Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout2018-03-07 packetiIndividuals should contact the ADA Coordinator at (573) 634-6570 to request accommodations or alternative formats as required under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Please allow 3 business days to process the request. Please call 573-634-6410 with questions regarding this agenda. NOTICE OF MEETING AND TENTATIVE AGENDAi City of Jefferson Environmental Quality Commission Regular Meeting Wednesday, March 7, 2018 ~ 1:30 PM The Linc, 1299 Lafayette Street ~ President’s Suite TENTATIVE AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of Agenda 3. Approval of Minutes from January 24, 2018 4. New Business 5. Old Business a. Trash and litter control initiative b. Rain barrel update c. Yard and food waste discussion 6. Bicycle Subcommittee Report 7. Other Business 8. Citizen Opportunity to Address Commission 9. Next Meeting Date 10. Adjourn Minutes City of Jefferson Environmental Quality Commission January 24, 2018 COMMISSION PRESENT: Kristi Campbell Jeanne Jacobek Nate Petersen Marrianne Ryno Todd Higgins Ashley Varner ABSENT: Bill Plank Rita Esterly CITY COUNCIL- NOT PRESENT Mark Schreiber ATTENDANCE RECORD 9-9 1-1 7-9 9-9 8-9 8-9 4-5 7-9 COMMISSION STAFF PRESENT: Amy Schroeder, Community Relations Manager Jayme Abbott, Neighborhood Services Manager CITY STAFF PRESENT: Mayor Carrie Tergin Jason Turner, Fire Department MEDIA PRESENT: Nicole Roberts, News Tribune GUESTS PRESENT: Dan Petkanas, Zagster Patrick Ward, Parks Intern Alexis Kerman, Parks Intern CALL TO ORDER Chair Kristi Campbell called the meeting to order at 1:33 p.m. in Room 116 of The Linc, 1299 Lafayette Street, Jefferson City, MO 65101. New commission member Jeanne Jacobek was introduced. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Kristi entertained a motion to approve the agenda with the amendment to add Dan Petkanas to answer general bike share questions. Todd made a motion to approve the agenda. Ashley seconded the motion. The motion passed with all voting in favor. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Kristi entertained a motion to approve the December 6 minutes as printed. Marrianne made a motion to approve the minutes. Nate seconded the motion. The motion passed with all voting in favor. NEW BUSINESS Ashley introduced Dan Petkanas with Zagster, who was present to answer general questions concerning bike share. Todd asked about success of bike share programs and what were major issues preventing success. Dan reported that similar programs have a high rate of success given that there is a clear and attainable goal. Todd proposed three motions for consideration. First, that city staff addresses yard waste transport issues. Second, an ordinance be considered to prohibit burning of leaves as a means of yard waste disposal. Third, that city staff consider a feasibility study to consider a food waste compost and collection program. Jayme reported that a yard waste Request for Bid will open in spring 2018. The request may be able to include a fee service for the provider to pick up yard waste. Marrianne suggested organizing a fall volunteer leaf pick-up event. Mayor suggested that Jayme contact local waste facilities who have a means to address the yard waste and food waste issues. Jason Turner with Jefferson City Fire Department provided history of opening burning in Jefferson City. He reported that opening burning is regulated by the State of Missouri and Chapter 13 of City Code. Further discussion has been tabled until the next meeting. OLD BUSINESS Amy reported that High 5 Communications has been tasked with creating a public service campaign for the anti-littering initiative “Trash Talk.” She expects a proposal may be ready to present at the next meeting. 2 City staff plans to meet early February to outline a rain barrel program. BICYCLE SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT Ashley reported that the subcommittee met on January 8. They discussed drafting a resolution for Complete Streets. They will also research a Bike Friendly Business program. OTHER BUSINESS Amy encouraged commission members to consider establishing task objectives to complete in 2018. Potential objectives include anti-littering campaign; bicycle initiative; and rain barrel program. Marrianne motioned to table discussion for next meeting. Todd seconded the motion. The motion passed with all voting in favor. Amy reported that Pam Barkhaus resigned from the commission. Staff will begin appointment process to fill the vacancy. Kristi announced that Cole County Health Department will provide a community presentation on sexually transmitted diseases on January 29 at Hawthorn Bank Community Room. NEXT MEETING DATE The next meeting will be held Wednesday, February 28, at 1:30 p.m. at The Linc. ADJOURNMENT With no other business to discuss, Ashley motioned to adjourn the meeting. Todd seconded the motion. The motion passed with all voting in favor. The meeting adjourned at 2:15 p.m. City of Jefferson Environmental Quality Commission January 2018 Motions submitted by Todd R. Higgins Introduction The purpose of this document is to introduce three motions before the EQC’s January 2018 meeting. The motions are intended to improve the environmental quality and sustainability of Jefferson City. Two of the motions focus on management of yard waste and leaf litter, while the third motion focuses on the management of food waste. The motions are stated in the following paragraphs and supporting documentation is presented on the following pages. Motion 1 Whereas, Jefferson City has many deciduous trees that drop their leaves each fall, and whereas not all residents of Jefferson City are able to transport collected leaves to the yard waste facility in an efficient manner it is motioned that the city staff be requested to conduct a lifecycle analysis on the feasibility of establishing a curbside leaf and/or yard waste collection program independent of the current solid waste and recycling contracted program. Furthermore, the city staff is requested to look at bag collection of yard wastes as a seasonal activity and to consider economics of purchasing a municipal leaf vacuum to collect leaves at the curb. It is further requested that city staff conduct this analysis and report their findings to the EQC within four months or prior to public hearings on the yard waste facility contract, whichever is earlier. Motion 2 Whereas, Jefferson City still permits open burning of leaves and yard waste at its certain times of the year, and whereas the city contracts for the operation of a yard waste disposal site, and whereas the open burning of leaves and yard waste introduces particulate matter into the atmosphere that is distributed off site by winds, and whereas the smoke and particulate matter created by the burning of leaves has been shown to lower municipal air-quality and in sensitive individuals may produce an asthmatic reaction, it is hereby motioned that the City of Jefferson establish a city ordinance to prohibit the burning of leaves as a means of yard waste disposal. Motion 3 Whereas, Jefferson City has many commercial and public food service establishments throughout the city, and whereas these food-service establishments generate organic food waste that enters the solid waste stream, and whereas the collection and composting of food waste has been shown to be a feasible practice in other communities and on a small scale within Jefferson City, and whereas a commercial food waste composting operation exists within 20 miles of Jefferson City, it is hereby motioned that the city staff be requested to conduct a feasibility study to consider a program for collecting and composting food waste from commercial and public food service establishments within the city. Furthermore, the feasibility study should consider a pilot study, and potential grants to fund both the pilot study and the initial implementation of a food waste collection program within the city. It is further requested that the city staff conduct this feasibility study and report their findings to the EQC within six months. Literature in Support of Motions Motion 1 (Curbside Yard Waste Collection) Rationale of Motion: the rationale for this motion stems from observation of how leaf litter and yard waste are managed in Jefferson City compared to other municipalities. Many communities that have yard waste collection programs establish a season for yard waste collection and collect semiweekly during the season. Some of these communities also have a municipal leaf vacuum that allows residents to rake leaves to the curbside where the truck can access the leaves, suck them up, and remove them from the streets. Jefferson City’s existing management program is somewhat effective, in that it permits residents who have vehicles with sufficient cargo carrying capacity to transport yard wastes and leaves from their residence to the designated collection/disposal point. Residents without much cargo capacity in their vehicle may make multiple trips to the collection/disposal point which is inefficient from a time perspective, but it is also somewhat counterproductive from a total carbon footprint perspective. Residents who may like to back their yard waste to transport it to the collection/disposal point using biodegradable paper bags are told by the staff of the current contract yard waste collection/disposal site that they must dump the yard waste out of the paper collection bags. While some residents may be able to reuse their yard waste bags, at some point the bags will become solid waste and disposed of either in the recycle bin or in the trash bin. There are many case studies on the economic value of having a curbside yard waste disposal program published on the Internet. A number the studies were completed on Missouri cities. Other studies, both case studies and peer-reviewed scientific research papers, are cited in the following paragraphs and offered as support for this motion. Everett and Shahi (1997) developed estimates for vehicle and labor requirements necessary to conduct curbside yard waste collection programs. Not all the case studies will show that curbside yard waste collection is cost effective, however they don’t all take a holistic approach to the economics of collecting them versus burning them or otherwise disposing of the yard wastes. Yard waste can also be used for energy when placed into an anaerobic digester (Yazdini et al., 2012). Another study investigated the value of using yard waste in composting biosolids generated from wastewater treatment plants. Epstein and colleagues found that the finished compost was a marketable product and that the economics are favorable in a city of 40,000 people. While many cities use paper bags for their curbside yard waste collection programs, no literature could be found relating to the biodegradation of the bags when composted. Other communities allow biodegradable plastic bags to be used in their yard waste collection programs, and other cities have designated days for vacuuming leaves in addition to yard waste collection programs. The report by Epstein et al. where yard waste was used as a bulking agent to help in the composting of biosolids from a water treatment plant should be of interest to the city of Jefferson. An alternative means of disposing of biosolids generated from Jefferson City’s wastewater treatment plant may be attractive. The current practice of land application of agricultural fields may not be sustainable. The composting of biosolids with yard waste resulted in a commercial product then had residual value and could be land applied at a greater distance from the wastewater treatment plant. They finished compost could also be used in residential or commercial applications, such as an organic amendment for turf grass. The city could then benefit from this product if it were to be applied on city property, such as the golf course. Motion 2 (Burn Ban) Rationale of motion: the rationale of this proposal is based upon the purpose of the Environmental Quality Commission to provide suggestions to the Mayor and City Council on means to enhance the livability and environmental quality of the City of Jefferson. Open burning of leaves and yard waste is a traditional method of dealing with fallen leaves deciduous trees and grass thatch, as well as fallen branches and limbs. In fact, the city engaged in open burning of yard waste several years ago to reduce the volume of tree limbs and branches in the aftermath of an ice storm. Open burning introduces particulate matter into the atmosphere at the level where it impacts air-quality of individuals within the community. Burning leaves, especially damp leaves, generates smoke and other particulate matter that can cause life-threatening breathing issues and individuals who have diminished capacity or have allergic reactions to the smoke. While it can be argued that the quantity of particulater matter generated by the few residents who continue to burn leaves is minimal, the fact that the smoke and particulate matter travels off-site and impacts neighboring properties must be considered in the same vein as noise pollution ordinances or other air-quality ordinances. Furthermore, since the city has provided alternative means of disposing of leaves and yard waste there is no longer a compelling justification to continue to permit the open burning of leaves. It is not the intent of this motion to prevent state or city officials from conducting controlled burns of vegetative areas (such as prairie grasslands) for ecological or public safety considerations. Nor, is the intent to prevent city officials from burning limbs and other woody residue in the aftermath of a severe storm event. Although for the latter, it is hoped that the city would consider chipping branches and limbs for use as mulch in preference to burning. The following paragraphs provide support for this motion. Sannigrahi (2009) reported that burning leaves produce carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and particulates. The byproducts of leaf burning can cause coughing, wheezing, chest pain, and shortness of breath in some individuals. Carpenter et al. (1977) reported that leaf burning was a significant source of urban air pollution. They correlated high carbon monoxide levels with high total suspended particulates at times when leaf burning activities are high. One reason that leaf smoke may have higher health concerns than other particulate matter in the air is that the particle diameter of smoke is smaller than most other forms of total suspended particulates. Kohn (1977) conducted a benefit cost analysis to determine a population cut off for statewide ban on leaf burning. He concluded that for cities with a population greater than 30,000, a leaf burning ban was cost effective. He also presented data that showed that the moisture content of the leaves being burned impacted the pollutant levels being released. As leaf moisture content increased from about 9% to about 21% there was an increase in carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and particulate matter released. Since Jefferson City already has alternative means of leaf disposal available to citizens, it is recommended that the city enact an ordinance prohibiting the burning of leaves and other yard wastes. Motion 3 (Food Waste Collection and Composting) Rationale for motion: up to 20% of solid waste is organic material that could be composted if suitable collection means and composting facilities were available. Among the 20% is food waste generated by commercial eateries and institutional food-service facilities. Collecting, composting, and using finished compost generated from food scraps can provide a positive benefit for Jefferson City and surrounding agricultural lands. Reducing the amount of food scrap waste that enters the landfill increases the longevity of the landfill site and may reduce the volume of methane produced by the decaying food scraps. Composting these food scraps allow them to be used as an organic supplement for soils. Increasing the organic matter content of our horticultural and agricultural soils has positive environmental benefits that extend well beyond the diversion of food scraps from the landfill. Increasing the organic matter content of our soils can improve water use efficiency and nutrient retention and release. This can result in healthier plants and healthier soils. Lawn fertilizers are more apt to remain where placed when soil organic matter content is higher. Reducing fertilizer runoff into our storm water drains and streams have benefits extending well beyond the city limits. The following paragraphs provide supporting documentation for the motion. Franchetti and Dellinger (2014) investigated the economic feasibility of a municipal food waste collection system coupled with an energy generation model. Food wastes in a landfill produce methane gas. Collecting and diverting food waste from the landfill and placing them in an anaerobic digestion system allows for the capture of much of the methane and its conversion to an energy source. Such a system might be beneficial to the city by reducing its greenhouse gas footprint by capturing methane and by using the energy produced to fuel some city vehicles. Fueling the golf carts at the golf course comes to mind. Yazdani et al. (2012) reported that the biochemical methane potential of treated waste can be as high as 83%. Thus, anaerobic digestion of the wastes can significantly reduce the potential for methane emissions into the environment. Yoshida et al. (2012) reported that co-digestion greatly reduces greenhouse gas emissions and is cost favorable. Sullivan et al. (1998) found that food waste composted with yard trimmings, paper or wood wastes provided a slow release nitrogen fertilizer that could be land applied. They found that the benefit of applying the composted material was a long-term benefit and observed benefits did not begin to appear until the second year following application of the composted material. Using such material in urban or suburban landscapes would improve soil health, plant growth, and may reduce the application of commercial fertilizers that may runoff the soil and contaminate streams, rivers, and other bodies of water. Bluebird Composting in Fulton collects food wastes and composts them at their site. The finished product is bagged and sold as organic compost is a favorable market price. An option for the city is to partner with Bluebird to facilitate food waste collection within the city and its composting. Works Cited Carpenter, A. D. (1977). Leaf burning as a significant source of urban air pollution. Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, 27(6), 574-576. Epstein, E. C. (n.d.). Composting biosolids in Virginia: Case studies of three facilities. Everett, J. a. (1997). Vehicle and labor requirements for yard waste collection programs. Waste Management & Research, 15, 627-640. Franchetti, M. a. (2014). Economic feasibility of a municipal food waste collection and energy generation model. Energy Technology & Policy, 1, 52-58. Kohn, R. (1977). A benefit-cost analysis to determine a population cutoff for a statewide ban on leaf burning. Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, 27(9), 887-889. Sannigrahi, A. (2009). Biodegradation of leaf litter of tree species in presence of cow dung and earthworms. Indian Journal of Biotechnology, 8, 335-338. Sullivan, D. S. (1998). Fertilizer nitrogen replacement value of food residuals composted with yeard trimmings, paper, or wood wastes. Compost Science & Utilization, 6(1), 6-18. Yazdani, R. M. (2012). Performance evaluation of an anaerobic/aerobic landfill-based digester using yard waste for energy and compost production. Waste Management, 32, 912-919. Yoshida, H. J. (2012). Evaluation of organic waste diversion alternatives for greenhouse gas reduction. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 60, 1-9.