Loading...
10/15/1996 - 00003826CITY OF FRIDLEY ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY & ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 15, 1996 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Sielaff called the October 15, 1996, meeting to order at 8:04 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Brad Sielaff, Dean Saba, Rich Svanda, Bruce Bondow, Jack Velin, Rosalie Landt Members Absent: Dean Saba, Peter Panchyshyn Others Present: Wanda Brown, Recycling Coordinator Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator APPROVAL OF JULY 16, 1996, ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY & ENERGY COMMISSION MINUTES: A brief discussion ensued regarding the minutes. MOTION by Mr. Svanda, seconded by Mr. Velin, to approve the July 16, 1996, Environmental Quality & Energy Commission minutes as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SIELAFF DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. NEW BUSINESS: There was no new business. 2. OLD BUSINESS: a. Status of Recycling Coordinator Position Scott Hickok stated that the Recycling Coordinator position has been reviewed by the City Council, and the Council elected to approve hiring a new Recycling Coordinator. Scott Hickok explained briefly the process for recruiting candidates. He explained that an ad would be placed in the Star Tribune to run at minimum two weeks, and the timeframe would include a review of applicants. Once the applications had been reviewed, candidates will be selected and as many as 8 candidates would be interviewed for the position. He stated that City hopes to have a person in this position in early to mid-December. He also stated that he is optimistic about the candidate pool for the Recycling Coordinator position. Mr. Sielaff asked if the position title would continue to be Recycling Coordinator or whether or not that title could be amended to include more environmental or planning emphasis. Mr. Svanda indicated that he would be interested in seeing more emphasis placed on the environmental issues in the title and asked if the title could be something like "Environmental Specialist/Recycling Coordinator". Mr. Hickok explained that as approved by the Council, the position is meant to be refilled in the same manner with the same title that Lisa Campbell had when she occupied the position. That title is "Planning Associate/Recycling Coordinator". A general discussion ensued regarding the candidate pool for the position. After this discussion, there appeared to be a consensus that, if possible, additional emphasis beyond recycling responsibilities should be made. Mr. Hickok stated he would update the Commission on the process and, potentially, the candidate selected at the December 17, 1996, meeting. b. Recycling Day, September 21, 1996, Totals Ms. Brown reviewed the memo prepared for the packet regarding the recycling day on September 21, 1996. She stated the recycling day was successful, and 11.8 tons of material had been diverted from the landfill; however, because of weather and, potentially, other factors, the collection was lower than had been anticipated. She stated that the City did collect 3.57 tons of scrap metal which cost the City $270. The scrap metal service provider had provided an employee on site which was a cost to the City. Ms. Brown stated the tonnage and price paid to ACCAP was 1.6 tons of used furniture with a cost of $200 to the City. She stated the City collected 1.67 tons of household items for Goodwill with a cost of $313 to the City. The City collected 4.28 tons of appliances and 146 tires. A brief general discussion ensued regarding the recycling day. Mr. Velin stated he was present and that the event was well organized. c. Progress on Recycling Center Site Analysis Mr. Hickok stated that the City staff had been working closely with the service provider at the recycling center and also had been evaluating an alternative for making additional improvements to the site. He stated many new improvements have been made the site over the last year including a new 50,000 BTU heating unit, sewer services, water, a hot water heater, new interior lighting, insulation, a window, sheetrock walls, an office, and a fresh coat of paint inside the heated portion of the building. Mr. Hickok stated fewer improvements had been made to the exterior of the building; however, new bollards had been placed around the new LP tank which was required for heat in the building. He stated a new slab outside the doors of the building was anticipated to be poured in late October or early November. He stated new descriptive signage, minor repairs to the exterior, and potentially grading and top soil would be improvements to be made if time and weather permit such improvements. He stated that, thanks to Ron Julkowski, the City's Building Official; Lisa Campbell; Grant Fernelius, Housing Coordinator; Wanda Brown, and others, City staff was very optimistic about the future of the recycling center and future conditions in the maintenance of the site. Mr. Hickok gave a brief summary of the status of service being provided on site. He stated Recycle Minnesota Resources (RMR) had extended its contract with the City through the end of 1996. In July, the City amended its contract to allow continued service through December 1996. That six month extension cost the City $500 per month. RMR had asked for that fee due to poor market conditions. Mr. Velin stated he was concerned about having to pay $500 at the recycling center. Mr. Svanda stated that markets are cyclical, and he agreed with Mr. Velin that the need for the $500 fee was questionable. Mr. Velin commented on the level of cooperation and trust between RMR and the City of Fridley. Mr. Hickok stated that for future operations of the site, the City was evaluating a number of options. He stated that the City would be hiring a consultant at a fee not to exceed $5,000. The consultant's role would be to determine the best option for continuation of services on the site. He stated that Peggy Wander, Vice President of RMR, met with staff on October 7, 1996, to explain the RMR position on the continuation of services at the site. From that discussion, it was clear that RMR would not continue service beyond December 31, 1996, without a substantial per diem. That per diem was anticipated to be in excess of the $500 fee now paid by the City for services. Mr. Hickok stated staff believes there is a range of options available. Staff is optimistic that with coordination between the consultant and staff, a new alternative would be available for service at the recycling center site in 1997. Mr. Sielaff asked why a consultant is necessary to do the evaluation that staff described. Mr. Hickok stated that the consultant is necessary for two primary reasons: The consultant would be more in tune with market conditions and market strategies necessary for the strongest possible operation of the site. 2. Current responsibilities of City staff make it difficult to allocate the time necessary to do a full evaluation of this matter and come to a conclusion of what the best alternative for this site will be. Mr. Velin stated he believes the RMR organization has had a good deal on the site historically, and he does not understand why this service fee would be necessary. Mr. Svanda asked for additional clarification on why an additional consultant would necessary as opposed to staff doing the analysis. Mr. Hickok stated that Ms. Brown has served the City wonderfully in her capacity. However, she is on staff for only 16 hours per week, and the City is not equipped to prepare the full analysis necessary to make the next critical step for service at the recycling center site. d. Challenge Grant Application Status Ms. Brown stated that the Challenge Grant funding was approved by the State on September 25, 1996. Unfortunately, the City was not approved for funding. She staed Matt Moore, the City's contact on this issue, would be providing an update for her on why the City was not successful in its application for the Challenge Grant. She stated she would update the Commission when she has more information. Mr. Sielaff stated he had talked to several people on the review committee and had been provided an insight on the City's strengths and weaknesses. Historically, the Challenge Grant funds were provided for communities outside the metropolitan area. Although the City of Fridley did not score high enough to receive funding, the City did receive the top score in the metropolitan area.