Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/20/1995 - Solid Waste Abatement CommissionMINUTES OF THE SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION Eagan, Minnesota April 20, 1995 A regular meeting of the Eagan Solid Waste Abatement Commission was hell on Thursday, April 20, 1995 at 5:00 p.m. Present were Terry Davis, Patrick Frater, Jim Weinzeftel, John Tapper, Floyd Hier, Ken Ische, AI Swenseid, Wally Wall, and Dan Breve. Also present were Communications/Recycling Coordinator Joanna Foote, Assistant to the City Administrator Hohenstein and Ron Moaning of BFI. AGENDA Hier requested that an additional Item be added under Old Business, B. Meeting Schedule and to change Item B. Waste Collection System Discussion to item C. Foote pointed out that Item C. under Staff Report should read 1994 Recycling 'Totals' not Tools. Upon motion by Breva, seconded by Hier, the agenda was approved as amended. MINUTES Chair Davis pointed out that the minutes of March 16 should but did not show him absent and upon motion by Tapper, seconded by Swenseid, all members voting in favor, the March 16, 1995 minutes were approved, as amended. STAFF REPORT Chair Davis stated that for this and future meetings he would rather that staff not review the staff report, unless there are other items not covered in the packet information. This will allow the commission more time to concentrate on the waste collection systems discussion. Of course, If there are questions about specific Items in the staff report commission members can discuss them. Hier asked about the 1995 Recycling Totals and where the City currently is regarding the goals. Foote responded that Eagan is well beyond Its goals. The goal was approximately 20 - 25% and Dakota County is estimating that Eagan reached about 40% abatement. She also stated that the totals are no longer being used because the formulas are no longer considered accurate. Consequently, they will not be used in the future. Chair Davis requested an update on the Council/Commission Retreat from the two members, Ken Ische and John Tapper, who attended. Tapper stated that the Council seemed disappointed that only two of the Solid Waste Abatement Commission members attended the retreat. He stated that the City Council listened to their concerns and the direction the commission is looking for from the Council. The Council wants the commission to move forward and make a decision about the waste collection system situation. The Council stated that they want the roll -off licensing Issue discussed after the waste collection systems discussion is completed. The Council wants a recommendation regarding waste hauling to be thehighest priority and then, if it wishes, the commission may make a recommendation regarding the licensing of demolition roll -off haulers. Tapper stated they also discussed having a semiannual meeting with the Council and they were receptive to that. Solid Waste Abatement Commission Minutes April 20, 1995/Page 2 Hiar asked whether there was anything the Council did not approve of or didn't Ike concerning the Solid Waste Abatement Commission. Tapper replied that they had no complaints. Since they don't have the expertise in the area of solid waste Issues, they rely on the commisslon to make recommendations. Foote stated that the Council expressed their appreciation of the work the commission does and has confidence in ft's expertise. The Council stated that they read the minutes thoroughly and follow what the commission is doing and the decisions being made. In reference to the Council direction that the issue of licensing construction roll -offs as a secondary issue, Wall stated that there Is a fundamental problem when you have a Dakota County group get together and talk about an ordinance 110 and you're someone that's running a demcon location for construction debris or a material recovery facility, interpret that surcharges at the landfill give them the appropriate margins at their processing facility or landfill. Those who aren't licensed are not paying for the tax or the roads to haul the materials to the landfills which leaves those that pay the surcharge subsidizing the unlicensed haulers. This is a fundamental issue within the industry and putting the roll -off Issue on the back bumer is not something he wishes to have happen. Wall also referred to an unlicensed hauler being used to haul debris away from the Police Facility construction project. He stated it Is just as critical to take care of the City's licensed haulers as it is those people living here that want one hauler. Foote stated that the Council is aware of the roll -off Issue and how important it is to the commission as a whole. She explained that the Council was informed that the roil -off situation also adds to the residents' perception of the number of haulers. The Council does understand that this is an important issue that needs to be discussed but they believe It should be dealt with as a separate issue, after the waste collection systems. They want a recommendation dealing with the residential issues first. Weinzettel stated that It is his understanding that the Council wants the commission to focus on the residential side of the issue now and get an action plan together. He asked if the mission statement has been created so that It Ines up with this Idea. Chair Davis stated that creating a mission statement was a charge of the commission, not the Council. He stated that it is not necessarily related to the charges of the Council regarding this Issue but it is more of a broad general statement. Wall commented that it is very difficult to watch the City bring in an unlicensed hauler to handle Its demolition debris, yet consider limiting the number of trucks hauling municipal solid waste (MSW). He stated that If the City licensed all haulers In the City, It would take ten minutes from a commisslon or Council agenda. Hiar commented that as a commission we can send a message to the City Council right now that we think We Inconsistent policy and we feel that demofition/construction haulers should be licensed for the same reasons we license residential and commercial haulers. We want to see to it that they meet Insurance standards and the health and safety Issues that the City requires. If the Council doesn't Ike It they can say no and they can get mad at us all they want but I'll tell you what, they can ask me not to serve and I'll still sit in the audience. I'm not worried about my tenure here, I think we have to do what's correct. We've talked stout this before and it got pushed under the carpet and I think we have a very visible situation right here at City Hall. I think that City administration ought to be turning to the contractors and saying get those guys out of here, we have X number of licensed haulers that provide the same service, now get one in here. Believe me that will push It ahead quickly. I'd take It two steps, I'd recommend they kick them off the job and use one of our licensed haulers that contribute to the City and, two, they move forward with whatever It takes and I don't think It'll take work out of our group to create a licensing structure because ICs there already, It's more of a staff situation in my mind. Solid Waste Abatement Commission Minutes April 20, 1995/Page 3 Chair Davis asked if there were any other commission members who would Oka to comment on this situation so that the discussion can be ended. He stated that the commission, as a majority, may feel the need to solve this concurrently as the group focusses on the residential collection, to minimize the amount of time being devoted to this Issue at the meetings. He continued, the Council clearly gave the commission a directive and Its Important to find a balance. He suggested that a group of about three members draft a plan outside of the meeting and bring it back to the commission with a proposal, consequently, It will reduce the amount of time spent discussing the Issue. Hiar stated that's another month or two month process. I don'tthink It requires that. I think Its real simple. The recommendation to the Council Is get them licensed and In the Interim period use some licensed haulers on the project and whatever it takes for the staff to do It, that's It. Upon motion by Hiar, seconded by Wall, the commission recommended to the Council to license all haulers within the City of Eagan. Discussion continued with no vote being taken. Hier stated that a list of licensed haulers should be given to all contractors applying for building permits and it should be made clear that those are the haulers they can use for construction demolition projects only. Weinzettel mentioned that a moratorium may need to be set for roil -off haulers also. Tapper mentioned a separate type of license for roll -offs might be better. Breva stated that he can see making a request from the Council regarding this but it would still be a ways down the road before Its in place. Davis stated that it's something that should be thought through. Breva added that the commission could let the City Council know its feelings on this Issue. After further discussion, Breva amended Hises motion to recommend to the Council that the construction/demoAtion roll -offs be licensed and that they meet all financial and other licensing requirements, including licensing through Dakota County and, further, that the City retain a licensed hauler for the City Hall building construction projects. Davis seconded the motion. Hier added that he would like to see action taken right away on licensing roll -offs and In removing the roll -off on the Police Facility project. Hohenstein responded that until there is an ordinance licensing construction/demolition roll -offs, there is no such thing as a licensed roll -off hauler so the City can't replace this hauler with a licensed roll -off hauler until such a requirement exists. The suggestion to replace the rolloff hauler with another hauler that's licensed and happens to do roll -offs in Eagan may be considered arbitrary and capricious. Davis stated that this Issue should be kept out of the motion. Hier stated that he would agree to that. The commission voted on the motion, those in favor were Hier, Wall, Welnzettel and Swenseid. Those against were Ische, Tapper, Davis and Breva. The motion died for lack of a majority vote. Member Frater joined the meeting at 5:55 p.m. Davis stated that he would Oka to drop this issue and wait until another time to discuss it further. He stated that this may be added as part of the discussion but not the central purpose. Hier responded that without being disrespectful, he would bring it up under waste systems collection, again, and try to get it resolved tonight. Davis responded that as Chair he will direct the discussion if the commdsslon Is not making progress on the residential waste collections discussion. He continued that it is Important to narrow the focus and not spend too much time on the roll -off Issue. He stated that there should be a few members from the commission to draft an ordinance and present It to the group, rather than taking so much time out of the meeting to discuss this issue. Sorid Waste Abatement Commission Minutes April 20, 1995/Page 4 Hier responded 01 disagree with you Mr. Davis. We can put this one to bed and have total focus on the residential issue without having to go outside and bring it back over the course of months or have months of delay which is inconsistent with what the Council Is asking for.' He continued, "I would like to pick up on what Wally has to offer and It's very pertinent, a totally consistent view with the Council's. 1 think they (these two Issues) have an equal importance If you're a business person who pays for a license in this city and trying to make your livelihood here hauling trash. It's very pertinent, therefore, I think we owe It to those that have paid for the licenses to move It on and If the Council decides to dump it, we dont want to touch it Its a hot potato, that's their privilege and then our table is cleared.' Davis responded that he does not want to talk about this Issue anymore tonight. He stated he would Oke two or three members to get together and bring something back next month to act upon. Wall commented that he did not believe that the commission agrees with Chair Davis about continuing this Item. He stated that along with the commission's approval for continuance of this item, he would like to know where we're at on the agenda and if it's brought back later in the evening, he would like It resolved rather than continuing It month after month. He continued that one of the commission members brought this issue up at least six months ago and asked for resolution prior to residential hauling being an Issue. He stated he would like it brought back now. Davis asked when they would discuss residential hauling, the commission's primary charge. Weinzettel asked if the residential hauling is the commission's primary focus or the Councils. Davis responded that this is what the Council has asked the commission to do. Weinzettel stated that we could go back and say that the commission doesn't agree with you that we want to discuss both issues. Davis stated that they have been talking around this issue for the past sbr months and keep getting side tracked, three months ago we talked about lopping off some of these systems that we know are not going to fit in and meet our needs for various collection systems. We could have eliminated a couple of the systems we did not want and could have narrowed our focus down, consequently, this Item (licensing construction/demoGtion roll -offs) could have been discussed before. Wall commented that he certainly did not want the commission to think that his frustration was because he represents a hauler. He stated his frustration is with the group and how things are taken care of. If we have priorities they need to be taken care of and moved forward. Welnzettel stated that he would like a motion made on this Item. He does not want to spend another half a meeting discussing ft. Hiar Interjected that 'When we get to Item C, if you don't want to deal with it now, we got sidetracked based on what the Council feels about us as a commission and what we were doing, therefore, we tried to do something quick and that didn't work. It will come out in Item C, I assure you. It relates to the papers, on pages 17-19 of the packet that were provided and weren't focussed on roll -offs In any way. There's what we can show and talk about and I think we can slam dunk it quite quickly, If need be. If we let the Council know that we are Indeed an autonomous committee that they rely on then let's have the backbone to bring them something that we believe in and think is important to what we're doing. I believe ft has been swept off the table a number of times, Its back on so let's get on with ft and make the process work.• OLD BUSINESS A. Adoption of 1995 Goals— Wall stated that he remembers that the commission spent most of the last meeting pdoritiang the goals and everything fell Into place. Hier moved to number the goals in the stated order, Tapper seconded the motion, all members voted in favor. Solid Waste Abatement Commission Minutes April 20, 1995/Page 5 Davis suggested that the goals actually be more complete sentences so they are more easily understood. Wall moved to let the goals stand as they are, Weinzettel seconded, all members voted in favor. B. Meeting Schedule— Hlar stated that there may be a conflict for the December 21 meeting. It should be moved to another date. Hlar moved to change the December 21 commission meeting to December 14. Wall seconded, all members voted in favor. C. Waste Collection Systems Discussion— Hlar asked Foote to review the joint Council/Commission retreat and those directions given by the Council regarding this Issue. She stated that as was mentioned previously, commission members Ische and Tapper attended. The City Council asked where the commission was on the residential waste collection Issue. Ische and Tapper updated the Council on the residential collection Issue and stated the commission's Interest in licensing roll -offs. Foote stated that the City Council stressed that they want a recommendation on residential waste collection first, then the roll -off Issue should be discussed. She stated that she and Jon Hohenstein explained the state statute to the City Council. One of the Council members stated that if the commission derides to go with organized hauling, it would be important to get the 180 day process started soon. If the commission is not interested in the 180 day organized hauling process, it needs to make a decision In that area also, as soon as possible. Weinzettel stated that he would like to give this commission a lot of credit for what they have done. He also stated that he feels that an organized hauling process would leave the commission. helpless. Davis stated that this commission has been discussing this for six months and he would like to know If the commission as a whole is Interested In organized hauling. If there Is no Interest in organized hauling or parts of it, it would help the commission get a sense of where it needs to spend Its time. Foote referred. to pages two and three of the packet. She stated that she numbered the recommendations, not in any special order, but to be able to refer to them by number. She continued that number 2 a, b, and c would be organized collection and require implementation of the 180 day process. as mandated by state statute. Hohenstein stated that its important to remember that the initial charge by the City Council was to identify ways to reduce the number of trucks on city streets. This does not necessarily mean organized hauling. If the comrrdsslon does discuss this Issue bear in mind that the original charge Is whether the commission is interested in seeing the number of trucks reduced as opposed to an Interest in number 2, organized collection. Davis stated that he made the assumption that the commission understood this. The comndssion has a responsibility to evaluate if there Is any way to reduce the number of trucks or encourage a change in that direction using systematic changes. That way if the members focus on the system, they can come up with new approaches. Hiar stated before asking each member's opinion, he would like to discuss the Information he included in the packet because the commission hasn't completed or released anything formally about what the existing system is today, Including the roll -off issue. He questions whether the Council reads the SWAC packet information. He stated he has talked to Council members who do not even know who their hauler is. They whine about some problem they're having and complain about another hauler who Isn't Solid Waste Abatement Commission Minutes April 20, 1995/Page 6 even theirs. He stated that the Council needs to defer to the commission and accept our expertise and let us do our work as it was given to us. He stated he will not support the City being in charge of collecting garbage under a municipal collection system. He doesn't know if anyone on the commisslon would support this type of system. Hier made a motion that the commission would not recommend municipal garbage collection, Frater seconded, all members voted in favor. Hier stated that he would like correspondence sent to the City Council that the commission Is not in favor of municipal hauling. Davis stated that this system should be eliminated so that they can discuss the remaining collection systems. Hiar stated it would help to discuss the current Eagan system and then discuss the various options afterwards. Davis asked the commission members for a vote on whether there should be discussion of an organized collection system, as defined in item number 2. Ische voted yes, Swenseid abstained, Wall, Weinzeftel, Tapper, Breva, Frater, Davis and Hiar voted no. stated that Rem 3 could be, theoretically, like hem 2. Ische stated that item number three comes close to the type of organized system he would like Implemented but he believes that residents should not have to do the organizing, the City should be responsible for that. Davis stated that hopefully the commission can focus on our current system and terminate discussions or analysts on omanized collections. Wall asked if the comisslon Is so proactive on not considering organized collection, why not eliminate R from the discussion. Wall stated that since a vote was taken not to consider organized hauling, there should be a motion presented. Frater made a motion that the commission restrict discussion to items outside of the organized hauling as defined in Rem number 2 that requires the 180 day statutory process, Breva seconded. Hiar amended the motion to state it is not the commission's recommendation that the Council consider a resolution of intent for implementation of the state statute process. We will deal with this, we don't need the Council to Jump In. In other words, that the commission does not recommend that the Council or commission pursue the 180 day process. Foote asked whether the commission would like her to include this in her correspondence to the Council regarding the commission's recommendation regarding organized collection. Foote was directed to do so. There was further discussion and the motion was voted on. All members voted in favor except for Ische who voted nay. Member Wall left the meeting at 6:30 p.m. Hiar asked for further discussion of pages 17 - 19. Frater asked that Hiar be brief, perhaps no more than 5 minutes. Hiar referred to page 17 and the fist of haulers licensed within the City of Eagan. He stated there are four separate categories of hauling - residential, commercial/apartments, commercial recycling and roll -offs. The first three columns show the current licensing structure. He stated there are six haulers Solid Waste Abatement Commission Minutes April 20, 1995/12age 7 providing the majority of residential service within the City. Therefore, the perception of how many haulers and how many trucks are in the neighborhoods is a myth. He continued that It seems Inconsistent that the City Is using an unlicensed hauler for the City Hall construction project when there are more than 23 companies within the community providing the service. Ron Manning of BFI said that it is very disturbing to rearize there are unlicensed haulers doing business within the City. Hohenstein replied that there is a specific exemption In the ordinance to allow construction debris as a separate type of material than other types of solid waste but if it Is an ongoing problem, we enforce on a complaint basis. Mr. Manning stated that not all roll -offs are hauling construction debris, some are hauling solid waste. Hiar stated that there are companies within the City using unlicensed haulers, Including Rainbow and Cub Foods. Hohenstein explained that It Is very difficult to enforce these types of things. It would be necessary to catch them in the act. Davis stated these are two different issues enforcement and licensing. Frater asked for clarification as to whether the City would license additional haulers, due to the moratorium, and does that include the rolloff haulers. Hohenstein responded that the moratorium only specifies residential refuse haulers, so would not have an impact on the number of roll -off licenses that could be Issued unless this commission wishes to Impose a licensing cap. Hier stated that there are six haulers that handle 81 % of the homes within the City. There are haulers that provide service to a very small portion of the city. Therefore, it is unfair to accuse all the haulers of having three trucks in all areas of the City, it's a perception not a reality. Weinzettel commented that in Hastings the Industry polices itself since all haulers must be licensed. If the other haulers become aware of an unlicensed hauler in the community, they contact the city and they take care of making sure the hauler becomes licensed. Hier stated that the building Inspectors should be involved in regulation because they would know who is licensed and they can police the problem on new building sites. He stated that roll -offs should be a separate category than the current residential, commercial or multi -family licenses with a separate fee. Weinzettel suggested taking a look at the licensing requirements for the City and maybe all thet's necessary Is to change the wording of the ordinance or the license. The Council then can take the necessary action on those changes. Breva moved, Weinzettel seconded, a motion to prepare a commission recommendation concerning licensing of roll -off haulers and to include a resolution containing factual rationale supporting the recommendation. Breva said that at the next meeting the changes would be reviewed and then recommended to the Council. Hier asked Hohenstein if the Council needs to agree to this type of change before staff spends time on ft. Hohenstein responded that if the commission's intention is to expand licensing, staff would need to meet with the attorney and then bring it back to the commission with the changes, allowing for the commission to review. Hiar commented that he doesn't understand whether ft is to be a separate license category. Foote responded that ft may come from the building division or another department as to how it would be set up. A fee might come from the builder as opposed to the hauler. She stated that City staff will review the matter and come up with an appropriate system If an ordinance change is adopted. All members voted in favor of the motion. Hohenstein stated that If anyone Is aware of an unlicensed hauler who is collecting municipal solid waste (MSW), not construction demolition debris, that this is an enforceable violation of the City's current licensing system. If staff is made aware of a violator we will take appropriate steps and Issue Solid Waste Abatement Commission Minutes April 20, 1995/Page S a violation notice. Hohensteln stated that in terms of health and welfare, the licensing process Involves regulating waste and collection.. If a demolition/construction roll -off license Is implemented, part of that regulation could. be to control the types of equipment used and health and safety issues. Hlar continued by noting that there Is a dumpsterat the Amoco on Yankee Doodle Road with the name 'Randy's' on It. He stated that this Is not a licensed hauler within the City and something should be done about that, he also noted that Rainbow foods Is using a hauler that is also not licensed in Eagan. Foote stated that she would Investigate these two sites. Manning commented that there are trucks in the city picking up appliances on certain days, this gives the residents a misleading perception that haulers are hauling In their areas. Foote said that these companies usually select certain days for pick up, but that it does Indeed add to the perceived number of haulers operating in Eagan. Hier stated that one of the options the commission should look at would be putting caps on the number of haulers in certain categories. Foote asked for clarification as to whether the commisslon would like a cap on the roll -offs included as part of the ordinance. Members stated they did not wish to implement a cap but the issue could be discussed further at the next meeting. ADJOURNMENT Upon motion by Weinzettel, seconded by Tapper, all members voting In favor, the meeting was adjourned at 7:10 p.m. Chair o Date