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.