Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/15/1995 - Solid Waste Abatement CommissionMINUTES OF THE SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION Eagan, Minnesota June 15, 1995 A regular meeting of the Eagan Solid Waste Abatement Commission was held on Thursday, June 15, 1995 at 5:30 p.m. Present were Terry Davis, Dan Breva, John Tapper, Patrick Frater, Floyd Hiar, Wally Wall, AI Swenseld and Ken Ische. Absent was Jim Weinzettel. Also present were Communications/Recycling Coordinator Joanna Foote, Mike Bercopec of Waste Management and Ron Moaning of BFI. AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented, no motion was made. MINUTES The minutes of the April 20, 1995 Solid Waste Abatement Commission meeting were reviewed by the commission members. It was pointed out that Ron Moening attended and should have been noted in the minutes. On page 3 of the minutes, two commission members, Welnzettel who voted for and Davis who voted against, were omitted on the vote in the eighth paragraph. Upon motion by Hiar, seconded by Tapper the minutes were approved. Also on page 7, the last sentence of the first paragraph should read ...City is using an unlicensed hauler for the City Hall construction project, when there are more than 23 companies .... Upon motion by Tapper, seconded by Wall, the minutes were approved as amended. Upon a motion by Ische, seconded by Breva, the May 19, 1995 minutes were approved. All members voted In favor. STAFF REPORT A. Dakota County Staff Update.- Gayle Prest— Gayle Prest was present to give a Dakota County staff update. She stated that there was a County workshop with county commissioners that Wall and Hier had also attended, earlier in the day. 1. Solid Waste Service Fee Ms. Prest stated that the County Is considering implementing a service fee for sold waste. This can be accomplished either as a fine Rem on property taxes or a fee collected as part of the billing process by haulers. Several haulers and facility operators were present at a meeting with the County but no vote was taken. This Rem will be discussed at the June 27, 1995 Dakota County Physical, Development Board meeting. Frater asked Ms. Prest the reason for Implementation of a service fee. Prest responded that this would be a primary funding source for the department and that none of the funds come from general taxes. He asked If the reason they're asking for the service fee was because of the waste reduction activity being so successful that less waste is going into the landfills, or is R because the tax on the users Is causing less activity at the landfills. Prest responded R was both. In either case if its collected Solid Waste Abatement Commission Minutes June 15, 1995/Page 2 through the haulers or the property tax statement, It would not take affect until January 1, 1996. Frater asked if the County was trying to get away from a user tax and go to a general funds tax. She responded not necessarily If the haulers collect the user fee. Davis asked if removing the $11 charge would make the Dakota County landfills more competitive with out state landfills. Prest replied that this is not where the county discussion Is focussing but that the County needs a stable funding source. It costs $1.2 million to process Dakota County waste and the County needs to find a way to finance this cost Frater asked If there was a way to tax waste per ton or per household. Prest responded that there are other ways of doing this, for Instance, Hennepin county has a 9% tax for residential and 14.5% tax for commercial. Anoka, Carver, Ramsey, and Washington counties all have the charge on property tax statements. One of the Issues that came up was if we take $11 off the landfills, would haulers reduce their rates. After discussing this with the haulers, It was discovered that between $12 - $13 is what each resident pays per year for landfill surcharges. She stated that they would like to see haulers reduce their Fates to compensate, thus making it revenue neutral. Ische stated that its necessary to determine department needs, and ask why if less waste is going to landfills, why doesn't the County budget drop. He commented that it seems market forces don't appy to government. Prest said the County staff Is looking at ways to reduce the budget and have done so in some areas. 2. Policy for Solid Waste Processing— Prest distributed handouts from the board meeting. Hier referred to the County meeting and stated that they are doing a disservice to put out numbers. After talking to commissioners there Is no way these will be the final numbers. The County spent too much time comparing themselves to other counties and how low their service fees are. There are just too many variables and Its too early to discuss actual costs. Prest stated that this Is true, there are a number of scenarios to be considered. This information Involves the policy issues that are being considered and that they are currently looking at broader based policy Issues. There was further discussion regarding the fees and solid waste processing. Hier stated that processing means incineration, composting and creating refuse derived fuel. The remaining Is commingled recyckabkes, not collected at curbside. Frater asked whether state law requires every county to have a facility within Its borders. Prest replied that it does not. Hier stated that outstate counties work collectively for waste processing. Davis asked whether the NSP facility has reached capacity. Prest stated that they are not always at capacity but not consistently. The Hennepin county incinerator lowered its tip fees and is asking for a higher user fee which is not competitive. Frater asked if there were any limitations on hauling waste to other states. Davis stated that there is no problem as waste falls under the Interstate Commerce Act and, therefore, the counties cannot restrict hauling of waste to other states. 3. Commercial Seminars— Prest explained that the County has held a number of seminars for businesses. The first was for manufacturers, the second for churches and th third Is targeted at financial Institutions. Solid Waste Abatement Commission Minutes June 15, 1995/Page 3 Prest stated that the County Is targeting various businesses so they can provide more specific information. The sessions have been fairly well attended so far. C. Correspondence regarding Eagan's hauling system— Hiar stated that he did not feel a response to a resident's letter (Ms. Gott) on page 18 was necessary. Foote stated that it Is staffs practice to respond to all letters received. Hier stated concern about the wording of a letter. Foote stated that she will explain the current hauling system and encourage attendance of Solid Waste Abatement Commission meetings. Hier stated that this Is an old established area and the streets In that area are in need of constant repair. When trucks come through and they are all on the same day, it creates a perception of a lot of trucks, consequently, It's Important to be careful with the response. Frater stated he is glad to see that someone in the community is disappointed and actually commenting about the system. Davis stated that if there was an opportunity to group with neighbors, this should be suggested. Foote stated her response would be to explain the system as it is to day, how it has changed and to let residents know that they can organize their own neighborhoods. Davis suggested that Ms. Gott be invited to sit In on SWAC meetings to address the issue she's talking about. Perhaps she could come away with a different perspective on the Issue. Hier stated that the noise she is experiencing is one day a week, not five as It used to be. Member Wall left the meeting at 6:20 p.m. OLD BUSINESS A. Waste Collection Systems Discussion— Review Council Action Regarding Ordinance Changes and initial Organized Collection recommendations— Foote played a video tape of the June 6 Council meeting action on the proposed ordinance changes and initial organized collection recommendations. After the video was presented, Davis asked for commission member comments. Frater stated that he was very upset at the Council's response. He stated that the ordinance change had been discussed for sbr months and. there was always a concern that we didn'tresolve this Issue too quickly. We studied it at length to come up with a reasonable option and if they're reading the minutes, they're reading different ones than I read. If they really feel that they want a different result from us, than why don't they come out and say that. Swenseid stated that It sounded as though the City Council wanted more Information as to how we based our recommendation and It seems that Councilmember Hunter wants us to select one hauler and put it out for bids every five years. Breva stated that there still seems to be a perception that there are a dozen trucks on the road everyday when, In fact, It's only one day a week In any area. Ische stated that he doesn'tthink they mean every day In every neighborhood, they know our system better than that. Hlar stated that even though the commission has gone into a lot of detail, he didn't think the Council understands the system. Breva stated they need to clearly define City involvement In each system option - City staff costs, taxpayer costs - these are the key factors to look at as costs for the City. Hiar said the City Council missed the point the commission was trying to make with the licensing of construction/demotition haulers and that there are commercial haulers hauring In the community that are not licensed. The Issue of having flyby -night demolition construction haulers licensed Is a parallel to them, Solid Waste Abatement Commission Minutes June 15, 1995/Page 4 its one in the same. Why license commercial at all, let's Just license residential. How do we make the City Council see that ft is a separate Issue? It's something that came out as a part of what's wrong with the system we have here. We took the study a long way but never released a document on this process. Do we also have to put in there that all the other trucks In town are hauling without a license and the commission is concerned about this. Frater stated that he Is confused as to why the two Issues of the ordinance change and the Issue of organized hauling were lumped together. They are two separate Issues. Foote stated that both Items were In the memo presented to the Council. The Council had been very specific about not considering the roll -off Issue ahead of the organized hauling Issue. It was felt that it would be more palatable to combine the Issues and present them in that manner. That way the Council could see that the commission is working on both Issues concurrently. Hier stated that the commission had talked about this and he was very dissatisfied. He does not feel that the commission's correspondence to the City Council should be a memo from Foote to Hohenstein which did not have great detail in ft. A month and a half after It was written we had another meeting and what Foote presented to the Council should have been on paper. He didn't expect the memo to be presented to the Council. Foote reminded the commission that they had reviewed her memo prior to its presentation to the Council. It should have been stressed that this would be enforced through the building permits. It should have been on paper in front of the Council rather than you being grilled publicly. Foote stated that we don't implement a process before the ordinance Is In place. Hiar continued that she could have said that It would be through the building permit process and explain the mechanism to prevent unlicensed haulers coming in. Health and safety issues should have been stressed. Davis asked the commission how they are going to move forward. Frater stated that he is really bothered by this. He stated that as a commission member he understands what the Council does. They are there to make laws, the Solid Waste Abatement Commission Is there to make recommendations but I don't believe that It is appropriate for them If they don't like our recommendation to tell us to come back with another one. Davis stated that he didn't get the feeling that the Council didn't like the organized collection Issue, they didn't see it documented in writing in front of them. Breva stated that he doesn't think It can be done with written documentation that they Just don't understand the system. They need to understand the current system before they can pick up on changes in the system. Ische stated that licensing of roll -offs is Important and that ft should have been kept separate from the residential hauling system. They should have been told that construction debris Is not a regular pick up and our present system Is a waste of resources, energy and money. Organized hauling would be more efficient. Hiar stated that one way to achieve a full study would be to hire professionals again to complete an overall study and that would cost the City $30,000 - $50,000. We have enough knowledgeable people and enough interest by the hauling community to work together and work through this process. It's not necessary to overpower the City Council with data and details which ends up being a philosophical Issue anyway. He commented that this had been handled well and not hastily. He suggested that a task force be formed to study licensing of construction demolition debris haulers and bring back solid comments to be acted upon when the time is appropriate and we wont have the Council criticizing us for taking away time from our meetings. Frater stated that he heard the Council state why are we discussing roll -offs when there have not been any complaints. I want to ask why are we discussing organized hauling when we have not had any complaints. Davis stated that a couple of the Councilmembers had received complaints. Hiar stated that we talked about the nature of the calls from citizen and looks as though it's not as great a problem as ft is perceived. Tapper said that at the retreat he saw a mixed Council. He stated that It seems that the Council is giving direction yet they are undecided among themselves. He continued that Wachter gave the Solid Waste Abatement Commission Minutes June 15, 1995/Page 5 original charge, Awada has a hands-off attitude, Hunter seems to be looking for more Information. He stated that the Issue of roll -offs should be resubmitted with more Information. Irs necessary to communicate to the Council that we have researched the issue and we're not jumping Into anything. Frater stated that the decisions this commission has made to date should be summarized chronologically. He said that we did not give the Council a 30 page paper because the commission is not qualified to provide a consulting study but the Council should be given a summary of the last sbr months on paper. I don't want the Council to get the Idea that the commission has wasted its time the last six months. Davis commented that the commission has not been wasting time. The Council has other commissions to deal with also and the Solid Waste Abatement Commission minutes aren'tthe only ones they receive. The commission may need to work on what to present to the Council and how it is laid out. Frater sold that the commission needs to show the Council the time spent on this Issue and that it was not a hasty decision. Foote stated that the perception is how we are narrowing, if the Issues that this commission is eliminating are not the things the Council would e0minate first, there's going to be a difficulty. Hiar stated.that he is not concerned about the City Council positions. We'll do what we believe Is right. For the next meeting he would Oke staff to provide a summary. He said that street wear can't be quantified. He stated that the City should not have a municipally run garbage system. Thera one thing the City needs to dismiss, the City does not want to be In the trash business. The commission needs to give the Council what they want and move on. He suggested a workshop to discuss this Issue. Davis commented that a summary Is needed and they may need to do that face to face. He continued that he would Oke the commission to get everything together for the next meeting so the Council can be Invited to a workshop. Hiar has offered to work on roll -offs outside of the commisslon meetings and it's Important to keep it moving. Hiar stated there should be three people Involved as a part of the task force. Frater volunteered to be on the task force committee. Hier suggested that Wall may be Interested In being a member also. Swenseid stated that he would volunteer If Wall Is not Interested. Ische stated that he finds it hard to believe that the road wear Isn't reduced with fewer trucks on the roads. Just because data hasn't been gathered doesn't mean it's unquantifiable. He commented that the City should get involved if they think it's a good thing. He stated he still believes that organized hauling is a good thing. Breva commented that It's important to keep in mind that complaints will generally increase with the summer months and lids being outside. Davis stated that the staff needs to list chronologically all the events over -the last few months and come up with a summary. The subcommittee will work on roll -offs to come up with a summary on what has been accomplished. It may not be the way it will be presented. But as we analyze each of the systems we need to analyze the impact on the citizens and on the City for each of those systems and hopefully, from the data we can put it on a page or two What Foote comes up with won't necessarily be what's presented to the City Council. It's necessary to look at the Impact on citizens and the City for each of those systems as well as the costs to the City. Solid Waste Abatement Commission Minutes June 15, 1995/Page 6 Foote discussed a matrix handed out previously. She explained that a chart could list specific reasons in each of the cells. Davis stated that it could be simplified by putting each type of hauling such as municipally owned, single hauler independent, consortium or present system. That's basically all of the systems. Hier state that he has a hard time with the matrix, which was created before the system used today was developed. There have been a lot of changes and he does not like the categories because some of them dont exist. Foote stated the matrix can be filled out and used however the commission would Eke -it was part of the process that helped establish the current districting system and Foote stated that it might be helpful again In defining and narrowing the system. Frater asked for the visitors to speak and if they had suggestions for the commission. Ron Mooning of BFI stated that he agreed that the commisison needs to give more information to the City Council. The commission needs to Est out what has been accomplished. There has been a lot of discussion and the Council needs to realize the work the commission has done. Mike Bercopec of Waste Management said that there may be a lack of understanding by the Council of the impacts of organizing a collection system, that it Is not the kind of Issue you can study and drop. You need to make a decision to do it at this time. Once the door is opened to organizing a system, a lot can happen and this affects a lot of people. Ische asked Mr. Bercopec if he had been through this kind of process before and he replied he is currently working through an organized collection discussion that has been under way for the past two years with the city of Chanhassen. Davis asked that the commission if they know what needs to be done for the next meeting. Hier stated that they need to decide if they're going to use the matrix. Davis replied that he did not Eke the way it was worded and it seems unclear and it's Important to remember who the audience Is. Hier commented that perhaps staff could work one up on the municipal system for the next meeting. Foote stated that she will prepare a one page sheet for each system type and the commisison can then fill in the pros and cons of each type. Davis stated that these can then be started and added to. Frater commented that they need to define the system. Hier said that to simplify thing they could start with looking at a municipal system, etc. - look at a municipal system and review the material at the next commission meeting. Hier requested that the summary and thes pages be sent out prior to the commission, perhaps in two weeks. B. New Commercial Hauler License Applications— Foote updated the commission that there were four commercial licenses coming up for consideration by the Council. They were Dana's, United Waste Transfer, Waste Control and Randy's. Poor Richard's will no longer be licensed. ADJOURNMENT Upon motion by Tapper, seconded by Breva, all members voting in favor, the meeting was adjourned at 7:23 p.m. Chair Date