YDMVEFTNBKPSBQQMJBODFTBOEFXBTUF Business: &OHBHFTJODPNNFSDJBMBDUJWJUZBTNFBOTPGMJWFMJIPPE $JUJFTUPXOTIJQT8BTIJOHUPO$PVOUZDJUJFTBOEUPXOTIJQT Collection: The aggregation of waste from the place at which it is generated and includes all activities up to the time the XBTUFJTEFMJWFSFEUPBXBTUFGBDJMJUZ .JOO4UBUf" 4VCE Construction and Demolition Debris Waste C&D: 5FSNSFGFSSJOHUPDPOTUSVDUJPOXBTUFBOEEFNPMJUJPOEFCSJT $PNNFSDJBMŭ BTJOiDPNNFSDJBMXBTUFwPSiDPNNFSDJBMSFDZDMJOHw Refers to non-residential sources, including businesses, HPWFSONFOUGBDJMJUJFTPSPQFSBUJPOT JOTUJUVUJPOT TDIPPMT OPODRAFTQSPîUPSHBOJ[BUJPOT DPNNVOJUZBDUJWJUJFT FUD*OUFSDIBOHFBCMF XJUIiOPOSFTJEFOUJBMw Commingled Recycling: 1MBDJOHUXPPSNPSFTPVSDFTFQBSBUFESFDZDMBCMFNBUFSJBMTJOUIFTBNFDPOUBJOFSGPSSFDZDMJOH Composting: 5IFDPOUSPMMFENJDSPCJBMEFHSBEBUJPOPGPSHBOJDXBTUFUPZJFMEBIVNVTMJLFQSPEVDU .JOO3VMFTf Conservation: $POTFSWJOHFOFSHZBOEOBUVSBMSFTPVSDFTUISPVHIXBTUFSFDZDMJOHBOESFDPWFSZ Construction Debris: Waste building materials, packaging and rubble resulting from construction, remodeling, repair and demolition PGCVJMEJOHTBOESPBET .JOO4UBUf" 4VCE $PVOUZ&OWJSPONFOUBM$IBSHF $&$ ŭThe CEC is a percentage of the cost of service and must appear as a separate line item POBCJMM8BTIJOHUPO$PVOUZT$&$SBUFJT GPSSFTJEFOUJBMDVTUPNFSTBOEOPOSFTJEFOUJBMDVTUPNFST*UBQQMJFTUPUSBTI DPMMFDUJPOBOEEJTQPTBMTFSWJDF GVFMTVSDIBSHFT BDDPVOUTUBSUVQPSDBODFMMBUJPOGFFTBOEBOZPUIFSBENJOJTUSBUJWFGFFT*UEPFTOPU apply to construction and demolition waste, recyclables, medical and infectious waste, organic materials collected for composting BOEDFSUBJOUZQFTPGJOEVTUSJBMXBTUF5IF$&$BMTPEPFTOPUBQQMZUPPUIFSUBYFTPSHPWFSONFOUGFFT Curbside Collection: $PMMFDUJPOPGXBTUF HBSCBHF SFDZDMBCMFT ZBSEXBTUF FUD GSPNSFTJEFODFTBUUIFQPJOUPGHFOFSBUJPO Deconstruction:Ƶ5IFQSPDFTTPGEJTNBOUMJOHCVJMEJOHTJOBNBOOFSUIBUBMMPXTGPSNBUFSJBMTUPCFSFVTFE
WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 51 WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN · 2018-2036
Appendix F: Definitions
Demolition Debris: Solid waste resulting from the demolition of buildings, roads and other man-made structures including concrete, brick, bituminous concrete, untreated wood, masonry, glass, trees and tree trimmings, rock, plastic building parts and other inert XBTUFNBUFSJBMT CVUOPUJODMVEJOHBTCFTUPTXBTUFT Designation:Ƶ4FF8BTUF'MPX%FTJHOBUJPO Disposal: The discharge, deposit, injection, dumping, spilling, leaking or placing of any waste into or on any land or water so that the waste or any other constituent thereof may enter the environment or be emitted into the air or discharged into any waters, including HSPVOEXBUFST .JOO4UBU" 4VCE Disposal Facility: A waste facility permitted by the MPCA that is designed or operated for the purpose of disposing of waste on or in UIFMBOE UPHFUIFSXJUIBOZBQQVSUFOBOUGBDJMJUJFTOFFEFEUPQSPDFTTXBTUFGPSEJTQPTBMPSUSBOTGFSUPBOPUIFSXBTUFGBDJMJUZ .JOO 4UBUf" TVCE East Metro: *ODMVEFT3BNTFZBOE8BTIJOHUPODPVOUJFT &MFDUSPOJD8BTUF PSiFXBTUFw E-waste or electronic waste includes the following items: t$BUIPEFSBZUVCFTi$BUIPEFSBZUVCFwPSi$35wNFBOTBWBDVVNUVCFPSQJDUVSFUVCFVTFEUPDPOWFSUBOFMFDUSPOJD TJHOBMJOUPBWJTVBMJNBHF DPNNPOMZVTFEJOUFMFWJTJPOTBOEDPNQVUFSNPOJUPST t$PNQVUFSTi$PNQVUFSwNFBOTBOFMFDUSPOJD NBHOFUJD PQUJDBM FMFDUSPDIFNJDBMPSPUIFSIJHITQFFEEBUBQSPDFTTJOH device performing logical, arithmetic or storage functions but does not include an automated typewriter or typesetter, a QPSUBCMFIBOEIFMEDBMDVMBUPSPSEFWJDFPSPUIFSTJNJMBSEFWJDF t$PNQVUFSNPOJUPSTi$PNQVUFSNPOJUPSwNFBOTBOFMFDUSPOJDEFWJDFUIBUJTBDBUIPEFSBZUVCFPSïBUQBOFMEJTQMBZQSJNBSJMZ JOUFOEFEUPEJTQMBZJOGPSNBUJPOGSPNBDFOUSBMQSPDFTTJOHVOJUPSUIF*OUFSOFU$PNQVUFSNPOJUPSJODMVEFTBMBQUPQDPNQVUFS t$PWFSFEFMFDUSPOJDEFWJDFTi$PWFSFEFMFDUSPOJDEFWJDFwNFBOTDPNQVUFST QFSJQIFSBMT GBDTJNJMFNBDIJOFT %7%QMBZFST video cassette recorders and videoDRAFT display devices that are sold to a household by means of retail, wholesale or FMFDUSPOJDDPNNFSDF t1FSJQIFSBMTi1FSJQIFSBMwNFBOTBLFZCPBSE QSJOUFSPSBOZPUIFSEFWJDFTPMEFYDMVTJWFMZGPSFYUFSOBMVTFXJUIBDPNQVUFS UIBUQSPWJEFTJOQVUPSPVUQVUJOUPPSGSPNBDPNQVUFS t7JEFPEJTQMBZEFWJDFTi7JEFPEJTQMBZEFWJDFwNFBOTBUFMFWJTJPOPSDPNQVUFSNPOJUPS JODMVEJOHBMBQUPQDPNQVUFS UIBUDPOUBJOTBDBUIPEFSBZUVCFPSBïBUQBOFMTDSFFOXJUIBTDSFFOTJ[FUIBUJTHSFBUFSUIBOOJOFJODIFTNFBTVSFEEJBHPOBMMZ BOEUIBUJTNBSLFUFECZNBOVGBDUVSFSTGPSIPVTFIPMEVTF7JEFPEJTQMBZEFWJDFEPFTOPUJODMVEFBOZPGUIFGPMMPXJOH rA video display device that is part of a motor vehicle or any component part of a motor vehicle assembled by, or for, a WFIJDMFNBOVGBDUVSFSPSGSBODIJTFEEFBMFS JODMVEJOHSFQMBDFNFOUQBSUTGPSVTFJOBNPUPSWFIJDMF rA video display device, including a touch-screen display, that is functionally or physically part of a larger piece of FRVJQNFOUPSJTEFTJHOFEBOEJOUFOEFEGPSVTFJOUIFGPMMPXJOHTFUUJOHTJOEVTUSJBM DPNNFSDJBM JODMVEJOHSFUBJM MJCSBSZ DIFDLPVU USBGîDDPOUSPM LJPTL TFDVSJUZPUIFSUIBOIPVTFIPMETFDVSJUZ CPSEFSDPOUSPM NFEJDBM JODMVEJOHEJBHOPTUJD NPOJUPSJOHPSDPOUSPMFRVJQNFOU rA video display device that is contained within a clothes washer, clothes dryer, refrigerator, refrigerator and freezer, NJDSPXBWFPWFO DPOWFOUJPOBMPWFOPSSBOHF EJTIXBTIFS SPPNBJSDPOEJUJPOFS EFIVNJEJîFSPSBJSQVSJîFS PS r"UFMFQIPOFPGBOZUZQFVOMFTTJUDPOUBJOTBWJEFPEJTQMBZBSFBHSFBUFSUIBOOJOFJODIFTNFBTVSFEEJBHPOBMMZ
WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 52 WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN · 2018-2036
Appendix F: Definitions
&OWJSPONFOUBM+VTUJDF &+ The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin or JODPNFXJUISFTQFDUUPUIFEFWFMPQNFOU JNQMFNFOUBUJPOBOEFOGPSDFNFOUPGFOWJSPONFOUBMMBXT SFHVMBUJPOTBOEQPMJDJFT &OWJSPONFOUBMMZ1SFGFSBCMF1VSDIBTJOH &11 Intentionally choosing products or services that promote pollution prevention, XBTUFSFEVDUJPOPSSFVTF QVSDIBTJOHQSPEVDUTUIBUDBOCFFBTJMZSFDZDMFE CVZJOHSFDZDMFEDPOUFOUQSPEVDUT PSNBLJOHPUIFS QVSDIBTJOHEFDJTJPOTUIBUBSFCFUUFSGPSUIFFOWJSPONFOUXIFODPNQBSFEUPUSBEJUJPOBMMZQVSDIBTFEQSPEVDUTPSTFSWJDFT Flow Control: 4FF8BTUF'MPX%FTJHOBUJPO Food Recovery Hierarchy: 1SJPSJUJ[FTBDUJPOTPSHBOJ[BUJPOTDBOUBLFUPQSFWFOUBOEEJWFSUXBTUFEGPPE&BDIUJFSPGUIF'PPE3FDPWFSZ )JFSBSDIZGPDVTFTPOEJGGFSFOUNBOBHFNFOUTUSBUFHJFTGPSXBTUFEGPPEXJUIUIFUPQUJFSCFJOHUIFNPTUQSFGFSFOUJBMTUSBUFHZ Gasification:Ƶ"OFNFSHJOHUFDIOPMPHZGPSDPOWFSUJOHTISFEEFEUSBTIJOUPBTZOUIFUJDHBTVTJOHJOUFOTFIFBU Generation:Ƶ5IFBDUPSQSPDFTTPGQSPEVDJOHXBTUF .JOO4UBUf" 4VCE Generator:Ƶ"OZQFSTPOXIPHFOFSBUFTXBTUF .JOO4UBUf" 4VCE Governance: Governance is the process by which materials are managed for the public good with an emphasis on highest and best VTFPGNBUFSJBMTBOEPWFSBMMTZTUFNTVTUBJOBCJMJUZƵƵ(PWFSOBODFJODMVEFTUIFHPBMTBOEBDUJWJUJFTPGHPWFSONFOUFOUJUJFT CVTJOFTTFT OPOQSPîUT DPNNVOJUJFT BOEJOEJWJEVBMDJUJ[FOT Hazardous Waste: Any refuse, sludge or other waste materials or combinations of refuse, sludge or other waste materials or discarded materials, or a combination of refuse or discarded materials in solid, semisolid, liquid or contained gaseous form which because of the quantity, concentration, or chemical, physical or infectious characteristics may: a) cause or significantly contribute UPBOJODSFBTFJONPSUBMJUZPSBOJODSFBTFJOTFSJPVTJSSFWFSTJCMFPSJODBQBDJUBUJPOSFWFSTJCMFJMMOFTT PSC QPTFBTVCTUBOUJBMQSFTFOU or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of, or otherwise NBOBHFE$BUFHPSJFTPGIB[BSEPVTXBTUFNBUFSJBMTJODMVEF CVUBSFOPUMJNJUFEUPFYQMPTJWFT ïBNNBCMFT PYJEJ[FST QPJTPOT JSSJUBOUTBOEDPSSPTJWFT)B[BSEPVTXBTUFEPFTOPUJODMVEFTPVSDF TQFDJBMOVDMFBSPSCZQSPEVDUNBUFSJBMBTEFîOFECZ5IF "UPNJD&OFSHZ"DUPG BTBNFOEFE .JOO4UBUf 4VDRAFTCE Hierarchy: 4FF8BTUF.BOBHFNFOU)JFSBSDIZPS'PPE3FDPWFSZ)JFSBSDIZ Household Hazardous Waste (HHW): Waste generated from household activity that exhibits the characteristics of or that is listed BTIB[BSEPVTXBTUFVOEFS.JOOFTPUB1PMMVUJPO$POUSPM"HFODZSVMFT*UEPFTOPUJODMVEFXBTUFGSPNDPNNFSDJBMBDUJWJUJFTUIBUJT HFOFSBUFE TUPSFEPSQSFTFOUJOBIPVTFIPME .JOO4UBUf" 4VCE *OEVTUSJBM 4PMJE 8BTUF All solid waste generated from an industrial or manufacturing process and solid waste generated from OPONBOVGBDUVSJOHBDUJWJUJFTTVDIBTTFSWJDFBOEDPNNFSDJBMFTUBCMJTINFOUTƵƵ*OEVTUSJBMTPMJEXBTUFEPFTOPUJODMVEFPGîDF materials, restaurant and food preparation waste, discarded machinery, demolition debris, municipal solid waste combustor ash, PSIPVTFIPMESFGVTF*UEPFTOPUJODMVEFXBTUFTSFHVMBUFEBTIB[BSEPVTXBTUFT .JOO4UBUf" 4VCEB Infectious Waste:Ƶ-BCPSBUPSZXBTUF CMPPE SFHVMBUFECPEZïVJET TIBSQTBOESFTFBSDIBOJNBMXBTUFTUIBUIBWFOPUCFFO EFDPOUBNJOBUFE .JOO4UBUf 4VCE *OUFHSBUFE4PMJE8BTUF.BOBHFNFOU *48. ŭA solid waste management system in which various waste management methods BSFVTFEUPNBOBHFXBTUF FH XBTUFSFEVDUJPO SFVTF SFDZDMJOH DPNQPTUJOH SFTPVSDFSFDPWFSZ MBOEîMMJOH FUD EFQFOEJOH VQPOUIFDIBSBDUFSJTUJDTPGUIFXBTUFBOEPGUFOBDDPSEJOHUPBXBTUFNBOBHFNFOUIJFSBSDIZ Joint Powers Agreement: "MFHBMMZCJOEJOHBHSFFNFOUCFUXFFOUXPPSNPSFHPWFSONFOUBMFOUJUJFT*UJTBUPPMGPSJOUFSHPWFSONFOUBM BDUJPOPO GPSFYBNQMF TPMJEXBTUFNBOBHFNFOUBDUJWJUJFT
WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 53 WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN · 2018-2036
Appendix F: Definitions
-BOEîMM -BOE%JTQPTBM'BDJMJUZ A waste facility permitted by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency that is designed or operated GPSEJTQPTJOHPGXBTUFPOPSJOUIFMBOE %FîOFEBTiEJTQPTBMGBDJMJUZwJO.JOO4UBUf" 4VCE Landfill Abatement:Ƶ"DUJPOTUIBUBWPJEMBOEîMMJOHPGXBTUF TVDIBTXBTUFSFEVDUJPO SFDZDMJOHPSSFTPVSDFSFDPWFSZ Landfill Surcharge:Ƶ"TVSDIBSHFBQQMJFEUPXBTUFUJQQFEBUMBOEîMMT DBOJODMVEF4UBUF DPVOUZBOEMPDBMTVSDIBSHFT Leachate:Ƶ-JRVJEUIBUIBTQFSDPMBUFEUISPVHITPMJEXBTUF UIVTFYUSBDUJOH EJTTPMWJOHPSTVTQFOEJOHNBUFSJBMTGSPNUIFTPMJEXBTUF .JOO3VMFTf 4VCE -PDBM3FDZDMJOH%FWFMPQNFOU(SBOU -3%( Funds administered by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and allocated to NFUSPQPMJUBODPVOUJFTGPSUIFQMBOOJOH EFWFMPQNFOUBOEPQFSBUJPOPGSFDZDMJOHBOEZBSEXBTUFDPNQPTUJOHQSPHSBNT -PDBM3FDZDMJOH%FWFMPQNFOU(SBOUGVOETBSFEJTUSJCVUFEGSPNUIF.FUSPQPMJUBO-BOEîMM"CBUFNFOU"DDPVOU Major Appliances:"MTPDPNNPOMZSFGFSSFEUPBTiXIJUFHPPETw*ODMVEFTJUFNTCBOOFECZ4UBUFMBXGSPNEJTQPTBMXJUITPMJEXBTUF (clothes washers and dryers, dishwashers, hot water heaters, heat pumps, furnaces, garbage disposals, trash compactors, DPOWFOUJPOBMBOENJDSPXBWFPWFOT SBOHFTBOETUPWFT BJSDPOEJUJPOFST EFIVNJEJîFST SFGSJHFSBUPSTBOEGSFF[FST .JOO4UBUf" 4VCEB .BUFSJBMT3FDPWFSZ'BDJMJUZ .3' Ƶ'BDJMJUZEFTJHOFEGPSDFOUSBMJ[FETPSUJOH QSPDFTTJOHBOEPSHSBEJOHPGDPMMFDUFESFDZDMBCMF NBUFSJBMTGPSNBSLFUJOH Medical Waste: $PNNPOMZVTFEUFSNSFGFSSJOHUPJOGFDUJPVTXBTUFGSPNNFEJDBMGBDJMJUJFTPSQSPDFEVSFT Metropolitan Landfill Abatement Account:Ƶ&TUBCMJTIFEVOEFS.JOO4UBU4FD BOBDDPVOUDSFBUFEUPGVOEQSPKFDUTUIBU SFTVMUJOMBOEîMMBCBUFNFOUJOUIFNFUSPQPMJUBOBSFB1BSUPGUIFQSPDFFETGSPNB4UBUFMBOEîMMTVSDIBSHFPOXBTUFUJQQFEBU NFUSPQPMJUBOBSFBMBOEîMMTJTEFQPTJUFEJOUPUIJTBDDPVOU .FUSPQPMJUBO4PMJE8BTUF.BOBHFNFOU1PMJDZ1MBO 1PMJDZ1MBO The Metropolitan Solid Waste Management Policy Plan, a region- al policy plan for solid waste managementDRAFT in the Twin Cities metropolitan area, adopted by the Office of Environmental Assistance as SFRVJSFEVOEFS.JOO4UBU4FD5IF4PMJE8BTUF.BOBHFNFOU$PPSEJOBUJOH#PBSEBOE0GîDFPG&OWJSPONFOUBM"TTJTUBODF KPJOUMZEFWFMPQFEUIFDVSSFOU1PMJDZ1MBO BEPQUFEJO0DUPCFS .JOOFTPUB1PMMVUJPO$POUSPM"HFODZ .1$" State agency responsible for overall environmental quality of the state, primarily UISPVHIFOGPSDFNFOUPG4UBUFSVMFT JTTVJOHPGQFSNJUTBOEFEVDBUJPOGPSDPNQMJBODF5IF(PWFSOPSBQQPJOUT.1$"DPNNJTTJPOFS .JYFE.VOJDJQBM4PMJE8BTUF .48 Garbage, refuse and other solid waste from residential, commercial, industrial and communi- UZBDUJWJUJFTUIBUUIFHFOFSBUPSPGUIFXBTUFBHHSFHBUFTGPSDPMMFDUJPO*UEPFTOPUJODMVEFBVUPIVMLT TUSFFUTXFFQJOHT BTI DPOTUSVD- UJPOEFCSJT NJOJOHXBTUF TMVEHFT USFFBOEBHSJDVMUVSBMXBTUFT UJSFT MFBEBDJECBUUFSJFT NPUPSBOEWFIJDMFïVJETBOEîMUFST BOE PUIFSNBUFSJBMTDPMMFDUFE QSPDFTTFEBOEEJTQPTFEPGBTTFQBSBUFXBTUFTUSFBNT .JOO4UBUf"4VCE .VMUJ6OJU%XFMMJOH .6% A classification of housing where multiple separate units for residential living are contained within one CVJMEJOH Non-MSW:Ƶ4PMJEXBTUFUIBUJTOPUNBOBHFEBTQBSUPGUIF.48TUSFBN5ZQJDBMMZUIPVHIUPGBTUIPTFJUFNTTQFDJîDBMMZFYDMVEFE from MSW in the statutory definition of MSW as well as other wastes, such as non-hazardous industrial waste, C&D waste, JOGFDUJPVTXBTUFBOEPUIFSTFQBSBUFMZNBOBHFETPMJEXBTUFTUSFBNT Non-Processible Waste: Waste brought to a resource recovery facility but cannot be mechanically processed due to its physical DIBSBDUFSJTUJDTPSQPUFOUJBMIBSNGVMFGGFDUT
WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 54 WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN · 2018-2036
Appendix F: Definitions
Non-Putrescible Waste: Solid wastes which are not capable of being decomposed by micro- organisms with sufficient rapidity as UPDBVTFPEPST HBTFT BUUSBDUJPOPGWFDUPSTPSPUIFSPGGFOTJWFDPOEJUJPOT #ZDPOUSBTU QVUSFTDJCMFXBTUFTBSFBTVCTFUPGPSHBOJD XBTUFTUIBUUFOEUPCJPEFHSBEFWFSZSBQJEMZ TVDIBTGPPETDSBQT Non-Residential: Refers to places other than where people live, such as businesses, government facilities or operations, institutions, TDIPPMT OPOQSPîUPSHBOJ[BUJPOT DPNNVOJUZBDUJWJUJFT FUD*OUFSDIBOHFBCMFXJUIiDPNNFSDJBMw Open Collection: A solid waste collection system in which multiple waste haulers or collectors compete for collection accounts in UIFTBNFHFPHSBQIJDBMBSFB Organic Waste: Organics is an overarching term for wastes that can be reused, processed and recycled and includes yard waste MFBWFT HSBTT USFFBOETISVCXBTUFBOEPUIFSQMBOUXBTUF IPVTFIPMEWFHFUBCMFLJUDIFOTDSBQT DPNNFSDJBMMZHFOFSBUFEGPPE XBTUF GPPENBOVGBDUVSJOHQSPEVDUJPOCZQSPEVDUT QSPEVDFBOENFBUUSJNNJOHT QMBOUXBTUFBOETPJMFE OPOSFDZDMBCMFQBQFS 0SHBOJDXBTUFUZQJDBMMZJODMVEFTGPPEXBTUF OPOSFDZDMBCMFQBQFSQSPEVDUT ZBSEXBTUF BOEPUIFSNBUFSJBMTUIBUSFBEJMZEFHSBEFƵƵ According to EPA, “Organic matter in landfills breaks down and releases methane, a potent greenhouse gas, and contributes to MBOEîMMMFBDIBUFUIBUDBOQPMMVUFXBUFSXBZTw Organics Recycling:Ƶ5IFQSPDFTTPGCSFBLJOHEPXOPSHBOJDXBTUFJOUPBOVUSJFOUEFOTFDPNQPTU Organized Collection: A system for collecting solid waste in which a specified collector or member of an organization of collectors is authorized to collect from a defined geographic service area or areassome or all of the solid waste that is released by generators GPSDPMMFDUJPO .JOO4UBUf" 4VCE Pollution Prevention: Eliminating or reducing at the source the use, generation or release of toxic pollutants, hazardous substances BOEIB[BSEPVTXBTUFT .JOO4UBUf% 4VCE Post-consumer material: A finished material that would normally be discarded as a solid waste having completed its life cycle as BDPOTVNFSJUFN ./4UBUf" TVCEC Private sector:1BSUPGUIFFDPOPNZOPUDPOUSPMMFEPSPXOFECZUIFHPWFSONFOUDRAFT Problem Material: Material that, when it is processed or disposed of with mixed municipal solid waste, contributes to one of the GPMMPXJOHSFTVMUT UIFSFMFBTFPGBIB[BSEPVTTVCTUBODF QPMMVUBOUPSDPOUBNJOBOU BTEFîOFEJOTFDUJPO# TVCEJWJTJPOT BOE QPMMVUJPOPGXBUFS BTEFîOFEJOTFDUJPO TVCEJWJTJPO BJSQPMMVUJPO BTEFîOFEJOTFDUJPO TVCEJWJTJPO PS BTJHOJîDBOUUISFBUUPUIFTBGFPSFGîDJFOUPQFSBUJPOPGBTPMJEXBTUFQSPDFTTJOHGBDJMJUZ5IFGPVSDPOEJUJPOT BSFGVSUIFSEFîOFEJO.JOO4UBUf" 4VCEB Processible Waste: Acceptable waste brought to a resource recovery facility that may be mechanically processed using the existing UFDIOPMPHZBUUIFGBDJMJUZ Processing:Ƶ5IFUSFBUNFOUPGXBTUFBGUFSDPMMFDUJPOBOECFGPSFEJTQPTBM1SPDFTTJOHJODMVEFTCVUJTOPUMJNJUFEUPSFEVDUJPO storage, separation, exchange, resource recovery, physical, chemical or biological modification, and transfer from one waste GBDJMJUZUPBOPUIFS .JOO4UBUf" 4VCE 'PSQVSQPTFTPGDFSUJîDBUJPOPGVOQSPDFTTFEXBTUF QFS.JOO4UBUf iTUPSBHF wiFYDIBOHF wBOEiUSBOTGFSwBSFFYDMVEFE Product Stewardship: The concept that all parties who have a role in producing, selling or using a product, including material suppliers, manufacturers, retailers and consumers, assume responsibility for the environmental impacts of a product throughout JUTMJGFDZDMF5IFTFJODMVEFJNQBDUTGSPNUIFTFMFDUJPOPGSBXNBUFSJBMT UIFEFTJHOBOEQSPEVDUJPOQSPDFTTFT BOEUIFVTFBOE EJTQPTBMPGUIFQSPEVDU
WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 55 WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN · 2018-2036
Appendix F: Definitions
Public Entities: Any unit of State or local government, including counties, cities, towns, metropolitan agencies and districts, special EJTUSJDUT TDIPPMEJTUSJDUTPSBOZPUIFSHFOFSBMPSTQFDJBMQVSQPTFVOJUPGHPWFSONFOUJOUIFTUBUF .JOO4UBUf" 8JUISFHBSE UPDFSUBJOQVCMJDFOUJUZQSPDVSFNFOUTUBOEBSETFTUBCMJTIFEJO.JOO4UBUf# iQVCMJDFOUJUJFTwBMTPJODMVEFTBOZDPOUSBDUPS BDUJOHQVSTVBOUUPBDPOUSBDUXJUIBQVCMJDFOUJUZ 3BNTFZ8BTIJOHUPO3FDZDMJOH&OFSHZ#PBSE 3&#PBSE A joint powers agreement between Ramsey and Washington Counties to protect and ensure the public health, safety, welfare and environment of each county’s residents and businesses through sound management of solid and hazardous waste generated in each county and collaboration on many waste management BDUJWJUJFT 3BNTFZ8BTIJOHUPO$PVOUZ3FTPVSDF3FDPWFSZ1SPKFDU 331 Ƶ4FF3BNTFZ8BTIJOHUPO3FDZDMJOH&OFSHZ#PBSE Reciprocal Use Agreement:"OBHSFFNFOUBNPOHDPVOUJFTUPBMMPXSFTJEFOUTPGPOFDPVOUZUPVTFDFSUBJOTFSWJDFT FH IPVTFIPME IB[BSEPVTXBTUFDPMMFDUJPO QSPWJEFECZBOPUIFSDPVOUZUIBUJTQBSUZUPUIFBHSFFNFOU 3FDZDMBCMF.BUFSJBMT 3FDZDMBCMFT Materials that are separated from mixed municipal solid waste for the purpose of recycling or composting, including paper, glass, plastics, metals, automobile oil, batteries, source–separated compostable materials and sole TPVSDFGPPEXBTUFTUSFBNTUIBUBSFNBOBHFEUISPVHICJPEFHSBEBUJWFQSPDFTTFT3FGVTFEFSJWFEGVFMPSPUIFSNBUFSJBMUIBUJTEF- TUSPZFECZJODJOFSBUJPOJTOPUBSFDZDMBCMFNBUFSJBM .JOO4UBUf" 4VCEB Recycled-Content:Ƶ6TFEUPEFTDSJCFBQSPEVDUUIBUDPOUBJOTSFDZDMFENBUFSJBMT0GUFOGVSUIFSDMBSJîFEBTiQPTUDPOTVNFSwSFDZDMFE DPOUFOUBOEPSiQSFDPOTVNFSwPSiQPTUJOEVTUSJBMwDPOUFOUi1PTUDPOTVNFSwSFGFSTUPBîOJTIFENBUFSJBMUIBUXPVMEOPSNBMMZIBWF CFFOEJTDBSEFEBTTPMJEXBTUF IBWJOHDPNQMFUFEJUTMJGFDZDMFBTBDPOTVNFSJUFN .JOO4UBUf# 4VCED BOE.JOO4UBU f" 4VCEC *OTUFBE JUXBTVTFEUPNBOVGBDUVSFBSFDZDMFEDPOUFOUQSPEVDUi1PTUDPOTVNFSwJTUZQJDBMMZUIPVHIUPGBT SFDZDMBCMFNBUFSJBMTDPMMFDUFEGSPNSFTJEFOUTBOECVTJOFTTFTJOSFDZDMJOHQSPHSBNTi1SFDPOTVNFSwPSiQPTUJOEVTUSJBMwUZQJDBMMZ refer to recyclable materials that come from manufacturers and product converters, including damaged or obsolete products, PWFSSVOTBOEUSJNNJOHT5IFTFNBUFSJBMTIBWFOPUZFUDPNQMFUFEBMJGFDZDMFBTBDPOTVNFSJUFN Recycling: The process of collecting andDRAFT preparing recyclable materials and reusing the materials in their original form or using UIFNJONBOVGBDUVSJOHQSPDFTTFTUIBUEPOPUDBVTFUIFEFTUSVDUJPOPGSFDZDMBCMFNBUFSJBMTJOBNBOOFSUIBUQSFDMVEFTGVSUIFSVTF .JOO4UBUf" 4VCEC 3FDZDMJOH&OFSHZ$FOUFS 3&$FOUFS ŭ"QSPDFTTJOHGBDJMJUZJO/FXQPSU ./PXOFECZUIF3BNTFZ8BTIJOHUPO3FDZDMJOH &OFSHZ#PBSE Recycling Facility – A facility at which materials are prepared for reuse in their original form or for use in manufacturing processes UIBUEPOPUDBVTFUIFEFTUSVDUJPOPGUIFNBUFSJBMTJOBNBOOFSUIBUQSFDMVEFTGVSUIFSVTF .JOO4UBUf" TVCED 3FGVTF%FSJWFE'VFM 3%' The product resulting from techniques or processes used to prepare solid waste by shredding, sorting PSDPNQBDUJOHGPSVTFBTBOFOFSHZTPVSDF*UDPOTJTUTPGMJHIUFSXFJHIUNBUFSJBMTTVDIBTQBQFSQSPEVDUTXJUINPTUNFUBMT HMBTTBOE PUIFSOPODPNCVTUJCMFNBUFSJBMTSFNPWFE"QSPEVDUSFTVMUJOHGSPNUIFQSPDFTTJOHPG..48JOBNBOOFSUIBUSFEVDFTUIFRVBOUJUZ of noncombustible material present in the waste, reduces the size of waste components through shredding or other mechanical NFBOT BOEQSPEVDFTBGVFMTVJUBCMFGPSDPNCVTUJPOJOFYJTUJOHPSOFXTPMJEGVFMîSFECPJMFST .JOO4UBUf" TVCEE Residuals, Residue:Ƶ8BTUFNBUFSJBMTSFNBJOJOHBGUFSQSPDFTTJOHXBTUFGPSUIFTFQBSBUJPOBOESFDPWFSZPGNBUFSJBMTPSFOFSHZ Resource Conservation: 1SFTFSWJOHSBXNBUFSJBMT FOFSHZ XBUFSPSPUIFSNBUFSJBMTGPSGVUVSFVTF Resource Recovery: The reclamation for sale, use or reuse of materials, substances, energy or other products contained within or EFSJWFEGSPNXBTUF .JOO4UBUf" 4VCE 3FTPVSDFSFDPWFSZUZQJDBMMZSFGFSTUPUIFSFDPWFSZPGFOFSHZBOEVTBCMF NBUFSJBMTEVSJOHUIFQSPDFTTJOHPGNJYFENVOJDJQBMTPMJEXBTUF
WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 56 WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN · 2018-2036
Appendix F: Definitions
Resource Recovery Facility: A waste facility established and used primarily for resource recovery, including appurtenant facilities, TVDIBTUSBOTNJTTJPOGBDJMJUJFTBOEUSBOTGFSTUBUJPOTQSJNBSJMZTFSWJOHUIFSFTPVSDFSFDPWFSZGBDJMJUZ .JOO4UBUf" 4VCE Reuse:Ƶ5IFQSBDUJDFPGBWPJEJOHEJTQPTBMPGNBUFSJBMUIBUXPVMECFDPNFTPMJEXBTUFXFSFJUOPUQVUUPVTFBHBJOJOJUTPSJHJOBMGPSN SCORE:Ƶ"DSPOZNGPSi4FMFDU$PNNJUUFFPO3FDZDMJOHBOEUIF&OWJSPONFOU wB4UBUFUBTLGPSDFBQQPJOUFECZUIF(PWFSOPSJOUIF TUPSFDPNNFOETUSBUFHJFTGPSTVQQPSUJOHSFDZDMJOHJO.JOOFTPUBi4$03&wJTDPNNPOMZVTFEUPSFGFSUP4UBUFHSBOUGVOEJOH UPDPVOUJFTUPTVQQPSUMPDBMTPVSDFSFEVDUJPOBOESFDZDMJOHQSPHSBNT Separately Managed Wastes: Waste materials that are managed as discrete waste streams, such as lead-acid batteries, recyclables PSJOGFDUJPVTXBTUFT Service Charge:Ƶ6OEFSUIFBVUIPSJUZHSBOUFEJO.JOO4UBUfBOEf TVCEB BGFFDPMMFDUFEGPSTFSWJDFTSFOEFSFE CZBDPVOUZPSCZFYUFOTJPOUISPVHIKPJOUQPXFSTBHSFFNFOUTCZNVOJDJQBMJUJFTPGUIFDPVOUZ Solid Waste: Refers to garbage, refuse or sludge from a water supply treatment plant or air contaminant treatment facility, and other discarded waste materials and sludges in solid, semisolid, liquid or contained gaseous form, resulting from industrial, commercial, NJOJOHBOEBHSJDVMUVSBMPQFSBUJPOTBOEGSPNDPNNVOJUZBDUJWJUJFT4PMJEXBTUFEPFTOPUJODMVEFIB[BSEPVTXBTUF BOJNBMXBTUFVTFE BTGFSUJMJ[FS FBSUIFOîMM CPVMEFST SPDL DPODSFUFEJBNPOEHSJOEJOHBOETBXTMVSSZBTTPDJBUFEXJUIUIFDPOTUSVDUJPO JNQSPWFNFOU PS repair of a road when deposited on the road project site in a manner that is in compliance with best management practices and rules PGUIFBHFODZ TFXBHFTMVEHF TPMJEPSEJTTPMWFENBUFSJBMJOEPNFTUJDTFXBHFPSPUIFSDPNNPOQPMMVUBOUTJOXBUFSSFTPVSDFT TVDIBT TJMU EJTTPMWFEPSTVTQFOEFETPMJETJOJOEVTUSJBMXBTUFXBUFSFGïVFOUTPSEJTDIBSHFTXIJDIBSFQPJOUTPVSDFTTVCKFDUUPQFSNJUTVOEFS TFDUJPOPGUIF'FEFSBM8BUFS1PMMVUJPO$POUSPM"DU BTBNFOEFE EJTTPMWFENBUFSJBMTJOJSSJHBUJPOSFUVSOïPXT PSTPVSDF TQFDJBM OVDMFBSPSCZoQSPEVDUNBUFSJBMBTEFîOFECZUIF"UPNJD&OFSHZ"DUPG BTBNFOEFE .JOO4UBUf 4VCE 4PMJE8BTUF.BOBHFNFOU$PPSEJOBUJOH#PBSE 48.$# A board formed under a joint powers agreement, consisting of two Commissioners from each of the six metropolitan counties plus two ex- officio members: the Director ofthe Minnesota Office of &OWJSPONFOUBM"TTJTUBODFBOEUIF$PNNJTTJPOFSPGUIF.JOOFTPUB1PMMVUJPO$POUSPM"HFODZ48.$#JTFTUBCMJTIFEUPDPPSEJOBUF TPMJEXBTUFQMBOOJOHBOEQSPHSBNNJOHPOBSFHJPOBMCBTJTDRAFT Solid Waste Management Tax: A percentage tax collected by the State for management services for MSW and non-MSW (specifically DPOTUSVDUJPOXBTUF JOGFDUJPVTXBTUFBOEJOEVTUSJBMXBTUF 4FSWJDFTTVCKFDUUPUIFUBYJODMVEFDPMMFDUJPO USBOTQPSUBUJPO QSPDFTTJOH BOEEJTQPTBM4FSWJDFQSPWJEFST TVDIBTIBVMFSTBOEMBOEîMMPQFSBUPST XIPEJSFDUMZCJMMHFOFSBUPSTPSDVTUPNFSTBSFSFTQPOTJCMFGPS DPMMFDUJOHBOESFNJUUJOHUIFUBY5IFDVSSFOUSBUF FTUBCMJTIFEJO JTGPSSFTJEFOUJBMHFOFSBUPSTBOEGPSDPNNFSDJBM HFOFSBUPST Source Reduction: 4FFXBTUFSFEVDUJPO Source Separation:Ƶ4FQBSBUJPOPGSFDZDMBCMF DPNQPTUBCMFPSPUIFSNBUFSJBMTCZUIFXBTUFHFOFSBUPSQSJPSUPDPMMFDUJPO Source-Separated Compostable Materials: Refers to materials that: (1) are separated at the source by waste generators for the QVSQPTFPGQSFQBSJOHUIFNGPSVTFBTDPNQPTU BSFDPMMFDUFETFQBSBUFMZGSPNNJYFENVOJDJQBMTPMJEXBTUFBOEBSFHPWFSOFECZ UIFMJDFOTJOHQSPWJTJPOTPGTFDUJPO" BSFDPNQSJTFEPGGPPEXBTUFT îTIBOEBOJNBMXBTUF QMBOUNBUFSJBMT EJBQFST sanitary products and paper that is not recyclable because the commissioner has determined that no other person is willing to BDDFQUUIFQBQFSGPSSFDZDMJOH BSFEFMJWFSFEUPBGBDJMJUZUPVOEFSHPDPOUSPMMFENJDSPCJBMEFHSBEBUJPOUPZJFMEBIVNVTMJLF product meeting the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s class I or class II, or equivalent, compost standards and where process SFTJEVFTEPOPUFYDFFECZXFJHIUPGUIFUPUBMNBUFSJBMEFMJWFSFEUPUIFGBDJMJUZ BOE NBZCFEFMJWFSFEUPBUSBOTGFSTUBUJPO mixed municipal solid waste processing facility or recycling facility only for the purposes of composting or transferring to a DPNQPTUJOHGBDJMJUZ VOMFTTUIFDPNNJTTJPOFSEFUFSNJOFTUIBUOPPUIFSQFSTPOJTXJMMJOHUPBDDFQUUIFNBUFSJBMT 4VCEC.4<3FOVNCFSFETVCEE>
WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 57 WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN · 2018-2036
Appendix F: Definitions
Source-Separated Recyclable Materials: Recyclable materials, including commingled recyclable materials that are separated by UIFHFOFSBUPS Special Wastes: Nonhazardous wastes that have been prohibited from disposal with mixed municipal solid waste or have had other TQFDJîDNBOBHFNFOUSFRVJSFNFOUTQSFTDSJCFECZTUBUVUF5IFZJODMVEF CVUNBZOPUCFMJNJUFEUP UJSFT MFBEBDJECBUUFSJFT NBKPS BQQMJBODFT VTFEPJMBOEZBSEXBTUF Sustainable Building:Ƶ3FGFSTUPBCVJMEJOHUIBUJTIFBMUIZBOEDPNGPSUBCMFGPSJUTPDDVQBOUTBOEJTFDPOPNJDBMUPPQFSBUF It conserves resources (including energy, water, raw materials and land) and minimizes the generation of toxic materials and XBTUFJOJUTEFTJHO DPOTUSVDUJPO MBOETDBQJOHBOEPQFSBUJPO"TVTUBJOBCMFCVJMEJOHBMTPDPOTJEFSTIJTUPSJDQSFTFSWBUJPOBOE BDDFTTUPQVCMJDJOGSBTUSVDUVSFTZTUFNTBTXFMMBTUIFFOUJSFMJGFDZDMFPGUIFCVJMEJOHBOEJUTDPNQPOFOUT 4VTUBJOBCMF.BUFSJBMT.BOBHFNFOU 4.. ŭ%FTDSJCFTBOEBQQSPBDIUPTFSWJOHIVNBOOFFETCZVTJOHSFVTJOHSFTPVSDFTNPTU productively and sustainably throughout their life cycles, generally minimizing the amount of materials involved and all the associated FOWJSPONFOUBMJNQBDUT TPVSDF&1" ƵƵ4VTUBJOBCMF.BUFSJBMT.BOBHFNFOU 4.. GPDVTFTPOUIFCFTUVTFBOENBOBHFNFOUPG NBUFSJBMTCBTFEPOIPXUIFZJNQBDUUIFFOWJSPONFOUUISPVHIPVUUIFJSMJGFDZDMF4..DPOTJEFSTUIFJNQBDUTPGFYUSBDUJOHSBX NBUFSJBMT TDBSDJUZPGNBUFSJBMT QSPEVDUEFTJHO QSPEVDUVTF BOESFVTF Tipping Fee: The fee charged by solid waste facilities to waste haulers, collectors or other parties for the privilege of depositing or iUJQQJOHwXBTUF Toxicity: 6OEFS.JOO3 UPYJDJUZJTPOFPGUIFTJYDIBSBDUFSJTUJDTPGIB[BSEPVTXBTUF$POUBNJOBOUTPGDPODFSO include heavy metals, such as lead or mercury, volatile organic compounds, such as benzene or chloroform, semi-volatile PSHBOJDDPNQPVOET TVDIBTQZSJEJOFPSOJUSPCFO[FOF BOEQFTUJDJEFTIFSCJDJEFT TVDIBTFOESJOPSMJOEBOF Toxicity Reduction: 3FGFSTUPFGGPSUTUPSFEVDFUIFUPYJDPSIB[BSEPVTDIBSBDUFSPGUIFXBTUFTUSFBN Transfer Station: An intermediate waste facility in which waste collected from any source is temporarily deposited to await USBOTQPSUBUJPOUPBOPUIFSXBTUFGBDJMJUZ .JOO4UBUf"DRAFT 4VCE 6OQSPDFTTFENJYFENVOJDJQBMTPMJEXBTUF 6OQSPDFTTFE..48 o'PSUIFQVSQPTFPG.JOO4UBUf XBTUFJT iVOQSPDFTTFEwJGJUIBTOPU BGUFSDPMMFDUJPOBOECFGPSFEJTQPTBM VOEFSHPOFTFQBSBUJPOPGNBUFSJBMTGPSSFTPVSDFSFDPWFSZ through recycling, incineration for energy production, production and use of refuse-derived fuel, composting, or any combination of these processes so that the weight of the waste remaining that must be disposed of in a mixed municipal solid waste disposal GBDJMJUZJTOPUNPSFUIBOPGUIFXFJHIUCFGPSFQSPDFTTJOH POBOBOOVBMBWFSBHF Unacceptable Waste:Ƶ8BTUFUIBUJTOPUBDDFQUBCMFBUBSFTPVSDFSFDPWFSZGBDJMJUZVOEFSUIFUFSNTPGUIFTFSWJDFBHSFFNFOU 6OBDDFQUBCMF8BTUFJODMVEFTXBTUFTXIJDIXPVMEMJLFMZQPTFBUISFBUUPIFBMUIPSTBGFUZPSXIJDINBZDBVTFEBNBHFUPPS NBUFSJBMMZBEWFSTFMZBGGFDUUIFPQFSBUJPOPGUIFGBDJMJUZ 6OQSPDFTTFENJYFENVOJDJQBMTPMJEXBTUF 6OQSPDFTTFE.48 Ƶo'PSUIFQVSQPTFPG.JOO4UBUf XBTUFJTiVOQSP- DFTTFEwJGJUIBTOPU BGUFSDPMMFDUJPOBOECFGPSFEJTQPTBM VOEFSHPOFTFQBSBUJPOPGNBUFSJBMTGPSSFTPVSDFSFDPWFSZUISPVHISFDZDMJOH incineration for energy production, production and use of refuse-derived fuel, composting, or any combination of these processes so that the weight of the waste remaining that must be disposed of in a mixed municipal solid waste disposal facility is not more UIBOPGUIFXFJHIUCFGPSFQSPDFTTJOH POBOBOOVBMBWFSBHF 7PMBUJMF0SHBOJD$PNQPVOET 70$T Includes a variety of chemicals that evaporate easily from the solid or liquid state and are GPVOEJOBWBSJFUZPGQSPEVDUT4PNF70$TDBOIBWFTIPSUPSMPOHUFSNBEWFSTFIFBMUIFGGFDUT.BOZ70$TBSFGPVOEJOIJHIFS DPODFOUSBUJPOTJOEPPSTWFSTVTPVUEPPST
WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 58 WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN · 2018-2036
Appendix F: Definitions
7PMVNF#BTFE 8FJHIU#BTFE 'FFTŭA graduated pricing system for waste collection services in which the fees increase for larger RVBOUJUJFTPGXBTUFDPMMFDUFE Waste:Ƶ4PMJEXBTUF TFXBHFTMVEHFBOEIB[BSEPVTXBTUF .JOO4UBUf" 4VCE Waste Flow Designation: A requirement by a county or waste management district that all or any portion of the solid waste that is generated within its boundaries or any service area thereof be delivered to a processing or disposal facility identified by thedistrict or DPVOUZ .JOO4UBUf" 4VCE Waste Management: Activities which are intended to affect or control the generation of waste and activities which provide for or DPOUSPMUIFDPMMFDUJPO QSPDFTTJOHBOEEJTQPTBMPGXBTUF .JOO4UBUf" 4VCE 8BTUF.BOBHFNFOU)JFSBSDIZ 0SEFSPG1SFGFSFODF A ranking of waste management methods or preference practices in the PSEFSJOXIJDIUIFZBSFUIFQSFGFSSFENFUIPEPSQSBDUJDF*OGPSNBMMZSFGFSSFEUPBTUIFiXBTUFNBOBHFNFOUIJFSBSDIZw.JOO4UBU f"FTUBCMJTIFTUIFGPMMPXJOHPSEFSPGQSFGFSFODFGPSXBTUFNBOBHFNFOU XBTUFSFEVDUJPOBOESFVTF XBTUFSFDZDMJOH DPNQPTUJOHPGZBSEXBTUFBOEGPPEXBTUF SFTPVSDFSFDPWFSZUISPVHINJYFENVOJDJQBMTPMJEXBTUFDPNQPTUJOHPSJODJOFSBUJPO land disposal which produces no measurable methane gas or which involves the retrieval of methane gas as a fuel for the production PGFOFSHZUPCFVTFEPOTJUFPSGPSTBMF BOE MBOEEJTQPTBMXIJDIQSPEVDFTNFBTVSBCMFNFUIBOFHBTBOEXIJDIEPFTOPUJOWPMWF UIFSFUSJFWBMPGNFUIBOFHBTBTBGVFMGPSUIFQSPEVDUJPOPGFOFSHZUPCFVTFEPOTJUFPSGPSTBMF 8BTUF.BOBHFNFOU"DU 8." Chapter 115A of State Statutes which governs waste management activities in the State of .JOOFTPUB"EPQUFEJOBOEBNFOEFECZTVCTFRVFOUMFHJTMBUJPO4PNFPUIFSTFDUJPOTPG4UBUF4UBUVUFTBMTPBGGFDUTPMJEXBTUF NBOBHFNFOUCVUBSFUFDIOJDBMMZOPUQBSUPGUIF8BTUF.BOBHFNFOU"DU 8BTUF3FEVDUJPO 4FFBMTPTPVSDFSFEVDUJPO An activity that prevents generation of waste or the inclusion of toxic materials in XBTUF JODMVEJOH SFVTJOHBQSPEVDUJPOJOJUTPSJHJOBMGPSN JODSFBTJOHUIFMJGFTQBOPGBQSPEVDU SFEVDJOHNBUFSJBMPSUIF UPYJDJUZPGNBUFSJBMVTFEJOQSPEVDUJPOPSQBDLBHJOH PS DIBOHJOHQSPDVSFNFOU DPOTVNQUJPOPSXBTUFHFOFSBUJPOIBCJUTJOTNBMMFS RVBOUJUJFTPSMPXFSUPYJDJUZPGXBTUFHFOFSBUFE .JOO4UBUfDRAFT" 4VCEC Yard Waste:Ƶ(BSEFOXBTUFT MFBWFT MBXODVUUJOHT XFFET TISVCTBOEUSFFXBTUF BOEQSVOJOHT .JOO4UBUf" 4VCE "
WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 59 WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN · 2018-2036
Appendix G: Ramsey and Washington Counties Joint Waste Designation Plan
3BNTFZBOE8BTIJOHUPO$PVOUJFTQVSDIBTFEUIF3BNTFZ8BTIJOHUPO3FDZDMJOH&OFSHZ$FOUFSJO/FXQPSU .JOOFTPUB (R&E Center) and plan to use the waste processing facility as a key component in managing waste and resources in the two DPVOUJFT%VSJOHBUISFFZFBSQMBOOJOHBOEFWBMVBUJPOQFSJPE UIFDPVOUJFTBOUJDJQBUFEUIFVTFPGXBTUFEFTJHOBUJPOBTBDSJUJDBM QPMJDZDIPJDFUPBDIJFWFTUBUFXBTUFNBOBHFNFOUHPBMT"+PJOU8BTUF%FTJHOBUJPO1MBOXBTBQQSPWFECZUIF.1$"JO"VHVTU POCFIBMGPGCPUIDPVOUJFTBTUIFOFDFTTBSZOFYUTUFQJOBDIJFWJOHUIFWJTJPOGPSXBTUFBOESFTPVSDFNBOBHFNFOUJOUIFUXPDPVOUJFT 5IF3BNTFZ8BTIJOHUPO+PJOU8BTUF%FTJHOBUJPO1MBODBOCFGPVOEBUUIFGPMMPXJOHMJOL IUUQNPSFWBMVFMFTTUSBTIDPNEFTJHOBUJPOBOENBTUFSQMBOTƵ )BSEDPQJFTDBOBMTPCFSFRVFTUFEWJBQIPOFBU Appendix H: Amendment to the 2011-2030 Solid Waste Management Master Plan 8BTIJOHUPO$PVOUZBNFOEFEUIFQSPDFTTJOHDIBQUFSPGJUT4PMJE8BTUF.BOBHFNFOU.BTUFS1MBOUPSFïFDUUIF purchase of the R&E Center, to provide more detail about the R&E Center’s operations and to clarify policies and strategies POXBTUFQSPDFTTJOHBOEJNQMFNFOUBUJPOPGB3BNTFZ8BTIJOHUPO$PVOUZ+PJOU8BTUF%FTJHOBUJPO1MBO5IFBNFOENFOU XBTBQQSPWFECZUIF.1$"JO"VHVTU The amendment to the 2011-2030 Solid Waste Management Master Plan can found at the following link: IUUQNPSFWBMVFMFTTUSBTIDPNEFTJHOBUJPOBOENBTUFSQMBOT )BSEDPQJFTDBOBMTPCFSFRVFTUFEWJBQIPOFBU Appendix I: Major Milestones, Events & Activities in Washington County Waste Management History 1967 Landfill:$PVOUJFTBSFHJWFOUIFBVUIPSJUZUPFTUBCMJTIBOEPQFSBUFTBOJDRAFTUBSZMBOEîMMTCZUIFTUBUFMFHJTMBUVSF 1969 Ordinances: County enacts first solid waste ordinance to regulate solid waste activities including open dumping, XBTUFDPMMFDUJPO BOEUSBOTQPSUBUJPO EJTQPTBMBUXBTUFGBDJMJUJFT BOEUFSNJOBUJPOPGXBTUFGBDJMJUZPQFSBUJPOT Landfill: County has one permitted landfill, Lake Jane in the City of Lake Elmo, which is operated in partnership with 3BNTFZ$PVOUZ'JSTUUPCFQFSNJUUFECZUIF.1$" JTEFTJHOBUFEBT48 BOEJTIBJMFEBTBNPEFMGPSTPMJEXBTUFEJTQPTBM 0OFTPMJEXBTUFUSBOTGFSTUBUJPOJTBMTPQFSNJUUFE JO(SBOU5PXOTIJQ5IFDPVOUZ XPSLJOHXJUI3BNTFZ$PVOUZ BUUFNQUTUP MPDBUFBEEJUJPOBMMBOEîMMTXJUIJOUIFDPVOUZEVSJOHUIFT 1975 Landfill:-BLF+BOF-BOEîMMDMPTFE.POJUPSJOHXFMMTBSFJOTUBMMFEJO-BLF+BOF-BOEîMM Processing: Saint Paul receives EPA grant to explore waste-to-energy as an energy conservation tool and identifies .DBNQVTBTBNBSLFUGPSTUFBNGPSBXBTUFUPFOFSHZQMBOU 3BNTFZ$PVOUZCFDBNFJOWPMWFE#FTUTJUFTGPSXBTUF UPFOFSHZQMBOUTFSWJOH.XFSFJOUIF$JUZPG-BLF&MNP8BTIJOHUPO$PVOUZCFDPNFTJOWPMWFE 1979 4PMJE8BTUF"EWJTPSZ$PNNJUUFFJTDSFBUFEJOUIFDPVOUZUPBTTJTUJOTPMJEXBTUFNBOBHFNFOUUBTLT 1980 .JOOFTPUB-FHJTMBUVSFQBTTFTUIF8BTUF.BOBHFNFOU"DU*OBEEJUJPOUPPUIFSSFRVJSFNFOUT JUSFRVJSFTFBDINFUSPQPMJUBO area county to locate five potential landfill sites, to prepare a waste abatement proposal, and to prepare a solid waste NBOBHFNFOUNBTUFSQMBO5IFMBXNBEFDPVOUJFTSFTQPOTJCMFGPSXBTUFNBOBHFNFOUQMBOOJOHBOENFFUJOHNBOEBUFT UIFSFGPSF4BJOU1BVMESPQTPVUPGXBTUFUPFOFSHZQSPDFTT
WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 60 WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN · 2018-2036
Appendix I: Major Milestones, Events & Activities in Washington Co. Waste Management History
1980 Toxicity Reduction, Ordinances: County Board adopts Hazardous Waste Management Ordinance establishing standards relating to 1) identification of hazardous waste, 2) the labeling and classification of hazardous waste 3) the collection, storage, transportation, processing, and disposal of hazardous waste, and 4) other matters necessary for the public IFBMUI XFMGBSFBOETBGFUZ 1981 Landfill: Groundwater pollution problems first detected in the monitoring wells at Lake Jane Landfill, and the pollution TPPOTQSFBEUPBEKBDFOUSFTJEFOUJBMXFMMT (SPVOEXBUFSDPOUBNJOBOUTPGNPTUDPODFSOJODMVEFETFWFSBMTPMWFOUT DMBTTJîFEBTWPMBUJMFPSHBOJDDPNQPVOET*OPSEFS to remove the volatile organics, and to control the growing plume of groundwater contamination, a well and spray irrigation TZTUFNXBTDPOTUSVDUFE 1982 Responsibility for solid waste management is transferred from the County Public Works Department to the Planning %FQBSUNFOU Landfill:5IFDPVOUZTUBSUTUIFMBOEîMMTJUJOHQSPDFTTXIJDIXBTSFRVJSFE CZUIF8BTUF.BOBHFNFOU"DU Recycling: Multi-material recycling center (LARC) is formed to serve residents in Forest Lake, Hugo and 'PSFTU-BLF5PXOTIJQ Processing: Resource Recovery Project Board (RRPB) is established with commissioners from Ramsey and Washington $PVOUJFTBOEBSFQSFTFOUBUJWFGSPN/FXQPSUBTQBSUPG+PJOU1PXFS"HSFFNFOUCFUXFFO3BNTFZBOE8BTIJOHUPO$PVOUJFT 1982-84 Processing:$PVOUJFTEFDJEFUPQVSTVFSFGVTFEEFSJWFEGVFM 3%' UFDIOPMPHZCFGPSFNBTTCVSOUFDIOPMPHZ$PVOUJFT examine procurement, ownership, financing and waste assurance issues, before embarking on a staged procurement QSPDFTT3'2TJTTVFEBOEUXPWFOEPSTRVBMJîFEUPTVCNJUQSPQPTBMTo/41BOE"FODP$BSHJMM$PNQFUJUJWFOFHPUJBUJPOT SFTVMUJOUXPîOBMQSPQPTBMT /41JTTFMFDUFEXIFO"FODPDBOOPUHVBSBOUFFBNBSLFUGPSUIF3%' 1983 Responsibility for solid waste management is transferred from the county’s Planning Department to the 1VCMJD)FBMUI%FQBSUNFOU DRAFT Landfill: The county concludes the landfill siting process which results in one potential landfill location in Lake Elmo, LOPXOBT4JUF( 1984 $PVOUZ#PBSEBEPQUTUIFîSTUTPMJEXBTUFNBOBHFNFOUNBTUFSQMBO Processing: Washington and Ramsey Counties and NSP sign Design and Construction Agreement, and a Service "HSFFNFOU $PVOUJFTBSFSFRVJSFEUPBTTVSFBTVQQMZPGXBTUFBOEQBZNFOUGPSQSPDFTTJOH /41XPVMEBTTVSFUIBU UIFXBTUFXPVMECFQSPDFTTFEJOUP3%'BOECFVTFE Yard Waste:$PVOUZ#PBSEBQQSPWFTQSPHSBNUPFODPVSBHFUIFDPNQPTUJOHPGZBSEXBTUFT5IFDPVOUZPQFSBUFT TJUFT POFJO'PSFTU-BLFBOE8PPECVSZ Recycling:4DBOEJB3FDZDMJOH$FOUFSJTFTUBCMJTIFEUPTFSWF/FX4DBOEJB5PXOTIJQ .BSJOFPO4U$SPJY BOE.BZ5PXOTIJQ
WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 61 WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN · 2018-2036
Appendix I: Major Milestones, Events & Activities in Washington Co. Waste Management History
1985 Ordinances:$PVOUZ4PMJE8BTUF.BOBHFNFOU0SEJOBODFBNFOEFEBOEDBMMFEUIFi%FTJHOBUJPO0SEJOBODFw 0SEJOBODF which establishes powers, duties, regulations, and standards for the designation of a facility to receive all solid waste from SFTJEFOUJBMBOEOPOSFTJEFOUJBMTPVSDFTJO8BTIJOHUPO$PVOUZXIJDIBSFEJTQPTFEPGXJUIJOUIFCPSEFSTPG.JOOFTPUB" second county ordinance (Ordinance 49) is amended which enables the county to impose a service charge for solid waste NBOBHFNFOUTFSWJDFT5IJTTFDPOEPSEJOBODFXBTOPUJNQMFNFOUFEVOUJMUIF3FTPVSDF3FDPWFSZ'BDJMJUZJTJOPQFSBUJPO Recycling:/PSFTJEFOUJBMDVSCTJEFSFDZDMJOHQSPHSBNT GPVSNVMUJQMFNBUFSJBMESPQPGGSFDZDMJOHDFOUFST BOEMFTTUIBO SFTJEFOUJBMSFDZDMJOH Toxicity Reduction:/P))8DPMMFDUJPOTJOUIFDPVOUZ.1$"GVOET))8DPMMFDUJPOTJOUIFTUBUFJOMBUF $PVOUZJNQMFNFOUTIB[BSEPVTXBTUFSFHVMBUJPOQSPHSBN Processing:/P.48QSPDFTTJOH QFSDFOUMBOEEJTQPTBMPG.48 Yard Waste:$PVOUZPQFSBUFTDPNQPTUTJUFT 'PSFTU-BLF 8PPECVSZ -BLF&MNPBOE$PUUBHF(SPWF 1985-86 Recycling:$PVOUZJNQMFNFOUTBHSBOUQSPHSBNGPSDJUJFTBOEUPXOTJOUFSFTUFEJOEFWFMPQJOHSFDZDMJOHQSPHSBNT 5XPESPQPGGSFDZDMJOHQSPHSBNTXFSFGVOEFEJO'PSFTU-BLFBOEJO/FX4DBOEJB5PXOTIJQ Processing: Ramsey, Washington, and Dakota Counties negotiate a draft joint powers agreement for a three-way project UPCVJMEBSFGVTFEFSJWFEGVFMGBDJMJUZ CVUMBUFSJOUIFZFBS%BLPUB$PVOUZXJUIESBXTGSPNUIF1SPKFDU 1985-87 Processing:$POTUSVDUJPOPGUIF3%''BDJMJUZPDDVST$PVOUJFTBUUFNQUUPOFHPUJBUFDPOUSBDUTXJUIXBTUFIBVMFSTGPS WPMVOUBSZXBTUFEFMJWFSZ OFHPUJBUJPOTSFTVMUJOîWFDPOUSBDUTXJUITNBMMIBVMJOHîSNT 1987 Processing: t3%''BDJMJUZJTBDDFQUFECZ8BTIJOHUPO3BNTFZ$PVOUJFTBOECFHJOTPQFSBUJPO+VMZ 5IFUXFOUZZFBSUFSN PGUIF4FSWJDF"HSFFNFOUCFHJOT$PVOUJFTJNQMFNFOU%FTJHOBUJPO0SEJOBODF QVUUJOHïPXDPOUSPMJOUPFGGFDU $PVOUJFTBHSFFUPTVCTJEJ[FUJQQJOHGFFBUGBDJMJUZUPQIBTFDRAFTJOPWFSTFWFSBMZFBSTUIFIJHIFSDPTUPGQSPDFTTJOH t#PUIDPVOUJFTEFWFMPQFEBOEBEPQUFEBXBTUFNBOBHFNFOUTFSWJDFDIBSHF 8.4$ PSEJOBODF5IFDIBSHF DPMMFDUFEPOQSPQFSUZUBYTUBUFNFOUT$PMMFDUJPOPGUIF8.4$CFDBNFFGGFDUJWFJO Waste Reduction & Recycling: (PPEXJMMTUBSUTPQFSBUJOHESPQPGGTUBUJPOTGPSSFDZDMJOHJOBEEJUJPOUPDPMMFDUJOHIPVTFIPMEJUFNT "EPQUJPOPGDPVOUZSFDZDMJOHJNQMFNFOUBUJPOTUSBUFHZGPSSFTJEFOUJBMBOEDPNNFSDJBMSFDZDMJOH 1988 'JSTUSFTJEFOUJBMDVSCTJEFSFDZDMJOHDPMMFDUJPOJNQMFNFOUFEJODJUZPG-BLF&MNP 1989 In-house:$PVOUZJNQMFNFOUTJUTJOIPVTFPGîDFSFDZDMJOHQSPHSBN Processing:$PVOUZT8BTUF.BOBHFNFOU4FSWJDF$IBSHF 8.4$ JTQFSQBSDFM3FTJEFOUJBMBOE OPOSFTJEFOUJBMGFFDIBSHFEPOJNQSPWFEQBSDFMTJOUIFDPVOUZ Toxicity Reduction:$PVOUZDPOEVDUTîSTU))8DPMMFDUJPOJO$PUUBHF(SPWF$PVOUZDPOEVDUT))8FWFOUTXJUI QBSUJDJQBUJPOPGNPSFUIBO IPVTFIPMET 4PMJE8BTUF.BOBHFNFOU$PPSEJOBUJOH#PBSE 48.$# UBTLGPSDFJTFTUBCMJTIFE
WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 62 WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN · 2018-2036
Appendix I: Major Milestones, Events & Activities in Washington Co. Waste Management History
1989 Select Committee on Recycling and the Environment (SCORE) legislation is enacted, which now provides funds for SFDZDMJOHBOE))8QSPHSBNT Waste Reduction & Recycling:"EEJUJPOBMDVSCTJEFSFDZDMJOHQSPHSBNTCFHJOJOUIFDPVOUZ Processing:$PVOUJFTQIBTFPVUVTFPG8.4$TGPSSFTPVSDFSFDPWFSZ5IF8.4$JTTUJMMVTFEGPSSFDZDMJOHBOEXBTUF SFEVDUJPOQSPHSBNTBOE))8QSPHSBNTƵƵ8BTUFHFOFSBUPSTBSFQBZJOHUIFGVMMDPTUPGXBTUFQSPDFTTJOH BSPVOE UPOUPUIFIBVMFS UISPVHIUIFIBVMFSCJMM 1990 Waste Reduction & Recycling: UPOTPGSFDZDMBCMFTDPMMFDUFEDVSCTJEF MCTQFSTPO 1991 Waste Reduction & Recycling:QFSDFOUPGDPVOUZDJUJFTUPXOTIBWFDVSCTJEFSFDZDMJOHQSPHSBNT NVMUJQMFNBUFSJBM ESPQPGGSFDZDMJOHDFOUFST BOEBQQSPYJNBUFMZQFSDFOUPGUPUBM.48JTSFDZDMFE Yard Waste:5IFSFBSFTFWFOZBSEXBTUFDPNQPTUTJUFTJOPQFSBUJPO Processing:&JHIUPOFQFSDFOUPGEFMJWFSFE.48QSPDFTTFEJOUP3%' Toxicity Reduction: 8BTUF.BOBHFNFOU"DUSFRVJSFTDPVOUJFTUPEFWFMPQB))8QMBO$PVOUZQMBOGPSQFSNBOFOU))8 DPMMFDUJPOJTEFWFMPQFE Landfill:1VCMJDXBUFSTVQQMZJTJOTUBMMFEUPTFSWFSFTJEFOUJBMBSFBOFBS-BLF+BOF-BOEîMM 1992 Yard Waste:0QFSBUJPOPGDPVOUZDPNQPTUTJUFTQBTTFEPOUPDJUJFTUPXOTƵƵ$PVOUZQSPWJEFTPOMZUFDIOJDBMBTTJTUBODF 1993 Processing:"MBXTVJU 8BTUF4ZTUFNTW'BSJCBVMUBOE.BSUJO$PVOUJFT JTEFDJEFEJOGFEFSBMDPVSU BOETUSJLFTEPXOUIPTF DPVOUJFTïPXDPOUSPMPSEJOBODFT4FWFSBMIBVMFSTUISFBUFOUPUBLF3BNTFZ8BTIJOHUPO$PVOUZXBTUFUPMBOEîMMTPVUTJEF PG.JOOFTPUB*OSFTQPOTF UIF1SPKFDU#PBSEBOEDPVOUZCPBSETEFDJEFUPSFEVDFUIFUJQQJOHGFFBUUIFGBDJMJUZ CVUUP DPMMFDUUIFEJGGFSFODFUISPVHIBIBVMFSDPMMFDUFETFSWJDFDIBSHF DBMMFEUIF3FTPVSDF3FDPWFSZ4FSWJDF$IBSHF 334$ *O"QSJM UIF334$JTJNQMFNFOUFE5IFUJQQJOHGFFSFEVDFEGSPDRAFTNUPOUPUPOPO+BO$PVOUJFTVTF SFTFSWFGVOETUPQBZQBSUPGUIFDPTUPGQSPDFTTJOH *O.BZ UIF644VQSFNF$PVSUSVMFTJO$BSCPOFW$MBSLTUPXOUIBUMPDBMïPXDPOUSPMPSEJOBODFTBSFVODPOTUJUVUJPOBM Toxicity Reduction: $POTUSVDUJPOCFHJOTPOQFSNBOFOU))8GBDJMJUZJO0BLEBMF 48.$#CFDPNFTBKPJOUQPXFSTCPBSEXJUINFNCFSTIJQGSPNTFWFONFUSPQPMJUBODPVOUJFT 1994 Processing:$PVOUJFTEFDJEFUPEJTDPOUJOVFVTJOH334$ BOETIJGUUP8.4$TDPMMFDUFEPOUBYTUBUFNFOUT#FHJOOJOHJO 1995, generators would pay full cost of the waste processing with part of the cost on their hauler bill and part of the cost UISPVHIUIF8.4$ DPMMFDUFEPOQSPQFSUZUBYTUBUFNFOUT Toxicity Reduction:1FSNBOFOU))8GBDJMJUZPQFOT Waste Reduction & Recycling:'JSTUJTTVFPG&OWJSPONFOUBM6QEBUFOFXTMFUUFSJTQVCMJTIFE DPJODJEJOHXJUIPQFOJOHPG ZFBSSPVOEIPVTFIPMEIB[BSEPVTXBTUFGBDJMJUZ
WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 63 WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN · 2018-2036
Appendix I: Major Milestones, Events & Activities in Washington Co. Waste Management History
1995 Processing: Counties and NRG attempt to negotiate changes to the Service Agreement, and counties meet with IBVMFSTƵƵ1SPKFDU#PBSEUFSNJOBUFTOFHPUJBUJPOTXJUI/3( BGUFSQBSUJFTBSFVOBCMFUPSFBDIBOBHSFFNFOU Ƶ $PVOUZ#PBSEBQQSPWFTBNFOENFOUUPUIF48.$#KPJOUQPXFSTBHSFFNFOUUPFTUBCMJTIBSFHJPOBMIBVMFSMJDFOTFQSPHSBN Waste Reduction & Recycling: UPOTPGSFDZDMBCMFTDPMMFDUFEDVSCTJEF MCTQFSTPO 1996 Processing: 8BTUFIBVMFSTXBSOPGTFOEJOHNVDIPGUIFXBTUFUPPVUPGTUBUFMBOEîMMT5IFDPVOUJFTOFHPUJBUFDPOUSBDUT XJUIIBVMFSTGPSXBTUFEFMJWFSZBUQFSUPOUISPVHI XJUIPQUJPOUPSFOFXVOEFSUIFTBNFUFSNT&BDIDPVOUZCPBSE hold workshops to review options financial issues, issues related to the tipping fee, general solid waste policy matters, and MPOHUFSNXBTUFBTTVSBODF%JSFDUJPOGSPN#PBSEJODMVEFTOFHPUJBUJOHDPOUSBDUTXJUIIBVMFST BOETFFLJOHBEPMMBSGPSEPMMBS match from NRG Waste Reduction & Recycling: Trash Trunks are developed through resource recovery project office for loan to schools BOEDPNNVOJUZHSPVQT 1997 Waste Reduction & Recycling: "NFSJDB3FDZDMFT%BZDPNFTUP.JOOFTPUB"i3FDZDMFE1SPEVDU)VOUwJTJNQMFNFOUFE BU5BSHFU(SFBUMBOEJO8PPECVSZƵƵ"DUJWJUJFTBSFIFMEJODPNNVOJUJFTSFBDIJOH QFPQMF Processing:3BNTFZ8BTIJOHUPO331CFHJOTQVCMJTIJOHUIF5SBTI5PEBZOFXTMFUUFS Toxicity Reduction: Very Small Quantity Generator (VSQG) pilot program begins through the county’s HHW agreement XJUIUIFTUBUF 1997-98 Processing: Waste haulers in Ramsey and Washington Counties are under contract for delivery of waste to the 33'BUQFSUPO 1998 Processing: /FHPUJBUJPOTXJUI/3(&OFSHZ *ODDPOUJOVF XJUIBHSFFNFOUSFBDIFEJOQSJODJQMFUPSFEVDFTFWFSBMDPTUT JOUIF4FSWJDF"HSFFNFOU5IJTXJMMTBWFBCPVUNJMMJPOQFSZFBS#PUIQBSUJFTBHSFFJODPODFQUUPDPOTJEFSMPOHFS UFSNDIBOHFTBOEDPTUSFEVDUJPOT CFHJOOJOHJODRAFT Toxicity Reduction:742(QSPHSBNJTJNQMFNFOUFE 1999 Processing: The Project funded purchase of a refrigerated truck for the Second Harvest Food Bank for its QFPQMFUPQFPQMFGPPEQSPHSBN Ƶ 5IF1SPKFDUBOEDPVOUJFTOFHPUJBUFXBTUFEFMJWFSZBHSFFNFOUTXJUIXBTUFIBVMFSTGPSEFMJWFSZJO BOE $POTPMJEBUJPOJOUIFXBTUFJOEVTUSZSFTVMUFEJOEJWFSTJPOPGXBTUFUPMBOEîMMTCZIBVMFST Waste Reduction & Recycling: Recycled Products Kits are developed for county and presented to America Recycles Day &EVDBUJPO$PNNJUUFFBTBQPTTJCMFTUBUFXJEFQSPKFDU/JOFUFFOLJUTBSFBTTFNCMFE 2000 Processing:$PVOUJFTBHSFFUPLFFQUIFUJQQJOHGFFBUQFSUPO BGUFSFYQMPSJOHBOJODSFBTFJOUIFUJQQJOHGFF 5SFOEJOUJQQJOHGFFTJTEPXOXBSE BOEIBVMFSTDPVMEUSBOTQPSUBOEMBOEîMMXBTUFGSPNUIFDPVOUJFTBUQFSUPO Waste Reduction & Recycling: 4FWFOUZ3FDZDMFE1SPEVDUT,JUTBSFBTTFNCMFEGPSEJTUSJCVUJPOTUBUFXJEF Ƶ UPOTPGSFDZDMBCMFTDPMMFDUFEDVSCTJEF MCTQFSTPO
WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 64 WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN · 2018-2036
Appendix I: Major Milestones, Events & Activities in Washington Co. Waste Management History
2001 Processing: In January, BFI is in breach of its landfill contract and waste delivery agreement by diverting about UPOTQFSEBZPGXBTUFUPJUT1JOF#FOEMBOEîMM Project appears to be close to falling short of 280,800 tons per year commitment to NRG, with projected deliveries PG UPOT Waste Reduction & Recycling: 'SFF.BSLFUBOE5BLF*U#BDL1SPHSBNTCFDPNFBWBJMBCMFJODPVOUZ$PVOUZSFDFJWFT B3".1VCMJD4FSWJDF"XBSEGPSUIF3FDZDMFE1SPEVDUT,JU PWFSEJTUSJCVUFETUBUFXJEF County implements in-house waste reduction program called Cut the Waste! Toxicity Reduction: HHW participation increased 17 percent from 2000 to 2001, with 4,561 households using a DPMMFDUJPOTJUFJO 2002 1SPDFTTJOH1VCMJD$PMMFDUJPOJTTUVEJFE$PVOUZ#PBSEHJWFTEJSFDUJPOUPJNQMFNFOUBNPSFWPMVNFCBTFE$PVOUZ Environmental Charge (CEC), implement long term waste delivery contracts, and not implement public collection at UIJTUJNFJGTZTUFNNPWFTUPXBSETHPBMTVTJOHPUIFSNFUIPET$PVOUZ#PBSEBQQSPWFTBMMXBTUFBOE TQFDJîDUPOOBHFXBTUFEFMJWFSZBHSFFNFOUT$&$SBUFJTFTUBCMJTIFEBU CFHJOOJOHJO"QSJM BOEUPNBJOUBJOBQBSDFMDIBSHF &OWJSPONFOUBM6QEBUFNFSHFEXJUI4UBZJOHJO5PVDIOFXTMFUUFS Waste Reduction & Recycling: (FU$BVHIUSFDZDMJOHJTDPWFSFECZUFMFWJTJPOBOEOFXTQBQFS 2003 Waste Reduction & Recycling: Residential Recycling Funds prioritize funding and program type, reduce direct subsidy of recycling program costs, redirect funding to enhance performance, refocus county staff assistance to cities, increase DPVOUZDPPSEJOBUJPOBOEGBDJMJUBUJPOPGJOGPSNBUJPO JODSFBTFGPDVTPOBMMSFTJEFOUJBMQSPHSBNTJODMVEJOHNVMUJGBNJMZ Processing: 5IF$&$SBUFJTFTUBCMJTIFEBUDRAFT Toxicity Reduction: The county establishes a reuse incentive program with its HHW vendor to increase amount of SFVTBCMFQSPEVDUTHFUUJOHPVUUPSFTJEFOUTUISPVHIJUT3FVTF3PPN*O UIFBNPVOUQVUPVUGPSSFVTFXFOUVQ First communities in the county, including Birchwood, Mahtomedi, Dellwood, and Willernie, implements single-stream SFDZDMJOH 2004 Toxicity Reduction: County pilots front step collection of household hazardous waste and begins discussion on a OFXFOWJSPONFOUBMDFOUFSUIBUXJMMJODMVEFBOFX))8GBDJMJUZ Ƶ 1MBOOJOH$PVOUZDPNQMFUFTUIFUIJSEDPVOUZXBTUFNBOBHFNFOUNBTUFSQMBO 2005 Processing: t7PMVNFPGXBTUFUPUIF'BDJMJUZJTCFMPXFYQFDUBUJPOT3FEVDJOHUJQQJOHGFFJTBOFGGPSUUPTUBCJMJ[FUIFNBSLFUBOE TIPVMEFGGFDUJWFMZDPNQFUFXJUIMBOEîMMT5JQQJOHGFFSFEVDFEUPUPO t/3(JTTVFE/PUJDFPG%FGBVMU$MBJNUP$PVOUJFTSFMBUFEUP$PVOUJFTBDUJPOPOTQFDJîDUPOOBHFBHSFFNFOUT $PVOUJFTSFKFDUFEOPUJDF
WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 65 WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN · 2018-2036
Appendix I: Major Milestones, Events & Activities in Washington Co. Waste Management History
2005 Waste Reduction & Recycling: JUFNTXFSFHJWFOBXBZCZDPVOUZSFTJEFOUTVTJOHUIF5XJOT$JUJFT'SFF.BSLFU Ƶ 1JMPU'PPE8BTUF3FDZDMJOH GPPEUPIPHT UISPVHIUIF3BNTFZ8BTIJOHUPO331CFHJOTBU.BYîFME&MFNFOUBSZJO 4U1BVMXJUIBMMDBGFUFSJBXBTUFTUSFBNTNFBTVSFE Ƶ UPOTPGSFDZDMBCMFTDPMMFDUFEDVSCTJEF MCTQFSTPO Toxicity Reduction:$POEVDUFEXPSLTIPQTPOQMBOOJOHGPSBOFX))8GBDJMJUZFOWJSPONFOUBMDFOUFS'SPOU4UFQ $PMMFDUJPO3FQPSUDPNQMFUFE In-house: County Board approves resolution adopting the Minnesota Sustainable Building Design Guidelines for use JODPVOUZCVJMEJOHBOESFNPEFMJOHQSPKFDUT 2006 Processing: 4JHOJîDBOUDIBOHFTXFSFNBEFUPNPWFUPXBSETBNFSDIBOUTZTUFN &YJTUJOHBHSFFNFOUCFUXFFO$PVOUJFTBOE/3(JTUFSNJOBUFEBOEBOFXWFOEPS 335 QVSDIBTFTUIF'BDJMJUZ335XJMM CFTFDVSJOHXBTUFGPSUIF'BDJMJUZXJUIIBVMFSDPOUSBDUT"TQBSUPGOFXQSPDFTTJOHBHSFFNFOU DPVOUJFTXJMMQBZGPS QSPDFTTJOHTFSWJDFTJOBEJGGFSFOUXBZ BïBUQFSUPOSBUFUPUIFWFOEPSBOEBIBVMFSSFCBUFQSPHSBN Waste Reduction & Recycling: t"OJODFOUJWFHSBOUXBTBXBSEFEUPUIF$JUZPG8PPECVSZUPXPSLXJUIBNVMUJGBNJMZIPVTJOHDPNQMFYUPJEFOUJGZ CBSSJFSTUPSFDZDMJOHBOEUFTUFEVDBUJPOBMNBUFSJBMTUPJODSFBTFSFDZDMJOH t'PPESFDZDMJOH GPPEUPIPHT CFHBOXJUIBQJMPUQSPKFDUBU8PPECVSZ&MFNFOUBSZJO'FCSVBSZ GPMMPXFECZ JNQMFNFOUBUJPOJO.BZ-JMZ-BLFBOE4UPOFCSJEHF&MFNFOUBSZ4DIPPMTGPMMPXFEJOGBMMPG In-house: t"OFOFSHZDPOTFSWBUJPOCBTFMJOFXBTEFWFMPQFECZUIF$FOUFSGPS&OFSHZ&OWJSPONFOU $&& GPSUIF'BDJMJUJFT %FQBSUNFOU#BTFEPO$&&FTUJNBUFETBWJOHT FOFSHZFGîDJFOUDRAFT5MJHIUCVMCTXFSFJOTUBMMFEBUUIFDPVOUZT /PSUIBOE4PVUI4IPQT t$PVOUZVTFT.JOOFTPUB4VTUBJOBCMF#VJMEJOH%FTJHO(VJEFMJOFTJOUIFEFTJHOBOEDPOTUSVDUJPOPGUIF4FSWJDF $FOUFSJO$PUUBHF(SPWFBOE4FSWJDF$FOUFS-JCSBSZJO'PSFTU-BLF Toxicity Reduction: ))8SFTJEFOUQBSUJDJQBUJPOJODSFBTFEJOGSPNUIFQSFWJPVTZFBS5IFJODSFBTFJTQSJNBSJMZ EVFUPDPPSEJOBUJOHDPMMFDUJPOFWFOUTXJUIDJUZDMFBOVQFWFOUT 2007 Processing: t5IF3BNTFZ8BTIJOHUPO$PVOUZ331BOE4BJOU1BVM1VCMJD4DIPPMTSFDFJWFEB(PWFSOPST1BSUOFSTIJQ"XBSEJO 'FCSVBSZGPSJNQMFNFOUJOHBMBSHFTDBMFGPPEXBTUFSFDZDMJOHQSPHSBN t335FOUFSFEJOUPDPOUSBDUTXJUIIBVMFSTUISPVHIUIFEVSBUJPOPGUIFBHSFFNFOU BOEPWFS UPOTPGXBTUF GSPN3BNTFZBOE8BTIJOHUPODPVOUJFTXBTEFMJWFSFEGPSQSPDFTTJOH #PUI$PVOUJFTIBWFJNQMFNFOUFEBIBVMFSSFCBUFQSPHSBNGPS.48EFMJWFSFEUPUIFGBDJMJUZ JTTVFENPOUIMZ 5IFSFCBUFJTGPSQFSUPOUISPVHIBOEQFSUPOGPS
WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 66 WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN · 2018-2036
Appendix I: Major Milestones, Events & Activities in Washington Co. Waste Management History
2007 Waste Reduction & Recycling: Improved Recycled Products Kits: Kits were borrowed by over 50 groups, SFBDIJOHPWFS QFPQMFJO t(SFFO1VSDIBTJOH8PSLTIPQ5IF$PVOUZIPTUFE(SFFOJOH:PVS0SHBOJ[BUJPO8PSLTIPQGPSQVCMJDFOUJUJFTUPMFBSO NPSFBCPVUUIFCFOFîUTBOEBWBJMBCJMJUZPGFOWJSPONFOUBMMZQSFGFSBCMFQSPEVDUTBOETFSWJDFT In-house: t3FEFTJHOFE&OWJSPONFOUBM*OJUJBUJWFTPODPVOUZFNQMPZFF*OUSBOFUUIBUMJTUTJOIPVTFXBTUFSFEVDUJPOBOE SFDZDMJOHBDUJWJUJFT t$PVOUZIBTJODPSQPSBUFEUIF.JOOFTPUB4VTUBJOBCMF#VJMEJOH%FTJHO(VJEFMJOFTJOUIFEFTJHOBOEDPOTUSVDUJPO PGUIFFYQBOTJPOPG$PVSUTBOE-BX&OGPSDFNFOU$FOUFSBUUIF(PWFSONFOU$FOUFSJO4UJMMXBUFS t"OFOFSHZQMBOXBTEFWFMPQFEGPSUIF$PVSUTBOE-BX&OGPSDFNFOU$FOUFSFYQBOTJPOBUUIF(PWFSONFOU$FOUFS JO4UJMMXBUFSUISPVHIUIF8FJEU(SPVQXJUIGVOEJOHQSPWJEFECZ9DFM&OFSHZ t'BDJMJUJFT%FQBSUNFOUDPOEVDUFEFOFSHZVTFDPTUBOBMZTJTPG/PSUI4IPQCVMCTXJUDIPVUDPNQBSJOHBOE EBUB4UVEZTIPXFEEFDSFBTFJOFMFDUSJDBMVTFBOEDPTUSFEVDUJPOJOPOFZFBS Toxicity Reduction: t$PNNVOJDBUJPOT1MBO$PVOUZEFWFMPQFEBDPNNVOJDBUJPOTQMBOGPSUIFQSPNPUJPOPGUIFZFBSSPVOEIB[BSEPVT XBTUFGBDJMJUZ TFBTPOBMDPMMFDUJPOFWFOUT BOEUPYJDJUZSFEVDUJPO 2008 Toxicity Reduction: County has incorporated the Minnesota Sustainable Building Design Guidelines in the design and DPOTUSVDUJPOPGUIFDPVOUZTOFXIPVTFIPMEIB[BSEPVTXBTUFGBDJMJUZEVFUPPQFOJO4VTUBJOBCMFGFBUVSFTJODMVEF a rainwater recycling system, rain gardens, recycled-content building materials, low VOC paint, Energy Star appliances, and FOFSHZFGîDJFOUMJHIUJOH Ƶ t&XBTUF$PMMFDUJPOBU))8GBDJMJUZ The county responded toDRAFT the 2007 CRT residential disposal ban by accepting electronics at its household hazardous XBTUFGBDJMJUZ ))8 JO0BLEBMFXBTUIFDPVOUZTîSTUGVMMZFBSDPMMFDUJOHFMFDUSPOJDTGSPNSFTJEFOUTBUUIF ))8GBDJMJUZ0WFS QPVOETPGFXBTUFXBTDPMMFDUFEBOESFDZDMFE Waste Reduction, Reuse, and Recycling: t:PVUI&OWJSPONFOUBM4VSWFZ "ZPVUIFOWJSPONFOUBMTVSWFZXBTDPOEVDUFEBTQBSUPGUIFDPVOUZT$PNNVOJUZ)FBMUI"TTFTTNFOU5IFTVSWFZXBT completed by over 590 students in grades 7 and 8 to gauge their perspective on environmental issues and concerns XJUIJOUIFDPVOUZ4UVEFOUTJOEJDBUFEUIFNPTUTFSJPVTFOWJSPONFOUBMQSPCMFNTJOUIFJSDPNNVOJUZXFSFBJSQPMMVUJPO FYDFTTJWFHBSCBHF UIFOFFEGPSNPSFSFDZDMJOHQBSUJDJQBUJPOBOESFDZDMJOHQSPHSBNT BOEMJUUFSJOH Planning: The county incorporated sustainability and specific strategies from the county’s current waste management master plan with the goal of preserving, managing, and utilizing natural resources to promote a healthy environment GPSQSFTFOUBOEGVUVSFHFOFSBUJPOT
WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 67 WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN · 2018-2036
Appendix I: Major Milestones, Events & Activities in Washington Co. Waste Management History
2010 Waste Reduction, Reuse, and Recycling tE-News 5IF&OWJSPONFOUBMF6QEBUF BCJNPOUIMZFMFDUSPOJDOFXTMFUUFS XBTîSTUJTTVFECZUIF%FQBSUNFOUƵƵ 0WFSSFTJEFOUTTJHOFEVQUPSFDFJWFUIFOFXF6QEBUFJO t$PNQPTU#JOBOE3BJO#BSSFM%JTUSJCVUJPO 5IFDPVOUZQBSUOFSFEXJUIUIF3FDZDMJOH"TTPDJBUJPOPG.JOOFTPUB 3". UPPGGFSDPNQPTUCJOTBOESBJOCBSSFMT Over 600 people participated in the program and purchased 300 compost bins, 45 kitchen food waste DPMMFDUJPOQBJMT BOESBJOCBSSFMT t$PNQPTU,JUT$PNQMFUFE "OFXUPPMUPIFMQUFBDIBCPVUDPNQPTUJOHXBTEFWFMPQFEGPSFEVDBUPSTBOEDPNNVOJUZHSPVQMFBEFSTUPCPSSPX 'PVSDPNQPTUJOHLJUTXFSFDPNQMFUFEBOEXFSFMPBOFEUPTJYHSPVQT t'PPE8BTUF3FDZDMJOH Two additional schools implemented food waste recycling, resulting in 14 schools total in the county QBSUJDJQBUJOHJOUIJTBDUJWJUZ UPOTPGSFDZDMBCMFTDPMMFDUFEDVSCTJEF MCTQFSTPO Processing: t3FTPVSDF3FDPWFSZ1SPKFDU The Trash Today newsletters were discontinued and substituted with Going Green guides printed and mailed to BMMSFTJEFOUTJOUIFDPVOUZƵƵ5IF(SFFO(VJEFTBSFBDPNQSFIFOTJWFCPPLMFUDPWFSJOH))8 SFDZDMJOH XBTUFSFEVDUJPO ZBSEXBTUF BOEPUIFSXBTUFSFMBUFEUPQJDTƵƵ t&OFSHZ&GîDJFODZBOE$POTFSWBUJPO#MPDL(SBOU &&$#( As part of the funding,DRAFT a scope of the county energy plan was drafted and through an RFQ process, an energy plan consultant was selected to assist the county in developing this plan and help in the coordination of an energy plan DPNNJUUFF t$FOUSBM&OFSHZ%BUBCBTF With the assistance of a Minnesota GreenCorps member, the county updated energy data in order to track and CFODINBSLFOFSHZVTFGSPNDPVOUZCVJMEJOHTVTJOHUIF4UBUFPG.JOOFTPUBT#TZTUFN t&NQMPZFF&OFSHZ$BNQBJHO 5IF%FQBSUNFOUTVSWFZFECBTFMJOFFNQMPZFFFMFDUSJDJUZVTFSFMBUFEUPMJHIUJOHBOEQFSTPOBMFMFDUSPOJDTJOPGîDFT 'JGUZUISFFQFSDFOUPGDPVOUZFNQMPZFFTDPNQMFUFEUIFTVSWFZ5IFJOGPSNBUJPODPMMFDUFEGSPNUIFTVSWFZXBT used to develop a county employee energy campaign to identify information and resources that would be helpful JOSFEVDJOHFOFSHZVTFJOPGîDFTBOEJEFOUJGZUIFQSJNBSZCBSSJFSTUPQBSUJDJQBUJOHJOWBSJPVTFOFSHZSFEVDJOHBDUJWJUJFT As part of the campaign, five employees participated inthe Volunteer Energy Meter Activity to kick-off the loaning of FOFSHZNFUFSTUPUIFPWFSDPVOUZTUBGGUIBUTJHOFEVQUPVTFBOFOFSHZNFUFS BGUFSDPNQMFUJOHUIFTVSWFZ5IF WPMVOUFFSTNFBTVSFEFOFSHZVTFEGSPNFRVJQNFOUVTFEBUIPNFPSXPSLBOESFDPSEFEUIFDPTUPGZFBSMZPQFSBUJPO Ƶ t7FOEJOH.BDIJOF.JTFSTJO1BSLT The county’s Minnesota GreenCorps member worked with the Parks Department to save energy and cut electricity DPTUTUISPVHIUIFVTFPGB7FOEJOH.JTFSJOTUBMMFEPOTFMFDUWFOEJOHNBDIJOFT
WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 68 WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN · 2018-2036
Appendix I: Major Milestones, Events & Activities in Washington Co. Waste Management History
2011 Communication and EventsSFTJEFOUTTVCTDSJCFEUPUIF&OWJSPONFOUBMF6QEBUFBOFMFDUSPOJDOFXTMFUUFSJTTVFE UJNFTZFBSDPWFSJOHSFNPUF))8DPMMFDUJPOTBOEPUIFSUJNFMZFWFOUTƵƵ5IJTXBTBOJODSFBTFPGTVCTDSJCFST GSPN School Projects: Technical and financial assistance was provided to establish food waste recycling at 5 additional schools for a county-wide total of 17 2012 Planning: Washington County Waste Management Master Plan 2012-2030 approved Communication and EventsTVCTDSJCFSTUPUIF&OWJSPONFOUBMF6QEBUF New disposal opportunities ·Sharps added to acceptable items at WCEC ·Collection of unused medications begins at the Washington County Law Enforcement Center Office Recycling:101 tons of office recycling County implements daytime cleaning, reducing energy consumption and also providing opportunities to reduce the toxicity BOEWBSJFUZPGDMFBOFSTBOETXJUDIUPSFVTBCMFDMPUITSBUIFSUIBOQBQFSUPXFMTGPSDMFBOJOHƵƵ#VJMEJOHTFSWJDFTJOUFSFTUFEJO JNQSPWJOHXBTUFDPMMFDUJPOTZTUFNBTQBSUPGEBZUJNFDMFBOJOH School Projects: Technical and financial assistance was provided to establish food waste recycling at 5 additional TDIPPMTGPSBDPVOUZXJEFUPUBMPGƵƵƵ Business Recycling#VTJOFTT*OTUJUVUJPOPVUSFBDICFJOHTUISPVHIDPOUSBDUTCFUXFFOUIF3BNTFZ8BTIJOHUPO$PVOUZ 3FTPVSDF3FDPWFSZ1SPKFDUBOE.O5"1 8BTUF8JTF BOE+-5BJUUƵƵ5IFQSJNBSJMZGPDVTPGUIFDPOTVMUBOUTXBTUPHBUIFS JOGPSNBUJPOBCPVUCVTJOFTTFTXJUIBGPDVTPOHFOFSBUPSTQSPEVDJOHBMBSHFBNPVOUPGPSHBOJDTƵƵ 2013 Planning/Policy$&$BOBMZTJTSFDPNNFOETBSFEVDUJPOJOUIF$&$GSPNUPDRAFTƵƵ5IF$PVOUZ#PBSEBEPQUFE UIFDIBOHFUPUBLFFGGFDUJOƵƵ Communication and Events TVCTDSJCFSTUP&OWJSPONFOUBMF6QEBUF New disposal opportunities6OVTFENFEJDBUJPOEJTQPTBMFYQBOEFEUPUXPBEEJUJPOBMMPDBUJPOT4PVUI4FSWJDF$FOUFSJO $PUUBHF(SPWF4FSWJDF$FOUFSBOE)FBEXBUFST4FSWJDF$FOUFSJO'PSFTU-BLFƵƵ Office Recycling: Divert 70, an office recycling and organics pilot project, begins at the Government Center in the Departments of Administration, Building Services, and Public Health & Environment as well as the Public Works /PSUI4IPQ'FBUVSFTPGUIFQSPKFDUJODMVEFETJOHMFTPSUSFDZDMJOHBOEPSHBOJDTDPNQPTUJOHJODPMPSDPEFECJOT Trash cans were removed from employee desk areas and replaced with mini containers for collecting waste with FNQMPZFFTFYQFDUFEUPTFMGIBVMUPTPSUJOHTUBUJPOT Assessments after the pilot showed that 84% of the recyclables and compostables at these locations were being EJWFSUFEGSPNUIFUSBTI School Projects: Stillwater Area Public Schools was provided consultant assistance to develop an RFP and contract for XBTUFBOESFDZDMJOHTFSWJDFTƵƵ5IFOFXDPOUSBDUSFTVMUFEJOB TBWJOHTQFSNPOUIBOEQSPWJEFEHSFBUFSïFYJCJMJUZBOE îOBODJBMJODFOUJWFTGPSUIFEJTUSJDUUPSFDZDMFNPSFNBUFSJBM
WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 69 WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN · 2018-2036
Appendix I: Major Milestones, Events & Activities in Washington Co. Waste Management History
2013 Municipal Funding and Assistance: A work group including county, city, and township staff met to develop components PGBSFDZDMJOHQSPHSBNTDPSFDBSEƵƵ5IFTDPSFDBSEGFBUVSFTBDPOUJOVVNPGCFTUQSBDUJDFTGPSDJUJFTBOEUPXOTIJQTUP JNQMFNFOUBOEXJMMBMJHOXJUIUIFSFTJEFOUJBMSFDZDMJOHHSBOUQSPHSBN 2014 Communication and Events:TVCTDSJCFSTUP&OWJSPONFOUBMF6QEBUFOFXTMFUUFS Ƶ "TTJTUFE$BSQFOUFS/BUVSF$FOUFSXJUIBQQMZJOH[FSPXBTUFQSJODJQMFTUPUIFJS"QQMF#MPTTPNSVOOJOHSBDFTƵƵ5IPVHIUGVM planning and attention to overseeing the recycling, organics, and trash containers resulted in 91% of the waste produced BUUIFFWFOUCFJOHSFDZDMFEPSDPNQPTUFE Going Green Guide users surveyed about usefulness, content, and what time of year they would like to receive the guide Office Recycling: The Divert 70 office recycling and organics program expanding to all remaining locations in the Government Center, Courthouse, Law Enforcement Center, North Shop, Forest Lake Service Center, Woodbury -JDFOTF$FOUFS BOEUIF$PUUBHF(SPWF4FSWJDF$FOUFSƵ%JWFSUOPXTFSWFT DPVOUZFNQMPZFFTƵƵ"XBTUFTPSU conducted in July indicated that 83% of material produced by employees is now being diverted from the trash to recycling and composting Business Recycling: BizRecycling grant program begins with 19 grants provided to Washington County businesses in )VHP 8IJUF#FBS-BLF 8PPECVSZ 0BLEBMF 4UJMMXBUFS 0BL1BSL)FJHIUT BOE#BZUPXO5XQGPSBUPUBMPG ƵƵ Ten of these grants were awarded to Crossroads Properties for their buildings in Woodbury and Oakdale, which house CVTJOFTTFTƵƵ*OPSEFSUPTFSWFUIFTFCVTJOFTTFTFGGFDUJWFMZ 8BTIJOHUPO$PVOUZQBSUOFSFEXJUIUIF$JUZPG8PPECVSZ BOEQSPWJEFEGVOEJOHGPSBUFNQPSBSZTUBGGUFDIOJDJBOUPBTTJTUXJUISFDZDMJOHQSPHSBNJNQMFNFOUBUJPOBOEFEVDBUJPOƵƵƵ 2015 Planning/Policy:3BNTFZ8BTIJOHUPO$PVOUZ3FTPVSDF3FDPWFSZ1SPKFDU#PBSE OPXUIF3FDZDMJOH&OFSHZ#PBSE (Board) recommended the respective county boards approve purchase of the Recycling & Energy Center in Newport GPSNBMMZDBMMFEUIF3FTPVSDF3FDPWFSZ'BDJMJUZ ƵƵ5IFDPVOUZCPBSETDPOîSNFEUIF#PBSETEFDJTJPOƵ5IFQVSDIBTFXJMM enable the counties to develop a system that maximizes the use of trash as a resource, to the benefit of taxpayers, house IPMET BOECVTJOFTTFTƵ DRAFT Communication and Events:TVCTDSJCFSTUPUIF&OWJSPONFOUBMF6QEBUF Ƶ (PJOH(SFFOƵHVJEFXBTQSJOUFEBOENBJMFEJO.BSDIUPBMM SFTJEFOUJBMBEESFTTFTJOUIFDPVOUZƵƵ5IJTXBTUIFîSTU time the guide was distributed in spring and a survey included with the guide showed that 89% of residents preferred to SFDFJWFJUJOUIFTQSJOHƵƵ Staff helped establish recycling best practices and organics collection at three events: the Carpenter Nature Center Apple #MPTTPN3BDFT UIF)EBZDBNQ BOEUIF4OFBLFSTBOE4NPSFTSVOXBMLTQPOTPSFECZUIFDPVOUZTXFMMOFTTDPNNJU UFFƵƵ5IFTFFWFOUTXFSFBCMFUPSFDZDMFBOEDPNQPTUCFUXFFOBOEPGUIFXBTUFQSPEVDFE Office Recycling: Waste assessments were provided to Washington County Parks, Government Center cafeteria and UIF-&$LJUDIFOBOEKBJMBOEMBUFSJODPSQPSBUFEJOUPDPVOUZTJOUFSOBM%JWFSUQSPHSBNƵƵ Waste Reduction, Reuse, & Recycling: Twenty-six schools participate in organics recycling, with over 18,100 students QBSUJDJQBUJOHBOEUPOTQFSTDIPPMZFBSCFJOHSFDZDMFEBTIPHGFFEPSDPNQPTUFEƵƵ Carton recycling begins in six schools in the South Washington County district resulting in over thirty-four tons of milk EJWFSUFEGSPNUSBTIBOEPWFS DBSUPOTSFDZDMFEQFSTDIPPMZFBSƵƵ5IFTFTDIPPMTBMTPJNQMFNFOUFESFDZDMJOHCFTU QSBDUJDFTJOUIFDMBTTSPPNBOEPGîDFBSFBTƵƵƵƵ Ƶ UPOTPGSFDZDMBCMFTDPMMFDUFEDVSCTJEF MCTQFSTPO
WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 70 WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN · 2018-2036
Appendix I: Major Milestones, Events & Activities in Washington Co. Waste Management History
2015 Business Recycling: #J[3FDZDMJOHHSBOUTXFSFBXBSEFEUPCVTJOFTTFTGPSBUPUBMPG ƵƵ#VTJOFTTFTXFSF MPDBUFEJO$PUUBHF(SPWF %FONBSL5XQ )VHP -BLF&MNP .BIUPNFEJ /FXQPSU 0BL1BSL)FJHIUT 0BLEBMF 4U1BVM1BSL 4UJMMXBUFS BOE8PPECVSZ A BizAware grant was awarded to the Stillwater Independent Business Alliance to promote the BizRecycling program UPCVTJOFTTFTJOUIF4UJMMXBUFSBSFBUISPVHIFWFOUTBOEPUIFSCVTJOFTTDPOUBDUTƵƵ5IFHSBOUJTGPS ZFBSBOE DBOCFSFOFXFEUJNFTUPQSPWJEFDPOUJOVJUZGPSUIFQSPHSBNƵƵƵ Municipal Funding and Assistance: Worked with cities and townships on waste and recycling services procurement BOEPSESBGUJOHPSEJOBODFQSPWJTJPOTUPMFBEBMTPUPUFNQMBUFTGPSPUIFSDPNNVOJUJFTUPVUJMJ[F The department developed an online system to improve the current residential recycling data management system, financial information related to county’s municipal recycling grant funding program, and the grant application process that XJMMCPUISFEVDFDPVOUZTUBGGSFTPVSDFTBOEDJUZUPXOTIJQTUBGG5IFTZTUFNFOBCMFTUIFDPVOUZUPDPMMFDU NBOBHFBOE SFQPSUPOSFTJEFOUJBMSFDZDMJOHBOEHSBOUJOGPSNBUJPODPMMFDUFEBUWBSJPVTUJNFTPGUIFZFBSCFHJOOJOHJO3FTJEFOUJBM haulers providing service in the county report waste and recycling data in 2016 until move to MPCA statewide online data DPMMFDUJPOPGIBVMFSEBUB 2016 Planning/Policy: The R&E Board takes possession of the Resource Recovery Facility in Newport and renames it the 3FDZDMJOH&OFSHZ$FOUFS Communication and Events: The Going Green guide was printed and mailed in March to all 97,000 residential BEESFTTFTJOUIFDPVOUZƵƵƵ Staff helped continue recycling best practices and organics collection at three events: the Carpenter Nature Center "QQMF#MPTTPN3BDFT UIF&NQMPZFF)FBMUI 4BGFUZ BOE8FMMOFTTFWFOU BOEUIF$IJMESFOT8BUFS'FTUJWBMƵƵ5IFTF events were able to recycle and compost between 74% and 89% of the waste produced! Toxicity Reduction:'JSTUGVMMZFBSPGFYQBOEFE8BTIJOHUPO$PVOUZ&OWJSPONFOUBM$FDRAFTOUFSIPVSTƵƵ5IF&OWJSPONFOUBM$FOUFS JTOPXPQFOIPVSTQFSXFFLDPNQBSFEUPIPVSTCFGPSFUIFDIBOHFXBTNBEFJO/PWFNCFS5IF$FOUFSIBEB SFDPSEZFBSJOTFSWJOH DVTUPNFSTBOESFDZDMJOHPWFSNJMMJPOQPVOETPGFMFDUSPOJDT5IF8$&$'SFF1SPEVDU 3PPNHBWFBXBZ QPVOETPGQBJOU DMFBOFSTBOEPUIFSJUFNTXJUIBSFUBJMWBMVFPGBMNPTU ƵƵ8$&$ confidential paper shredding events served 2,500 cars and destroyed 145,895 pounds of personal documents in ƵƵ*OSFTQPOTF 8$&$IBTFYQBOEFEUPGPVSQBQFSTISFEEJOHFWFOUTJOƵƵ Office Recycling:Divert 70 expands into the remaining areas of the Jail and LEC and public areas of the government DFOUFS JODMVEJOHDPOGFSFODFSPPNTBOEUIFDBGFUFSJB"XBTUFTPSUXBTDPOEVDUFEBOESFTVMUTTIPXFEUIBUPGXBTUF JTCFJOHEJWFSUFEGSPNUIFUSBTIUPSFDZDMJOHBOEDPNQPTUJOQBSUJDJQBUJOHFNQMPZFF%JWFSUMPDBUJPOT0WFSBMM UIF capture rate was 92%, signifying that an estimated 8% of recyclable (recycling and compost) material is still being NBOBHFEBTUSBTI
WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 71 WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN · 2018-2036
Appendix J: County Oversight of the Private Sector/Waste Industry
Minnesota Statutes § 473.805 Subd. 5 states:
3PMFPGQSJWBUFTFDUPS DPVOUZPWFSTJHIU A county may include in its solid waste management master plan and in its plan for county land disposal abatement a determination UIBUUIFQSJWBUFTFDUPSXJMMBDIJFWF FJUIFSJOQBSUPSJOXIPMF UIFHPBMTBOESFRVJSFNFOUTPGTFDUJPOTƵBOE BTMPOH as the county: (1) retains active oversight over the efforts of the private sector and monitors performance to ensure compliance with the MBXBOEUIFHPBMTBOETUBOEBSETJOUIFNFUSPQPMJUBOQPMJDZQMBOBOEUIFDPVOUZNBTUFSQMBO (2) continues to meet its responsibilities under the law for ensuring proper waste management, including, at a minimum, enforcing waste management law, providing waste education, promoting waste reduction, and providing its residents UIFPQQPSUVOJUZUPSFDZDMFXBTUFNBUFSJBMT BOE (3) continues to provide all required reports on the county’s progress in meeting the waste management goals and standards PGUIJTDIBQUFSBOEDIBQUFS" In accordance with Appendix D of the Regional Solid Waste Policy Plan, this appendix explains Washington County’s conformance XJUIUIJTMBX5IFTPMJEXBTUFNBOBHFNFOUTZTUFNTFSWJOHUIFDPVOUZ BOEUIF&BTU.FUSPBSFBJOHFOFSBM JTDPNQSJTFEPGB DPNCJOBUJPOPGTFSWJDFTQSPWJEFECZQVCMJDBOEQSJWBUFFOUJUJFT0WFSUIFDPVSTFPGZFBST TJODFUIF8BTUF.BOBHFNFOU"DU XBTFOBDUFE UIFTZTUFNIBTFWPMWFEUPBDPOEJUJPOJOXIJDIUIFQSJWBUFTFDUPSQSPWJEFTBOVNCFSPGTFSWJDFT5IFSFGPSF UIF QSJWBUFTFDUPS CPUIQVCMJDBOEOPUGPSQSPîUPSHBOJ[BUJPO QMBZBDSJUJDBMSPMFJODBSSZJOHPVUTPMJEXBTUFGVODUJPOTJOUIFDPVOUZ The tools Washington County uses to hold the private sector accountable include: 3FHVMBUJPOoUISPVHIBTTVSJOHDPNQMJBODFXJUIDPVOUZPSEJOBODFTBOE XIFSFBQQMJDBCMF TUBUFMBXTUIBUSFMBUFUP solid waste management, $POUSBDUToUISPVHIBTTVSJOHDPNQMJBODFXJUIWPMVOUBSZBHSFDRAFTFNFOUTFOUFSFEJOUPCFUXFFOBVOJUPGHPWFSONFOU and a private entity .POJUPSJOHBOESFQPSUJOHoHBUIFSJOHJOGPSNBUJPOGSPNQSJWBUFQBSUJFTUPNPOJUPSBDUJPOTSFMBUFEUPUIFTPMJEXBTUFTZTUFN
WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 72 WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN · 2018-2036
Appendix J: County Oversight of the Private Sector/Waste Industry
The private sector, in partnership with the public sector, is responsible for portions of the solid waste system, with oversight by the county as shown:
Function Provided By Oversight Method
Collection of waste, Private for-profit and non-profit t-JDFOTJOHPGIBVMFSTPGNJYFENVOJDJQBMTPMJEXBTUF recyclables, organics, companies, including specialty t-JDFOTJOHBOEJOTQFDUJPOPGUSBOTGFSTUBUJPOTGPS yard waste companies MSW and non-MSW t3FQPSUJOHCZDPMMFDUPSTPG.48 SFDZDMBCMFT
Collection and delivery Private waste hauling companies t&OGPSDFNFOUPG8BTUF%FTJHOBUJPOQSPWJTJPOTPG of Acceptable Waste to solid waste ordinance the R&E Center t.POJUPSJOHBOEFOGPSDFNFOUPGXBTUFEFMJWFSZ agreements
Processing and Private for-profit and non-profit t.POJUPSJOHPGSFHVMBUJPOCZ.1$" marketing of recyclables companies t3FTQPOTFUPDPNQMBJOUT t3FWJFXPGSFQPSUJOHSFRVJSFECZDPOUSBDUPS.1$"
Land disposal Private landfills in Minnesota t"TTVSJOHDPNQMJBODFXJUIDPOUSBDUTCFUXFFOUIF andDRAFT Wisconsin R&E Board and landfills for disposal Portions of services provided Private companies under t"TTVSJOHDPNQMJBODFXJUIDPOUSBDUT to residents, such household contract to Washington County hazardous waste services
Collection of residential Services provided to t"TTVSJOHDPNQMJBODFXJUIDPVOUZNVOJDJQBMSFDZDMJOH recyclable municipalities under HSBOUBHSFFNFOUTCFUXFFODPVOUZBOEDJUJFTUPXO contract or via ordinance TIJQTUIBUPVUMJOFSFTJEFOUJBMSFDZDMJOHSFRVJSFNFOUT t5FDIOJDBMBTTJTUBODFUPDJUJFTUPBTTVSFSFDZDMJOH service agreements are enforceable t3FWJFXJOHSFQPSUJOHUPDJUJFTUPXOTIJQTCZ service providers if by contracts, ordinances t3FWJFXJOHSFQPSUJOHUPUIF.1$"CZSFDZDMFST
Collection of Services provided to t.POJUPSJOHDPNQMJBODFXJUITUBUFMBXSFRVJSJOH non-residential non-residential waste recycling by certain businesses recyclables, including organics generators t.POJUPSJOHTFSWJDFMFWFMTBOERVBMJUZUISPVHI BizRecycling program
WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 73 BOARD MEETING DATE: Request for Board Action November 07, 2017 AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: Commissioner's Report 13 Department Information
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: REQUESTOR: REQUESTOR PHONE: Public Health & Environment Jeff Travis 651-430-4033 PRESENTER(S): MEDIA CONTACT: MEDIA CONTACT PHONE: jeff travis Jeff Travis 651-430-4033
Agenda Item Details
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF YOUR REQUEST: Public Health and Environment will conduct a workshop updating the County Board on the yard waste collection project.
AGENDA YOU ARE REQUESTING TIME ON: ARE YOU SEEKING APPROVAL OF A CONTRACT? Workshop No TIME NEEDED: 30 IS THIS MANDATED? EXPLANATION OF MANDATE: No BACKGROUND/JUSTIFICATION: Gaps in convenient yard waste service have been identified in the community and the county is in the process of siting additional yard waste collection sites to make service more readily available.
PREVIOUS ACTION ON REQUEST / OTHER PARTIES INVOLVED? Yes Board Workshops on September 27, 2016 and June 27, 2017.
Budget Information
FUNDING: NA
Approvals
COUNTY ATTORNEY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR: George Kuprian Molly O'Rourke
RECOMMENDATIONS: N/A RECOMMENDATIONS: Approved COMMENTS: COMMENTS: Public Health and Environment Yard Waste Update November 7, 2017 Background
• Residents may need additional yard waste management options – Private operators have not filled gaps in service – Municipal sites are strained • Board Workshop: September 27, 2016 – Reviewed program options – Direction to develop implementation plan to fill gaps in service • Board Workshop: June 27, 2017 – Reviewed Implementation plan for potential sites in Forest Lake, Lake Elmo, and Stillwater Current Yard Waste Sites • No or limited yard waste sites in Center and Northeast part of county • Limited services in some areas, grass only, no brush or tree waste • All municipal sites limit access to residents Coverage With Proposed Sites Current Activities
• Continue work to establish collection operations at the three identified sites: – Forest Lake, Lake Elmo, Stillwater • Collaborate with GIS unit to develop maps of publicly owned property • Collaborate with Public Works and meet with realtor consultants • Discussing options with Hugo
5 Lake Elmo Site
• Potential site located along 10th Street; possibly adjacent to Oakdale Gun Club • Site is within Lake Elmo Park • Reviewed sight lines near Park entrance • Discussing land acquisition and access issues with Public Works – Will need to coordinate with Met Council – May require center turn lane
6 Lake Elmo
7 Potential Site Layout – Lake Elmo
8 Forest Lake Site
• Establish interim site at location of current Forest Lake yard waste site • City Administrator has discussed short term lease with City Council • Developed land use lease in coordination with county attorney’s office – Two year lease with one year extension • Forest Lake staff are reviewing lease • Potential to open in 2018 as interim county site • City needs to develop site master plan
9 Forest Lake
10 Potential Site Layout – Forest Lake
11 Stillwater Site
• Potential site at Hwy 36 and Manning has been redeemed by property owner • Owner is working with developers on a plan for the site • Other development plans in the area
12 Stillwater Site
13 Woodbury
• Compost Concepts has previously suggested they will be closing • Discussion with Woodbury to include future space for potential yard waste site near South Public Works and Environmental Center
14 Conclusion
• Working on identified sites • Looking for other locations should these sites not come to be • Engineering consultant standing by to develop site plans and build-out sites
15 Questions?
16