CC 08-29-1988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Council Meeting, August 29, 1988 Page 3 . REND'G PLANT (Cont'd) McGinley explained he was employed by a State agency and reviewed the equipment for two of the plants; the equipment installed at the plants is the original equipment from the 1970's and was "state of the art" for the 1970 period. He stated there was no incineration equipment installed at that time due to economics; the State agency approved chemical scrubbers rather than incineration equipment. McGinley advised the same equipment operates in the plants today and "state of the art" has progressed significantly especially incineration equipment. He stated agency had not reviewed nor re-issued permits since 1980 as it was a low priority; last year a citizen group from Arden Hills brought the priority to a higher level and convinced the agency to request new permit applications. McGinley reviewed the five point strategy: 1. Permit Application Review, 2. Inspection & Monitoring, 3. Complaint Hot Line, 4. City Ordor Ordinance, and 5. Lane Use Plan. He explained the first three items would involve review of the permit application and public hearings if requested would require an additional fee, inspectors for monitoring and enforcement of the permit, and verification of complaints by utilization of a 24-hour "hot-line". He stated item #4 would be drafted in conjunction with the Village Attorney and would be a two-part ordinance based on model ordinances from other cities. McGinley advised item #5 would be accomplished only after all 4 items are completed and may not be necessary; he noted he would work with City Staff to accomplish item #5. McGinley referred Council to Attorney Lynden's letter dated 7-27-88 to MPCA which outlines rationale for the City belief that the Kem Milling plant should be shut down immediately. . Sather moved, seconded by Peck, that Council hire McGinley and Associates, P.A. for a fee not to exceed $7,600.00 through June 3D, 1989, to fulfill the five point strategy with the City of New Brighton and approach the community odor problems caused by rendering plants. There was Council discussion relative to the utilization of the City Attorney in drafting the ordinance and the Planning Consultant in conjunction with the Land Use Plan. Council stated the problem appears to be with lack of enforcement from Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Some Councilmembers favored voting on each individual expenditure in the five point strategy and preferred authorizing the City Attorney to prepare the draft of an odor ordinance. Council questioned if the costs for McGinley's services could be charged back to the rendering plant; it was stated that permit fees could be increased to cover certain administrative costs and the Clerk Administrator advised he could review the legality of the question with the City Attorney. Councilmember Sather clarified the intent of the motion was to authorize an expenditure to resolve the problem of odor emissions from the rendering plant. He stated the Village should begin a coordinated effort with New Brighton to eliminate a problem which should have been dealt corrected years ago. . There was discussion relative to authorizing the Village Attorney to prepare the ordinance with the understanding he may utilize McGinley's services as necessary. Winiecki moved, seconded by Woodburn, that the motion be amended to approve the expenditure for items I through 3 on McGinley's strategy list and that items 4 and 5 be initiated by Attorney and Planning Consultant and utilizing McGinley's services as they deem necessary, the amount of expenditure not to exceed the estimated costs in the strategy memorandum from McGinley. Councilmember Sather questioned if McGinley would be drafting the ordinance or merely providing the Village Attorney with the necessary data and expertise to develop an ordinance relating to rendering plants. McGinley stated that was correct and advised he has been in contact with Attorney Lynden regarding information pertinent to such an ordinance. He commented that if a public hearing were required an expert witness should be present to support the different aspects of the ordinance and he would serve in that capacity. McGinley also noted the same would hold true for item #5 the Land Use Plan , Amendment to motion failed. (Winiecki, Woodburn voting in favor; Peck, Sather and Hansen opposed) (2-3) Original motion carried. (Sather, Peck and Hansen voting in favor; Winiecki and Woodburn opposed) (3-2)