11/01/10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

POLICY BOARD BUSINESS Case #1: Update on Yard Waste Drop -Off Site Research Environmental Coordinator Anderson presented the staff report. Environmental Coordinator Anderson stated that he had obtained additional information that he didn't have when the case was drafted. He stated that he had contacted the City of Elk River to inquire about a possible joint or cooperative effort between the two communities for a yard waste site. He heard back from the City of Elk River that they were going to be meeting with their County Board to discuss future funding opportunities for their yard waste site and that after that meeting they may have more information. They did state that they thought it was an interesting idea. Environmental Coordinator Anderson stated that he also had a conversation with District Energy in St. Paul. They heat downtown St. Paul in various ways including biomass fuels. District Energy would be willing to provide grinding and hauling of woody debris at no charge to the City once a certain quantity of material was available. The minimum quantity would be twenty (20) 100 yard loads of finished (ground) material. Board Member Enstrom stated that the City could also contact Silva Products out of Princeton that might be interested in the material for resale as mulch or chips. Chairperson Max stated that he thought utilizing the material for mulch or chips was a better use than for heating purposes. Environmental Coordinator stated that he understood that thinking but reminded the Board that, at least according to Elk River, their greatest expense associated with their yard waste site is the cost of grinding. material. If the City could arrange for this work to be done at no cost, it should seriously consider it. Board Member Enstrom stated that the Mayor of Elk River approached him two (2) years ago about a joint yard waste site on his property for use by both cities. He continued by saying that it would make more sense if this were a public /private partnership and that his property would be ideal since it is large and in a rural part of the community. Board Member Bentz stated that he thought it may be conflict of interest for a member of the EPB to be recommending this type of partnership between the city and him. Discussion ensued about various options for consideration. Environmental Coordinator Anderson reminded the Board that this was a part of their 2010 work plan and it might make sense to add this as a future work session topic so that City Council can be updated and get some further direction as to whether to continue down this road or not and if so, what option or options they are most interested in. The consensus of the Board was that the following options would be looked at: Environmental Policy Board / November 1, 2010 Page 2 of 3