Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/17/1995 - Solid Waste Abatement CommissionMINUTES OF THE SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT Eagan, Minnesota August 17, 1995 A regular meeting of the Eagan Solid Waste Abatement Commission was held on Thursday, August 17, 1995 at 5:30 p.m. Present were Rick Patraw, Dan Breva, John Tapper, Patrick Frater, Floyd Hier, Jim Weinzettel, Ken Ische, Wally Wall, and Al Swenseid. Absent was Terry Davis. Also present were Communications/Recycling Coordinator Joanna Foote, Assistant to the City Administrator Hohenstein, Ron Moaning of BF1 and Carl Peters of Waste Management - Savage. AGENDA A motion was made by Tapper, seconded by Wall, ell voted In favor, to accept the agenda as presented. Because of Chair Davis' absence, member Breva acted as Chair. MINUTES The minutes of the July 20, 1995 Solid Waste Abatement Commission meeting were reviewed by the commission members. Frater pointed out that the first sentence of the second paragraph on page four of the minutes should read 'Frater stated that he appreciates the Input and doesn't want the roll -off conversation to be...' Upon a motion by Frater, seconded by Tapper, the July 20, 1995 minutes were approved as amended. All members voted in favor. STAFF REPORT Foote distributed a handout regarding landfill abatement grant funding. Hiar Jointed the meeting at 5:40 p.m. Breva asked about the Enviro soil and whether Foote has received comments back on k. Foote responded that she has not but that there was an article in the Sun Current on the soil. She has not received any response back on the article. A. Introduce new Commission alternate member Rick Patraw— Foote Introduced Rick Patraw to the commission. He will be filling a vacant aftemate spot on the commission. Mr. Patraw Informed the commission of his background, he is an Eagan resident and also works for the Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance and interest in the area of solid waste and Involvement in the commission. B. Introduce new Recycling Intern Mary Chamberlain— Foote Informed the staff of the new Recycling Intem, Mary Chamberlain, she began her six month internship August 1 and will work approximately 20 hours per week through the end of 1995. She was unable to attend the meeting due to a conflict. Solid Waste Abatement Commission Minutes August 17, 1995/Page 2 OLD BUSINESS A. Waste Collection Systems Discussion - 1. Review "Recap of S.W.A.C. Action"— Foote distributed copies of a summary of Solid Waste Abatement Commission meeting action. The commission reviewed the summary page by page. Page A - Hlar pointed out that the word provide should be provided. Page B - Hiar asked about the underlining. Foote explained that she underlined the additions to allow easier referencing. Page D - Hiar asked that the last paragraph "staff had four letters" end at that point and remove the remaining Information about the letters. Foote replied that she had been asked by the commission members to Include specifics about each letter at the previous meeting. Hiar suggested not using so much detail. Tapper stated that since the letters were already summarized it would be hard to know what to take out. Frater stated that they are looking for something generic and not a recap of all of the letters. Hiar stated that the first letter should end after' we organized our neighborhood." Ische stated that the rest of the letter was very Important and should include the person's comments because he organized the collection in his neighborhood. Patraw commented that he had spoken with that particular person and that they had told him that the organizing of the neighborhood went well at first but eventually lost momentum and people lost Interest. Ische asked if he was tired of being the one responsible for keeping it up. Patraw replied that he fell that trying, to convince someone not of the original group to get Involved Just got to be too difficult. Breva stated that he does not see a problem with the summary of the letters and that it should not be changed. Page E - Hiar, in referring to the month of April, said that It should say the commission fell that it's important to "begin licensing" rather than change the ordinance. Foote stated that the ordinance would need to be changed In order to "begin licensing; therefore, it needed to be stated that way. Jon Hohenstein Joined the meeting at 6:05 p.m. Breva referred to the sixth sentence in the last paragraph on page E and suggested taking out the phrase "change the City ordinance and" since it Is repeated In the first paragraph on page F. Page F - Hiar refered to number 2 on page F and stated that it should be separated somehow because it looks awkward. Frater stated that it seems odd the way it falls. Breva suggested renumbering the list or separating.number 2 somehow. There was further discussion concerning number 2 and the commission decided to leave page F and number 2 the way It is. Welnzettel Joined the meeting at 6:10 p.m. Page G - Hiar suggested that In the paragraph after Item a the wording "that did not seem appropriate" be removed. Breva commented that they should reference 2C under "The commission voted to eliminate a Municipally run collection system (option 2C):.. ' The second option under this paragraph should read "Staff Increase required to operate and administer system." The last paragraph should specify eliminating 2B and 2A. The last paragraph should read options under Item 2) (2A and 2B) that would require... ' and the last sentence on the page changed to read "collection. The vote was based on the Sold Waste Abatement Commission Minutes August 17, 1995/Page 3 following factors previously reviewed and discussed:" Page H - Brava stated that the first sentence on the top of page H should be changed to read "under iters; 2) 2A and 2B Increase..." The underlined section in the third paragraph should be changed to read "and therefore conflicts..' The fourth paragraph on the page was deleted. Page I - Changes were suggested to the first sentence on the top of the page to "actions and discussions.... ' and the second sentence to "collection systems and to clarify.. Hiar stated that he fell there should be something listed under March, 1995 because that was when they put together the recommendation. There were months where some members weren't at the meetings. Frater stated that If Its mentioned in the cover letter, this would be a good way to Include It. Foote commented it had been agreed that this information would be in the cover letter. Breva suggested putting more detail in the cover letter and that the attached Is a summary. Hier stated that June 1995 should reflect a recap in preparation for the joint workshop. A motion was made by Hiar to accept the summary, as amended, as a draft through June of 1995, seconded by Frater, all members voted in favor. Foote distributed a handout which was an organized collection report prepared by staff at the City of Bloomington. She gave the commission background information on this report and stated that the Bloomington solid waste collection system is very similar to Eagan's. Foote stated that members should look at this Information for discussion at next month's meeting. 2. Systems Options Discussion Ische stated that the video from MNDot that he watched regarding road wear was very useful and felt it would have been helpful to have had earlier in our discussions. He stated that road damage Is exponential and that a nine ton axle Is the same as 25 cars. It also talked about road fatigue and how if roadways are constantly bending because of heavy road use, they eventually break. Frater commented that the video he watched was not as enlightening. It was suggested that the video Ische watched be viewed at the next commission meeting. Hier commented that the tape he watched discussed the Issue of the Interstate system that It was designed in the forties and that has been changed a couple time%since. The underlying message was that if legislation is going to change axle weight configurations, the political process better take a hard look at what that means to the Interstate system. They spent a lot of time on bridges and the flexibility Issue. He fell there was a message there for congress and the trucking industry, but was not necessarily pertinent to the waste systems discussion. Breva suggested going through the matrix which is a comparison of solid waste collection systems and the advantages and disadvantages to each system. Hiar asked if it's necessary to have four columns. It seems that the Impact on the haulers and the impact on the competition are one In the same. Foote stated that competition column is there because the charge from the City Council specifically states competition. In the municipal system the hauler would be the City, therefore an advantage would be the creation of jobs. Wall suggested changing it to impact on businesses. Also suggested was impact on sold waste collection industry. After further discussion, commission members agreed that they should remove the "Impact on Competition" column and change the heading of the "Impact Solid Waste Abatement Commission Minutes August 17, 1995/Page 4 on Haulers" column to "Impact on Solid Waste Recycling Businesses." Frater stated that he fees frequently and asks people what kind of collection system they have. He said he has heard all kinds of horror stories about municipal hauling or single hauler systems. He talked to people from Madison, Cleveland and Orlando. He said they told him that complaints didn't matter, service was terrible. Breva commented that there is really no incentive for good customer service. Frater stated there are often work stoppages and strikes. Breva stated there are advantages to municipal systems, in particular it would simplify enforcement. In the first column "Impact on City" the commission agreed to change the first Item from "one hauler responsible" to "enforcement." Weinzettel asked if the commission even needed to discuss municipal collection since they are against it. Frater said that they need to back the commission's reasons for rejecting It. Foote suggested that everyone fill out and send the matdces back to her by Friday, August 25 so she can compile them and the commission will review them at the next commission meeting. Hiar asked whether when they say impact to businesses it means that they are unable to participate - this sounds bureaucratic and should be better worded. Patraw stated that ft appears that the commission has decided not to go with the municipal system. Frater stated that after discussion the commission had voted against a municipal collection system but the City Council requested further documentation for this decision, therefore, the commission Is preparing this matrix per Council direction. Patraw asked how this will fit Into the County's. master plan - has the County given Input to the commission? Weinzettel responded that some of the members have attended County meetings. They have discussed the County's master plan Issues and are always watching what the County Is directing. Foote stated that the bottom fine is that whoever the hauler or haulers and up being, those haulers will have to come Into compliance with the County's plan regardless of who they are. Patraw stated that's debatable whether they will have to come Into compliance because who's going to enforce it? He continued that there's a new law passed called the public entity law. If the City of Eagan took over the collection and the City decided to use a different landfill but Dakota County decided to process all their waste. The City would need to submit a plan and lay out criteria and how to deal with liability and risk Issues. He stated he Is for open competitive systems but that a municipal system Is still a choice. Breva stated that a lot of what is on the matrix is the reason they decided to eliminate municipal collection as an option. It really has been discussed over the last 18 months. This matrix is the result of those discussions. Hiar suggested that the matrix be marked as draft and circulated in advance of the next commission meeting. Breva commented that it would be beneficial if items were numbered in parentheses behind Issues to note number of responses of commission members to each item. Hiar motioned to get the Information on the matrix to Foote by August 25, seconded by Frater, all members voted in favor. There was a vote to begin meetings at 5:00 p.m. through the month of December. All members voted in favor, except for Weinzettel and Ische who voted against. Hiar asked about the unlicensed haulers brought before the Council earlier in the year and - woukt like to know if they have been licensed. Foote replied that one has, but one has not yet. Waste Control finally got the appropriate Insurance forms in. They'll be on the September 5 Council agenda, the former Poor Richard's site will also be on September 5 and Randy's has been licensed. Solid Waste Abatement Commission Minutes August 17, 1995/Page 5 Patraw asked if he had voting ability as an aftemate member. Foote responded that only if any members are absent could he vote, but he could equally participate in all discussion. ADJOURNMENT Upon motion by Weinzettel, seconded by Swenseld, all members voting in favor, the meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Chair Date