Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-04-25 Minutes/ MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE CITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS • A special meeting of the Fayetteville City Board of Directors was held on Wednesday, April 25, 1990 at 8:30 a.m. in Room 326 of the City Administration Building at 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. PRESENT: Directors Michael Green, Russ Kelley, Ernest Lancaster, Paul Marinoni, Jr., Shell Spivey and Fred Vorsanger; Acting City Manager Scott Linebaugh, City Attorney Jerry Rose, City Clerk Sherry Thomas; members of the staff, press and audience ABSENT: Mayor William 'V. Martin CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by the Assistant Mayor Vorsanger with six Directors present. SUNRAY SERVICES, INC. Mr. Vorsanger introduced consideration of a resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into a temporary contract with Sunray Services, Inc., for Solid Waste Material Disposal at their landfill. This is a month-to-month contract without a guaranteed amount of tonnage for their rates posted at the gate. Currently, that rate would be $15 per ton. The City would use this contract until the bidding on a long term service can be completed. We expect the contract to be in force not less than six months. Linebaugh stated the Staff has been dealing with the solid waste/landfill problem for several months. Due to the circumstances associated with Northwest, Staff recommends entering into these temporary contracts --one with Sunray and a backup with Waste Management, Inc. Staff feels the contracts should be entered into at this time as the outcome of the DPC & E decision regarding Northwest's future is unknown. . Staff also feels they need time to site a transfer station properly, to obtain public input, and enter into a long term contract. Sunray is working with the City in an attempt to help us out, and we are very appreciative of that. Matt Matthews with Sunray addressed the Board. He wanted to remind the Board that Sunray has offered to the City a one year discounted landfill contract. They feel confident that they are able to offer the contract based on operational considerations and life expectancy. However, if the month-to-month contract is decided upon, and the City stays with the contract for at least 12 months, Sunray is willing to offer back to the City a landfill credit. He feels all the disposal sites that are operating within the district should be researched regarding cost of transporting to them. April 25, 1990 Green asked if the Durham site landfill was one that Sunray was anticipating for future growth. Matthews replied that it was under consideration. Harinoni asked if Sunray's life expectancy would be diminished to about a year with the City using their landfill. Matthews stated he had not seen a projection made that justifies the estimated life expectancy of the landfill. He stated they were willing to stand behind their offer of a one year contract. Green asked how much a one year commitment would lower the $15 per ton. Matthews stated there was a letter addressed to Bob Kelly dated February 28 that outlined the terms. Hal Morton, Solid Waste Management Director, stated there were a couple of reasons why Staff feels the month-to-month contract is best for the City. Number one, there are conflicting opinions regarding the lifespan of the landfill, and Staff would rather take a conservative approach. The main purpose of this interim contract is to allow us the time to site and build the transfer facility. Also, there were several parties interested in a short term arrangement with the City. It was felt that it would not be prudent to enter into a long term contract without the benefit of competitive bidding. Linebaugh stated in addition, we do not know where the landfill situations will be in a year from now. Staff feels a long term contract, more than one year, is essential in order to get a handle on prices and try and meet the constantly changing regulations on landfills. Spivey asked what the plans were for Sunray if they were unable to obtain the Durham landfill site. Matthews stated his company was always looking for alternative sites. Vorsanger asked if Sunray collected Springdale's waste. Matthews stated they supplied Springdale with residential service as well as Harrison, Arkansas. Fran Alexander asked Matthews to explain his comments about incineration. Matthews stated he had not said anything about incineration. Narinoni, seconded by Green, made a motion to approve the resolution authorising the Sunray contract. Green stated this contract will more than double our per ton landfill costs. The backup contract will quadruple the costs. He feels the City is not putting enough emphasis on reducing the per ton amount of waste. He is wondering what Staff is recommending to reduce Fayetteville's overall waste disposal tonnage. He asked if the new rate structure being looked into will act as an incentive on cutting down on waste. Linebaugh stated the contract with Northwest is about $9 per ton. This Sunray contract will be a $6 per ton increase. The fees are being based on tonnage because the long range plans are to reduce the volume. The current method of reducing the waste is our recycling program which has been tremendously successful so far. In addition, we are getting prepared to launch into a commercial recycling program. The City is also working with Abilities Unlimited on some aspects of recycling. April 25, 1990 Morton agreed with Green that the costs are goingFup geometrically. The only way to reduce these costs are through waste reduction. The recycling program has met with much -success, and there are plans now to expand some of the drop off stations and to streamline some of the collection programs. Staff feels the rate structure is a very important tool in reducing the amount of waste. Green stated that many times when he passes one of the recycling drop off stations, they are full and,havekitems placed around them. He feels the City may have underestimated the public's attitude regarding recycling. He feels the City is lagging behind in providing the proper capabilities to the public. Morton stated that it was unusual to go city-wide on the new recycling program without a pilot program as well as the large participation rate that we are experiencing. These two factors show how well the recycling effort is being received by the community. Lancaster asked where the recyclable materials• are being taken after the City unloads the dump sites. Morton stated it was being taken to Abilities Unlimited. The newspaper is being taken to Cottrell's recycling. Fran Alexander stated that Abilities Unlimited will soon be able to take plastics from the public. Vorsanger asked if they would be taking magazines. Alexander stated the slick paper is not marketable at this time, and she suggested taking magazines to the library. Morton stated our recycling efforts are hampered some by the markets available for the recyclable materials. Lancaster asked if there was a problem with people putting magazines in with their newspapers. Morton stated this has not• been problem so far:- The contamination levels in the drop off stations has been very low. This has been one load of glass rejected because there was dirt in the bottles. Some of the papers that have been stacked outside the containers have gotten wet and were unable to be recycled. These are the only two things that have not been able to be recycled that were left at the drop off. stations. Vorsanger stated one of the most frequent questions he gets is why the openings into the containers are so small. Morton stated the small holes were an attempt to help cut down on contamination of the materials. He suggested that people fill a brown paper grocery sack with unbound newspapers and pour the papers through the opening. Spivey, asked about what percentage of the waste stream was being recycled. Morton stated we are reducing about 5-6% of our total waste stream. The composting program is reducing the stream by about 18-20% by picking up limbs, yard clippings, etc. Monte Matthews asked if the proposed transfer station would be adequate to handle the volume for the City. Morton stated that the one compactor is a minimum to handle the approximately 100 tons per day of waste: At every presentation he has made regarding the transfer station, he has stated that the City does intend to add either a baler or extruder as a second phase of the station. April 25, 1990 Lancaster asked if it was a law that solid waste is the problem of the county. Jerry Rose stated he was not sure he could answer the question. He stated that the counties are given a lot of responsibility in regulating landfills within their boundaries. However, he thinks the Superfund law points toward regional development and seeks that regional development goal. Morton stated he understood that local governments were responsible for insuring that their constituents have access to adequate solid waste disposal. Upon roll call, the cation to adopt the resolution passed unanimously. RESOLUTION 68A-90 APPEARS ON PAGE OP ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK WASTE MANAGEMENT. INC. Vorsanger introduced consideration of a resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into a temporary back up contract with Waste Management, Inc., for solid waste material disposal at their landfill. This is a back up contract for month-to-month disposal of solid waste with Waste Management, Inc. This contract will only be used if services with Sunray become unfeasible due to cost or lack of landfill space. The cost of this contract will be $3.00 per yard for non -compacted waste and $640.00 per load on a 120 cubic yard trailer. This equates to a charge of $14.00 per ton gate disposal fee and $26.00 per ton transportation cost for a total of $40.00 per ton. This contract will only be used if arrangements with Sunray do not work out. Linebaugh reiterated that this is a back up contract that will only be used if it becomes unfeasible to work with Sunray. The contract is for a larger dollar amount due to larger transportation costs, which will be about $26.00 per ton. The actual contract is still being negotiated by the attorneys. It is basically the same contract as with Sunray except for a couple of minor modifications about being a back up contract. Jerry Rose stated the contract would be essentially the same as the one with Sunray. The only difference, as Linebaugh has stated, is that we want to be very sure that WMI understands the contingent nature of the contract, and that we are protected in the future if anything should go wrong with the other contract. The only two changes will be a clause dealing with the nonexclusive effect of the contract, and secondly, there will be a clause providing for a one year option. Rose stated he wanted to be sure even if the contract is not used for several months, that it will still be able to be utilized. We will tip WMI a nominal fee for them to give us a one year option. Marinoni stated the price with Sunray is $15 per ton, and with WMI the cost is $40 per ton. He asked if there was any distinction being made between the transportation of waste that is hauled loose versus baled. The price is per ton, once it is baled and condensed, it can be hauled cheaper. Rose stated he had received a call from Jack Butt, the attorney for Sunray, who wanted to make very clear to me and to the Board that the Sunray contract is not bid on a per ton basis. It is bid on a per cubic yard basis. For purposes of April 25, 1990 4 comparison, Morton has tried to convert the per cubic yard to tonnage. Yt is important to Sunray that:.they are' not bidding on a per ton basis. Morton stated that there was no way to utilize rail on a short term basis, so we are subject to the weight limits imposed by the transportation regulations, and the transfer trailers that Waste Management will be using are 120 cubic yard aluminum trailers. They feel they can reach the weight limit uncompacted by using a front end loader to tamp down the load. They provided the City with one price based on reaching the load limit. Matt Matthews asked if City Staff has looked at all disposal facilities available in the district on a cost basis before they decided to contract with Waste Management. Morton stated Staff has looked into the other facilities. Morton stated Staff had not looked into the Mountain Home facility because transportation costs would be prohibitive. Marinoni stated he understood from Morton that Waste Management was able to compact the trash by using a front end loader to reach the maximum load weight they can carry on a truck. There is no credit for baling it. So, if the City had to use this facility, there would be no merit in the City installing their own compactor. He asked if this was correct. Morton stated on the short term basis, this was correct. However, the long term contract that the City is working on is where the benefit of the compactor comes into play. Linebaugh stated the City does not really want to use the compactor until we can get the transfer station built. Green stated the contract with Sunray was based on a per cubic yard price. He asked if this was for compacted or uncompacted waste. Morton stated Sunray has both rates posted at their gate. The rates for the two are comparable. Marinoni, seconded by Green, made a motion to approve the resolution authorizing the contract with Waste Management, Inc. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 6 to 0. RESOLUTION 68B-90 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOR ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 9:13 a.m.