HomeMy WebLinkAbout02.28.89 Special Council Minutes
MINUTES
COUNCIL MEETING
SPECIAL "TOWN MEETING"
FEBRUARY 28, 1989
1. Mayor Kuchera called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. at the Dakota
County Extension Building.
Members Present: Kuchera, Sprute, McKnight, Mayer, Galler.
Members Absent: None.
Also Present: Administrator Thompson, Attorney Grannis.
2. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss solid waste issues. Mayor
Kuchera gave an introductory speech thanking the citizens for attending,
outlining the rules of order and then turned the meeting over to staff for
a presentation of the solid waste issues.
3. Administrator Thompson gave an overview of the solid waste system, and
explained that garbage bills had risen dramatically due to increases in
tipping fees caused by 1) landfill shortages, 2) legislative mandates, and
3) State, County and local surcharges. Mr. Thompson stated in the future
the City would be mandated to institute curbside recycling programs, separate
yard waste and, eventually, process its garbage. This would increase
collection costs because 3 collections would be require.d instead of 1, and
tipping fees. Mr. Thompson stated that the City had been looking into alternatives
to the County burn plant and making its collection system more efficient.
4. Superintendent of General Services Tom Kaldunski presented the proposed
changes in the collection system which would include:
1) Curb side recycling pickup, and
2) Automated collection system using standard 90 gallon containers.
Mr. Kaldunski stated that the system would be phased in gradually, starting
with the curbside recycling at the end of March.
5. Mark Selby from the consulting firm of DPRA explained the proposed resource
recovery facility which consisted of a composting process for MSW and pro-
cessing of recyclables. Mr. Selby stated that the plant would use a drum to
reduce the MSW and aerated windrows with a turning machine for composting.
Mr. Selby stated that the plant would process approximately 25 tons per day.
6. Finance Director Henneke explained the new billing system which would be
based on the amount of garbage produced rather than a flat rate. Mr. Henneke
stated that a base volume rate would be set and anyone exceeding the volume
would be charged extra. Mr. Henneke added that the City was looking into
credits for Senior Citizens and incentives for recycling.
7. Administrator Thompson stated that before such a facility could be built
in Farmington, the zoning ordinance would need to be changed. Mr. Thompson
noted that the proposed amendment was to be considered at a public hearing on
March 6, 1989. Administrator Thompson added that the proposed system was
estimated to cost the citizens much less than going to the County burn plant
Town Meeting - 2/28/89 - pg. 2
because 1) the tip fees were projected to be much lower; and 2) the City
could combine the yard waste with its MSW and eliminate one collection.
8. Mayor Kuchera opened the meeting for public comment. The following
testimony was heard.
Ruth Simon: We haven't seen any costs relating to alternatives and
detailed costs of the proposal. (Administrator Thompson
gave a summary of the system revenues/costs with and without a resource
recovery facility, including projected quarterly rates and Finance Director
Henneke gave Ms. Simon the detailed budgets.
Al Campbell: I've seen compost plants in Europe. Which European
technology/company are you using? What will the citizens
get back from recycling revenues?
Mark Selby: The technology is borrowed from Europe, but everything will
be manufactured in the US?
Wayne Henneke: The revenues will be used to reduce overall garbage bills.
Andy Simon: Why did you locate it so close to town? Will it smell?
Adm. Thompson: The Council directed staff to concentrate on that site.
Mark Selby: The process, if properly controlled, should not smell.
Andy Simon:
the Empire Plant
I don't want the
The MWCC said the Empire Plant would not smell and it does.
The Compost plant in Preston has an odor. The sludge from
is what stinks, and you are going to use it in the process.
smell and the flies and rodents that go along with the plant.
Mark Selby: The MWCC plant uses an anaerobic process that does smell,
but the sludge that is going to be used has been stabilized
and will not produce an odor. I have toured several of these plants and
odor has not been a problem. You (to Al Campbell) apparently have lived by
these in Europe. Did they smell?
Al Campbell:
Don Hayes:
Mark Selby:
Don Hayes:
Mark Selby:
No.
Can you tour a plant in the vicinity similar to the proposed
plant, such as Preston or St. Cloud?
I am not aware of any similar plants in the area. Preston
and St. Cloud use different processes.
Then it really isn't fair to compare the proposed plant
with Filmore or St. Cloud?
The technology is being used on the East Coast and in Europe.
Francis Blaha: The composting we saw in the movie was really not similar to
the type of compo sting we are considering because it was
mainly yard waste. I would also suggest you could pick up yard wastes with
recyclables.
Adm. Thompson:
We are looking at that possibility.
Town Meeting - 2/28/89 - pg.3
Francis Blaha: Mr. Kaldunski stated that the County would pay $10-$20 per
ton for recyclables. Filmore is averaging $25-$40 per ton.
Right now I don't think all of the costs are reflected in the garbage bills
because Street personnel are being used on double pick up days.
Tom Kaldunski: The $10-$20 per ton was just an estimate from County staff
at this time. The Street Department personnel do charge
their time to solid waste when they collect garbage.
Francis Blaha: I do not feel we are big enough to turn a profit. In
Filmore they do use an aeration system, not static, and they
have high moisture problems.
Mark Selby: We have learned alot from Filmore's mistakes. First, the
aeration system is underdesigned. Second, the sides of the
curing area will be opened to allow greater ventilation.
Francis Blaha: The Filmore plant had a 1/2" screen and its compost product
is not that good. How big will the proposed screen be?
Mark Selby: 3/8".
Francis Blaha: What is the cost of the plant now?
Adm. Thompson: Approximately $1.4 million. The increases have come from
adding in fiscal/bonding costs, the cost per square foot
has been increased and the City received cost estimates on the drum.
Francis Blaha:
Does the $1.4 million include the drum?
Mark Selby: Yes. I would also like to note that the product produced
by the Farmington Plant will be superior to Filmore's
because sludge will be added, more air forced through the piles and the compost
will be turned by "scarab" machines, which will reduce the size of the compost
even further.
Francis Blaha: I have lived in Farmington all of my life and I'm deeply
concerned. The consultant doesn't live in Farmington and
has nothing to lose. It is my understanding that the plant would be similar
to St. Cloud, and that requires 50 tons/day to operate.
Mark Selby: The plant is designed much simpler than St. Cloud's which
uses a "digester". The digester at St. Cloud alone costs
$1.4 million. Also, the reputation of our firm is at stake in this plant.
Penny Blaha:
Are we an experiment?
Mark Selby: No. There are over 200 successful plants operating around
the world. The technology is unique to the Midwest because
plants could not compete with landfills.
Francis Blaha:
Where is the sludge added?
Mark Selby: At the front of the drum. I would also like to explain that
the proposed plant will use much larger blowers to aerate the
piles than Filmore, and Filmore did not have an operator's manual prepared
showing how to run the plant.
Mary MacEnany:
Adm. Thompson:
Are the rest of the cities going along with the County plant?
Yes.
Town Meeting - 2/28/89 - pg. 4
Mary MacEnany:
Jerry Zimmer:
Mark Selby:
Then why are we doing it on our own? $1.4 million is
a lot of money.
How many municipalities have you tried to sell this system?
Six are presently evaluating the system.
Jerry Zimmer: We are just an experiment. Business has been going downhill
in this community for the last 25 years, and now we are
paying for it. This plant will just add to the tax burden.
It is not proposed that the plant be placed on the tax rolls,
but paid through user fees.
It all comes out of the same pocket.
You are going to have to pay more of the same user fees
if the City goes to the County plant.
Leslie McMurtrey: It makes me nervous that the operators are going to have
to be trained to run this plant. Also, if we go through
all the trouble of recycling, are we going to be compensated for it?
Adm. Thompson:
Jerry Zimmer:
Adm. Thompson:
Wayne Henneke:
L. McMurtrey:
Income from recycling will be applied against collection
costs.
Have you thought of drop off centers versus curbside collection?
Gail Prest: I'm with Dakota County staff who are overseeing the im-
plementation of the recycling program. Drop off centers
have proven not to be as effective as curbside collection programs.
Tom Ryan:
Francis Blaha:
seem like we're
Why don't you let the private sector handle solid waste?
Why not put it to the voters?
At Filmore, 52% of the waste stream had to
only 27% was composted, and 16% recycled.
gaining that much.
be landfilled,
It doesn't
Dennis Sullivan: It appears that whatever we do, it's going to cost more
money. It also appears that it is a matter of control
and I feel we should control our own destiny by building a resource recovery
facility.
If composting is cheaper, why don't we convince the County
to do it?
Chris Galler: Farmington's plant is 36,000 square feet and processes only
25 tons per day. The County plant is designed to process
800 tons per day, so the size of the plant is prohibitive.
Owen Pool:
Owen Pool:
Chris Galler:
Francis Blaha:
Jerry Zimmer:
Why not build 4 or 5 plants?
There would not be enough places to put the compost. That
is why only the rural areas look at composting.
How much compost could the City use?
How are we going to get rid of it?
Adm. Thompson: The entire output of the plant for one year would not
equal the fill we removed during the 1988 Street Improvement
Project. There was no concern expressed as to what to do with that fill,
nor did we have any problem getting rid of it. Also, we never had a problem
disposing of our street sweepings which had glass, cans, cigarette butts and
so on mixed in it. At a minimum, we could give it away for landfill cover.
Town Meeting - 2/28/89 - pg. 5
It should be noted that the City has not budgeted any income for the sale
of compost.
Babe Kuchera:
its compost.
Joy Eldred:
of the lease?
Mark Selby:
Joy Eldred:
Adm. Thompson:
Joy Eldred:
The plant we saw had a problem getting rid of compost.
Filmore County had to buy a 500 acre farm to dispose of
I think we should put it to a vote of the people. Also,
what is the life span of the plant and what is the length
20 years for each.
What happens when the lease runs out?
The City would negotiate to extend the lease or purchase
the property.
Can we put it to a vote?
Dave Grannis: You could seek an advisory vote or the Council could agree
beforehand to be bound by it, but you could not commit
future Councils to the vote.
Al Campbell:
Adm. Thompson:
Thelma Pool:
Babe Kuchera:
Don Hayes:
spoken against
speaking out.
Bob Shea:
Why is it located west of town?
The Council wanted it located in the industrial park.
Has the Council looked at all of the potential negatives?
I had negative experiences at the St. Cloud and Filmore plants.
St. Cloud said they did have a rodent problem.
St. Cloud,
people have
for it are
I don't think its fair to compare Farmington to
they are two different facilities. Most of the
the plant, but I don't believe the people who are
Maybe it would be best to put it to a referendum.
I'm getting conflicting information at this meeting.
feel Thelma Pool's question should be answered.
I
Adm. Thompson: Staff has looked at the potential negatives and concerns.
In fact we have redesigned parts of the system because of
concerns. There is no question that there are risks. I don't think anyone
can actually predict where we will be in 5 years or exactly how the plant
will operate, but we have made our estimates based on the information we have
at hand. I do not believe most people have looked at the risks associated with
not going with the resource recovery plant. There is a good possibility the
compost plant which is proposed at this time will operate more efficiently than
the burn plant, and we'd better be prepared to answer why we didn't go with
a composting plan when we had the chance. There is no question that garbage
rates will increase dramatically when the burn plant goes on line, and that
includes public and private rates.
Mark Selby: There appears to be a lot of concern relating to the
diposal of the compost. St. Cloud is presently selling it
to the Christmas tree growers and is expanding its markets. Filmore has had
a problem trying to sell the compost because it is of such poor quality. It
becomes a function of the markets as to the quality of the compost you produce.
Town Meeting - 2/28/89 - pg. 6
Bob Shea:
Tom Kaldunski:
Mark Selby:
Wally Berglund:
Babe Kuchera:
Joan Shea:
Mark Selby:
Ken Hanson:
Who hires the operators? Does DPRA assist with the operation
of the plant?
The Council will hire the operator.
We'd like to assist with the start up if the Council requests it.
I feel the plant would chase away industry. Why do you want
to locate it so close to prime industrial land?
I do not like the location because it is close to an industrial
area.
Will the ratio of rejects be 1/3 of a pound for everyone
pound of garbage?
Approximately 25-30% will be rejects depending upon how
well the recycling program works.
the
the
not
The Planning Commission reviewed the zoning matter during
two meetings. We held long discussions on it and rejected
zoning proposal 3-1 because of the potential impact on industry. We felt
technology was not sufficient, and the definition of resource recovery was
clear enough.
Andy Simon: Filmore County returns 57% of its garbage to the
and they had 10 people picking out recyclables.
made a $200,000 error in the design because the moisture problems
anticipated. Can we afford a $200,000 mistake?
Mark Selby: Again, there is a big difference between Filmore and
Farmington's plant. Filmore's was designed on an experimental
prototype from Wisconsin. Farmington's is designed on proven European tech-
nology. Filmore had start up problems because there was no operator's manual
prepared. Also, we have learned a great deal from Filmore's mistakes.
Mayor Kuchera:
landfill
Also, they
were not
At Filmore, I counted 20 workers and at St. Cloud 27 workers.
Also, both placed did have odors.
Gale Sprute: I also would like to thank the people for coming. I have
learned a lot from the input. This has not been an easy
issue. The easiest way would be to get out entirely, but I'm not sure that
would be in the best interest of Farmington. It is best to look at all of
the concepts. I tried not to look at it in negatives, but as advantages/
disadvantages. I've listed the following potential negatives:
1. Siting - With the westerly winds and only 3/4 mile from populated areas.
2. Impact on industrial areas.
3. Transportation in and out.
4. Project is too big for the City of Farmington.
5. Will the County/State eventually take over?
6. Personnel figures are underestimated.
7. No guarantee that we are not creating a new Department Head position.
8. Council is split on the issue.
9. City is too small and tax poor for the project.
Town Meeting - 2/28/89 - pg. 7
10. Depreciation of the plant and equipment has not been listed
as an expense item.
11. Composting at any cost.
12. Rushing into the business too fast.
13. Too many unknowns.
14. We don't know the exact cost.
15. The consultant estimates are subject to challenge.
Advantages:
1. Site is free.
2. Site is centrally located.
3. Grants are available at this time.
4. City has complete control over system which will help comply with
mandates.
5. User fees with County system will go up. I feel the County will be $100+/ton.
6. Composting is cheaper.
7. It will employ people.
8. Composting is the best environmentally.
9. To dream.
Don Scott: Government buildings always have cost overruns. Can we
afford the overruns? Also, the City should be concerned
about the recycling market becoming glutted.
Rolin Sampson:
and burning
How many of
The question should not be of recycling, because we have
to do that anyway. The question should be how composting
fit together. Filmore County, last year, ran a $27,000 deficit.
these plants are operating?
Mark Selby: There are 10 proposed plants in the US and 6 are operating.
Rollin Sampson: It is my understanding that the St. Cloud drum cost over
$1,000,000 alone.
Mark Selby: The St. Cloud plant uses a "digester" drum which is marketed
by a private firm. I have obtained a quote from a fabricator
who would manufacture the Farmington drum for under $200,000.
How many operators have owned the St. Cloud plant?
I believe 4. The major problem according to the present owner
was that the plant was severely undercapitalized.
St. Cloud has 27 employees and Filmore has 10. How is
Farmington going to operate with 4?
Mark Selby: St. Cloud and Filmore hand pick the garbage which requires
approximately 6 employees. The Farmington plant design is
based on an aggressive curbside recycling program which will require no
hand picking.
Rolin Sampson:
Mark Selby:
Rolin Sampson:
Rolin Sampson:
Mark Selby:
What if the plant requires hand picking?
The process will still work if recyclables are mixed in
with,compostables. The only deterrent would be rejects
Town Meeting - 2/28/89 - pg 8
Rolin Sampson:
to landfill would increase.
Is recycling/composting "locked in" by law?
Adm. Thompson: We must recycle and ultimately process all City waste.
The City could use the County's facility to comply with
the processing mandates.
Rolin Sampson:
Where are you going to store the recyclables?
Tom Kaldunski: Probably at the City garage on a temporary basis. Eventually
they will be taken to the County processing facility and
possibly the Farmington facility.
Where will yard waste go?
The County yard waste composting facility will accept the
City's yard waste for a fee.
Where is the County's compost going?
A private vendor will take care of it.
Will the County facility smell?
The County facility has been operating since last Fall and
we have received no complaints.
The State has mandated that counties, not cities, must process
garbage. Why are we the only City doing it?
Marv Wear: I think the citizens should vote on this issue. Most
discussion has been on the costs, but I feel the real issue
is the environment and I believe composting is safer than burning.
Pat McCarthy: It is obvious that the Council has to choose between
alternatives, and I commend the Council and staff for giving
this excellent presentation. I am p]~ed with what I heard tonight.
Rolin Sampson:
Gail Prest:
Rolin Sampson:
Gail Prest:
Al Campbell:
Gail Prest:
Bill Carey:
I've heard tonight, I feel the City
recycling program but drop the
Based on the information
should continue with the
composting plant.
(Administrator Thompson read a letter from Duo Plastics, Recomp. Inc., which
operates the St. Cloud facility, the Filmore County Plant manager, and the
City of Chaska which generally spoke in favor of the compost facility.
Mr. Thompson noted that Stella Hammer who owns property abutting the proposed
Resource Recovery Facility site, had called to oppose the facility. Mayor
Kuchera read a letter from Leonard Novitzke opposing the Resource Recovery
Facili ty. )
Gordon Broske:
Mayor Kuchera: I feel the main question is; can Farmington afford to build
and operate a composting facility? Based on the information
I have received and my visits to the St. Cloud and Filmore plants, I feel the
answer is no. My greatest concern is that Farmington is the only city in
the State building its own facility.
Jack McKnight: I'm not opposed to co-composting in general terms, but I
am against the site. Also, I feel $1.4 million could be
spent in better ways.
Town Meeting - 2/28/89 - pg. 9
Chris Galler: I am in favor of Farmington operating its own facility. Most
people are not looking at the negatives of not building a
plant and going to the County facility. Maybe the City should look at another
site, but Chaska is allowing a 300 ton/day composting plant to be built in
its major industrial park. Also, I have reviewed the specifications for the
300 ton per day plant, and only 10 people will operate the plant. I feel
one of the major issues is what the MWCC intends to do with the solid waste
issue. A major concern this evening was how to get rid of the compost. I've
spoken with the MWCC and MPCA and they indicated that based on the sludge at
the Empire Treatment Plant, there would be no problem with marketing it.
Ginny Black (KPCA): It would have to be tested, but the heavy metal content
of the Empire Treatment sludge is so low it shouldn't be
a problem.
Chris Galler: The citizens should be aware that we will see significant
increases if we go to the County plant. Citizens using
two 90 gallon containers could see bills as high as $100 - $150 per quarter.
Donovan Mayer: Staff has done an excellent job presenting this issue.
Also, the citizens have conducted themselves in an excellent
manner. There have been many concerns expressed this evening, but it must
be realized many concerns may not be justified. We've directed staff to
put a proposal together, and they've done a good job of doing so. I feel that
the plant would work. A big concern is the projected costs and I will review
them closely. I look at it as an alternative to landfilling, RDF, and burning.
If the proposal is not feasible, the review process of the City, Met Council
and MPCA will discover it. We don't need to rush a yes/no decision, but it
appears that the Council is pushing itself into one. I only ask that the
process of reviewing the alternatives continues.
Mayor Kuchera: I agree that we should not rush into a decision, but to
take a wait and see attitude. We aren't totally sure what
the County is going to do, and the composting technology in the Midwest is
new. There is a lot of information which should be reviewed.
Jill Maples:
Mark Selby:
The City will double in size in the near future. Can the
plant be expanded?
There is enough flexibility in the design to expand the
plant.
9. MOTION by Galler, second by Mayer to adjourn at 11:00 P.M. APIF, MOTION
CARRIED.
Respectfully submitted,
/~~n
Larr~homps
City Administrator
Approved
?> -- d.- 0 -<\) C\