Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015/11/02 - ADMIN - Minutes - City Council - Study Session Jft St. Louis Park OFFICIAL MINUTES MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA NOVEMBER 2, 2015 The meeting convened at 6:15 p.m. Councilmembers present: Mayor Pro Tem Gregg Lindberg, Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Anne Mavity, Susan Sanger, and Jake Spano. Councilmembers absent: Mayor Jeff Jacobs Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Mattick), Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Hunt), Director of Operations & Recreation (Ms. Walsh), Public Works Services Manager (Mr Merkley), Solid Waste Program Coordinator (Ms. Fisher), Communications Specialist (Ms. Pnbbenow), and Recording Secretary(Ms. Wirth) Guest: None 1. Zero Waste Packaging Ordinance Ms. Walsh stated the Council has discussed this ordinance a number of times and asked if the Council would like to move it forward to consider approval or make additional changes. It was noted the Zero Waste Packaging Ordinance had been updated to reflect the pertinent changes identified by stakeholders. Ms. Fisher stated the last time this was discussed, it was considered that some matenals could be exempted if there was not a viable alternative or exorbitantly expensive to recycle. If approved, staff would review exemptions on an annual basis and make a determination on what products are actually recyclable. There would need to be a viable recycling option. That information would then be presented annually for the Council's consideration and approval. Ms. Fisher reviewed the estimated dates for consideration of first and second reading. Councilmember Brausen supported the ordinance draft and giving staff the ability to make decisions on exemptions. He asked why food being sold off site (food trucks) would be exempted from the recycling requirement He felt those facilities had the ability to offer recycling containers. Ms. Fisher explained food establishments have to provide an opportunity to recycle if eating on site. The intent is that people would not dnve back from home with to-go food packaging to recycle those items but would instead use their at-home recycling containers Councilmember Sanger asked why they would not need a recycling bin because even if eating off site, the customer may bring the containers back. Ms. Fisher stated the intent is that a person who dines on-site has the correct place to put it. The exemption is for a restaurant only providing food to go because when no one is eating on site, the food containers are not being discarded on site. Councilmember Mavity asked about locations that may host a food truck Ms. Fisher stated if they are a licensed food establishment, they would already be required to provide on-site recycling. Councilmember Brausen stated he still does not support allowing use of polystyrene if prepackaged, as it will create incentive to package off site. He also does not support exempting plastic utensils when compostable utensils are available at about the same cost. Study Session Minutes -2- November 2, 2015 Councilmember Spano stated when the issue of restricting off site packaging was discussed, it was mentioned to do so would violate interstate commerce laws. Councilmember Sanger stated that while she supports the sentiment, she thinks it is unrealistic to tell grocers what type of packaging can come in. She stated the Environmental Commission mentioned, on the legislative procedure, the ordinance should add maximizing recycling, not just minimizing recyclables. Councilmember Sanger stated the following concerns: Definitions, Section 12.202(a) and other locations, that talk about exclusions as they are not all defined terms or refining language should be inserted; Section 12.202(b)(2) and 12.202(b)(3), the term `generator' is used and not defined; Section 12.203(a), six lines down, after `point of sale' it should be addressed if it is not zero waste packaging; Section 12.203(b), need to add that it is considered zero waste packaging only when the retailer provides documentation of valid recycling pickup; Section 12.203(3), she does not agree with exempting if they do not offer on- site seating because some customers may not have organic recycling at home and should have the opportunity to return and recycle the containers; and, Section 12.204, Violation, language needs to define what constitutes a violation in terms of being per person or unit of time. Councilmember Mavity stated on the fines, she thinks the most successful approach is `heavy on the carrot and light on the stick' when looking at noncompliance. She stated the $2,000 fine could be in the City's 'back pocket' but it does not sit right with her so she prefers an incentive and reward for doing the right thing. Councilmember Sanger stated if there is no tool for enforcement, there is no need for an ordinance. Mayor Pro Tern Lindberg asked how it will be enforced practically and if it would be complaint based. Mr. Harmening stated Hennepin County conducts restaurant inspections and would be asked to inform the City if anyone is using non-compliant packaging. Then the City would enforce the ordinance by contacting the business, encouraging the use of zero waste products, educating where to find those products, and then follow up. At some point, if necessary, the penalty section of the ordinance could be invoked. Mr. Merkley stated he expects that residents will notify the City if they find a restaurant that is in violation. Mayor Pro Tern Lindberg asked about the burden on staff to enforce this ordinance Mr. Harmening stated a staff person is being added in 2016, which he expects will be a busy year with education and give an indication of what 2017 will look like. Councilmember Mavity stated she understands the need for enforcement and supports the direction of the ordinance. However, she felt the legislative purposes miss tying it back to the City's long-standing established priorities. Councilmember Mavity suggested inclusion of the priority statement on the City's website. She noted the Environmental Commission mentioned State law, in 2016, will require all businesses to recycle at least three types of things, which aligns with this consideration. Councilmember Spano stated he is generally supportive of the principles and less concerned with take away restaurants or if not eating on site, finding the idea that someone will dnve back to drop off containers as fanciful. He supports additional education on the first offense and becoming more punitive with future offenses. Councilmember Hallfin referenced the exception based on the economics and asked how it would be defined. Ms. Fisher referenced Section 12.206. Councilmembers Mavity and Sanger Study Session Minutes -3- November 2, 2015 felt it could be used as a loophole. Mr. Merkley stated staff can further research that language and work with the business to explain what is and is not exempted. Councilmember Sanger suggested deleting Clause 2. Councilmembers Hallfin and Mavity concurred. Councilmember Mavity asked what the burden is for enforcing Clause 3. Mr. Mattick agreed it is difficult to come up with a mathematical formula to consider when an exception should be granted. Councilmember Spano noted it also depends on the size of the business. He supported deleting Clauses 2 and 3 and then if a business brings forward a concern, it can be discussed whether to reconsider. Councilmember Hallfin noted the businesses have one year to address their packaging. Councilmember Spano asked if staff's ability to act will be restncted if Clauses 2 and 3 are deleted and require an ordinance change Mr. Harmening stated it would not be brought before the Council as it is not actionable. Councilmember Spano stated if a business has a supply of packaging and it could be cited as a hardship to not use it. He asked if that is a consideration for an exemption. Mr. Harmening stated there would be time for the Council to consider whether to revise the ordinance before it is enacted. The Council discussed whether businesses are aware that zero waste packaging is being considered by the Council. Councilmember Hallfin stated he would support leaving something in the ordinance relating to exemptions if he found it attainable and measurable. If not, he thinks it should be removed Councilmember Sanger cautioned that what is expensive to one retailer is not to another and it puts the City is the middle of evaluating their finances. In addition, it is not measurable. She stated since this would not go into effect for one year, staff will be aware if there are concerns and if valid, can bnng it before the Council. Ms. Fisher stated this information is patterned after the Minneapolis ordinance and that ordinance exempts hot and cold cup lids and plastic lined cups and bowls. Councilmember Hallfin stated on enforcement, people generally follow the ordinance upon adoption. However, on occasion, he thinks the City will use the enforcement measures, which he finds to be reasonable. Ms. Walsh asked whether staff should make these changes and submit in report format or to schedule another discussion. Mr. Harmening asked about the Council's position to exempt or to require recycling containers at restaurants that do not have dine in seating. It was the consensus of the City Council to leave it in, but not allow food trucks to be exempt from the requirement, and ask staff to make the requested revisions with a report back for Council review, and to move forward,with adoption by the end of 2015. Study Session Minutes -4- November 2, 2015 2. Bring Your Own Bag Ordinance Ms. Fisher presented the staff report relating to the draft Bring Your Own Bag Ordinance that would encourage use of reusable bags by placing a charge on both plastic and single-use carryout bags and provide criteria for requiring at-store recycling of plastic and single-use bags. Councilmember Mavity stated the City has used a good process, which has gone on for about a year, and the issues raised have been incorporated so there are not unintended negative consequences that are worse for the environment (outright ban) but to change the behavior of residents to be more environmentally conscious and better environmental stewards by incenting that behavior. She noted the City has a broad Environmental Policy and this is just one smaller component to get people to change their behavior and bring attention to the broader Policy. Councilmember Mavity stated she supports the direction of the ordinance and being clear on the purpose to tie it back into the City's vision that established four priorities for environmental sustainability. Councilmember Sanger suggested the following change: Page 1, Findings, add that plastic bags are not acceptable to any of the local haulers that provide curbside pickup. She referenced Definitions, Section 12-252(b), and asked why restaurants are being excluded or exemptions allowed for an entity not 7,000 sq ft. in size or having three or more stores or retail locations, each having at least 3,000 sq. ft. of retail sales space. Ms. Fisher stated staff will look into that language if the Council wants to move forward. She explained retail recycling is just those stores required to set up an at-store recycling for plastic bags. Councilmember Sanger stated she does not want to exclude restaurants based on size or number of restaurants. Mr. Harmening noted one reason to consider exemption based on the small size of the business, is the low volume of bags used. It would be sensitive to smaller businesses. Councilmember Sanger asked about single-use carry out bags made of compostable plastic, noting a lot of people do not do composting and can that bag be recycled. Ms. Fisher stated compostable plastic is not recyclable with other plastic bags. Councilmember Sanger stated they will then be littered or placed in the trash as many residents don't do composting. Ms. Fisher reviewed other uses for compostable bags. Councilmember Sanger stated with Section 12.255(b), Single Use Bag Charge by retail store, she would ask why the City cares what they use the money for. She supported removing that reference. Mr. Mattick explained if a fee is charged, they need to indicate why the fee is being charged, if it is solely for the purpose of dissuading or also to support a program being addressed. Councilmember Sanger supported using the fees to help accomplish the goals of the ordinance but did not support including reference to donating to non-profits because then the City would have to monitor that activity. Councilmember Hallfin asked whether a majority of the Council is interested in an ordinance charging a fee or a total ban. He stated he is not ready to consider an ordinance at this point and does not want to continue studying this issue if it is not supported by a majority. Councilmember Brausen clarified the Environment Sustainability Commission indicated they could support it as a compromise if it is not an outnght ban. He believed it was a question of whether the City wants to lead on these environmental issues, noting a lot of people are interested in it. Study Session Minutes -5- November 2, 2015 Councilmember Spano stated the Council has done a lot of work on environmental issues for the last four years. He felt the City has already taken a leadership role and what the press or Minneapolis is saying does not change his opinion. Councilmember Spano stated the science and facts do not back up what is being discussed so he would rather work on projects that effect results rather than have symbolic results. He stated the time and money spent on considering this ordinance does not mean it has to be moved forward as the fact finding has indicated recycling and organics are more of a footprint that this would be. Councilmember Mavity stated the idea we cannot do more organics if we do this is a false construct. She believed the City needed a full and robust Environmental Policy and this ordinance could be one `clear plank' of that Policy, the City should have it, and residents have been asking for. Councilmember Mavity stated while she agrees the science does not approach the ban, the metncs of changing the resident's behavior by instituting a fee is backed up by science and metrics and the City has the ability to do that. Councilmember Spano stated this is 1% of the waste stream and recyclables and organics are 57% of the waste stream. Mayor Pro Tem Lindberg stated he supports Councilmember Spano's position, noting a lot of time has been spent on this and resident feedback on this issue has been split. He does not see this as a win-win at this time and finds the facts speak for themselves Councilmember Brausen supported calling the question at a public meeting. Councilmember Sanger stated resident feedback was on a proposed ban but the fee proposal has not gone to the public for feedback. She does not see an urgency to pass this ordinance quickly. Councilmember Hallfin agreed there is no urgency to this consideration. Councilmember Mavity stated she does want to raise the level of awareness as she believes the fee will change behaviors. Councilmember Hallfin stated there are not four in support so he thinks it should continue to be studied. Mr. Harmening stated at a future meeting the Council can discuss their expectations for additional public input and study. Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal) None. The meeting adjourned at 7:23 p.m. ''•A)V / Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Gre g L ndberg, Mayor Pro Te