Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solid Waste Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County outlines draft solid-waste plan, seeks public comment on collection and organics strategies
Summary
Environmental services staff presented a draft update of Carver County’s solid-waste management plan, summarizing required and optional strategies and announcing a public-comment period ahead of submission to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
Brad Hansel, environmental services manager, briefed the board on the county’s draft solid-waste management plan update and the public-engagement steps the county will take before filing the plan with state reviewers.
Hansel said the Metropolitan solid-waste policy plan adopted Jan. 30, 2024, requires counties to update local plans within a nine-month window. Carver County requested an extension and will submit a draft to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency after a public comment period and a board resolution. Staff plans a public comment period lasting several weeks and a public hearing before final adoption.
The draft plan inventories the existing system and establishes quantifiable goals for landfill-diversion rates. Hansel reviewed required strategies the county must include, optional strategies staff recommends, and alternative strategies the county proposes for MPCA approval. Staff recommended 14 optional strategies totaling 100 points (the policy plan requires a county to select strategies totaling at least 75 points), and also proposed several alternative strategies to the MPCA that reflect programs the county already runs or is planning.
Hansel summarized results of a public survey (January–April 2024) with 891 responses. Two survey highlights Hansel cited: 65% of respondents supported requiring haulers to offer curbside organics collection; 48% opposed weekly curbside recycling if it increased monthly bills. He also described a 17‑member stakeholder group that met several times in 2024 and provided feedback on strategy selection.
Examples of strategies under consideration include increasing organics drop-off sites (the county currently operates five sites and has two more planned), deconstruction training for renovation projects, additional free recycling carts on request, and grants for reuse and repair. Staff did not recommend some strategies such as mandatory single-use-item bans or a requirement to contract for centralized residential collection.
Hansel said funding will come from the county’s solid-waste service fee (a $35 annual fee for single-family dwellings), state grants (SCORE and LRDG) and competitive onetime grants. He told the board he will return in February with a deeper review of long-term materially management and of the solid-waste service fee.
Commissioners asked about the cost of meeting state requirements and the effect on small businesses and residents; Hansel said staff would provide further cost analysis. The board did not take action at the work session; staff will release the draft for public comment and return with a final recommendation.
