Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 06/22/1992CITY COUNCIL 22 JUNE 1992 The South Burlington City Council held a meeting on Monday, 22 June 1992, at 6:00 p.m., in the Airport Parkway WPC Plant, 1015 Airport Parkway. Members Present: John Dinklage, Acting Chairman; James Condos, William Cimonetti, Robert Chittenden Also Present: Charles Hafter, City Manager; Donald Whitten, WPCD; Albert Audette, Street Dept; Peg Strait, Asst. City Manager; Robert Zimmerman, Tony Barbagallo, Fred Moody, Harley Brown, Dick, Picard 1. Comments & Questions from the public not related to Agenda Items: The Council asked the City Manager to schedule a discussion on the Queen City Park Water/Fire Protection situation on a future agenda. 2. Site Visit to proposed location of pelletizing plant; discussion of siting issues: Members reviewed the map and noted where the property abuts Burlington property (Airport property has a "jog" into S. Burlington). At the first proposed site, it was noted that the land under consideration has not been used for landfill. The bank would be left as is. The building would be pre-fab, about 30 ft. high to the eaves, approximately 100' x 130'. Mr. Condos raised the question of meeting setbacks from the Interstate. Mr. Picard asked about odors and asked why the siting was being considered here instead of at the Williston landfill. Mr. Hafter said it has to be near a treatment plant. At the second site (ravine), it was noted there would be an access issue and another ravine would have to be filled. A wetland issue may be involved in this. Mr. Whitten said this site would completely conceal the facility but would be more expensive. Mr. Cimonetti raised the question of whether a smokestack at the end of the Airport runway would be allowable. When members returned to the WPC Plant, Mr. Cimonetti commended employees and said the plant looks first class. Mr. Barbagallo then gave a rundown of the proposed project: the facility will serve all of Chittenden County (12 treatment plants). In the design year (20 year design) the plant would handle 4,302 pounds per day (plus water). Mr. Cimonetti asked how much sludge these plants are producing, but Mr. Barbagallo didn't have that figure. Mr. Barbagallo noted that in the past it has cost 2.8¢ per gallon to apply the sludge to land and new regulations will push that figure up. He didn't think there was another site in S. Burlington where sludge could be applied as it couldn't get through the certification process. He added if they don't go into pelletizing, they will have to go outside the city for sludge application. Mr. Dinklage asked for examples of other plants similar to the proposed facility and their costs. Mr. Barbagallo said the cost figures he is presenting are based on existing facilities. He said there would be a public bid. Mr. Hafter then asked Mr. Barbagallo to describe the process. Mr. Barbagallo outlined the process as follows: 1. Dewatering (air would be treated by a 3-stage air scrubber) 2. Then through a closed conveyor to the day bind 3. Then into a 40'x50' dryer 4. Pellets come out of the drier. Mr. Barbagallo estimated 7 to 10 haul truck trips per day to start and approximately 25 trips in the design year. Trucks would be totally enclosed. The only time the sludge is exposed to the air is when it is being dumped from the truck. Mr. Whitten noted that the only time it gets an odor is after it's land applied. Mr. Cimonetti noted the problems with Plattsburgh's facility where they can't run it because of the smell. Mr. Barbagallo said that is because of the type of sludge they are trying to process and that is why they've chosen pelletizing. Pelletizing odors are the easiest to contain. He suggested Council members visit one of the existing plants. Mr. Chittenden asked what other sites are being considered. Mr. Barbagallo outlined 17 sites and said all have been reviewed and narrowed down to 5: the S. Burlington site, Berard Drive, Winooski, Burlington, O'Neill Generating Plant. In the evaluation, South Burlington came out on top. Mr. Chittenden then asked the length of commitment from communities. Mr. Moody said between 5 and 20 years. Mr. Hafter noted that Burlington would like to have this plant and the revenues from it. Mr. Cimonetti asked why this site was chosen. Mr. Barbagallo said because of its current use and zoning, the fact that it's next to a wastewater treatment plant, the fact that it wouldn't be seen, its 1,000,000 gal storage capability, and its accessibility for trucks. In Burlington, he added, trucks would have to drive through the city. Mr. Cimonetti asked why not locate it in an industrial park. He questioned whether pelletizing is the best way to use the plant's remaining capacity. Mr. Picard asked if the Solid Waste District gets a fee for this. Mr. Moody said only an administrative fee based on a tipping fee and dewatering fee. Mr. Picard noted citizens already have to put up with a lot of inconvenience from the dump, the sewage treatment plant, the Airport, etc. He didn't see any benefit to the city from the proposed plant. Mr. Cimonetti asked that the District cost out the figures if each community did its own dewatering and then just shipped the dewatered sludge to a pelletizing plant. This, he said, would generate much less truck traffic. Mr. Whitten noted that Essex and Winooski are already looking at doing dewatering on their own. Mr. Dinklage reviewed the cost/benefit figures and felt there wasn't as much possible benefit as he had hoped. Mr. Whitten said if the plant is not located in S. Burlington there would be a substantial increase in sewer rates to cover the costs for hauling, dewatering and drying. Mr. Dinklage noted that citizens have hoped for a decrease in truck traffic when the landfill closes and that now even more is being discussed on a "forever" basis. He noted that he does support the process but wants to see it done as efficiently with as little public disturbance as possible. Mr. Picard asked who buys the pellets. Mr. Barbagallo said golf courses, Florida citrus growers, and other. He said they could compete with agricultural fertilizers as this is an organic, non-chemical fertilizer. Mr. Dinklage said he would like to see a potential facility that could be only for dewatered sludge. Mr. Cimonetti also wanted to know the cost of dewatering at both S. Burlington plants. Mr. Audette estimated $1,200,000 plus an employee. Mr. Cimonetti noted the other big cost is energy. Mr. Barbagallo said only two facilities have nearby "waste energy" - Gilbrook and McNeill. Mr. Hafter noted the District got locked in very quickly on the landfill site and suggested not doing that in this case. Mr. Barbagallo felt that if there is any delay Burlington will go ahead and build their facility. Mr. Cimonetti didn't feel S. Burlington should be pressed into something because of what Burlington may do. Mr. Cimonetti said he hoped Mr. Condos would bring to the District Board's attention that the statement that "this site was volunteered by South Burlington" is greatly overstated. A majority vote said the site could be included in the study. The site has not been volunteered. 3. Discussion of Solid Waste District Plan for Location of Drop-off Center for Recyclables and Individual Household Waste Collection: Mr. Moody said S. Burlington and Essex have been chosen for major facilities and there will also be 5 minor facilities. These sites would accept trash, recyclables, special waste (such as appliances), yard wate. There would be a spot dedicated for used oil and re-usables. No commercial operators would come to these facilities. Mr. Barbagallo said the cost will be $1.50 per bag so it will be cheaper for commercial haulers to go to the landfills. Mr. Dinklage said he supported the concept but wants to see details such as where, whether it would be a tax-free use, etc. Mr. Moody said it would be a benefit to the community and he anticipated it wouldn't make money and therefore shouldn't make major payments to the community. They would pay fees for power and water and some small payment in lieu of taxes could be possible. Following a brief discussion, Mr. Cimonetti moved that the City Council supports the concept of a major drop off center and directs City Staff to make a proposal for its location to the City Council. Mr. Chittenden seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 4. Consideration of Adoption of Resolution Setting Landfill Disposal Fees: Mr. Hafter said it seems clear the city won't get an extension past 1/1/93 at the outside. He said he made it clear the city won't take its trash to another unlined landfills. He said the proposed rates use a 6 month extension as a "best case." The proposed rates would yield $209,000 more toward closure for a total of $750,000. He felt that would be sufficient. Mr. Cimonetti said he still objects to doubling the residential drop-off rate. Mr. Dinklage then suggested a $3.00 residential rate, $8.00 for a trailer and $17. for a packer. Mr. Condos then moved that the Council pass a Resolution effective 1 July 1992, setting the landfill disposal fees as follows: $3.00/bag up to 5 bags, $8.00 for more than 5 bags, $17./yard for packer, $17/yard non-residential waste, $17/yard for rack style trucks with other than demolition, $20/yd for demolition debris. Mr. Cimonetti seconded. Motion passed 3-1, Mr. Chittenden opposing. 5. Planning Commission Agenda 6/23/92 No issues were raised. 6. Liquor Control Board: Mr. Chittenden moved the Council adjourn and reconvene as Liquor Control Board. Mr. Cimonetti seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Brown noted the Bambino's fence is up. After a brief discussion, Mr. Chittenden moved the Board grant entertainment permits for the Country Band on Sundays and Thursdays and the Bikini Contest for Tuesdays through the month of July. Mr. Condos seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Chittenden then moved the Board adjourn and reconvene as City Council. Mr. Condos seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Other Business: Members agreed to add the Queen City Park water problems to a future agenda and ask their people to come in and explain the issue. Executive Session: Mr. Condos moved the Council meet in executive session to discuss contract negotiations and to resume regular session only to adjourn. Mr. Cimonetti seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.