Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01.11.89 Special Council Minutes MINUTES COUNCIL MEETING SPECIAL JANUARY 11, 1989 1. Mayor Kuchera called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Galler, Kuchera, Mayer, McKnight, Sprute. Members Absent: None. Also Present: Administrator Thompson. 2. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss solid waste matters. Administrator Thompson gave a brief overview of the City's solid waste system, and changes which would dramatically impact the system. Mr. Thompson stated that legislative mandates and market conditions would drive up collection and disposal costs. Mr. Thompson stated that the City faced the following mandates: a. April 1, 1989 - Curbside recycling. b. August 1, 1989 - Yard waste no longer accepted at landfills. c. January 1, 1990 - Unprocessed waste no longer accepted at landfills. 3. Mr. Thompson stated that the first two mandates would add the cost of two separate collections and the third would eventually cause the City to dispose of its garbage at the County's waste to energy facility which was estimated at $66/ton compared to $45/ton today. Mr. Thompson stated that the City did not have to comply with the first mandate, but if it did not, it would lose $20,000 of a $62,000 grant from the County. If the City did not provide curbside recycling by January 1, 1990, the City would lose the entire grant and the County would implement the recycling program and bill the City for the costs. Mr. Thompson stated that the aforementioned mandates/changes would drive up residential service fees to an estimated $68/quarter. Mr. Thompson cautioned that the estimates were continuously changing and would be updated accordingly. 4. County Commissioner Joe Harris explained County mandates and the County's proposed waste to energy plant. Mr. Harris stated that based on changes, the cost of garbage collection would only go up. Mr. Harris addressed several questions, stating that the County had complete control over solid waste disposal in the County, but had designated approximately 25 tons per day to the Farmington facility. (Eagan had made a similar request for its garbage, but it had been denied. ) Mr. Harris also stated that the County did not intend to tax County residents for its facility, and that it had no intention of revoking Farmington's designation in the event County revenue projections fall short. 5. Superintendent of General Services Kaldunski outlined the proposed City solid waste collection. Mr. Kaldunski stated that initially the City would pick up recyclables once every two weeks. Eventually, they would be collected once every week on the same day as garbage is normally collected. Mr. Kaldunski demonstrated the containers which would be used. He stated that at first the City would purchase the containers and tote bins and use a City pickup truck and trailer to collect the recyclables. A truck and trailer would be purchased when specific needs were demonstrated. Minutes - Council - Special - 1-11-89 6. Mr. Kaldunski stated that the MSW collection system would consist of standard 90 gallon containers and an automated collection system. Mr. Kaldunski said the City would start out with a semi-automated system using two men, standard con- tainers and a tipper. This system would then be converted to a fully automated system using one man with additional labor for commercial pickups. The Council and audience viewed a tape demonstrating the semi-automated and automated systems. Mr. Kaldunski said that the automated system would reduce personnel costs con- siderably. Mr. Kaldunski stressed that in order to meet the deadline, the Council would need to order the equipment immediately. Mr. Kaldunski added that even if the WMB grant was denied, and the City's waste processing plant was not built, the City would have to remain in the collection business until a private vendor was designated. The City equipment could be sold at that time. 7. Solid Waste Coordinator Robert Williamson presented an overview of the City's waste processing facility, which would consist of co-composting/processing for MSW/yard waste and recyclable processing. Mr. Williamson stated that not only were projected per ton costs estimated to be less than the County facility, but yard waste could also be processed with the MSW which would eliminate one collection. 8. Finance Director Henneke outlined the proposed billing system, which would be volume based; and possible credits given for recycling. 9. Mr. Thompson summarized the proposal stating that the proposed system would realize the following costs savings: a. Reduced MSW collection costs through the automated system. b. Lower tipping fees compared to the County's facility. c. Elimination of the yard waste pickup. 10. Mr. Thompson cautioned that the cost savings were based on estimates which were continuously changing, and that even with the proposed system residential billings would rise to an estimated $52 per quarter. 11. The Council next opened the meeting to general questions. The following concerns were raised. a. Location of the facility in the industrial area potentially driving business away. b. Monitoring of bacteria in the plant. c. Failure of past compost facilities. d. Capital costs seem to be changing and may be underestimated. e. Number of personnel underestimated. f. Why aren't other cities doing the same thing? g~ Filmore County plant requires 10+ full time employees. h. Market for the compost. i. Quality of the compost. j. Facility being underdesigned. k. City having enough garbage to keep the plant running based on the experience in Perham. Minutes - Council - Special - 1/11/89 12. Henry Iwerks asked how the individual Councilmembers felt about the proposal. Mayor Kuchera stated that he was concerned about the accuracy of the figures and, based on potential loss of business from the industrial area, was presently opposed to it. Councilmember McKnight stated that he was presently opposed for the same reasons. Councilmembers Mayer and Galler stated that they were presently in favor of the proposal. Councilmember Sprute stated that, even if costs were equal, he was in favor of composting the garbage rather than burning it for environmental reasons. It was the consensus of the Council that the City would continue to collect garbage and was in favor of the automated system. 13. Ginny Black from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency stated that while the audience and Council were justified in questioning the City's cost estimates, it was unreasonable not to also question the County's estimates. 14. MOTION by Kuchera, second by Galler to adjourn at 11:15 P.M. APIF, MOTION CARRIED . Respectfully submitted, /,72r- Larry Thompson City Administrator Approved c2 - lo - ~~